It is nine years since I published in Murder in Samarkand that the security services can listen to you through your mobile telephone, even when it is apparently switched off. You could only prevent this by removing the battery. Shortly thereafter many mobile phone manufacturers started producing sealed phones from which you could not easily remove the battery. That was not especially a result of my publication. But I know for certain that the western security services had cooperated with the mobile phone companies in securing the software backdoor which enabled them to switch on the microphone when the phone appeared to be off. I am therefore inclined to believe the development of phones where it was hard to take the battery out was also encouraged by the security services.
Knowledge of the remote switch on was disseminated more widely after I met Richard Stallman, a hero of mine, and was able to tell him about it. He publicised it to the tech-savvy community. Eventually Edward Snowden released precisely the same information, and the mainstream media finally started reporting it, seven years after I first published it. Now, the security services themselves have admitted to having this capability, rather to the horror of extreme right wing commentators.
I learnt that the security services can bug you through your mobile phone, even if it appears to you switched off, in the course of my official duties. I was among those allowed to know, and could tell it with 100% certainty.
I have now been told something new for which I cannot give a 100% guarantee of truth, though I have no reason to doubt the good faith of the person who gave me the information, and I can say for sure they would have the access to know this officially. I am told by a good source that the security services can now activate the microphone, even if the battery has been removed and there is no power source in the phone.
To a non-technological person like me, that sounds impossible. How do you remotely power something? If it is true, will I not need a cable for my television one day? I find the notion fascinating. I have taken on board that removing the battery may not be enough, but would welcome thoughts on the plausibility of this information.
“What a good idea, MJ”
Yes, works a treat. Distributes the warm air evenly round the room. I got mine on e-bay for 35 quid.
Who knows what will happen, but some things are looking up compared to last year regarding privacy.
The UK is clearly the most regressive state in the western world atm though. Criminal immoral ass holes.
Ludwig, 12:34 pm…
The problem word here is “persisted”. If the ‘phone only transmitted when activated by transmitting a specific cryptographic key to it, there would normally be no signal to detect.
@ 4 Mar, 2016 – 12:37 pm
Piss off troll!
@fedup
?
I was referring to the ‘possibility’ (debated) of collection without a main battery, in bulk.
Many people who want to avoid state scrutiny for whatever reasons have known for at least sixteen years that if you want to have a confidential conversation you don’t have your mobile anywhere near you.
Jives 4 Mar, 2016
“Easy peasy”.
Go on then, tap my BB, just give me a second to remove my battery. I’ll give you 5 years.
ps, Do I need to be holding it so you can remotely use the electric from my body? or will you “easy” sort that out yourself?
..lol
Not being a privy member of “the skunk works” I cannot readily answer that question, however for a kick off the various methods of tagging data can be incorporated to delineate the collected data, this being inclusive of the frequency spectrum that is set aside for such eventualities, as well as the encoding methods that in turn help in such delineation of the gleaned data. However this then leaves the question of how many targets constitute a bulk?
To this above question needs to first answer the query; how many people wish to turn their phones off?
But it remains that is easy enough to acquire the data in the first place even in bulk as in when there is a will there is a way. Entrusting the management of technology into the hands of our gubimnet is akin to entrusting the keys to a brewery into the hands of an alcoholic!!! Both cases are certain to abuse their charge.
“Easy peasy really”.
I agree with Jives.
During the 70s I worked for an American company that has a security division.
We developed a non-optical camera that was hidden in the button of a car aerial and was used during the troubles in Ireland.
At that time, the security services were using microwaves to remotely pick up vibrations from window glass which did away with the need to actually install bugs.
Isn’t wireless transmission of power the reason they shut Tesla down? Who got his papers when he died?
“I agree with Jives.”
And David Icke?
Look, the points you have raised about it’s “possibility” only reinforce my point, why bother when if you want to target someone you can just bug them? follow them, monitor them and everything they do in a hundred ways, simply.
It’s an absurd use of technology. Just get a directional mic, infrared, bug the phone when they don’t have it, etc etc etc.
Do you think we would not find out if they where? As I said, I follow chaos computer club. We know about most everything they do. MSI-catchers, etc etc etc.
If they are trying, prove it, it would be important I guess. Otherwise….
” The thought does occur that it may be deliberate disinformation intended to cast a chill on people who might be tempted to use their mobiles in furtherance of nefarious acts. If that were to be the case, it should perhaps be welcomed?”
Or to put it more succinctly: the state can do no wrong. Total surveillance means that we are safe and free at last.
And these are the people-authoritarians and conformists- who complain about the ‘nanny state’ and talk of the Free World!
This is precisely the doctrine that underpins all dictatorships, the Carl Schmitt doctrine that power means right.
Part related post.
Phone Hackers: Britain’s Secret Surveillance. Vice news
https://youtu.be/rzBWoVh4qhk
Uphill,
You havent got a clue mate,this is 30 year old tech at least.
I am bound to reveal no more.
We seem to be divided between woo and lol. Long ago, servicemen were reminded that SPEECH ON THIS PHONE IS NOT SECURE. Plus ca change. Leave the phone at home in a well-screened beercooler. Means of public communication can be assumed to be, well, public.
Uphill,
“It’s an absurd use of technology. Just get a directional mic, infrared, bug the phone when they don’t have it, etc etc etc.”
Ahhahahahah….back to school bud.
Clue:Manpower costs/benefits ratio.
Craig,
You taught me something here.
Like yourself I am not tech savvy.
I am aware of some of the spying capabilities of satellites, but this was an eye opener to me.
Thanks.
Jives “I am bound to reveal no more.”
Well please do. Or are you in with them?
Reveal to me, someone who has followed the investigations of arguably the most bad ass hankers on the planet, that contain individuals who the NSA regards as “worthy adversary’s”, something I don’t know.
