|
Home > Archive > Electrical Engineering > March 2008 > Suspected phone tap
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Suspected phone tap
|
|
| Foxtrot 2008-02-19, 1:25 pm |
| I have never been a conspiracy theorist but I suspect that a particular
group of people may try to tap my landline.
I am in the UK and access to my phone wires is quite easy because I live
in a block of flats. There are various oblong concrete covers for the
BT and VirginMedia lines to the flats.
Currently I use VirginMedia for phone service.
I wonder if a tap which juts picks up the signal modulation on a line
but does not interrupt it can be detected at all.
Can I perform any checks?
Can I ask VM to do any checks?
As I am dealing with some odd folks, I would like to have the line
checked regularly but would VirginMedia be prepared to do this?
| |
| R. Mark Clayton 2008-02-19, 1:25 pm |
| Just ring a mate and tell him that you will swap the plutonium for the drugs
at Waterloo Station...
"Foxtrot" <foxtrot@demo.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xns9A49A0904EF5601A4D@127.0.0.1...
>I have never been a conspiracy theorist but I suspect that a particular
> group of people may try to tap my landline.
>
> I am in the UK and access to my phone wires is quite easy because I live
> in a block of flats. There are various oblong concrete covers for the
> BT and VirginMedia lines to the flats.
>
> Currently I use VirginMedia for phone service.
>
> I wonder if a tap which juts picks up the signal modulation on a line
> but does not interrupt it can be detected at all.
>
> Can I perform any checks?
> Can I ask VM to do any checks?
>
> As I am dealing with some odd folks, I would like to have the line
> checked regularly but would VirginMedia be prepared to do this?
>
| |
| Palindrome 2008-02-19, 1:25 pm |
| Foxtrot wrote:
> I have never been a conspiracy theorist but I suspect that a particular
> group of people may try to tap my landline.
>
> I am in the UK and access to my phone wires is quite easy because I live
> in a block of flats. There are various oblong concrete covers for the
> BT and VirginMedia lines to the flats.
>
> Currently I use VirginMedia for phone service.
>
> I wonder if a tap which juts picks up the signal modulation on a line
> but does not interrupt it can be detected at all.
>
> Can I perform any checks?
> Can I ask VM to do any checks?
>
> As I am dealing with some odd folks, I would like to have the line
> checked regularly but would VirginMedia be prepared to do this?
>
It is illegal to gain access to another person's telephone under Section
1 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA). If you have
good reason to suspect that your calls are being intercepted, then
contact the police.
There are no meaningful checks that you can do, or VM would do. Other
than visually inspect whatever bits of your telephone line might be
accessible to you.
If you are worried, but don't think that you have enough evidence to go
to the police, then use a mobile phone or internet phone. Those are
rather more difficult for an unspecified group of people to intercept.
--
Sue
| |
| Floyd L. Davidson 2008-02-19, 1:25 pm |
| Foxtrot <foxtrot@demo.invalid> wrote:
>I have never been a conspiracy theorist but I suspect that a particular
>group of people may try to tap my landline.
>
>I am in the UK and access to my phone wires is quite easy because I live
>in a block of flats. There are various oblong concrete covers for the
>BT and VirginMedia lines to the flats.
>
>Currently I use VirginMedia for phone service.
>
>I wonder if a tap which juts picks up the signal modulation on a line
>but does not interrupt it can be detected at all.
>
>Can I perform any checks?
>Can I ask VM to do any checks?
>
>As I am dealing with some odd folks, I would like to have the line
>checked regularly but would VirginMedia be prepared to do this?
Let me give you some advice... but first you need also
to know what my qualifications are to provide that
advice: I worked in the telecommunications industry for
34 years, and retired 6 years ago. I have had the
(mis)fortune of setting up legal and illegal wiretaps.
I have also had the experience of having my work phone
tapped illegally. All of that of course was in the US,
hence I will not attempt to give you advice about
specifics or the legal status, because I simply don't
know how any of it would apply to you.
Here's what I have known since perhaps a month after I
began working in the industry: Do *NOT* *EVER* say
anything on a telephone that you cannot tolerate being
printed on the front page of the local newspaper the
next day.
Take that serious. It applies to your personal life.
It applies to your business. It applies if you are a
criminal, or if you are a judge.
If you cannot tolerate something being in the newspaper,
find a different way to communicate it to the people you
need to exchange that information with. DO NOT USE A
TELEPHONE.
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com
| |
| PeterD 2008-02-19, 1:25 pm |
| On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 15:47:02 GMT, Foxtrot <foxtrot@demo.invalid>
wrote:
>I have never been a conspiracy theorist but I suspect that a particular
>group of people may try to tap my landline.
>
>I am in the UK and access to my phone wires is quite easy because I live
>in a block of flats. There are various oblong concrete covers for the
>BT and VirginMedia lines to the flats.
>
>Currently I use VirginMedia for phone service.
>
>I wonder if a tap which juts picks up the signal modulation on a line
>but does not interrupt it can be detected at all.
>
>Can I perform any checks?
>Can I ask VM to do any checks?
>
>As I am dealing with some odd folks, I would like to have the line
>checked regularly but would VirginMedia be prepared to do this?
Properly done taps are virtually impossible to detect.
| |
| Floyd L. Davidson 2008-02-19, 1:25 pm |
| Palindrome <me9@privacy.net> wrote:
>Foxtrot wrote:
>
>It is illegal to gain access to another person's telephone under Section
>1 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA). If you have
>good reason to suspect that your calls are being intercepted, then
>contact the police.
>
>There are no meaningful checks that you can do, or VM would do. Other
>than visually inspect whatever bits of your telephone line might be
>accessible to you.
>
>If you are worried, but don't think that you have enough evidence to go
>to the police, then use a mobile phone or internet phone. Those are
>rather more difficult for an unspecified group of people to intercept.
They are even easier. Don't do it.
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com
| |
| Floyd L. Davidson 2008-02-19, 1:25 pm |
| PeterD <peter2@hipson.net> wrote:
>On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 15:47:02 GMT, Foxtrot <foxtrot@demo.invalid>
>wrote:
>
>Properly done taps are virtually impossible to detect.
PeterD is dead on right. That is *absolutely* true.
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com
| |
| Theo Markettos 2008-02-19, 1:25 pm |
| In uk.telecom Floyd L. Davidson <floyd@apaflo.com> wrote:
> PeterD <peter2@hipson.net> wrote:
>
> PeterD is dead on right. That is *absolutely* true.
If the police/spooks are doing it, they'll do it in software at the
exchange so there'll be nothing to see.
http://spectrum.ieee.org/jul07/5280
documents one rather high-level recent case.
Theo
| |
| gfretwell@aol.com 2008-02-19, 1:25 pm |
| On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 15:47:02 GMT, Foxtrot <foxtrot@demo.invalid>
wrote:
>I have never been a conspiracy theorist but I suspect that a particular
>group of people may try to tap my landline.
>
>I am in the UK and access to my phone wires is quite easy because I live
>in a block of flats. There are various oblong concrete covers for the
>BT and VirginMedia lines to the flats.
>
>Currently I use VirginMedia for phone service.
>
>I wonder if a tap which juts picks up the signal modulation on a line
>but does not interrupt it can be detected at all.
>
>Can I perform any checks?
