Edward Snowden BBC interview: 'Smartphones can be taken over'

[Bill Ryan]

.
From http://bbc.com/news/uk-34444233, today:

Edward Snowden interview:
'Smartphones can be taken over'


Smartphone users can do "very little" to stop security services getting "total control" over their devices, US whistleblower Edward Snowden has said.

The former intelligence contractor told the BBC's Panorama that UK intelligence agency GCHQ had the power to hack into phones without their owners' knowledge.

Mr Snowden said GCHQ could gain access to a handset by sending it an encrypted text message and use it for such things as taking pictures and listening in.

The UK government declined to comment.

Mr Snowden spoke to Panorama in Moscow, where he fled in 2013 after leaking to the media details of extensive internet and phone surveillance by his former employer, the US National Security Agency (NSA).

He did not suggest that either GCHQ or the NSA were interested in mass-monitoring of citizens' private communications but said both agencies had invested heavily in technology allowing them to hack smartphones. "They want to own your phone instead of you," he said.
Mr Snowden talked about GCHQ's "Smurf Suite", a collection of secret intercept capabilities individually named after the little blue imps of Belgian cartoon fame.

"Dreamy Smurf is the power management tool which means turning your phone on and off with you knowing," he said.

"Nosey Smurf is the 'hot mic' tool. For example if it's in your pocket, [GCHQ] can turn the microphone on and listen to everything that's going on around you - even if your phone is switched off because they've got the other tools for turning it on.

"Tracker Smurf is a geo-location tool which allows [GCHQ] to follow you with a greater precision than you would get from the typical triangulation of cellphone towers."

Mr Snowden also referred to a tool known as Paronoid Smurf.

"It's a self-protection tool that's used to armour [GCHQ's] manipulation of your phone. For example, if you wanted to take the phone in to get it serviced because you saw something strange going on or you suspected something was wrong, it makes it much more difficult for any technician to realise that anything's gone amiss."

Once GCHQ had gained access to a user's handset, Mr Snowden said the agency would be able to see "who you call, what you've texted, the things you've browsed, the list of your contacts, the places you've been, the wireless networks that your phone is associated with.
"And they can do much more. They can photograph you".

Mr Snowden also explained that the SMS message sent by the agency to gain access to the phone would pass unnoticed by the handset's owner.

"It's called an 'exploit'," he said. "That's a specially crafted message that's texted to your number like any other text message but when it arrives at your phone it's hidden from you. It doesn't display. You paid for it [the phone] but whoever controls the software owns the phone."

Describing the relationship between GCHQ and its US counterpart, he said: "GCHQ is to all intents and purposes a subsidiary of the NSA.

"They [the NSA] provide technology, they provide tasking and direction as to what they [GCHQ] should go after."

The NSA is understood to have a similar programme to the Smurf Suite used by GCHQ on which it is reported to have spent $1bn in response to terrorists' increasing use of smartphones.

Mr Snowden said the agencies were targeting those suspected of involvement in terrorism or other serious crimes such as paedophilia "but to find out who those targets are they've got to collect mass data".

"They say, and in many cases this is true, that they're not going to read your email, for example, but they can and if they did you would never know," he said.

In a statement, a spokesperson for the UK government said: "It is long-standing policy that we do not comment on intelligence matters.

"All of GCHQ's work is carried out in accordance with a strict legal and policy framework, which ensures that our activities are authorised, necessary and proportionate, and that there is rigorous oversight, including from the secretary of state, the interception and intelligence services commissioners and the Parliamentary Intelligence and Security Committee. All our operational processes rigorously support this position."

The government believes Mr Snowden has caused great damage to the intelligence agencies' ability to counter threats to national security.

Mr Snowden maintains he has acted in the public interest on the grounds that the surveillance activities revealed in the thousands of documents he leaked are carried out - in his words - "without our knowledge, without our consent and without any sort of democratic participation".

[sandy]

Not sure of the agenda of the BBC and Snowden in airing this on public media??? Is it be afraid, being very afraid!!

[Cidersomerset]

Edward Snowden interview: 'Smartphones can be taken over'

By Peter Taylor
BBC News
1 hour ago.... From the section UK



Smartphone users can do "very little" to stop security services getting "total
control" over their devices, US whistleblower Edward Snowden has said.

The former intelligence contractor told the BBC's Panorama that UK intelligence
agency GCHQ had the power to hack into phones without their owners' knowledge.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b06h7j3b

Mr Snowden said GCHQ could gain access to a handset by sending it an encrypted
text message and use it for such things as taking pictures and listening in.

