Page 1 of 47
In September, hackers from a group called ShinyHunters announced that they stole a trove of FBI data about its own agents. It was an intelligence disaster.
Last week, the FBI arrested (alternate link) someone associated with that crime.
404Media is reporting (alternate link) that a cyber-weapons arms manufacturer is exploiting a vulnerability in iOS to bypass its automatic reboot security feature. This is the feature that automatically puts an iPhone into a more secure state if it hasn’t been used for 72 hours.
The new technology to get around inactivity reboot was developed by Magnet Forensics, the company behind GrayKey, a popular tool sold to law enforcement agencies that allows them to unlock and access data stored in iPhones and Android smartphones. Magnet has developed a new device called GrayKey Preserve and a feature for its regular GrayKey devices called Evidence Preservation Mode, according to the video.
“This is an absolute game changer for iOS forensics and a function that I wish we had years ago,” a Magnet employee says in the leaked video, specifically mentioning that the solution is targeted at the iPhone’s inactivity reboot feature and the data it makes unavailable. GrayKey Preserve and Evidence Preservation Mode are also designed to combat another iPhone feature that automatically deletes certain data - such as cached locations, and recently deleted photos and iMessages - after a certain number of days. “We’re gonna be able to preserve that data for an infinite amount of time.”
Presumably, now that Apple engineers know that this flaw exists they can find and fix it. AI turns out to be really good at this sort of thing.
Another news article.
Modern messaging apps allow users to link their phone accounts to their computer desktop. Eavesdroppers are taking advantage of this capability:
Apps such as WhatsApp Web and Signal Desktop allow people to use their accounts on other devices, such as laptops or desktop computers.
Germany’s Customs Office has been using these features to connect a police-controlled computer to a suspect’s account.
Once connected, messages can be delivered to that computer without the police having to crack the encryption protecting them.
Netzpoltik details that police are able to gain access in this way either through physical access to someone’s phone or by intercepting verification codes via a state-sanctioned phishing attack or intercepting SMS messages via telephone surveillance.
That last paragraph is important. Making this work requires user consent.
What we want is a feature that displays connected devices, so users could notice if a new device gets connected to their account.
A usage policy for Flock license plate reader cameras tells police not to talk about the cameras:
When cops use Flock to arrest someone in Wapello County, Iowa, they don’t want them to know. A usage policy for the automated license plate reader cameras in the county tells police, in no uncertain terms, to keep them a secret: “DO NOT MENTION ALPR USAGE TO THE OCCUPANTS OF THE VEHICLE,” the policy document reads. “DO NOT MENTION ALPR USAGE IN YOUR REPORT OR COMPLAINT UNLESS ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY.”
This reminds me of IMSI-catchers (Stingray was the most popular) a couple of decades ago. Police would go to even more extremes to hide their usage.
He’s being prosecuted for giving border officials a code that wiped his phone:
The case centers on a feature included in GrapheneOS, a custom Android operating system that runs in place of the software on most modern Google Pixel devices. Tunick’s attorneys confirmed GrapheneOS was running on his phone.
The software feature allows the device owner to set a passcode that deliberately wipes the contents of that device if entered instead of the user’s unlock passcode.
Tunick’s case also raises ongoing questions about what constitutional rights can be invoked at the border, which the U.S. government has long asserted is not U.S. soil until a person is authorized to enter.
Right. And he wasn’t under arrest, either.
Graphene says that the feature is “completely legal“:
GrapheneOS is completely legal. We have no obligation to weaken any of the security protections it provides. Creating and using GrapheneOS is strongly protected by the US constitution. Laws attempting to make it illegal or require weakening the security would be unconstitutional.
It’s hard to know how much the Constitution matters in the US right now.
Governments are switching, but I’m not sure it makes a difference:
…some municipalities, including Denver, Colorado, are ditching their Flock arrays. But keep in mind that if they’re only switching from Flock to another brand of license-plate readers, like Axon, it’s like a gambling addict trying to kick the habit by switching from FanDuel to DraftKings.
[…]
Despite what you may read on the Flock website, Axon cameras are pretty effective when it comes to hoovering up personal details that can go far beyond your license plate numbers. That means a municipality that opts for Axon cameras instead of Flock units won’t necessarily reduce the amount privacy its citizens lose through their use.
Yet another Israeli mass surveillance company:
Made by Israeli surveillance company Cognyte, the tech simulates a mobile phone tower, which forces nearby phones to connect to it. That enables cops to keep tabs on any phones in the vicinity whether they’re owned by a suspect in a case or not. Cognyte’s contract with the state of Texas reveals that the simulator, called FalcoNet, can be concealed within the vehicles, hidden in a backpack for on-foot missions or attached to a helicopter. It’s the same technology as the infamous Stingray, one of the original cell-site simulators made by defense giant L3Harris.
