Computer Crimes, Hacking How do you prove invasion of privacy (by cell phone hacking)?

[law123123123]

Jurisdiction

New York

I have a question about a situation in which the victim has multiple people talking about things (personal information and phrases) which they mentioned on their personal cell phone. They are also concerned about people following them based on businesses, restaurants, et cetera which they research on that cell phone.

1) Has anyone ever encountered a case involving cell phone hacking of that nature? (The victim has been told that her cell phone, an iPhone, is not really "hackable"--except by the FBI as we know from this recent story: http://money.cnn.com...san-bernardino/ )

2) How has anyone handled gathering evidence to present to the police in cases which simply involve the hacker(s) repeating personal information to the victim in public?

Thanks for any details and feel free to use legal jargon as I myself am a JD!

 

[Highwayman]

You're not very clear about whose phones are involved in what when you started talking about "multiple people".

Research on "that" cell phone? I use my phone to research things all the time - that's what a smart phone is, no?

You have no idea what's really going on - email, texts between people, etc.

Everything is "hackable".

 

[army judge]

I have a question about a situation in which the victim has multiple people talking about things (personal information and phrases) which they mentioned on their personal cell phone. They are also concerned about people following them based on businesses, restaurants, et cetera which they research on that cell phone.

1) Has anyone ever encountered a case involving cell phone hacking of that nature? (The victim has been told that her cell phone, an iPhone, is not really "hackable"--except by the FBI as we know from this recent story: http://money.cnn.com...san-bernardino/ )

2) How has anyone handled gathering evidence to present to the police in cases which simply involve the hacker(s) repeating personal information to the victim in public?

Thanks for any details and feel free to use legal jargon as I myself am a JD!

Smartphones don't need to be physically hacked, counselor.
You can simply eavesdrop on the many transactions any device makes.

I've been involved in several of these cases at the federal, state, and military level.

Had some cases dismissed prior to trial.
Dismissed a few more, and obtained convictions on others.

I've defended criminal targets, prosecuted same, and sat on the state bench and military bench in others.

I'll try to help if you provide a few more facts about the case.

Is your guy a criminal defendant in a federal or state case?

Here are some articles:

http://gizmodo.com/fbi-says-it-doesnt-need-a-warrant-to-listen-in-on-phone-1677609130


FBI taps cell phone mic as eavesdropping tool

Can you hear me now? Feds admit FBI warrantless cellphone tracking 'very common'

The SINGLE Most Important Step to Protect Yourself from Government Spying

 

[cbg]

I believe the poster is referring to a "gang stalking" situation where the alleged stalkers are, he believes, listening in on his cell phone calls and following him around based on their alleged tracking his cell phone.

 

[law123123123]

Smartphones don't need to be physically hacked, counselor.
You can simply eavesdrop on the many transactions any device makes.

I've been involved in several of these cases at the federal, state, and military level.

Had some cases dismissed prior to trial.
Dismissed a few more, and obtained convictions on others.

I've defended criminal targets, prosecuted same, and sat on the state bench and military bench in others.

I'll try to help if you provide a few more facts about the case.

Is your guy a criminal defendant in a federal or state case?

Here are some articles:

http://gizmodo.com/fbi-says-it-doesnt-need-a-warrant-to-listen-in-on-phone-1677609130


FBI taps cell phone mic as eavesdropping tool

Can you hear me now? Feds admit FBI warrantless cellphone tracking 'very common'

The SINGLE Most Important Step to Protect Yourself from Government Spying

Thank you, army judge.

The victim is not a criminal defendant in a federal or state case. They suspect that this is just malicious. The fact that it has been going on for more than a year now seems to suggest that it is not law enforcement acting legally (i.e., in the process of building an actual case), since law enforcement could likely build a solid case against a single defendant in a much shorter time period.

In your cases which obtained convictions, how were you able to prove that the eavesdropper was in possession of the personal information taken from the victim's device? Were you able to get confessions from the eavesdroppers, or did you have to go through some process of discovery (i.e., searching the eavesdropper's property for evidence of spying)?

Since the victim is not a criminal defendant, who do you think the likely perpetrator would be? It sounds like, from what you are saying and from the articles you listed, that someone who hacks a cell phone in this way would most likely be law enforcement using spying technology illegally. Based on your experience in similar cases, do you think that law enforcement would be the most likely perpetrator? Are there any cases of malicious use of the spying technology by law enforcement?

Thanks!

 

[army judge]

Thank you, army judge.

