U.S. Government Is Funding Expansion of Wireless Broadband to Rural America While the U.K. Is Using Surveillance System to Monitor Mobile Phones

The plan to reshape America into an electronic surveillance society is being implemented through the $838 billion stimulus bill (The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009), which was signed into law on February 17, 2009, less than one month after Obama was inaugurated as the 44th president of the U.S. on January 20, 2009. To prepare the U.S. for a cashless society where only electronic transactions will take place, the federal government is using stimulus funds to erect cellphone towers and to expand the National Broadband Plan into rural areas. In 2008, the Federal Communications Commission began subsidizing cell phones for low-income households. NFC-enabled mobile phones will be used to replace everything from credit cards and loyalty cards to bus and train tickets, library cards, door keys, and even cash. [Source]

FCC Set to Unveil Rules for Rural Broadband Fund

The U.S. government is funding wireless broadband for the rural population (14 million people, or 4.5 percent of the population).

October 26, 2011

AP - Federal regulators are set to reveal their plan Thursday for an overhaul of the $8 billion fund that subsidizes phone service in rural areas and for the poor, with the goal of redirecting the money toward broadband expansion.

The Federal Communications Commission is also preparing to disclose new rules for the byzantine system that governs how phone companies pay each other for phone calls. It's a system that, virtually everyone in the industry agrees, is outdated and leads to perverse schemes by carriers to stimulate certain kinds of phone traffic.

However, reform of the system has been held up for years by competing interests.

Together, the new rules are set to be the Obama administration's most significant overhaul of telecommunications regulations. The five-member commission will vote on the rules at a meeting Thursday morning.

The Universal Service Fund was created to ensure that all Americans have access to a basic telephone line. It is supported by a surcharge on long-distance phone bills. The program subsidizes phone service for the poor and pays for Internet access in schools, libraries and rural health clinics. But more than half the money goes to pay phone companies that provide phone service in rural places where lines are supposedly unprofitable.

John Stephens, chief financial officer of the country's biggest phone company, AT&T Inc., told investors and analysts last week that "in general, we're very positive to the idea of getting a refresh of those rules."

AT&T and the other big phone companies have put forward their own reform proposal. The FCC's plan is expected to borrow at least some features from it. That plan suggested capping the size of the new fund at $4.5 billion annually, giving subsidies to only one provider in an area and directing funds toward places where there is no business case for companies to provide service on their own. In addition, it would fund wireless broadband access in remote or rugged areas where wired line construction costs the most.

Policy director Matt Wood at consumer advocacy group Free Press said the phone-company plan had "very little to do with increasing broadband adoption, and everything to do with allowing monopoly local phone providers to reach further into the pockets of consumers."

Meanwhile, small rural phone companies have their own plan, and are apprehensive that the FCC will place limits on how they use their funding and divert money to wireless broadband.

The FCC estimated last year that 9.2 million U.S. households, or about 26 million people, don't have access to wired broadband. Excluding those who can get broadband wirelessly, the number shrinks to 5 million households or 14 million people. That's 4.5 percent of the population.

Telecom consultant Rory Altman at Altman Vilandrie & Co. notes that broadband coverage has spread much faster than phone service once did, and further funding might not accomplish much.

"What are we trying to solve by funneling more money into this?" he asked.

Suitcase Device Can Track IDs, Disable Phones, Intercept Communications

Suitcase sized device can remotely disable phones, intercept communications, record unique IDs and track you in real time

November 2, 2011

Infowars.com - Governments around the world are increasingly taking control of civilian communications — especially cellular telephone networks — usually for nefarious purposes.

We have seen this occur in the Middle East on multiple occasions during the so-called Arab Spring, and now these control systems are being implemented in full force in the West as well.

This is not only dangerous — having government creep into the private lives of citizens usually turns out poorly — but because this type of technology enables horrific atrocities.

One type of system is produced by Datong in the United Kingdom, which has already been purchased by the largest police force in all of Britain, the London Metropolitan Police. The London Police paid $230,000 for so called “ICT hardware” in 2008 and 2009 which creates a fake cellular phone network in order to not only intercept the communications and unique identification numbers from phones, but also to remotely turn off telephones.

This incredibly dangerous technology that seems like something out of a spy thriller is highly portable and is about the size of a suitcase. This means that at a protest in which a brutal government crackdown is about to occur, all that the police would need to do is turn on their suitcase device and suddenly no one is able to record the incident on their phone or call for help.

The device can intercept SMS (text) messages, telephone calls, and even the unique IMSI and IMEI identifiers which would then allow police to track the telephone user’s movements in real time, which totally bypasses the need to request location data from the carrier itself as is normally required, according to Wired’s Threat Level.

