[Full-disclosure] Clever crooks can foil wiretaps, security flaw in tap technology
dudevanwinkle at gmail.com
Wed Nov 30 20:12:41 GMT 2005
On 11/30/05, Andy Lindeman <alindeman at gmail.com> wrote:
> I think we're talking about legal wiretaps, e.g. a law enforcement
> agency with a court order. The problem is if you can easily fool the
> system, the evidence is possibly unreliable and/or tainted. However,
> even if you can temporarily "fool" the law enforcement agency in
> question, it's doubtful this would keep you out of trouble for long.
If law enforcement is involved in a wiretap, that means they dont have
enough evidence to convict you. Even if they do have enough evidence
to convict you, they have yet to do so, or you wouldn't be on the
phone. This means they are snooping on innocent civilians by providing
circumstantial evidence to a judge (or, since the "Provide Appropriate
Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism" act, they may not
even need a warrant)
Either way, this is a bad tangent to go off on. That was a great study
done, and shouldn't be trivialized by my ramblings.
Does anyone know of a C-Tone for GPS devices? ;-)
Full-Disclosure is hosted and sponsored by Secunia.