>Can I ask VM to do any checks?
>
>As I am dealing with some odd folks, I would like to have the line
>checked regularly but would VirginMedia be prepared to do this?
Of course your phone is tapped, haven't you seen all the MI5 posts?
;-)
That is NSA/Dick Cheney to US readers
| |
| Palindrome 2008-02-19, 1:25 pm |
| Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
> Palindrome <me9@privacy.net> wrote:
>
> They are even easier. Don't do it.
>
They aren't easier for "unspecified groups of people" to do. Government
agencies and others authorised to intercept communications are very well
"specified".
--
Sue
| |
| Stuart 2008-02-19, 1:25 pm |
| In article <Xns9A49A0904EF5601A4D@127.0.0.1>,
Foxtrot <foxtrot@demo.invalid> wrote:
> I have never been a conspiracy theorist but I suspect that a particular
> group of people may try to tap my landline.
You're not that MI5 paranoid spammer are you?
--
Stuart Winsor
From is valid but subject to change without notice if it gets spammed.
For Barn dances and folk evenings in the Coventry and Warwickshire area
See: http://www.barndance.org.uk
| |
| phil-news-nospam@ipal.net 2008-02-19, 1:25 pm |
| In alt.engineering.electrical PeterD <peter2@hipson.net> wrote:
| On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 15:47:02 GMT, Foxtrot <foxtrot@demo.invalid>
| wrote:
|
|>I have never been a conspiracy theorist but I suspect that a particular
|>group of people may try to tap my landline.
|>
|>I am in the UK and access to my phone wires is quite easy because I live
|>in a block of flats. There are various oblong concrete covers for the
|>BT and VirginMedia lines to the flats.
|>
|>Currently I use VirginMedia for phone service.
|>
|>I wonder if a tap which juts picks up the signal modulation on a line
|>but does not interrupt it can be detected at all.
|>
|>Can I perform any checks?
|>Can I ask VM to do any checks?
|>
|>As I am dealing with some odd folks, I would like to have the line
|>checked regularly but would VirginMedia be prepared to do this?
|
|
| Properly done taps are virtually impossible to detect.
Improperly done taps could be detected by means of a loss of signal or a
reflection signal coming back. A well done tap would capture a miniscule
level of signal via high impedance loading, and there is no way to see
that by any means. What little reflection it might have would pale in
comparison to the typical reflections along the wire at various patch
panels and such. So you wouldn't know it was there.
--
|---------------------------------------/----------------------------------|
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (ka9wgn.ham.org) / Do not send to the address below |
| first name lower case at ipal.net / spamtrap-2008-02-19-1259@ipal.net |
|------------------------------------/-------------------------------------|
| |
| phil-news-nospam@ipal.net 2008-02-19, 1:25 pm |
| In alt.engineering.electrical Stuart <SW_NOSPAM@dsl.pipex.com> wrote:
| In article <Xns9A49A0904EF5601A4D@127.0.0.1>,
| Foxtrot <foxtrot@demo.invalid> wrote:
|
|> I have never been a conspiracy theorist but I suspect that a particular
|> group of people may try to tap my landline.
|
| You're not that MI5 paranoid spammer are you?
The MI5 spammer is already convinced his phone is tapped. If it was not
before, it surely is now, anyway.
--
|---------------------------------------/----------------------------------|
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (ka9wgn.ham.org) / Do not send to the address below |
| first name lower case at ipal.net / spamtrap-2008-02-19-1302@ipal.net |
|------------------------------------/-------------------------------------|
| |
| Floyd L. Davidson 2008-02-19, 5:25 pm |
| Palindrome <me9@privacy.net> wrote:
>Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
>They aren't easier for "unspecified groups of people" to do. Government
>agencies and others authorised to intercept communications are very well
>"specified".
It actually is easier, even for "unspecified groups".
Funniest damned thing I ever saw was a story printed on
the front page of a newspaper giving a verbatim
transcript of a cell phone call where a guy admited to
committing murder. The newspaper had what amounted to
an illegal wiretap. They were never so much as
investigated, if for no other reason that the police
*also* had an illegal wiretap on the same call!
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com
| |
| Floyd L. Davidson 2008-02-19, 5:25 pm |
| phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
>In alt.engineering.electrical PeterD <peter2@hipson.net> wrote:
>| Properly done taps are virtually impossible to detect.
>
>Improperly done taps could be detected by means of a loss of signal or a
>reflection signal coming back. A well done tap would capture a miniscule
>level of signal via high impedance loading, and there is no way to see
>that by any means. What little reflection it might have would pale in
>comparison to the typical reflections along the wire at various patch
>panels and such. So you wouldn't know it was there.
Why would anyone do an analog wiretap?
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com
| |
|
| Why worry about wire taps?
Illegal or not in most cases these days they are done in the exchange
and remotely.
It was alleged that there was a place in Chester that did the 'tapping'
for the whole country - just tell the exchange to send you the audio,
easy as that.
--
Woody
harrogate three at ntlworld dot com
| |
| Palindrome 2008-02-19, 5:25 pm |
| Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
> Palindrome <me9@privacy.net> wrote:
>
> It actually is easier, even for "unspecified groups".
>
> Funniest damned thing I ever saw was a story printed on
> the front page of a newspaper giving a verbatim
> transcript of a cell phone call where a guy admited to
> committing murder. The newspaper had what amounted to
> an illegal wiretap. They were never so much as
> investigated, if for no other reason that the police
> *also* had an illegal wiretap on the same call!
>
That would have been an analogue cell phone. The OP is in the UK, where
these were phased out some time ago. IIUC, they will soon all be gone
from the USA, too.
It is possible to intercept digital cellphone traffic, but decrypting
it, without cloning the phone's key (which needs physical access to the
phone) is rather more difficult than tapping a landline.
--
Sue
--
Sue
| |
| Ivor Jones 2008-02-19, 5:25 pm |
| "Palindrome" <me9@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:R6Huj.229393$X76.37392@fe08.news.easynews.com
[snip]
: : It is possible to intercept digital cellphone traffic,
: : but decrypting it, without cloning the phone's key
: : (which needs physical access to the phone) is rather
: : more difficult than tapping a landline.
Read this article, posted elsewhere in this thread, to see how someone
recently did exactly that:
http://spectrum.ieee.org/jul07/5280
Ivor
| |
| Palindrome 2008-02-19, 5:25 pm |
| Ivor Jones wrote:
> "Palindrome" <me9@privacy.net> wrote in message
> news:R6Huj.229393$X76.37392@fe08.news.easynews.com
>
> [snip]
>
> : : It is possible to intercept digital cellphone traffic,
> : : but decrypting it, without cloning the phone's key
> : : (which needs physical access to the phone) is rather
> : : more difficult than tapping a landline.
>
> Read this article, posted elsewhere in this thread, to see how someone
> recently did exactly that:
>
> http://spectrum.ieee.org/jul07/5280
>
The article rather proves my point."Major network penetrations of any
kind are exceedingly uncommon. They are hard to pull off, and equally
hard to investigate."
--
Sue
| |
| Paul Hovnanian P.E. 2008-02-19, 5:25 pm |
| "R. Mark Clayton" wrote:
>
> Just ring a mate and tell him that you will swap the plutonium for the drugs
> at Waterloo Station...
Be sure to throw in "Allah Akbar" a few times.
