Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

FOIA docs show feds can lojack mobiles without telco help
ars technica ^ | November 16, 2008 | Julian Sanchez

Posted on 11/17/2008 6:09:50 PM PST by mad_as_he$$

Courts in recent years have been raising the evidentiary bar law enforcement agents must meet in order to obtain historical cell phone records that reveal information about a target's location. But documents obtained by civil liberties groups under a Freedom of Information Act request suggest that "triggerfish" technology can be used to pinpoint cell phones without involving cell phone providers at all.

(Excerpt) Read more at arstechnica.com ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: calea; cell; feds; foia; geocaching; lojack; lp; privacy; triggerfish
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-33 last
To: ResponseAbility

Well, it’s not even the hostility level of the government. It’s just that they are supposed to work for us and should treat us like their masters and not their slaves.

In a sense you can’t really get mad at them for pushing the limits of their place. That’s what governments do. Getting mad at them for it is like getting mad at your dog for farting in the house. The correct response is to defeat their overstepping to the best of your ability.


21 posted on 11/17/2008 9:49:00 PM PST by Still Thinking (Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: CodeMasterPhilzar

So in my mind a proper response would not be to minimize the risk that the OP entails, but to buttress the OP by stating that there is a litany of other ways to be tracked and patriots should be wary. To ask what the big deal is minimizes the very real threat to many not at your level of awareness. Do you want a cadre of incompetents working with you when it is most important?


22 posted on 11/17/2008 11:17:12 PM PST by ResponseAbility (Government tends to never fix the problems it creates in the first place)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: GOPsterinMA

>>Is it true that my passport or drivers licence will be invalidated if the RFID chip is disabled?

On that note:

The RFID Shield
http://www.rfid-shield.com/
The RFID Shield is a protective sleeve that prevents anyone from reading private information stored on your RFID cards and passports.


23 posted on 11/18/2008 1:07:44 AM PST by FreedomPoster (Obama: Carter's only chance to avoid going down in history as the worst U.S. president ever.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: mad_as_he$$

Isn’t doing this without a warrant technically a felony?


24 posted on 11/18/2008 3:20:02 AM PST by amchugh (large and largely disgruntled)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Still Thinking
In a sense you can’t really get mad at them for pushing the limits of their place. That’s what governments do. Getting mad at them for it is like getting mad at your dog for farting in the house. The correct response is to defeat their overstepping to the best of your ability.

Thought that one bore repeating... so I reapeated it. Well said.

25 posted on 11/18/2008 4:17:05 AM PST by slnk_rules (http://mises.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: amchugh
Probably but you would have to prove it and they would not bring it up in any case. They would use it to gather info and then “develop” the case against you from that.
26 posted on 11/18/2008 12:29:00 PM PST by mad_as_he$$ (Nemo me impune lacessit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: CodeMasterPhilzar
Good old fashioned tail...


27 posted on 11/18/2008 12:44:09 PM PST by Petronski (For the next few years, Gethsemane will not be marginal. We will know that garden. -- Cdl. Stafford)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: dighton; martin_fierro; Tijeras_Slim; RockinRight; Constitution Day; Lazamataz

Lord, I apologize for that last post...


28 posted on 11/18/2008 12:45:28 PM PST by Petronski (For the next few years, Gethsemane will not be marginal. We will know that garden. -- Cdl. Stafford)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: FreedomPoster

Thank you for the information. I have been keeping my passport wrapped in tin foil.


29 posted on 11/18/2008 1:54:19 PM PST by GOPsterinMA (Obama/Biden...change you can laugh at!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: KoRn
I doubt such technology is terribly useful against wanted criminals. Only a total idiot would carry around a cell phone that is directly associated with them, while trying to avoid law enforcement.

Most run of the mill crooks fall into the "total idiot" category.

30 posted on 11/18/2008 1:58:45 PM PST by E=MC2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Petronski

I am not. Hehe.


31 posted on 11/18/2008 2:04:50 PM PST by Constitution Day (Big Brotha Is Watching You)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: GOPsterinMA
Don't know about invalidating them, but you can mask it. I've heard - but haven't investigated, that simply wrapping them in aluminum foil acts like a Faraday cage. This would prevent the RFID reader's signal from getting to the chip, and/or the chip's even lower-power response from getting out.

The other technique I've heard about involves carrying a "blocking" tag. As I understand it, the way RFID works is the sort of a query-response model. The reader sends out a "hello everyone" and any/all tags respond with their binary ID number. (something like 128 bits) If only one tag is present, the exchange is over, and the reader knows what device (via the serial number) is out there. Of course, the reader would need a database of what tags were issued to who/what to know.

Anyway, if there are multiple tags in range of the reader, they all respond, "stepping on" each other's signal. The reader detects this and re-issues the query "who's out there with a number that starts with 0" Similar result, either it gets 1 reply, or multiple. The reader is basically traversing a tree of 1s and 0s, deducing what tags are present until it has uniquely identified all tags in view. The algorithm is based on the idea that by sequential challenges of "0" or "1" then "00" or "01" etc. it can eventually get single responses from each tag. Tags are supposed to stay quiet when the challenge doesn't match their digits.

Therein lies the beauty of a blocking tag. It violates the algorithm. It always replies with a number, no matter what the challenge. Therefore, the reader is prevented from ever getting a "clean" return off any other tag you have on you. They always result in a collision, and the reader has to throw up its hands and give up. These are also called jamming tags.

See http://www.rsa.com/rsalabs/node.asp?id=2060 for more details.

32 posted on 11/18/2008 8:09:33 PM PST by CodeMasterPhilzar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: CodeMasterPhilzar

Hmm, if one blocker would be good, ten or thirty would be better. Then, even if the scanner managed to walk the tree down to the point that there would only be one legit response, rather than one out of two, it would be one voice among thirty. Good if the blockers, maybe higher quality at higher cost, could return a higher proportion of the received energy as well, so that their response would overwhelm the other not only by quantity but amplitude as well.


33 posted on 11/18/2008 8:36:44 PM PST by Still Thinking (Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-33 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson