upvote

points

by nubinetwork16 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby kevin_thibedeau12 hours ago|
next
[-]
> hugely overblown

Did they graciously forward emergency calls and text messages to the real phone network?

reply
upvoteby cucumber37328423 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
The fact that they didn't get busted in no time at all seems to point strongly in that direction. With the amount invested in this operation that would just be common sense.
reply
upvoteby dnnddidiej2 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Might as well start a telco at that point.
reply
upvoteby lxgr2 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
“Please enter your 16 digit payment card number to be connected to an emergency operator”…
reply
upvoteby echelon11 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
Hopefully nobody in the area was an oncall surgeon, engineer, etc.
reply
upvoteby mc3215 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
Yes I think they mean they hadn’t seen it used before outside of sanctioned organizations. Though one could argue some bad actors inside the org likely used it outside of official capacity though not likely with knowledge or approval by superiors.
reply
upvoteby anigbrowl15 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
Wouldn't it be great if public officials would say what they in fact mean the first time?
reply
upvoteby rdevilla14 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
Torontonians are hardwired to be incapable of speaking like this.
reply
upvoteby bigiain13 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
And law enforcement are trained to speak a language with sounds like english, but isn't, and which makes no sense.

https://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/an-interactive-guide-to-...

(A long-ish read, but totally worth it. the "punch line" is beautiful.)

reply
upvoteby philipallstar4 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
Speed and brownness were involved in a jumping‑related incident with a lazy dog and a fox.
reply
upvoteby rdevilla12 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
Poetry.
reply
upvoteby raverbashing6 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
I would say Canadians but British Columbians (yes this is the actual term) are even worse
reply
upvoteby hluska5 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
An sms blaster was never used in fraud like this in Canada. Does that really make that big of a difference to you?
reply
upvoteby boneitis11 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
I don't buy it. To me, it'd be like hearing them say "we've never seen spam/scam phone call campaigns before!"

This loses all believability, given the fact that i can reliably go out of town to a different area code and immediately start getting phishing/scam/robo calls/texts from numbers of said area code. Granted, i am U.S.'ian.

reply
upvoteby tamimio12 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
To add, ISED literally goes around in cars to scan for non registered BTS (or even non conforming ones) and report them, sometimes (or a lot of times) they catch false positives when the interference happens to be a strong LED lol. The gov uses the tech to ID individuals however, especially in group gatherings or around certain locations, always look around for big vans with no windows :), I either don’t take my phone or it’s always on airplane mode until I want to disable it briefly before activating it again.
reply
upvoteby 15 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
deleted
reply
upvoteby yieldcrv3 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
prosecutors have never seen them because the DA has never brought a case against the agencies that use them

so it’s an accurate statement

the government isn’t one thing, it’s people that don’t work for all agencies

reply
upvoteby hluska5 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
The claim was that this was the first time that a device like this has been used in fraud but go ahead, misread things and become outraged. I’m sure that in this case the fraudsters properly forwarded all 911 calls so no harm, no foul hey?
reply
upvoteby panny15 hours ago|
prev|
[-]
A government backdoor was found and abused by criminals? No one could have predicted this! :)
reply
upvoteby QuantumNomad_15 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
Isn’t it less of a government backdoor and more of a result of generally old and insecure protocols still being in use for telecom?

Like, the phones happily connect to these fake towers because the signal is strongest from that one and there is no authentication to verify who the tower belongs to, nor encryption of SMSes?

reply
upvoteby Affric8 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
Well said but by the time mobile phone towers were built we had been tapping phone lines for a long time. Hard to not think that to an extent default insecurity for telecoms was a choice.
reply
upvoteby sitharus7 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
When it was developed it was assumed that the cost of cellular equipment and, in some countries, the regulatory hurdles required to get authorisation to purchase radio transmitters that operate on licensed bands would make it almost impossible to do this.

I worked in a company that had a base station emulator in their testing lab in 2008. I can’t recall the cost but it was well over $10,000 and only worked with direct antenna coupling, it couldn’t broadcast.

Now we have software defined radios.

reply
upvoteby Nasrudith1 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
Do you honestly believe that teleco companies wouldn't receive government backlash about 'the children' if they were to implement an actually secure standard?
reply
upvoteby Jolter15 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
It’s not exactly a back door. It’s a fake radio cell, mimicking your network provider and acting like a man in the middle. In that sense, it’s like a stingray. The differences are

1. The Stingray eavesdrops, but avoids interfering with user traffic

2. The stingray is operated by law enforcement, not by fraudsters looking to steal your money

reply
upvoteby AngryData13 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
In mamy parts of the US, the cops are the fraudsters looking to steal your money. So it isn't that much of a difference.
reply
upvoteby Cider998610 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Ban civil asset forfeiture!
reply