In your cases which obtained convictions, how were you able to prove that the eavesdropper was in possession of the personal information taken from the victim's device?

In one case, counter-surveillance methods were used, along with a FISA warrant issued from a FISA court.


Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court | United States

In some drug trafficking cases, it can take upwards of 18 months to build certain cases. Now, most cases aren't that involved.

The most complicated cases involve terrorism and/or espionage.

Were you able to get confessions from the eavesdroppers, or did you have to go through some process of discovery (i.e., searching the eavesdropper's property for evidence of spying)?

No confessions were obtained.
It took investigations, obtaining evidence, using warrants, etc...
A couple of smaller players rolled over and cooperated to make it easier on themselves.

Since the victim is not a criminal defendant, who do you think the likely perpetrator would be?

I've never seen law enforcement violate the trust of the people in these cases. If anything, they've scrupulously obeyed the law.

Your case seems to be a private person invading another private person's space. I've heard about private investigators doing that in potential divorce actions, as well as boyfriend/girlfriend spies in romantic relationships. I've also heard about it in celebrity and private person stalker cases.

It sounds like, from what you are saying and from the articles you listed, that someone who hacks a cell phone in this way would most likely be law enforcement using spying technology illegally.

I doubt it.
It very often is a stalker.
It can also be imaginary, or someone suffering from mental illness.

Based on your experience in similar cases, do you think that law enforcement would be the most likely perpetrator? Are there any cases of malicious use of the spying technology by law enforcement?

Thanks!

Law enforcement doesn't waste their time or their technology spying on the citizenry.

Some people say agencies such as the CIA, NSA do that.
Say hogwash to that.

I've only heard of one case involving law enforcement by violating their oath.
It was a stalking case of a cop, spying on his mistress.

 

[law123123123]

In one case, counter-surveillance methods were used, along with a FISA warrant issued from a FISA court.


Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court | United States

In some drug trafficking cases, it can take upwards of 18 months to build certain cases. Now, most cases aren't that involved.

The most complicated cases involve terrorism and/or espionage.









No confessions were obtained.
It took investigations, obtaining evidence, using warrants, etc...
A couple of smaller players rolled over and cooperated to make it easier on themselves.




I've never seen law enforcement violate the trust of the people in these cases. If anything, they've scrupulously obeyed the law.

Your case seems to be a private person invading another private person's space. I've heard about private investigators doing that in potential divorce actions, as well as boyfriend/girlfriend spies in romantic relationships. I've also heard about it in celebrity and private person stalker cases.




I doubt it.
It very often is a stalker.
It can also be imaginary, or someone suffering from mental illness.




Law enforcement doesn't waste their time or their technology spying on the citizenry.

Some people say agencies such as the CIA, NSA do that.
Say hogwash to that.

I've only heard of one case involving law enforcement by violating their oath.
It was a stalking case of a cop, spying on his mistress.

Thanks, army judge, for going through all of those options in such detail. It is helpful!

Based on what you're saying, it seems like the victim either has a very persistent stalker or that she has been suspected of some sort of espionage.

As far as a possible espionage case, the victim did work for the government for short periods of time (internships and volunteer work) and they have done somewhat significant travel abroad which, I suppose, could have raised suspicions. On the other hand, the victim shouldn't be under FISA jurisdiction because they were born a U.S. citizen (someone probably unlikely to be considered a "foreign agent"). Also, it seems unlikely that government investigators working on a legitimate case would be so careless as to drop hints that they are spying on the victim by mentioning private details from her on-line activities.

If there were espionage suspicions and a FISA warrant, do you know how the "suspected spy" could communicate to the government that they are not, in fact, a spy and that they would like any surveillance to stop? Is that even possible since FISC operates secretly?

FISA might have had jurisdiction here if their father, an engineer who was born outside of the U.S., was the actual target of the surveillance. When there is an espionage warrant on a parent, have you heard of other family members being watched and suspected as well?

If it is just a stalker, the most likely candidates for the main perpetrator would be family members (father or uncle), former classmates, and former co-workers. In that case, I would have to look at which one of them would have access to a sophisticated private investigator or law enforcement tools. I'll also look for public details on espionage cases to see if the scenario at hand matches any of them.

 

[army judge]

Thanks, army judge, for going through all of those options in such detail. It is helpful!

Based on what you're saying, it seems like the victim either has a very persistent stalker or that she has been suspected of some sort of espionage.

It could be a stalker; a bit of undigested mutton, as suggested my Ebenezer Scrooge; or a psychotic break or delusion.

