The FBI's Internal Guide For Getting Data From AT&T, T-Mobile, Verizon (vice.com) 10
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Motherboard: A newly obtained document written by the FBI lays out in unusually granular detail how it and other law enforcement agencies can obtain location information of phones from telecommunication companies. Ryan Shapiro, executive director of nonprofit organization Property of the People, shared the document with Motherboard after obtaining it through a public record act request. Property of the People focuses on obtaining and publishing government records. The document, a 139 page slide presentation dated 2019, is written by the FBI's Cellular Analysis Survey Team (CAST). CAST supports the FBI as well as state, local, and tribal law enforcement investigations through the analysis of call data and tower information, the presentation adds. That can include obtaining the data from telecommunications companies in the first place; analyzing tower dumps that can show which phones were in an approximate location at a given time; providing expert witness testimony; and performing drive tests to verify the actual coverage of a cell tower.
"When necessary, CAST will utilize industry standard survey gear drive test equipment to determine the true geographical coverage breadth of a cell site sector," the presentation reads. The presentation highlights the legal process required to obtain information from a telecommunications company, such as a court order or search warrant. The LinkedIn profile of one CAST member Motherboard found says they have a "special emphasis in historical cell site analysis which is typically used for locating phones (and the individuals attached to those phones) for cases such as kidnappings, homicides, missing persons, and robberies." CAST provides its own cell phone data visualization tool to law enforcement officials around the country called CASTViz for free. "CASTViz has the ability to quickly plot call detail records and tower data for lead generation and investigative purposes," the presentation reads. The document includes images of and instructions for the CASTViz software itself.
The document also explains how data requests from Mobile Virtual Network Operators (MVNOs) such as Boost Mobile are handled, explains how to obtain location data from what the FBI describes as "burner phones," and how to obtain information from OnStar, General Motors' in-vehicle system. The document also provides the cost of some of this data for law enforcement to request. The presentation provides more recent figures on how long telecoms retain data for. AT&T holds onto data such as call records, cell site, and tower dumps for 7 years. T-Mobile holds similar information for 2 years, and Verizon holds it for 1 year. The slide also shows that AT&T retains "cloud storage internet/web browsing" data for 1 year. Another section that provides an overview of the different engineering and location datasets held by telecoms and potentially available to law enforcement agencies tells officials to use some AT&T data "cautiously." "AT&T does not validate results," the presentation reads. That section also mentioned that Verizon has a "new" location tool that law enforcement agencies can use. Rich Young, a Verizon spokesperson, told Motherboard in an email that "This is a tool that our security team uses in response to lawful warrants and emergency requests. For example, this tool would be used in response to cases involving armed fugitives or missing children. As a common industry practice, the tool uses network-based cell site location information. All other major providers use a similar approach."
"When necessary, CAST will utilize industry standard survey gear drive test equipment to determine the true geographical coverage breadth of a cell site sector," the presentation reads. The presentation highlights the legal process required to obtain information from a telecommunications company, such as a court order or search warrant. The LinkedIn profile of one CAST member Motherboard found says they have a "special emphasis in historical cell site analysis which is typically used for locating phones (and the individuals attached to those phones) for cases such as kidnappings, homicides, missing persons, and robberies." CAST provides its own cell phone data visualization tool to law enforcement officials around the country called CASTViz for free. "CASTViz has the ability to quickly plot call detail records and tower data for lead generation and investigative purposes," the presentation reads. The document includes images of and instructions for the CASTViz software itself.
The document also explains how data requests from Mobile Virtual Network Operators (MVNOs) such as Boost Mobile are handled, explains how to obtain location data from what the FBI describes as "burner phones," and how to obtain information from OnStar, General Motors' in-vehicle system. The document also provides the cost of some of this data for law enforcement to request. The presentation provides more recent figures on how long telecoms retain data for. AT&T holds onto data such as call records, cell site, and tower dumps for 7 years. T-Mobile holds similar information for 2 years, and Verizon holds it for 1 year. The slide also shows that AT&T retains "cloud storage internet/web browsing" data for 1 year. Another section that provides an overview of the different engineering and location datasets held by telecoms and potentially available to law enforcement agencies tells officials to use some AT&T data "cautiously." "AT&T does not validate results," the presentation reads. That section also mentioned that Verizon has a "new" location tool that law enforcement agencies can use. Rich Young, a Verizon spokesperson, told Motherboard in an email that "This is a tool that our security team uses in response to lawful warrants and emergency requests. For example, this tool would be used in response to cases involving armed fugitives or missing children. As a common industry practice, the tool uses network-based cell site location information. All other major providers use a similar approach."
It's only metada (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What? Well, if you haven't done anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about, do you?
It's only for amber alerts and "serious criminals". Surely, there's just so much data there that they'd never bother using that data to track someone for other motives, would they? After all, my cellular carrier and car manufacturer state quite clearly that my privacy is important to them.
Big business supplying this data (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
"Ryan Shapiro, executive director of nonprofit organization Property of the People, shared the document with Motherboard after obtaining it through a public record act request."
Historical? (Score:4, Interesting)
special emphasis in historical cell site analysis
Maybe. But they have a real time feed as well. I listen to the local LE intelligence squad on my scanner from time to time. It's pretty evident that they are following people using cell phone location data.
"Subject is at such and such a location. Appears to be sitting in the parking lot."
"Maybe he left his phone in the car and went inside."
.. etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe. But they have a real time feed as well. I listen to the local LE intelligence squad on my scanner from time to time. It's pretty evident that they are following people using cell phone location data.
If they're targeting one person in realtime, it's more likely Stingrays [slashdot.org], which departments in a lot of jurisdictions are still deploying broadly for both targeted surveillance and fishing expeditions. Sure, you're maybe supposed to have a warrant, but that only matters if you want to use the data as evidence. For "lead generation," probably not so much.
I also wouldn't rule out the existence of a system where LE agencies can put a phone number on a list and get realtime tower ping updates. America seems t
Exactly as expected - so why an article? (Score:1)
OK, it's good that this seems to work as per the book. /. discussion?
But it's pretty boring.
I can understand that some media took this non-news anyway - but is it really worth a