;-)
--
Paul Hovnanian paul@hovnanian.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Procrastinators: The leaders for tomorrow.
| |
| Theo Markettos 2008-02-19, 5:25 pm |
| In uk.telecom Palindrome <me9@privacy.net> wrote:
> The article rather proves my point."Major network penetrations of any
> kind are exceedingly uncommon. They are hard to pull off, and equally
> hard to investigate."
The simplest attack on GSM is sniffing it over-the-air.
It's not easy, but the A5 cipher used by GSM (2G) has various
vulnerabilities and there are some people working on a useful GSM cracker:
http://events.ccc.de/camp/2007/Fahr...ts/2015.en.html
Barkan, Biham and XXXXXX have presented a realtime practical attack on GSM
based on breaking A5:
http://cryptome.org/gsm-crack-bbk.pdf
KASUMI in UMTS (3G) as yet doesn't have any practical attacks.
Theo
| |
| Palindrome 2008-02-19, 5:25 pm |
| Theo Markettos wrote:
> In uk.telecom Palindrome <me9@privacy.net> wrote:
>
> The simplest attack on GSM is sniffing it over-the-air.
The challenge was to my words, ".. use a mobile phone or internet phone.
Those are rather more difficult* for an unspecified group of people to
intercept." *Than a land line.
I would suggest that those words are correct. Specified groups, such as
Government Agencies, are a different matter.
>
> It's not easy,
Thank you. I would suggest, "not as easy as tapping a land line" as
alternative wording.
> but the A5 cipher used by GSM (2G) has various
> vulnerabilities and there are some people working on a useful GSM cracker:
> http://events.ccc.de/camp/2007/Fahr...ts/2015.en.html
> Barkan, Biham and XXXXXX have presented a realtime practical attack on GSM
> based on breaking A5:
> http://cryptome.org/gsm-crack-bbk.pdf
>
> KASUMI in UMTS (3G) as yet doesn't have any practical attacks.
>
The "unspecified group" isn't likely to contain experts on crypto.
The scope of this thread was the suspected tapping of a landline phone
going to a flat. Generally extremely easy to do, needing little
expertise or expensive equipment. The suggestion was to use a mobile
phone - which, as the OP is in the uk, means a phone with an encrypted
digital data stream. Intercepting that would need a great deal of
expertise - it would be far easier to resort to other methods, eg
eavesdrop on the sound signals in the room(s).
--
Sue
| |
| Stuart 2008-02-19, 5:25 pm |
| In article <O0Huj.1025$_65.743@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net>,
Woody <woody@spamblock.com> wrote:
> It was alleged that there was a place in Chester that did the 'tapping'
> for the whole country - just tell the exchange to send you the audio,
> easy as that.
I thought it was part of Fylingdales - or maybe it's GCHQ in Cheltenham
--
Stuart Winsor
From is valid but subject to change without notice if it gets spammed.
For Barn dances and folk evenings in the Coventry and Warwickshire area
See: http://www.barndance.org.uk
| |
| Salmon Egg 2008-02-19, 5:25 pm |
| In article <Xns9A49A0904EF5601A4D@127.0.0.1>,
Foxtrot <foxtrot@demo.invalid> wrote:
> I have never been a conspiracy theorist but I suspect that a particular
> group of people may try to tap my landline.
>
> I am in the UK and access to my phone wires is quite easy because I live
> in a block of flats. There are various oblong concrete covers for the
> BT and VirginMedia lines to the flats.
>
> Currently I use VirginMedia for phone service.
>
> I wonder if a tap which juts picks up the signal modulation on a line
> but does not interrupt it can be detected at all.
>
> Can I perform any checks?
> Can I ask VM to do any checks?
>
> As I am dealing with some odd folks, I would like to have the line
> checked regularly but would VirginMedia be prepared to do this?
I depends on how it is done. If I wanted to tap a phone undetectably, I
would just use a hook on magnetic core like is used for hook-on
ammeters. The secondary winding would run into a low impedance (current)
amplifier.
Bill
| |
| PeterD 2008-02-19, 8:25 pm |
| On 19 Feb 2008 19:01:40 GMT, phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
>In alt.engineering.electrical PeterD <peter2@hipson.net> wrote:
>| On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 15:47:02 GMT, Foxtrot <foxtrot@demo.invalid>
>| wrote:
>|
>|>I have never been a conspiracy theorist but I suspect that a particular
>|>group of people may try to tap my landline.
>|>
>|>I am in the UK and access to my phone wires is quite easy because I live
>|>in a block of flats. There are various oblong concrete covers for the
>|>BT and VirginMedia lines to the flats.
>|>
>|>Currently I use VirginMedia for phone service.
>|>
>|>I wonder if a tap which juts picks up the signal modulation on a line
>|>but does not interrupt it can be detected at all.
>|>
>|>Can I perform any checks?
>|>Can I ask VM to do any checks?
>|>
>|>As I am dealing with some odd folks, I would like to have the line
>|>checked regularly but would VirginMedia be prepared to do this?
>|
>|
>| Properly done taps are virtually impossible to detect.
>
>Improperly done taps could be detected by means of a loss of signal or a
>reflection signal coming back. A well done tap would capture a miniscule
>level of signal via high impedance loading, and there is no way to see
>that by any means. What little reflection it might have would pale in
>comparison to the typical reflections along the wire at various patch
>panels and such. So you wouldn't know it was there.
considering that virtually all phone lines have stubs along their
route, echos and reflections are always expected and are also
unpredictable in nature.
| |
|
| In message <rv1mr315s4fp0e320en19mne3sm13u4th0@4ax.com>, PeterD
<peter2@hipson.net> writes
>
>Properly done taps are virtually impossible to detect.
Properly done taps are impossible to detect.
--
Bill
| |
|
| In message <O0Huj.1025$_65.743@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net>, Woody
<woody@spamblock.com> writes
>Why worry about wire taps?
>
>Illegal or not in most cases these days they are done in the exchange
>and remotely.
>
>It was alleged that there was a place in Chester that did the 'tapping'
>for the whole country - just tell the exchange to send you the audio,
>easy as that.
Do you mean??????????????????
http://www.lamont.me.uk/capenhurst/original.html
>
>
>
--
Bill
| |
| phil-news-nospam@ipal.net 2008-02-19, 8:25 pm |
| In alt.engineering.electrical Floyd L. Davidson <floyd@apaflo.com> wrote:
| phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
|>In alt.engineering.electrical PeterD <peter2@hipson.net> wrote:
|>| Properly done taps are virtually impossible to detect.
|>
|>Improperly done taps could be detected by means of a loss of signal or a
|>reflection signal coming back. A well done tap would capture a miniscule
|>level of signal via high impedance loading, and there is no way to see
|>that by any means. What little reflection it might have would pale in
|>comparison to the typical reflections along the wire at various patch
|>panels and such. So you wouldn't know it was there.
|
| Why would anyone do an analog wiretap?
They would if the line is analog. But even if digital, a poor tap can
still be detected by using a TDR which would be pushing an analog signal
on the wire and watching what comes back.