The UK government declined to comment.

Read More.....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34444233

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: Edward Snowden: the whistleblower behind the NSA surveillance revelations


https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...=1#post1006689

====================================================
====================================================


' NOSEY SMURF '....

Edward Snowden interview: 'Smartphones can be taken over'

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=Ng_dBm73FfA

Published on 5 Oct 2015

Smartphone users can do "very little" to stop security services getting "total
control" over their devices, US whistleblower Edward Snowden has said.
The former intelligence contractor told the BBC's Panorama that UK intelligence
agency GCHQ had the power to hack into phones without their owners' knowledge.
Mr Snowden said GCHQ could gain access to a handset by sending it an encrypted
text message and use it for such things as taking pictures and listening in.
The UK government declined to comment.

'Nosey Smurf'
Mr Snowden spoke to Panorama in Moscow, where he fled in 2013 after leaking to
the media details of extensive internet and phone surveillance by his former
employer, the US National Security Agency (NSA).

He did not suggest that either GCHQ or the NSA were interested in mass-
monitoring of citizens' private communications but said both agencies had invested
heavily in technology allowing them to hack smartphones. "They want to own your
phone instead of you," he said.

[Cardillac]

anything anymore can be intercepted and taken over/controlled; even before we had home PCs personal data privacy/security was a joke; a former friend of mine here in Germany who worked for the welfare dept. in a large city in the Ruhr area looong before we had home PCs told me because of his job he could find out anything about anybody at any time; I don't want to bore anyone with the details but I was simply curious about the owner of a certain car (it's a long involved story) and after giving him the liscence plate nr. the next day he gave me the name/address/tel. nr. of the owner- and that was way back in 1996-

be well all-

Larry

[Gaia]

Same Old/New from Snowden... But still very accurate!

http://www.propublica.org/article/sp...-personal-data

[Cidersomerset]

Not sure of the agenda of the BBC and Snowden in airing this on public
media??? Is it be afraid, being very afraid!!

Nothing to be afraid of Sandy, Knowledge is power and something the elite
have known for millennia, hence 'illuminati' which is only the enlightened ones .
Now we have access to knowledge we can all have power to a degree. The BBC
have done some excellent docs in the past and also some not so good . The
BBC is still an organ of government propaganda at times. It will be interesting to
hear Snowdens reaction to the programme.

[Bill Ryan]

Posted by sandy (here)
Not sure of the agenda of the BBC and Snowden in airing this on public media??? Is it be afraid, being very afraid!!

I think this is a good thing. BBC's Panorama is the UK equivalent of 60 Minutes on CBS... very high profile, with heavyweight, serious reporting.

[Gaia]

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)

Posted by sandy (here)
Not sure of the agenda of the BBC and Snowden in airing this on public media??? Is it be afraid, being very afraid!!

I think this is a good thing. BBC's Panorama is the UK equivalent of 60 Minutes on CBS... very high profile, with heavyweight, serious reporting.

I think the world in unaware of what going on right now! Yes indeed, it's a good thing that Snowden pass his message during prime time tv.

[greybeard]

I watched the program tonight and it was I think fairly presented.
Snowdon came across as credible and I believe that he did what he did for the right reasons.

Chris

[Cidersomerset]

I watched the program tonight and it was I think fairly presented.
Snowdon came across as credible and I believe that he did what he did for the right reasons.

Chris

My thoughts as well Chris , it certainly was not a 'hit piece' imo either......

[Gaia]

Posted by Cidersomerset (here)

I watched the program tonight and it was I think fairly presented.
Snowdon came across as credible and I believe that he did what he did for the right reasons.

Chris

My thoughts as well Chris , it certainly was not a 'hit piece' imo either......

Snowden gave a ''hit piece'' last February at Upper Canada College

[Carmody]

This is why I have a cheap phone, that is never left plugged in and charging, as that is a recipe for snooping, as any power loss is not noticed.

I don't give out my cell number and I don't really carry the phone with me.

It also has the ability to have the battery removed, easily and quickly, and repeatedly, without suffering damage (easy to remove back cover which can last for very many removal/closure cycles)

When i do use the phone, I use it very simply, and then remove the battery again.

I don't live on my cell phone, I barely touch the damn thing.

[Adi]

The information that Snowden has stated, comes as no shock or surprise to me. It seems increasingly factual that the technology exists, which is far more superior in comparison to smart phone hacking, according to various testimony etc, that can monitor and analyze your movements 24/7 and to a very high degree, if the need be. I imagine that the agencies or whom ever is at the controls of such technology, are very capable and proficient at carrying out such tasks to a high level of precision.