New paper: “Encryption and Globalization 15 Years Later: End-to-End Encryption and the Third Round of the ‘Going Dark’ Debate“:
Abstract: This Article updates and expands on 2012 research on encryption and globalization, analyzing what the authors call “Round 3” of the Going Dark Debate: the current controversies over end-to-end encryption (E2EE). Governments around the world have proposed, and in some cases enacted, laws limiting E2EE for law enforcement and national security purposes.
This Article explains the underlying technologies and market developments for a law and policy audience to assess those proposals critically. The Article proceeds in three parts tracking three rounds of the Going Dark Debate. Round 1 covers the Crypto Wars of the 1990s, when U.S. export controls on strong encryption ultimately fell in 1999. Round 2 covers the period roughly 2010 to 2015, when encryption-in-transit became widespread but lawful access remained available through cloud providers, giving rise to what the authors called a “golden age of surveillance” rather than a period of going dark. Round 3 addresses the current debate over E2EE, where no entity between sender and recipient can read the plaintext.
The Article’s first major contribution is identifying five technically distinct scenarios for how E2EE operates in practice, each with different implications for lawful access. These scenarios reveal a substantial gap between the assumption that E2EE categorically blocks lawful access and the reality of how communications are sent and received. Second, the Article shows that E2EE is not limited to messaging; instead, it is embedded throughout the modern technology stack, including in Transport Layer Security, Secure Shell, Virtual Private Networks, and Zero Trust Architecture, the last of which is now legally required under U.S. and EU law. Any law broadly limiting E2EE would thus have severe serious consequences for cybersecurity, commerce, and government operations. The Article concludes that the two key lessons from Round 2—the least trusted country problem and the golden age of surveillance—remain true in Round 3, and that new government claims for restricting effective encryption deserve great skepticism.
A recent story of a writer who was mistakenly identified, tracked, and arrested using data from Flock cameras has gone viral.
The New Jersey plates that were allegedly stolen from the LA dealer were 34 03 DTM, not 34 10 DTM. But when the police report was created and the plate was entered into Flock’s system, it was just recorded as 34 DTM. Just the five large characters, no little number in the middle. And Flock’s AI tech wasn’t registering that non-standard little number when it began picking up the Range Rover around town. It just saw 34 DTM in large type and started alerting the local police.
As we all stood there shaking our heads, including my wife, who was finally allowed to join me, I connected the final dot. A lot of vehicles in JLR’s media fleet have a New Jersey manufacturer plate with the same alphanumeric structure34 ## DTMand Officer Ganshyn observed that meant it was now a nationwide issue. Anywhere a police department has a partnership with Flock, any other JLR-owned car with the same plate structure is going to get flagged as stolen. In fact, four other 34 ## DTM cars were being tracked around Minnesota that week, according to Officer Ganshyn. I was just the first one to get nabbed. The only way to stop it would be for the LAPD to correct their initial report and update Flock’s system, which Jaguar Land Rover was now racing to make happen following the phone call.
Flock has responded to the bad press. First, they affirmed that their systems were working correctly, and blamed the police:
The obvious question was that Flock cameras were looking for 34 DTM, and the plate on the car I was driving was 34 10 DTM. Why was that flagged as a match?
“The way that the ML [machine learning] works is it correctly read what it was supposed to read. It was fed those characters that you said, 34 DTM, and it spit back out [a result] with the characters, 34 DTM,” Thomas said. “It was asked, can you find this? And it did find that. It just didn’t say if there’s more here, then don’t do it. It just simply said, is it there? And the answer was yes.”
He explained that even if the 10 was normal size, Flock would still have flagged it as a match, because that’s how they’ve set it up according to law enforcement’s requests. Sometimes partial plates are all they have to go on at first.
“The way that law enforcement likes to use these tools is, if any of the characters that they have put into these hot lists get read, they want to get those alerts,” he said. “Now, what we try to train officers to do is to do what you said, which is to verify that 34 DTM is what I’m looking for, and what I’m seeing is 34 10 DTM.”
Second, Flock’s CEO has apologized for calling privacy advocates terrorists:
The CEO of Flock Safety, the company that runs an enormous network of cameras used by police departments across the U.S., hasn’t been shy about taking on Flock’s critics. Last year, he even called one group that tracks the location of Flock cameras “terrorists.” But he’s had a change of heart. Or, at the very least, a change in PR strategy.
Meanwhile, the police are using (alternate source) the Flock camera network to track people in addition to cars:
Police departments around the country have used Flock cameras at least hundreds of times to search for specific people, not cars, using searches such as “heavy-set male with a black and white hat,” “person on skateboard,” and “person wearing orange vest and construction hat,” according to data reviewed by 404 Media. Sometimes searches reference a target’s race or signs of their political affiliation.
And, like all police surveillance technologies, there are abuses.
EDITED TO ADD ( 7/30): Three more articles about Flock from that first author.
It’s a demonstration of how toxic the surveillance-tech company Flock has become when Amazon’s Ring cancels the partnership between the two companies.
As Hamilton Nolan advises, remove your Ring doorbell.
Sidebar photo of Bruce Schneier by Joe MacInnis.