--
|---------------------------------------/----------------------------------|
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (ka9wgn.ham.org) / Do not send to the address below |
| first name lower case at ipal.net / spamtrap-2008-02-19-1933@ipal.net |
|------------------------------------/-------------------------------------|
| |
| Floyd L. Davidson 2008-02-20, 3:25 am |
| phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
>In alt.engineering.electrical Floyd L. Davidson <floyd@apaflo.com> wrote:
>| phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
>|>In alt.engineering.electrical PeterD <peter2@hipson.net> wrote:
>|>| Properly done taps are virtually impossible to detect.
>|>
>|>Improperly done taps could be detected by means of a loss of signal or a
>|>reflection signal coming back. A well done tap would capture a miniscule
>|>level of signal via high impedance loading, and there is no way to see
>|>that by any means. What little reflection it might have would pale in
>|>comparison to the typical reflections along the wire at various patch
>|>panels and such. So you wouldn't know it was there.
>|
>| Why would anyone do an analog wiretap?
>
>They would if the line is analog. But even if digital, a poor tap can
>still be detected by using a TDR which would be pushing an analog signal
>on the wire and watching what comes back.
All telephone lines terminate in digital switching systems.
TDR cannot detect a digital tap.
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com
| |
| Floyd L. Davidson 2008-02-20, 3:25 am |
| "Paul Hovnanian P.E." <paulh@seanet.com> wrote:
>"R. Mark Clayton" wrote:
>
>Be sure to throw in "Allah Akbar" a few times.
>
>;-)
I had a guy quite seriously ask me (5-6) years ago if it
was possible that his phone line was being tapped. He'd
heard strange sounds... I laughed and told him if it
was, he'd never know it.
Of course then we got into a discussion of what would
cause his line to be tapped... His son was married to a
Chinese lady who happened at the moment to be in
Indonesia. He was a 747 pilot flying into Afganistan
and Iraq, with a long history of employment by the
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
I assured him he cannot make an international call
without it being listened to by someone!
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com
| |
| John Tserkezis 2008-02-20, 3:25 am |
| Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
> Why would anyone do an analog wiretap?
It's cheap, easy, fast, and convenient for those who want to tap a line
without going through the official legal channels, red tape and associated
paperwork that would usually stop you anyway.
--
Linux Registered User # 302622
<http://counter.li.org>
| |
| Floyd L. Davidson 2008-02-20, 3:25 am |
| John Tserkezis <jt@techniciansyndrome.org.invalid> wrote:
>Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
>
>
> It's cheap, easy, fast, and convenient for those who want to tap a line
>without going through the official legal channels, red tape and associated
>paperwork that would usually stop you anyway.
It's dumb. Too easy to get caught.
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com
| |
|
| Foxtrot wrote:
> I have never been a conspiracy theorist but I suspect that a particular
> group of people may try to tap my landline.
>
> I am in the UK and access to my phone wires is quite easy because I live
> in a block of flats. There are various oblong concrete covers for the
> BT and VirginMedia lines to the flats.
>
> Currently I use VirginMedia for phone service.
>
> I wonder if a tap which juts picks up the signal modulation on a line
> but does not interrupt it can be detected at all.
>
> Can I perform any checks?
> Can I ask VM to do any checks?
>
> As I am dealing with some odd folks, I would like to have the line
> checked regularly but would VirginMedia be prepared to do this?
>
The VM cabinet around the corner from my home has been
unlocked for over a year (with the door simply wedged
shut), despite having been reported. It would be
simple enough to gain access to any line going through
it, or even to jumper it to another subscriber's cable
(they usually have a spare pair). I ceased my
service with them a while ago!
In theory such a tap is often detectable, but the VM
copper circuits usually only travel between the
customer premises and the street cabinets - it's fibre
from there to the exchange, so an electrical exchange
test isn't possible.
If the suspected surveillance is "official" (and that
can cover a great range of organisations in the UK),
then of course they'd have no need for such low-tech
methods.
| |
| RFI-EMI-GUY 2008-02-20, 1:25 pm |
| Jim wrote:
(snip)
>
> The VM cabinet around the corner from my home has been unlocked for over
> a year (with the door simply wedged shut), despite having been
> reported. It would be simple enough to gain access to any line going
> through it, or even to jumper it to another subscriber's cable (they
> usually have a spare pair). I ceased my service with them a while ago!
> (snip)
I have had three occasions in past where my phone line was bridged to
the premises of another subscriber. Once in an apartment where due to a
remodeling error, the neighboring apartment had a phone jack accessible
to my circuits. He used the line freely making toll calls. Next I had a
house in the back woods of Tallahassee where the circuits were poor. A
couple of times the phone repairmen bridged my circuit with a neighbors
looking for a "good pair". This last time a neighbor moved into a vacant
residence near mine, plugged in her phone and had instant service, on MY
line. The phone repairman volunteered that the documentation was very poor.
The cabinets and pedestals in this neighborhood are unlocked and often
left open to the elements.
--
Joe Leikhim K4SAT
"The RFI-EMI-GUY"©
"Treason doth never prosper: what's the reason?
For if it prosper, none dare call it treason."
"Follow The Money" ;-P
| |
| Bernie 2008-02-20, 1:25 pm |
| On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 15:47:02 +0000, Foxtrot wrote:
> I have never been a conspiracy theorist but I suspect that a particular
> group of people may try to tap my landline.
>
> I am in the UK and access to my phone wires is quite easy because I live
> in a block of flats. There are various oblong concrete covers for the
> BT and VirginMedia lines to the flats.
>
> Currently I use VirginMedia for phone service.
>
> I wonder if a tap which juts picks up the signal modulation on a line
> but does not interrupt it can be detected at all.
>
> Can I perform any checks?
> Can I ask VM to do any checks?
>
> As I am dealing with some odd folks, I would like to have the line
> checked regularly but would VirginMedia be prepared to do this?
VM are now doing fibre optic deals - quite cheap, cheaper than coax - atm.
You get broadband and phone for less than 20/mnth.
Let's see your "friends" tap into that :-)
| |
| Adrian 2008-02-20, 1:25 pm |
| On Feb 19, 12:26=A0pm, fl...@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:
> Palindrome <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
on[color=darkred]
ve[color=darkred]
>
>
o[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
>
>
> It actually is easier, even for "unspecified groups".
>
> Funniest damned thing I ever saw was a story printed on
> the front page of a newspaper giving a verbatim
> transcript of a cell phone call where a guy admited to
> committing murder. =A0The newspaper had what amounted to
> an illegal wiretap. =A0They were never so much as
> investigated, if for no other reason that the police
> *also* had an illegal wiretap on the same call!
>
> --
> Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0fl...@apaflo.com
mmmm. Sounds like the LA Times in 1984. The story concerned a
certain sports personality! A jury of his peers still found him "not
guilty".
| |
| Paul Hovnanian P.E. 2008-02-20, 1:25 pm |
| "Floyd L. Davidson" wrote:
>
> "Paul Hovnanian P.E." <paulh@seanet.com> wrote:
>
> I had a guy quite seriously ask me (5-6) years ago if it
> was possible that his phone line was being tapped. He'd
> heard strange sounds... I laughed and told him if it
> was, he'd never know it.
>
> Of course then we got into a discussion of what would
> cause his line to be tapped... His son was married to a
> Chinese lady who happened at the moment to be in
> Indonesia. He was a 747 pilot flying into Afganistan
> and Iraq, with a long history of employment by the
> Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
>
> I assured him he cannot make an international call
> without it being listened to by someone!