Snowdens information has of course been eye opening for many people and one would assume that it carries with it a high level of value and progressiveness, in the search for truth and clarity.


Adi

[Selene]

Heck, Carmody, all of the above is the reason I don't have a cell phone at all. Strange, but true.

This confuses "them" as I travel extensively around the world, or around my own neighborhood.... deliberately, on my part. Frock 'em if they can't take a joke. I can still function perfectly without being attached to a tether.

Silence is wonderful.

Cheers

Selene

[sandy]

I don't have a cell phone either Selene so you are not alone .

My concern in the end is social engineering. One tends to watch their P's and Q's more and obfuscate the truth for political correctness when someone is watching and listening to every word and action. Fear makes one tow the line .........

I do see the value in the knowledge of the surveillance levels we are under and with that a possibility that a few more fellow Beings awaken after seeing one of these types of informative programs.

[Michelle Marie]

Posted by Carmody (here)
This is why I have a cheap phone, that is never left plugged in and charging, as that is a recipe for snooping, as any power loss is not noticed.

I don't give out my cell number and I don't really carry the phone with me.

It also has the ability to have the battery removed, easily and quickly, and repeatedly, without suffering damage (easy to remove back cover which can last for very many removal/closure cycles)

When i do use the phone, I use it very simply, and then remove the battery again.

I don't live on my cell phone, I barely touch the damn thing.

That's a good idea...taking the battery out when not in use. I have a dumb phone and I don't do text. I don't have cell service where I live. Great sharing! Thanks!

Loads of love,
Michelle Marie

[Elainie]

I don't own a cell either~ no thank you.

[Citizen No2]

Removing the battery is pointless as a security measure.

A wireless signal can be beamed to your phone to power it if the battery is either flat or removed. If you are so minded, you need to remove the battery and the chip when not in use. The older, non-net-connectable phones, are a safer bet if you have security on your mind. These can be cell-sited to within 500 mtrs of the nearest tower......... so puts you in an approximate area. It is when all the other meta-data is added to the picture, i.e. cctv footage, bank cards, travel cards, etc, etc, that the observer builds a full suite of information on your movements, contacts and purchases. The meta-facts.

And as we all should know, meta-facts can be used to support whatever scenario suits the observer.



Regards.

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by Citizen No2 (here)
Removing the battery is pointless as a security measure.

A wireless signal can be beamed to your phone to power it if the battery is either flat or removed.

The existence of wireless power source technology does not necessarily mean to me that that technology is in the typical smart phone, and covertly usable, on a large scale.

Your statement that removing the battery is pointless suggests to me that you claiming that such wireless power technology is so ubiquitous that pretty much all smart phones can be and in practice are currently being tracked the same whether the battery is installed or not. That would surprise me ... do you have evidence that such is the case, and if so, can you share that evidence with us ?

[Citizen No2]

Hi Paul,

yes I do have evidence, both personal and anecdotal.

In Mark Bowden's book, Killing Pablo, there is an interesting paragraph regarding the CIA/DEA and a portable piece of equipment that was placed in a Cessena aircraft and flown above Medellin. This piece of equipment was able to power up a mobile phone that had either it's battery removed, or was switched off, and used the phone as a microphone. This was in 1992.

I won't delve too much into my personal experience, suffice to say, I have seen what is termed a 'spider-web', i.e. all the surveillance data printed out and linked together, like you see in films, and pinned to a board. Then there was the 'phone forensics'....... which I still have. Bundles and bundles of printed out phone conversations and text messages. One point of interest. Your text messages can only be retrieved up to three months prior........

Until that spot-light is focussed on you, you don't really have an idea of how pervasive surveillance can be. I bet most of you would like to think that if you were under surveillance you would catch on to it, be able to give them the slip........ not so.

Regards.


To add:

There is also the case of 'the spy-in-the-bag', Gareth Edwards. I have mentioned this several times, and I am sorry that I can add no proof, but.......... one of the projects he was working on was a piece of tech, small enough to carry, that could completely take over your phone and suck all data out of it, without the use of a wireless network or signal. Just think about the switch from analogue to digital and why there was such a push for this......... our signals now fly through the air, to be intercepted by whoever has the means, and the means are cheap. In the analogue days you had to physically place a tap on a cable......... not now. The modern day smart phone is one step away from a direct-plant microchip.