SMS interception - how?

John <[email protected]> wrote:
> Simon VK3XEM wrote:
>
>> Paul Day wrote:
>>> Anyone else wondering how exactly the police are intercepting SMSs
>>> that incite racial violence? They've just layed charges of "using a
>>> carriage service to menace, harass or cause offence" against a
>>> Sydney man.
>>>
>>> The possibilities are:
>>> - Authorities are looking for evidence against an individual, after
>>> already having suspicion.
>>> - People are dobbing in other people to police.
>>> - (tin-foil hat on) Authorities are receiving a full feed of SMSs
>>> from telco's SMSCs and then data-mining to gain suspicion.
>>>
>>> The former's pretty simple under the Telco (Intercept) Act of 1979.
>>> The latter isn't. Sedition is defined as: "an intention to... (d)
>>> promote feelings of ill-will or hostility between different groups
>>> so as to threaten the peace, order and good government of the
>>> Commonwealth." which, as I see it, includes inciting racial
>>> violence. Do the new counter-terrorism laws allow the latter?
>>>
>>> Media comments like:
>>> - "VICTORIA Police have successfully intercepted a text message
>>> calling for race riots in Melbourne." (Daily Telegraph)
>>> - "Meanwhile, Queensland Police said text messages calling for
>>> people to start "cracking skulls" had surfaced on the Gold Coast."
>>> (Daily Telegraph)
>>> - "And Victorian police, who have intercepted text messages inciting
>>> people to violence," (NEWS.com.au)
>>> - "Police Commissioner Karl O'Callaghan today confirmed two text
>>> messages had turned up in WA this morning." (Herald Sun)
>>> - "In Victoria, police have intercepted a text message inciting race
>>> violence and tracked down the person who sent it." (Australian IT)
>>>
>>> ....make me wonder if it's number 2 or 3.
>>>
>>> (It should be noted that all four of those sources are Fairfax)
>>>
>>> PD
>>
>> I don't really care how they are obtaining the information as long as
>> they use the full force of the law against the scum.
>>
>> My guess is that they have a list of suspects, obtain the relevant
>> warrants and take to the carriers for them to provide relevant
>> information.
>>
>> Whether these suspects appear on the list trough being dobbed in or
>> just come to the attention of Police because of their behaviour is
>> irrelevant.

> Just to be difficult but what about the Privacy Act
> and breaching their right to privacy?

Completely irrelevant if its a crime being investigated.

---

› See More: SMS interception - how?

On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 00:37:43 +1030, John wrote:

> will kemp wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 09:09:51 +1000, Paul Day wrote:
>>
>> > Anyone else wondering how exactly the police are intercepting SMSs that
>> > incite racial violence? They've just layed charges of "using a carriage
>> > service to menace, harass or cause offence" against a Sydney man.
>>
>> Also, apparently, a charge of print or publish to incite the commission of
>> a crime. I reckon they've got buckley's of making that one stick - if it
>> relates to SMS messages, that is.

> Why do you think that?

Well, i haven't looked at case law related to this charge (under the
Crimes Prevention Act 1916, presumably), but i suspect they'll have
trouble convincing a court that sending an sms - which is a one-to-one
form of communication - is either "printing" or "publishing" under the
meaning of the act.

I don't know the history of this act, but as it dates from 1916, i'd guess
it came from from the struggle of the IWW, the catholic church, and others
against conscription during the first world war - and it possibly hasn't
been used since.

Will

On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 12:32:21 +0000, Poxy wrote:

> monitoring of SMSs by telcos based on keywords or mobile
> number, or cops going through the phones of likely suspects they've stopped
> and searched. The former is complex and challenging for police to pursue,
> the latter is far more likely.

Monitoring SMSs based on keywords or mobile numbers is totally trivial.

Apart from the fact that technically it's a trivial matter anyway, bear in
mind that at least as long ago as 1984, the police in Britain had the
ability to monitor voice phone calls, on mass, by computer and produce
written transcripts of all calls which contained any of a list of
keywords. Compared to that - which is very old technology now - monitoring
of SMS messages is nothing.

Will

Intel Inside <[email protected]> may have written:
> " Or the telcos are doing keyword searches on the SMS traffic for the cops."
> Does this include 'fully sick' ?.

No, but perhaps "fooly sik".

PD

--
Paul Day
Web: http://www.bur.st/~paul/

On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 06:56:41 +1100, Rod Speed wrote:

> Likely is completely irrelevant to what actually happens with
> something as spectacular as that with the massive resources
> require to have apes perving at mobile handsets

That's what the "apes" were doing, though, at their roadblocks. Total
search of every car was the idea.

> anyone with a clue deletes SMSs like that from their handsets.

Exactly. And the morons that they're after don't HAVE a clue.

Anthony Horan <[email protected]> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote

>> Likely is completely irrelevant to what actually happens with
>> something as spectacular as that with the massive resources
>> require to have apes perving at mobile handsets

> That's what the "apes" were doing, though, at their roadblocks.

You dont know what else is happening back at the telcos.

> Total search of every car was the idea.

Sure, and that certainly makes sense with lebs in cars.

>> anyone with a clue deletes SMSs like that from their handsets.

> Exactly. And the morons that they're after don't HAVE a clue.

Some likely do now that some have been frog marched in front of a court.

So it makes more sense to keep track of those SMSs back at the telcos.

Rod Speed wrote:
> Poxy <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Anthony Horan wrote:
>>> On 22 Dec 2005 09:09:51 +1000, Paul Day wrote:
>>>
>>>> Anyone else wondering how exactly the police are intercepting SMSs
>>>> that incite racial violence? They've just layed charges of "using a
>>>> carriage service to menace, harass or cause offence" against a
>>>> Sydney man.
>>>
>>> According to some media reports of last weekend's police blitz in
>>> Sydney, cars were stopped at roadblocks and searched, and police
>>> were "going through the text messages on people's phones".
>>>
>>> That's a more likely scenario.
>
>> Yup - apply Occam's Razor
>
> Its completely irrelevant to this particular situation.
>
>> - "given two equally predictive theories, choose the simpler"
>> - monitoring of SMSs by telcos based on keywords or mobile
>> number, or cops going through the phones of likely suspects
>> they've stopped and searched. The former is complex and
>> challenging for police to pursue,
>
> But not for the telcos and they are required by law
> to keep the SMSs for a while for just that reason.
>
>> the latter is far more likely.
>
> Likely is completely irrelevant to what actually happens with
> something as spectacular as that with the massive resources
> require to have apes perving at mobile handsets, particularly when
> anyone with a clue deletes SMSs like that from their handsets.

All very true, but having dealt with the police on a number of occassions, I
have found that where they are addressing crimes - even ones where they
potentially have access to powerful IT resources, in this case such as SMS
interception and archiving like you mention - they are inevitably drawn to
the more straightforward and better understood physical search and discovery
as they are confident as to how it will play out in a prosecution.

While I'm sure people are being pursued on the basis of information obtained
by carrier interceptions, I'm guessing that those appearing in court at the
moment are being charged based on evidence found on their mobile phones as
the result of a physical stop and search.

Poxy <[email protected]> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Poxy <[email protected]> wrote
>>> Anthony Horan wrote
>>>> Paul Day wrote

>>>>> Anyone else wondering how exactly the police are
>>>>> intercepting SMSs that incite racial violence? They've
>>>>> just layed charges of "using a carriage service to
>>>>> menace, harass or cause offence" against a Sydney man.

>>>> According to some media reports of last weekend's police blitz in
>>>> Sydney, cars were stopped at roadblocks and searched, and police
>>>> were "going through the text messages on people's phones".

>>>> That's a more likely scenario.

>>> Yup - apply Occam's Razor

>> Its completely irrelevant to this particular situation.

>>> - "given two equally predictive theories, choose the simpler"
>>> - monitoring of SMSs by telcos based on keywords or mobile
>>> number, or cops going through the phones of likely suspects
>>> they've stopped and searched. The former is complex and
>>> challenging for police to pursue,

>> But not for the telcos and they are required by law
>> to keep the SMSs for a while for just that reason.

>>> the latter is far more likely.

>> Likely is completely irrelevant to what actually happens with
>> something as spectacular as that with the massive resources
>> require to have apes perving at mobile handsets, particularly when
>> anyone with a clue deletes SMSs like that from their handsets.

> All very true, but having dealt with the police on a number
> of occassions, I have found that where they are addressing
> crimes - even ones where they potentially have access to
> powerful IT resources, in this case such as SMS interception
> and archiving like you mention - they are inevitably drawn to
> the more straightforward and better understood physical
> search and discovery as they are confident as to
> how it will play out in a prosecution.