When I was a kid, my dad was involved with some pretty serious DoD work.
I suspect that anyone with his clearance had their phone tapped (and
other things as well). They aren't so much worried about his conducting
illicit business over the phone as they are about the possibility of
blackmail by foreign intelligence forces.
That never happened, but we did have a guy in the neighborhood who had a
screw loose. He wasn't above making strange phone calls to various
people, but when we got one, I think it ws his last. The FBI looked into
it and suddenly the nut-case mellowed out considerably. ;-)
--
Paul Hovnanian paul@hovnanian.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Procrastinators: The leaders for tomorrow.
| |
| Floyd L. Davidson 2008-02-20, 5:25 pm |
| Adrian <adrian_h_hudson@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Feb 19, 12:26_pm, fl...@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:
>
>mmmm. Sounds like the LA Times in 1984. The story concerned a
>certain sports personality! A jury of his peers still found him "not
>guilty".
That one turned out a little different. The fellow was
convicted, and will never get out.
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com
| |
| Ron Lowe 2008-02-20, 5:25 pm |
| "Foxtrot" <foxtrot@demo.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xns9A49A0904EF5601A4D@127.0.0.1...
>I have never been a conspiracy theorist but I suspect that a particular
> group of people may try to tap my landline.
>
> I am in the UK and access to my phone wires is quite easy because I live
> in a block of flats. There are various oblong concrete covers for the
> BT and VirginMedia lines to the flats.
>
> Currently I use VirginMedia for phone service.
>
> I wonder if a tap which juts picks up the signal modulation on a line
> but does not interrupt it can be detected at all.
>
> Can I perform any checks?
> Can I ask VM to do any checks?
>
> As I am dealing with some odd folks, I would like to have the line
> checked regularly but would VirginMedia be prepared to do this?
>
If I felt the need of a secure phone system, I would set up a secure private
VoIP network.
At my end:
1) Set up an Asterisk server on my LAN;
2) Configure an IP phone to register with it;
3) Configure a secure VPN gateway to accept incoming connections.
At the other end(s):
1) Configure a VPN client box to establish a secure tunnel to my LAN's VPN
gateway;
2) Configure an IP phone to register with my asterisk box over the VPN.
If you choose a good enough VPN implimentation, then I think it would be
pretty secure.
If you want to be extra-paranoid, then....
If I was trying to hide from Government Agencies, I'd probably find an Open
Source VPN soloution which I was confident had no back doors. I'd not
trust a VPN box from ( for example ) a Big American Networking Corporation
not to have been leaned on to provide back-door access to their VPNs by the
American Security Services. After all, I'm talking about the kind of
corporations that are complicit with other unpleasant regimes in the world
to police their populations, in order to gain global market share. If
they're prepared to roll over for foreign governments, then I have no doubt
they would be even more complicit with their domestic security services.
But perhaps I'm being paranoid, and need to adjust my tinfoil hat :-)
--
Ron
| |
| Clint Sharp 2008-02-20, 5:25 pm |
| In message <R6Huj.229393$X76.37392@fe08.news.easynews.com>, Palindrome
<me9@privacy.net> writes
>It is possible to intercept digital cellphone traffic, but decrypting
>it, without cloning the phone's key (which needs physical access to the
>phone) is rather more difficult than tapping a landline.
Umm, sorry, nil points and misleading, you are MI5 and I claim my 5
pounds.
There are off air intercept systems available to people with the right
credentials and/or money that can decrypt the data real time. The system
manufacturers (Ericsson spring to mind for some reason ;-)) offer
intercept systems although I suspect you'd need to be very definitely
government/law enforcement to get one legally.
Best of all carrying a powered cell phone can locate you to under 100
metres depending on the number of cells that can 'see' you and a few
other factors (terrain, buildings etc.) It's been trialed and tested for
emergency services use in London with good results but then disappeared
without much discussion, wonder why that was!
>
>--
>Sue
>
>
--
Clint Sharp
| |
| Clint Sharp 2008-02-20, 5:25 pm |
| In message <fphpjl$htq$1@news.datemas.de>, Bernie <Bernie@the.bolt>
writes
>VM are now doing fibre optic deals - quite cheap, cheaper than coax - atm.
>You get broadband and phone for less than 20/mnth.
>Let's see your "friends" tap into that :-)
Is it fibre to the home though? I thought it was just fibre to the
street cabinet and then coax to the home?
>
>
--
Clint Sharp
| |
| Palindrome 2008-02-20, 5:25 pm |
| Clint Sharp wrote:[color=darkred]
> In message <R6Huj.229393$X76.37392@fe08.news.easynews.com>, Palindrome
> <me9@privacy.net> writes
> Umm, sorry, nil points and misleading, you are MI5 and I claim my 5 pounds.
>
> There are off air intercept systems available to people with the right
> credentials and/or money that can decrypt the data real time. The system
> manufacturers (Ericsson spring to mind for some reason ;-)) offer
> intercept systems although I suspect you'd need to be very definitely
> government/law enforcement to get one legally.
>
> Best of all carrying a powered cell phone can locate you to under 100
> metres depending on the number of cells that can 'see' you and a few
> other factors (terrain, buildings etc.) It's been trialed and tested for
> emergency services use in London with good results but then disappeared
> without much discussion, wonder why that was!
>
Oh, it would be possible to locate the OP to within a few feet, at most.
I suggested using it /in his flat/ rather than use the landline.
As for the "people with the right credentials" - there is no suggestion
by the OP that such people are involved. For others, the only real
chance is to get hold of the phone and clone it.
And what you suggest is still far, far more difficult than tapping a
landline.
I presented a simple argument - that using a mobile phone instead of the
landline would be harder to tap. Which your words support - other than
the "nil points" rubbish.
--
Sue
| |
| Bernie 2008-02-20, 5:25 pm |
| On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 20:48:52 +0000, Clint Sharp wrote:
[color=darkred]
> In message <fphpjl$htq$1@news.datemas.de>, Bernie <Bernie@the.bolt>
> writes
> Is it fibre to the home though? I thought it was just fibre to the
> street cabinet and then coax to the home?
Well I had a word with VM about this over the phone (twisted pair -
*cough*) and they told me it was fibre optic into the house. I was
thinking of having it installed myself but for different reasons but
like you say it may be twisted cable on the last leg, these ntl
call centre lackies don't know their arse from their elbow. You'd have to
pursue it further for a definitive answer.
| |
| Michael A. Terrell 2008-02-20, 9:25 pm |
| Clint Sharp wrote:
>
> In message <R6Huj.229393$X76.37392@fe08.news.easynews.com>, Palindrome
> <me9@privacy.net> writes
> Umm, sorry, nil points and misleading, you are MI5 and I claim my 5
> pounds.
>
> There are off air intercept systems available to people with the right
> credentials and/or money that can decrypt the data real time. The system
> manufacturers (Ericsson spring to mind for some reason ;-)) offer
> intercept systems although I suspect you'd need to be very definitely
> government/law enforcement to get one legally.
Or wait for one to turn up at a government auction. I picked up a
complete 911 phone logging system and all the 10.5" reels of tape for
next to nothing. I sold the recorders to a company that owned thousands
of pay phones to use when there was a court ordered tap on one of their
phones.
--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.
Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida
| |
| Ivor Jones 2008-02-21, 9:25 am |
|
"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote in
message news:47BCE4EA.1D90B715@earthlink.net
[snip]
: : Or wait for one to turn up at a government auction.
: : I picked up a complete 911 phone logging system and all
: : the 10.5" reels of tape for next to nothing. I sold
: : the recorders to a company that owned thousands of pay
: : phones to use when there was a court ordered tap on one
: : of their phones.
Is that likely in the UK..?
Ivor
| |
| Foxtrot 2008-02-21, 9:25 am |
| On Tue 19 Feb 2008 16:24:04, Palindrome <me9@privacy.net> wrote:
> Foxtrot wrote:
>
> It is illegal to gain access to another person's telephone under
> Section 1 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000
> (RIPA). If you have good reason to suspect that your calls are
> being intercepted, then contact the police.
>
> There are no meaningful checks that you can do, or VM would do.
> Other than visually inspect whatever bits of your telephone line
> might be accessible to you.
>
> If you are worried, but don't think that you have enough evidence
> to go to the police, then use a mobile phone or internet phone.
> Those are rather more difficult for an unspecified group of people
> to intercept.
>
But how can I detect it if it is being done (even if it is illegal)?
There are plenty of illegal taps. This is a web page which describes
former police officers actually doing it.
http://cms.met.police.uk/news/convi..._for_misconduct
"The company charged clients between £5,000 and £7,000
to hack into computers and £6,000 to bug telephone lines.
The MPS was initially contacted by British Telecom, who
had identified a number of devices attached to junction
boxes, which they suspected were being used to intercept
phone conversations."
As far as I am concerned it is by then, too late. The info has been
leaked.
| |
| Foxtrot 2008-02-21, 9:25 am |
| On Tue 19 Feb 2008 22:28:02, Palindrome <me9@privacy.net> wrote:
> The scope of this thread was the suspected tapping of a landline
> phone going to a flat. Generally extremely easy to do, needing
> little expertise or expensive equipment. The suggestion was to use
> a mobile phone - which, as the OP is in the uk, means a phone with
> an encrypted digital data stream. Intercepting that would need a
> great deal of expertise - it would be far easier to resort to other
> methods, eg eavesdrop on the sound signals in the room(s).
What you post makes a lot of sense but incoming callers may be disuaded
from ringing a mobile on account of the costs.
Similarly, long outgoing calls will be probitively expensive for me from
a mobile.
I'm not familiar with VOIP but could I use VOIP and set up an encrypted
link between me and the VOIP provider? Access to a VOIP server seems to
me much harder than access to a manhole cover in the street.
| |
| Foxtrot 2008-02-21, 9:25 am |
| On Tue 19 Feb 2008 16:45:36, Floyd L. Davidson <floyd@apaflo.com> wrote:
> Foxtrot <foxtrot@demo.invalid> wrote:
>
> Let me give you some advice... but first you need also
> to know what my qualifications are to provide that
> advice: I worked in the telecommunications industry for
> 34 years, and retired 6 years ago. I have had the
> (mis)fortune of setting up legal and illegal wiretaps.
> I have also had the experience of having my work phone
> tapped illegally. All of that of course was in the US,
> hence I will not attempt to give you advice about
> specifics or the legal status, because I simply don't
> know how any of it would apply to you.
>
> Here's what I have known since perhaps a month after I
> began working in the industry: Do *NOT* *EVER* say
> anything on a telephone that you cannot tolerate being
> printed on the front page of the local newspaper the
> next day.
>
> Take that serious. It applies to your personal life.
> It applies to your business. It applies if you are a
> criminal, or if you are a judge.
>
> If you cannot tolerate something being in the newspaper,
> find a different way to communicate it to the people you
> need to exchange that information with. DO NOT USE A
> TELEPHONE.
>
I do not disbelieve you.
In part, it's a question of probabilities. For most people the
probability (as far as they know it) of getting tapped is close to zero.
They might find this discussion sounds bizarre and paranoid.
In my case, the likelihood of this happening has moved from almost zero
to maybe, let me guess, 30 percent. That is way too high for my
comfort.
But how does anyone function effectively these days without using a
phone?
| |
| Foxtrot 2008-02-21, 9:25 am |
| On Wed 20 Feb 2008 20:39:10, Ron Lowe
<ronATlowe-famlyDOTmeDOTukSPURIOUS> wrote:
> "Foxtrot" <foxtrot@demo.invalid> wrote in message
> news:Xns9A49A0904EF5601A4D@127.0.0.1...
>
>
> If I felt the need of a secure phone system, I would set up a
> secure private VoIP network.
>
> At my end:
> 1) Set up an Asterisk server on my LAN;
> 2) Configure an IP phone to register with it;
> 3) Configure a secure VPN gateway to accept incoming connections.
>
> At the other end(s):
> 1) Configure a VPN client box to establish a secure tunnel to my
> LAN's VPN gateway;
> 2) Configure an IP phone to register with my asterisk box over the
> VPN.
>
> If you choose a good enough VPN implimentation, then I think it
> would be pretty secure.
>
Sorry to be so dumb but this all seems quite complicated to someone
like me who has never used VOIP.
Presumably such a setup still allows mew to keep my existing phone
number.
Is there perhaps an easier way to do this without having to work with
the technology at the sort of level you are writing for?
| |
| Stuart 2008-02-21, 1:25 pm |
| In article <6259tuF1v7i2vU1@mid.individual.net>,
Ivor Jones <ivor@thisaddressis.invalid> wrote:
> "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote in
> message news:47BCE4EA.1D90B715@earthlink.net
> [snip]
> : : Or wait for one to turn up at a government auction.
> : : I picked up a complete 911 phone logging system and all
> : : the 10.5" reels of tape for next to nothing. I sold
> : : the recorders to a company that owned thousands of pay
> : : phones to use when there was a court ordered tap on one
> : : of their phones.
> Is that likely in the UK..?
No.
I have often wandered around "Government surplus" depots and there is
usually electronic test gear - old scopes, multimeters that kind of stuff,
spare parts for landrovers and small trucks, usually lots of clothing.
Tools, picks, shovels, empty ammunition boxes....but nothing quite like
that.
See http://www.anchorsupplies.com/
For a selection.
--
Stuart Winsor
From is valid but subject to change without notice if it gets spammed.
For Barn dances and folk evenings in the Coventry and Warwickshire area
See: http://www.barndance.org.uk
| |
| Palindrome 2008-02-21, 1:25 pm |
| Stuart wrote:
> In article <6259tuF1v7i2vU1@mid.individual.net>,
> Ivor Jones <ivor@thisaddressis.invalid> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> No.
>
> I have often wandered around "Government surplus" depots and there is
> usually electronic test gear - old scopes, multimeters that kind of stuff,
> spare parts for landrovers and small trucks, usually lots of clothing.
> Tools, picks, shovels, empty ammunition boxes....but nothing quite like
> that.
>
> See http://www.anchorsupplies.com/
>
> For a selection.
>
Possibly because they have already been sold. Try auctions, instead. I
have been totally shocked by the stuff that is sold at Government
Surplus Auctions. Not to mention what I have found in auctioned-off
filing cabinets, that clearly have not been emptied, or checked, prior
to disposal.