The device can also completely prevent outbound communications from reaching a cell tower “for crowd control during demonstrations and riots where participants use phones to organize.”

At least you have to give them some credit for being upfront about how this device can — and likely will — be used to stifle dissent and break up protests, although it is usually promoted as a tool to prevent insurgents from detonating bombs via cell phone.

The technology can also be set up in a vehicle in order to track individuals who are on the move.

It is unclear whether this technology has already been used by the London Metropolitan Police, and they refused to provide details to The Guardian about where and when it had been used.

However, it is not only the UK that has been buying up this dangerous Big Brother technology; unsurprisingly, the United States government has been eager to get its hands on it as well.

Datong has been awarded over $1.6 million in contracts with the United States Secret Service, Special Operations Command (SOCOM), the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and other agencies between the years of 2004 and 2009 according to Threat Level. Then, in February of 2010, Datong was awarded another $1.2 million contract to deliver tracking and location technology to the American “defense” industry.

I say the “defense” industry because, as I have made clear in previous posts, the “defense” industry and the “national security” industries are nothing more than a sham to support the war profiteering racket that plagues America.

A spokesperson for the U.S. Secret Service, George Ogilvie, confirmed to CNET that they have indeed “done business with Datong in the past” but he refused to comment on if they were still doing business with Datong or what technology was acquired from Datong.

I find this to be somewhat insulting given the fact that they are spending my money and the money of other American taxpayers while refusing to tell us where and why it is being spent.

A staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), a commendable non-profit organization that crusades to protect privacy rights and civil liberties in the digital world, Jennifer Lynch, made it clear why this technology is dangerous,

“The problem with this kind of technology is that it means that the police and law enforcement do not have to go through a cell phone provider to gain access to information that can be obtained via someone’s cell phone”.

That means they don’t even have to go through the already ludicrously lax procedures to acquire the information from service providers in the post-PATRIOT Act America.

Lynch continued,

“The law enforcement agency controls access to the interception of the communication data.”

In today’s America, phone companies are usually quick to hand over private subscriber information, along with companies like Google, but at least the fact that law enforcement has to ask the companies provides some minimal impediment to warrantless wiretapping and surveillance in violation of our rights.

Somewhat disturbingly, Lynch told CNET that the EFF was not familiar with Datong’s technologies and they are not aware of what U.S. agencies employ it.

The fact that such radically dangerous technology can fly under the radar is somewhat unsettling. However, in 2008, it surfaced that the FBI was using quite similar technology known as “Triggerfish” which was also capable of mimicking a legitimate cell phone tower so users unwittingly handed over identifying information and location data. Yet Triggerfish’s capability was significantly less than Datong’s in that Datong’s technology can intercept a plethora of data including phone calls, e-mails, text messages, and all other data being sent by the phone.

The CNET article comes to a quite unsettling conclusion, “it doesn’t look like there is much an individual can do — other than turn off his or her phon[e] — to avoid being tracked.”

Tragically, even that will not keep you from being tracked in today’s invisible surveillance state.

Met Police Using Surveillance System to Monitor Mobile Phones

Civil liberties group are raising concerns over the Met police purchase of technology to track cell phones over a targeted area. The technology could give police the ability to conduct 'blanket and indiscriminate' monitoring, which means law-abiding citizens could be under surveillance via their mobile phones. Police can now shut off phones remotely, listen in on conversations and gather data about users in a targeted area. The Met bought the system from Datong in Leeds, which serves the US Secret Service, the UK Ministry of Defence and regimes in the Middle East. - Who’s listening to your calls? Met police track thousands of mobiles using covert surveillance system, UK Daily Mail, October 31, 2011

October 30, 2011

Guardian - Britain's largest police force is operating covert surveillance technology that can masquerade as a mobile phone network, transmitting a signal that allows authorities to shut off phones remotely, intercept communications and gather data about thousands of users in a targeted area.

The surveillance system has been procured by the Metropolitan police from Leeds-based company Datong plc, which counts the US Secret Service, the Ministry of Defence and regimes in the Middle East among its customers.

Strictly classified under government protocol as "Listed X", it can emit a signal over an area of up to an estimated 10 sq km, forcing hundreds of mobile phones per minute to release their unique IMSI and IMEI identity codes, which can be used to track a person's movements in real time.

The disclosure has caused concern among lawyers and privacy groups that large numbers of innocent people could be unwittingly implicated in covert intelligence gathering. The Met has refused to confirm whether the system is used in public order situations, such as during large protests or demonstrations.