Waffle. The reality with these SMS messages is that its so easy
to delete them from the handset that the only reliable and cost
effective way to keep track of them is back at the telcos.

Sure, when searching for weapons and petrol etc, they
certainly do check the mobiles as well, but that has
nothing to do with whether the telcos are used as well.

> While I'm sure people are being pursued on the basis of information
> obtained by carrier interceptions, I'm guessing that those appearing
> in court at the moment are being charged based on evidence found
> on their mobile phones as the result of a physical stop and search.

Yes, you're just guessing.

Paul Day <[email protected]> writes:
>Anyone else wondering how exactly the police are intercepting SMSs that
>incite racial violence? They've just layed charges of "using a carriage
>service to menace, harass or cause offence" against a Sydney man.

The news reports are a bit jumbled, but with the new NSW laws allowing
the contents of vehicles within declared areas to be searched, the
police examined passengers mobile phones and confiscated those phones
carrying inciteful SMS messages. So they could trace the origin of each
message.

There has been mention that carriers delete their logs of SMS messages
after 24 hours to comply with privacy provisions, and this short
retention hampers investigations. It will no doubt soon be fixed.
--
John Savage (my news address is not valid for email)

No thanks; I don't want my messages being stored for longer than it
takes to deliver the SMS to the B-party. And I think you'll find some
carriers keep SMS logs longer than 24h; this came up a couple of years
ago on this group.

In any case, perhaps the only good that will come out of this situation
is that people will be educated that their SMS messages are certainly
traceable. I myself have several pieces of advice for those wishing to
send anonymous messages:

- Purchase a prepaid SIM anonymously, and activate it with false
information
- Never use this SIM in a phone that will be used with a
postpaid/identifiable SIM. It is possible for the IMEI to establish a
link between the two.
- Consider changing the IMEI of the handset; which is certainly
possible with cheap hardware and software for older handsets. This will
make it extremely difficult to track the handset's origin.

[email protected] wrote:
> No thanks; I don't want my messages being stored for longer than it
> takes to deliver the SMS to the B-party. And I think you'll find some
> carriers keep SMS logs longer than 24h; this came up a couple of years
> ago on this group.
>
> In any case, perhaps the only good that will come out of this
> situation is that people will be educated that their SMS messages are
> certainly traceable. I myself have several pieces of advice for those
> wishing to send anonymous messages:
>
> - Purchase a prepaid SIM anonymously, and activate it with false
> information
> - Never use this SIM in a phone that will be used with a
> postpaid/identifiable SIM. It is possible for the IMEI to establish a
> link between the two.

> - Consider changing the IMEI of the handset; which is certainly
> possible with cheap hardware and software for older handsets.
> This will make it extremely difficult to track the handset's origin.

But gives them something to charge you
with if they arrest you with that handset.

> But not for the telcos and they are required by law
> to keep the SMSs for a while for just that reason.

I dont believe you are correct about this one Roddles.

Telstra used to keep them for 30 days.

Then someone realised and screamed PRIVACY YOU ARE MONITORING MY CALLS (SMS)

So Telstra keep the content for only one day now. Very silly

> All very true, but having dealt with the police on a number of occassions,
I
> have found that where they are addressing crimes - even ones where they
> potentially have access to powerful IT resources, in this case such as SMS
> interception and archiving like you mention - they are inevitably drawn to
> the more straightforward and better understood physical search and
discovery
> as they are confident as to how it will play out in a prosecution.

So true.

"John Savage" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Paul Day <[email protected]> writes:
> >Anyone else wondering how exactly the police are intercepting SMSs that
> >incite racial violence? They've just layed charges of "using a carriage
> >service to menace, harass or cause offence" against a Sydney man.
>
> The news reports are a bit jumbled, but with the new NSW laws allowing
> the contents of vehicles within declared areas to be searched, the
> police examined passengers mobile phones and confiscated those phones
> carrying inciteful SMS messages. So they could trace the origin of each
> message.
>
> There has been mention that carriers delete their logs of SMS messages
> after 24 hours to comply with privacy provisions, and this short
> retention hampers investigations. It will no doubt soon be fixed.

They dont delete their LOGS, they delete the SMS content

Michael wrote:

> They dont delete their LOGS, they delete the SMS content

Good on them. But after first passing it all on to just who, I
wonder?

John