No, I am not even going to mention what kinds of stuff are disposed of.
Use your imagination, or better, go to a few.
--
Sue
| |
| Palindrome 2008-02-21, 1:25 pm |
| Foxtrot wrote:
> On Tue 19 Feb 2008 16:24:04, Palindrome <me9@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> But how can I detect it if it is being done (even if it is illegal)?
Read what I wrote, perhaps?
"...visually inspect whatever bits of your telephone line might be
accessible to you."
If they are lawfully tapping your phone, you will never detect it. If
they are unlawfully tapping it - then the first place to do is to
visually inspect any of your phone line wiring that is accessible, but
not in the outside patch box. Any addition to the latter is more likely
to be spotted. There is quite possibly a junction box in the building,
down in the basement, perhaps. Or in a shared hallway. I'd look there..
--
Sue
| |
| Michael A. Terrell 2008-02-21, 1:25 pm |
| Ivor Jones wrote:
>
> "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote in
> message news:47BCE4EA.1D90B715@earthlink.net
>
> [snip]
>
> : : Or wait for one to turn up at a government auction.
> : : I picked up a complete 911 phone logging system and all
> : : the 10.5" reels of tape for next to nothing. I sold
> : : the recorders to a company that owned thousands of pay
> : : phones to use when there was a court ordered tap on one
> : : of their phones.
>
> Is that likely in the UK..?
>
> Ivor
Doesn't your government waste money by junking repairable equipment?
--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.
Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida
| |
| Palindrome 2008-02-21, 1:25 pm |
| Michael A. Terrell wrote:
> Ivor Jones wrote:
>
>
> Doesn't your government waste money by junking repairable equipment?
>
>
The UK military went through a huge downsizing and "contracting out" a
while ago. They closed all sorts of "interesting" research places and
large amounts of kit appeared in auctions, afterwards. Most of it
working, much of it even in date for test. Many lots were mis-described
or described as "units, various".
Sigh. Such days are rare. Here.
--
Sue
| |
| Clint Sharp 2008-02-21, 1:25 pm |
| In message <47BDA04A.695BA780@earthlink.net>, Michael A. Terrell
<mike.terrell@earthlink.net> writes
> Doesn't your government waste money by junking repairable equipment?
Ah, ours is way ahead of yours, we buy non working junk in the first
place to save the effort of having to try and repair it later. It's much
more efficient that way.
>
>
--
Clint Sharp
| |
| kraftee 2008-02-21, 5:25 pm |
| Foxtrot wrote:
> I have never been a conspiracy theorist but I suspect that a
> particular group of people may try to tap my landline.
>
> I am in the UK and access to my phone wires is quite easy because I
> live in a block of flats. There are various oblong concrete
> covers for the BT and VirginMedia lines to the flats.
>
> Currently I use VirginMedia for phone service.
>
> I wonder if a tap which juts picks up the signal modulation on a
> line but does not interrupt it can be detected at all.
>
> Can I perform any checks?
> Can I ask VM to do any checks?
>
> As I am dealing with some odd folks, I would like to have the line
> checked regularly but would VirginMedia be prepared to do this?
Even if what you suspect is happening, there would be nothing
physically attatched to your line so nothing would be found. As a
telephone engineer I carry some test gear which as a side effect of
it's purpose can pickup modulation over pairs of wires but there has
got to be easier ways to do what you think is happening as picking up
by induction is very difficult to do clearly.
If you were with BT & could prove there was a real risk of such things
happening then they would investigate (chargable of course) but seeing
as you are with Virigin all I will is good luck to you...& keep taking
the tablets...
| |
| Stuart 2008-02-21, 5:25 pm |
| In article <jmMHA$EtzavHFwYz@clintsmc.demon.co.uk>,
Clint Sharp <clint@clintsmc.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <47BDA04A.695BA780@earthlink.net>, Michael A. Terrell
> <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> writes
> Ah, ours is way ahead of yours, we buy non working junk in the first
> place to save the effort of having to try and repair it later. It's much
> more efficient that way.
Yeh and most of it seems to be bought off the USA >8|
--
Stuart Winsor
From is valid but subject to change without notice if it gets spammed.
For Barn dances and folk evenings in the Coventry and Warwickshire area
See: http://www.barndance.org.uk
| |
| Ivor Jones 2008-02-21, 8:25 pm |
| "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote in
message news:47BDA04A.695BA780@earthlink.net
[snip]
: : Doesn't your government waste money by junking
: : repairable equipment?
No, they prefer to leave laptops containing everybody's personal details
in unattended cars in Birmingham.
Ivor
| |
| Long Ranger 2008-02-22, 3:26 am |
| If someone can pull off a phone tap, then they are probably reading what you
write here. If I thought I was being tapped, I would have a phony
conversation with a partner about something of interest to the people I
thought tapped my line. Then I would look for a reaction to it. For
instance, if I thought it was the police, I might arrange a phony dope
transaction, complete with packages being exchanged.
| |
| gfretwell@aol.com 2008-02-22, 3:26 am |
| On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 21:35:30 -0800, "Long Ranger" <lorpkins@earthlink
..net> wrote:
>If someone can pull off a phone tap, then they are probably reading what you
>write here. If I thought I was being tapped, I would have a phony
>conversation with a partner about something of interest to the people I
>thought tapped my line. Then I would look for a reaction to it. For
>instance, if I thought it was the police, I might arrange a phony dope
>transaction, complete with packages being exchanged.
>
You are putting a lot of trust in the cops not to actually "find" some
real dope when they arrest you.
If they are really looking at you hard enough to get a legal tap they
have other things that constitute "probable cause" for the warrant. If
it is an illegal tap, they are by definition rogue cops. Who knows
what they will do.
| |
| Long Ranger 2008-02-22, 3:26 am |
|
<gfretwell@aol.com> wrote in message
news:fcssr3976os16c2chbotoe0j0l8hgisecf@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 21:35:30 -0800, "Long Ranger" <lorpkins@earthlink
> .net> wrote:
>
> You are putting a lot of trust in the cops not to actually "find" some
> real dope when they arrest you.
>
> If they are really looking at you hard enough to get a legal tap they
> have other things that constitute "probable cause" for the warrant. If
> it is an illegal tap, they are by definition rogue cops. Who knows
> what they will do.
I agree. I can't babysit the whole scenario for this guy though. I would
take pains to have an airtight situation. Perhaps some cameras, and / or
extra witnesses? A lot of details, but worth it if I truly thought I was
being tapped like that. I once had a notion that my ex had somehow bugged my
phone. (She's a member of our local PD.) I never did prove it to my
satisfaction either way, and I may have been wrong anyway. By the time I
formulated a plan, the suspicious incidents had stopped. I still don't trust
talking on my phone for certain things.
| |
| Foxtrot 2008-02-22, 1:25 pm |
| On Fri 22 Feb 2008 05:35:30, Long Ranger wrote:
>
> If someone can pull off a phone tap, then they are probably reading
> what you write here. If I thought I was being tapped, I would have
> a phony conversation with a partner about something of interest to
> the people I thought tapped my line. Then I would look for a
> reaction to it. For instance, if I thought it was the police, I
> might arrange a phony dope transaction, complete with packages
> being exchanged.
>
What you write sounds as if it would normally work but sadly in this
case it is not going to be if use.