Nick Pickles, director of privacy and civil liberties campaign group Big Brother Watch, warned the technology could give police the ability to conduct "blanket and indiscriminate" monitoring:

"It raises a number of serious civil liberties concerns and clarification is urgently needed on when and where this technology has been deployed, and what data has been gathered," he said. "Such invasive surveillance must be tightly regulated, authorised at the highest level and only used in the most serious of investigations. It should be absolutely clear that only data directly relating to targets of investigations is monitored or stored," he said.

Datong's website says its products are designed to provide law enforcement, military, security agencies and special forces with the means to "gather early intelligence in order to identify and anticipate threat and illegal activity before it can be deployed."

The company's systems, showcased at the DSEi arms fair in east London last month, allow authorities to intercept SMS messages and phone calls by secretly duping mobile phones within range into operating on a false network, where they can be subjected to "intelligent denial of service." This function is designed to cut off a phone used as a trigger for an explosive device.

A transceiver around the size of a suitcase can be placed in a vehicle or at another static location and operated remotely by officers wirelessly. Datong also offers clandestine portable transceivers with "covered antennae options available." Datong sells its products to nearly 40 countries around the world, including in Eastern Europe, South America, the Middle East and Asia Pacific. In 2009 it was refused an export licence to ship technology worth £0.8m to an unnamed Asia Pacific country, after the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills judged it could be used to commit human rights abuses.

A document seen by the Guardian shows the Metropolitan police paid £143,455 to Datong for "ICT hardware" in 2008/09. In 2010 the 37-year-old company, which has been publicly listed since October 2005, reported its pro forma revenue in the UK was £3.9m, and noted that "a good position is being established with new law enforcement customer groups." In February 2011 it was paid £8,373 by Hertfordshire Constabulary according to a transaction report released under freedom of information.

Between 2004 and 2009 Datong won over $1.6 (£1.03m) in contracts with US government agencies, including the Secret Service, Special Operations Command and the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement. In February 2010 the company won a £750,000 order to supply tracking and location technology to the US defence sector. Official records also show Datong entered into contracts worth more than £500,000 with the Ministry of Defence in 2009.

All covert surveillance is currently regulated under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (Ripa), which states that to intercept communications a warrant must be personally authorised by the home secretary and be both necessary and proportionate. The terms of Ripa allow phone calls and SMS messages to be intercepted in the interests of national security, to prevent and detect serious crime, or to safeguard the UK's economic wellbeing.

Latest figures produced by the government-appointed interception of communications commissioner, Sir Paul Kennedy, show there were 1,682 interception warrants approved by the home secretary in 2010. Public authorities can request other communications data – such as the date, time and location a phone call was made – without the authority of the home secretary. In 2010, 552,550 such requests were made, averaging around 1,500 per day.

Barrister Jonathan Lennon, who specialises in cases involving covert intelligence and Ripa, said the Met's use of the Datong surveillance system raised significant legislative questions about proportionality and intrusion into privacy.

"How can a device which invades any number of people's privacy be proportionate?" he said. "There needs to be clarification on whether interception of multiple people's communications – when you can't even necessarily identify who the people are – is complaint with the act. It may be another case of the technology racing ahead of the legislation. Because if this technology now allows multiple tracking and intercept to take place at the same time, I would have thought that was not what parliament had in mind when it drafted Ripa."

Former detective superintendent Bob Helm, who had the authority to sign off Ripa requests for covert surveillance during 31 years of service with Lancashire Constabulary, said:

"It's all very well placed in terms of legislation … when you can and can't do it. It's got to be legal and obviously proportionate and justified. If you can't do that, and the collateral implications far outweigh the evidence you're going to get, well then you just don't contemplate it."

In May the Guardian revealed the Met had purchased software used to map suspects' digital movements using data gathered from social networking sites, satnav equipment, mobile phones, financial transactions and IP network logs. The force said the software was being tested using "dummy data" to explore how it could be used to examine "police vehicle movements, crime patterns and telephone investigations."

The Met would not comment on its use of Datong technology or give details of where or when it had been used.

A spokesman said:

"The MPS [Metropolitan police service] may employ surveillance technology as part of our continuing efforts to ensure the safety of Londoners and detect criminality. It can be a vital and highly effective investigative tool.

"Although we do not discuss specific technology or tactics, we can re-assure those who live and work in London that any activity we undertake is in compliance with legislation and codes of practice."

A spokesman for the Home Office said covert surveillance was kept under "constant review" by the chief surveillance commissioner, Sir Christopher Rose, who monitors the conduct of authorities and ensures they are complying with the appropriate legislation. He added:

"Law enforcement agencies are required to act in accordance with the law and with the appropriate levels of authorisation for their activity."

Datong declined to comment.