Otherwise I smell you know what.
…your risk of being run down by a dozy BMW driver, texting, while you are distracted in the act of crossing the road by accessing your antisurveillance app, will also be reduced if you wean yourself off the bloody thing and throw it away.
(Advertisment by Citizens Sick Of Being Bumped Into By Dozy Twats On Phones.)
Yer mean all that talking to myself and cussin’ to myself and general rambling could end up on an MI5 server even with my phone switched OFF! That’ll be decades of bafflement for them: even I don’t know what I’m going on about half the time.
Urgent countermeasures are needed and all everybody is going on about is whether its true or not!
#1 Take the mic out. That’ll fool em. Reassemble your phone whenever you need to make a call. Oh hang on… what if the mic has a built in power source…?
#2 Buy a TOY phone with no mic. They’ll be totally baffled trying to suss your service provider even.
#3 Stop talking: learn sign language.
#4 As 3 but develop a language as rich as English but based on nods, winks, perhaps elbow movements and tongue wiggles.
#3 Coded smoke signals.
#6 If all else fails… back to 2 Yogurt cartons and string…
It is partly for this reason that I have never had a cellphone.
Who is David Icke?
je,
The mic is irrelevant.
Its the mass resonance of the unit.
I’m ok with Craig bringing up this topic, but it’s frankly annoying when people go one spreading fear with no real backing.
It’s actually far more than annoying. “I know this secret i’m not going to tell”
Grrrr.
Uphill,
Smell whatever you want fella,its matters not a jot to me.
I remember Monrovia 1979/80.
It was an eye and ear opener even then.
[mods: caught in spam filter – timestamp updated]
@Clark
=The problem word here is “persisted”. If the ‘phone only transmitted when activated by transmitting a specific cryptographic key to it, there would normally be no signal to detect.=
Is this an attempt at a red herring from you, intended to obfuscate?
There are at least three technologies that could be deployed to achieve what Craig is questioning:
(1) Device apparently without power, without SIM, covertly transmits a signal (continuous or in bursts, encrypted or otherwise) to a remote receiver enabling *real time intercept* – this could be easily compromised i.e. why is the device actively transmitting a signal (continuous or in bursts, encrypted or otherwise) without a battery or a SIM card, and how straightforward would it be to detect such a transmission from a seemingly unpowered device, other than the crude method of sitting it on top of a loudspeaker? Answer: straightforward.
(2) Device contains a passive undetectable component that does not require power as such, which can be remotely activated by simultaneously flooding it with a carrier and capturing the modulated response, thus how straightforward would it be to detect the signals (initiated by the nosey parker)? Answer: less straightforward because the device itself is not technically emitting the signal.
(3) Device remains redundant and the intercept takes place via other means e.g. long range mic, laser mic, windows, mains circuitry, walls, lighting, set top box, etc, etc. The idea is that the interception activity must not be physically discernible, which tends to rule out the phone-without-battery approach due to the risks specified herewith.
Jives “The mic is irrelevant. Its the mass resonance of the unit.”
Okay… err… err…
#6 lip reading.
#7 Carry a heavy metal safe. Take your phone out whenever you want to use it then put it back in again.
#8 Have a laugh with it. Lead them on with some talk about bomb making but when they arrest you explain how it was an ice cream bombe you were whipping up…
je,
Very droll squire,very droll.
You are far more likely to become a person of interest by employing counter measures,Its flag day any day you like dontche know laddie?
I presume you havent heard of the databases formed to log anyone who isnt on a database?
Jives, most people who stink of vacuous stuff don’t know or care. But who cares if they can make other people believe stuff while specifically, not being specific. A grand job you do of that. What a hero.
I’d say your exhibiting the mental attitude of an attention grabbing child.
“They’ve got satellites that can zoom in to the nearest mouse dropping that’s in your pantry”
Thanks Oliver. When I was doing a degree in international relations in the early eighties a lecturer of mine said very much the same thing. The grainy images that appear in the press and online, and not just from satellites but from street cameras and airport cameras, are published to make people think that technology is not as advanced as it is. This is so they can present combined harvesters as tanks to suggest Russia was involved in the civil-war in Ukraine (something Russia always denied). By the time photos came in of the Russian airbase in Syria (something Russia always admitted) the clarity was up a notch (sufficient to show that Russian planes and equipment were not tanker lorries). Again this is nothing like the capability of satellite camera technology (which today can probably hone in on bee-droppings).
I always suspect the worst with technology. They’ve got it and they use it. They are not going to admit to it. Things that seem unlikely are very likely true. If you had told somebody in the eighteenth century that people would be flying round the world, talking to people in foreign countries – most people would have avoided you or written you off as some kind of conspiracy nut. When I learnt that everything printed on an online printer produced since 2007 is stored in a built-in chip it makes you wonder what kind of paranoid loons are in charge of industry, and for what purpose?
Espionage, including industrial espionage, like poverty has always been with us. It is why I believe that without secret services and secret societies the world would be a much better place in which to live. People like Julian Assange and Mordechai Vanunu would be able to move freely without any need to expose corruption. Secret Services do not protect people. They protect the powerful and corrupt.
In the nineties a businessman paid for a large advert (I think in the Independent) to explain how he and his family were being monitored through the television set. Technology has advanced a great deal since then. I would certainly not discount what Craig’s colleague told him. I was led to understand that your computer can be monitored from your mobile phone and that was many years ago (a decade perhaps). If that is true there is no reason why the microphone in your phone can not use other radio-wave power sources in the home like computer or television. Virgin Media is all over my house and would not let me watch Russia Today because (and I wonder why) it is not part of the package. Fortunately I can get Russia Today on Freeview and have cancelled the television part of my Virgin Media contract.