SMS interception - how?

Michael <[email protected]> wrote

>> 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.

More fool you. Ruddock confirmed it just last week.

> 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.

Pity that still flouts your privacy, stupid.

If they really were stupid enough to buy that mindless bull****
about privacy, it would be deleted as soon as it is delivered.

> Very silly

Very pig ignorant in your case.

---

› See More: SMS interception - how?

Don't most phones let you set a validity period for
how long to keep messages valid, I assume at the
centre till they're sent?

I know my nokia says you can set a period from a few hours
to indefinite. Is this the kind of thing you are talking about?

John wrote:

> Don't most phones let you set a validity period for
> how long to keep messages valid, I assume at the
> centre till they're sent?

Validity period is the time the SMSC (message centre) is obliged
to keep trying to deliver an undelivered SMS. Normally, an SMS
will be delivered withing a couple of seconds. VP gets coded
into the message header as a number between 0 and 255. The
actual algorithm unevenly spreads the predefined values between
5 minutes (0) and 63 weeks (255), but carriers superimpose
their own maximum period, one week being fairly standard in
Australia.

> I know my nokia says you can set a period from a few hours
> to indefinite. Is this the kind of thing you are talking
> about?

John

"John Henderson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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?

No one

"Rod Speed" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Michael <[email protected]> wrote
>
> >> 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.
>
> More fool you. Ruddock confirmed it just last week.
>
> > 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.
>
> Pity that still flouts your privacy, stupid.

Doesnt flout my privacy. Might by the letter of the law.

Michael wrote:
> "John Henderson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>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?
>
>
> No one
>
>
The spokesman I heard suggested that the police were trawling for
keywords (I supposed like "Eschalon" or whatever they call it) which
suggests running all sms through a computer

Michael <[email protected]> wrote
> Rod Speed <[email protected]> wrote
>> Michael <[email protected]> wrote

>>>> 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.

>> More fool you. Ruddock confirmed it just last week.

>>> 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.

>> Pity that still flouts your privacy, stupid.

> Doesnt flout my privacy.

Yes it does, you just dont mind.

> Might by the letter of the law.

Nope, in fact they are legally required to keep them.

"F Murtz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Michael wrote:
> > "John Henderson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >
> >>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?
> >
> >
> > No one
> >
> >
> The spokesman I heard suggested that the police were trawling for
> keywords (I supposed like "Eschalon" or whatever they call it) which
> suggests running all sms through a computer

Yes, running them through Telstra's computer, Optuses computer, etc, NOT
their own.

will kemp wrote:
> 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.

That is why the guy they are charging with this is someone who
allegedly passed the message on to quite a few others, not just a
simple one-to-one message.

The Police in NSW had initially been told about the message then after the
riots, they were simply searching people's mobile phones. If it had the
message, they were confiscating them. Talk about doing it the hard way.

I imagine that they could intercept them as they pass through the carriers'
network infrastructure rather than attempting to carry out some form of
on-air decoding (this excludes the legal arguement, of course!)

"Paul Day" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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
>
> --
> Paul Day
> Web: http://www.bur.st/~paul/