I have already seen how the other side leaks absolutely nothing.
They observe and they learn and, when the time comes up, they use what
they know. But they never say what they know. No bluffs, feigns,
intimidations or any of that.
It can be quite scary to observe them in action when it is then clear
just how much they knew all along but by then they have made their move.
| |
| Long Ranger 2008-02-22, 5:25 pm |
|
"Foxtrot" <foxtrot@demo.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xns9A4CAFACC532FD712E3@127.0.0.1...
> On Fri 22 Feb 2008 05:35:30, Long Ranger wrote:
>
> What you write sounds as if it would normally work but sadly in this
> case it is not going to be if use.
>
> I have already seen how the other side leaks absolutely nothing.
>
> They observe and they learn and, when the time comes up, they use what
> they know. But they never say what they know. No bluffs, feigns,
> intimidations or any of that.
>
> It can be quite scary to observe them in action when it is then clear
> just how much they knew all along but by then they have made their move.
RIIIIIIIIIIIIGHT.
| |
| Paul Hovnanian P.E. 2008-02-25, 1:25 pm |
| Long Ranger wrote:
>
> If someone can pull off a phone tap, then they are probably reading what you
> write here. If I thought I was being tapped, I would have a phony
> conversation with a partner about something of interest to the people I
> thought tapped my line. Then I would look for a reaction to it. For
> instance, if I thought it was the police, I might arrange a phony dope
> transaction, complete with packages being exchanged.
It depends on who is tapping your line and why.
If its the cops, they may (or may not) take the bait. If its industrial
espionage (someone stealing customers, for example), you will have a
much more difficult time finding out. It the latter case, their
subsequent behavior based on information obtained isn't immediately
available to you.
--
Paul Hovnanian paul@hovnanian.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Procrastinators: The leaders for tomorrow.
| |
|
| On Feb 19, 11:24 am, Palindrome <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
[color=darkred]
No, it can't.
[color=darkred]
Visually inspect lines. Be suspicious of "repairmen" doing things to
line. The usual.
[color=darkred]
There is not much they can do. And probably even less they will do.
The bottom line of all communication services is that basically they
are public forums like taking a two page spread in the New York
(London) times. People get really lax about thinking their
conversations are "private". They think that there are laws that
"protect" them. All this is totally false.
Unless you are using "unbreakable encryption" [and this gear is NOT
presently available even though easy to build, and even if it were
were available it would soon be made illegal by the government] you
should ALWAYS consider telephones of ANY type as well as and
ESPECIALLY all email and other internet communications as totally
public. Put a sign by your phone that says "This line leads to the
Times" to remind yourself.
If you have something private to say to someone, go take a nice walk
in the woods. And Oh yeah, go naked!
Welcome to Big Brother.
| |
|
| On Feb 19, 12:37 pm, Theo Markettos <theom
+n...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> If the police/spooks are doing it, they'll do it in software at the
> exchange so there'll be nothing to see.
>
> http://spectrum.ieee.org/jul07/5280
> documents one rather high-level recent case.
Note that thanks (in the Yoo Ess) to Bill Clinton's "crime bill",
telephone companies were mandated to supply a plug to government upon
which up to 1/3 of ALL CALLS MADE IN THE ENTIRE COUNTRY can be
monitored simultaneously! Dubya has been wallowing in the data thanks
to the PATRIOT ACT. The renewal of same is a big issue right now in
Congress because telecoms are having a cow over the possibility of
being sued for making these mandatory taps for feds. No doubt soon
Congress will approve totally warrant-less wiretaps at random for
government "fishing expeditions" with total immunity for telecoms and
everyone will be happy as clams.
It's your Brave New World. Enjoy it.
[This public statement may be reprinted on the front page of any major
newspaper if so desired]
| |
|
| On Feb 19, 5:51 pm, Salmon Egg <Salmon...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> I depends on how it is done. If I wanted to tap a phone undetectably, I
> would just use a hook on magnetic core like is used for hook-on
> ammeters. The secondary winding would run into a low impedance (current)
> amplifier.
That is PRIMITIVE technology. Even OLD technology only needs a
sensitive magnetic coil to be simply placed NEAR any of the wires
bearing the calls. Could be literally anywhere. We are talking tube
era technology. Today a tiny microchip could be stuck to the wire at
any point and would be easily accessed remotely by satellite or radio.
You haven't a prayer to find this. Just assume every thing said on
the phone goes right to all the wrong people automatically.
| |
| Palindrome 2008-02-26, 3:25 am |
| Benj wrote:
> On Feb 19, 11:24 am, Palindrome <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
No, I didn't. Benj just isn't very good at snipping posts to keep the
necessary attribution in place.. I wrote none of the following:
>
>
> No, it can't.
>
>
> Visually inspect lines. Be suspicious of "repairmen" doing things to
> line. The usual.
>
>
> There is not much they can do. And probably even less they will do.
>
> The bottom line of all communication services is that basically they
> are public forums like taking a two page spread in the New York
> (London) times. People get really lax about thinking their
> conversations are "private". They think that there are laws that
> "protect" them. All this is totally false.
>
> Unless you are using "unbreakable encryption" [and this gear is NOT
> presently available even though easy to build, and even if it were
> were available it would soon be made illegal by the government] you
> should ALWAYS consider telephones of ANY type as well as and
> ESPECIALLY all email and other internet communications as totally
> public. Put a sign by your phone that says "This line leads to the
> Times" to remind yourself.
>
> If you have something private to say to someone, go take a nice walk
> in the woods. And Oh yeah, go naked!
> Welcome to Big Brother.
>
>
>
| |
| Bernie 2008-02-26, 9:25 am |
| On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 01:04:55 -0800, Benj wrote:
> On Feb 19, 5:51 pm, Salmon Egg <Salmon...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>
> That is PRIMITIVE technology. Even OLD technology only needs a sensitive
> magnetic coil to be simply placed NEAR any of the wires bearing the calls.
> Could be literally anywhere. We are talking tube era technology. Today a
> tiny microchip could be stuck to the wire at any point and would be easily
> accessed remotely by satellite or radio. You haven't a prayer to find
> this. Just assume every thing said on the phone goes right to all the
> wrong people automatically.
He's probably been implanted anyway so everything he says will get
straight back to the perps no matter what ;-)
| |
|
| Palindrome wrote:
> Benj wrote:
>
> No, I didn't. Benj just isn't very good at snipping posts to keep the
> necessary attribution in place.. I wrote none of the following:
The attributes aren't there and he shouldn't have left you in, but by the
quote marks it's clear you didn't say anything he quoted.
Though not many people will nowadays appeciate that :-(
[color=darkred]
| |
| Ben Miller 2008-03-15, 5:25 pm |
| Ivor Jones wrote:
> "Palindrome" <me9@privacy.net> wrote in message
> news:R6Huj.229393$X76.37392@fe08.news.easynews.com
>
> [snip]
>
>
> Read this article, posted elsewhere in this thread, to see how someone
> recently did exactly that:
>
> http://spectrum.ieee.org/jul07/5280
>
>
> Ivor
I really enjoyed that article when it published in Spectrum. What they did
was amazing, although it went far beyond a simple tap on a phone! It is not
likely too many people could have pulled that off.
--
Benjamin D Miller, PE
www.bmillerengineering.com
|
|
|
|
|