The latter I often call "the boogeyman under the bed from childhood" unexplained fear.

As far as a possible espionage case, the victim did work for the government for short periods of time (internships and volunteer work) and they have done somewhat significant travel abroad which, I suppose, could have raised suspicions. On the other hand, the victim shouldn't be under FISA jurisdiction because they were born a U.S. citizen (someone probably unlikely to be considered a "foreign agent"). Also, it seems unlikely that government investigators working on a legitimate case would be so careless as to drop hints that they are spying on the victim by mentioning private details from her on-line activities.

No, the shadowy men and omen involved in FISA operations are known only to a few.
Their public persona appears in the form of a near human, AUSA.

If there were espionage suspicions and a FISA warrant, do you know how the "suspected spy" could communicate to the government that they are not, in fact, a spy and that they would like any surveillance to stop? Is that even possible since FISC operates secretly?

LOL

A FISA target, or DEA target wouldn't be believed if they approached a government agent to deny any wrongdoing.

Besides, any 1L knows not to advise your client to speak to the authorities, much less to offer a general denial.

Besides, "Now comes the plaintiff in the above captioned cause denying each and every charge in the plaintiff's pleading.", such language is simply pro forma in a civil action and of no probative value in a criminal investigation.

FISA might have had jurisdiction here if their father, an engineer who was born outside of the U.S., was the actual target of the surveillance. When there is an espionage warrant on a parent, have you heard of other family members being watched and suspected as well?

Don't assume that FISA operates as is described on their website.
However, if this behavior was the result of shadowy operatives acting under color of FISA authority, it would not be readily known to your client.




If it is just a stalker, the most likely candidates for the main perpetrator would be family members (father or uncle), former classmates, and former co-workers. In that case, I would have to look at which one of them would have access to a sophisticated private investigator or law enforcement tools. I'll also look for public details on espionage cases to see if the scenario at hand matches any of them.[/QUOTE]

 

[law123123123]

Okay, thanks, army judge. It's helpful to have those additional details on who the involved parties would likely be. If the stalker is having a psychotic break or is having a delusion about the victim, then I suppose that it is only a matter of time before they come forward to state what their precise "issue" with the victim is.

 

[army judge]

Okay, thanks, army judge. It's helpful to have those additional details on who the involved parties would likely be. If the stalker is having a psychotic break or is having a delusion about the victim, then I suppose that it is only a matter of time before they come forward to state what their precise "issue" with the victim is.

What proof do you have that any of this is actually occurring, rather than being imagined?

The shadowy figures that do this work, identifying criminal behavior or terrorist behavior, aren't stupid. They take great pride in their craft. They have no interest in snooping or prying into he inane babbling, silly hi-jinks, and antics of those inclined to enjoy various sexual activities.

I've never known of one case of this alleged stalking or hacking behavior perpetrated by any US government agency.

 

[law123123123]

What proof do you have that any of this is actually occurring, rather than being imagined?

The shadowy figures that do this work, identifying criminal behavior or terrorist behavior, aren't stupid. They take great pride in their craft. They have no interest in snooping or prying into he inane babbling, silly hi-jinks, and antics of those inclined to enjoy various sexual activities.

I've never known of one case of this alleged stalking or hacking behavior perpetrated by any US government agency.

Okay, then that probably narrows it down to family members, former classmates, and former co-workers.

The only proof of the hacking is in the similarities between the victim's internet activities and subsequent statements by people who know the victim (Those people fall into the categories of possible perpetrators listed above). Other than that, there is evidence of possibly-related stalking/harrassment in the form of a few break-ins (of sorts) at the victim's apartment in which the perpetrator took nothing but left odd items in the apartment.

I may tell the victim that the best way to get proof would be to show that people are repeating personal things in documented, written form (like in e-mails) which are also in the record of the victim's internet activities. That would establish a repeated pattern of behavior that may be suspicious enough to show to police, but I would still caution the victim about trying to go forward with that. (It is a shame that the victim does not live in a state like CA where one can legally record someone's voice without permission. If that was the case, I would advise them to record the people whom they believe are repeating the personal information.)

The victim seems to think that this is an effort on the part of someone to make them "seem crazy". So, they do not want to present any evidence before they have the right evidence.

I will just tell them to wait for now. Thanks.

 

[army judge]

If burglaries are being committed, why not suggest she install a home security system, replete with hidden cameras?

Between the cameras capturing the culprit's likeness, and the alarm alerting authorities, she might be able to identify the rat.