Arrest of hundreds of Australians in what’s been dubbed the “sting of the century”

a reply to: Nyiah

Nah its not entrapment.

Thats tricking someone into committing a crime.

a reply to: BrokenCircles

Interesting technicality you point out there.

I wonder how they were determined to be 'illegal'?

In other words, what was it that made the phones illegal, and how would someone know if they were purchasing an "illegal" phone?

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

No that's just it: They didn't actually purchase them. Or if they did pay for the phones, they just got them from some guy. (An undercover agent who they thought was another criminal who just happened to know where to get some cool phones)

At least that's how I take it anyways, but I could be wrong.... As far as I can tell from the articles, undercover agents distributed the phones to some of the crime bosses, who then really liked them, and shared them with their 'people'.

The FBI .... covertly distributed devices with the chat app among the criminal underworld via informants.

"You had to know a criminal to get hold of one of these customised phones. The phones couldn't ring or email. You could only communicate with someone on the same platform,"

www.bbc.com...

Maybe the F.B.I. gave them to the informants, and then possibly the informants accepted money for the phones, but from the F.B.I.s standpoint, they just gave them away, and the criminals used them.

a reply to: BrokenCircles

All 'covertly distributed' means is not through normal channels. They could have had CI's do this or released them in a manner in which they knew they'd be acquired by the criminals.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Which means they didn't legally purchase the phones, right?

If they didn't legally purchase the phones, then the F.B.I. didn't illegally listen to them. right?

Maybe I'm taking it wrong, but I think it was a pretty ingenious move, and funny as hell. lol


ETA: I bet they didn't get a receipt.

I think this originated in Australia whose rules on securing warrant protocols are far more open and less protective than the U.S a reply to: Randyvine

It is also here in the Daily BM.
www.dailymail.co.uk... a reply to: EdisonintheFM

originally posted by: BrokenCircles
Which means they didn't legally purchase the phones, right?

If they didn't legally purchase the phones, then the F.B.I. didn't illegally listen to them. right?

It's starting to sound like it really didn't matter due to differences in the law there.

a reply to: BrokenCircles

I bet there were also some nice surprises about who is who, that conveniently had to be overlooked...

This reminds me of the old RIM BlackBerry phones and their proprietary messaging service. It was encrypted and only allowed between BB devices until 2013 when they made the app available to Android users.

The big stink back in 2010 was that the Indian government threatened to ban BlackBerry devices because they couldn't read the encrypted communications... then RIM caved in and gave them access.

www.theguardian.com...

Disinformation overload.
Feed the Beast until its belly bursts.
That's all I've got to say about that.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

That's the trick they use to legally spy on you, we spy your citizens, and you spy ours.
Your rights have not been violated by your government, and they don't apply to other governments.
*désolé

These slippery criminals avoiding ECHELON, we had to do something...

a reply to: bellagirl

So let's be honest here, if the cops have been monitoring these phone encryption apps since day 1 then they are complicite in any murders that took place by these crooks during said time period.

I read on another source that at least 4 individuals who have been murdered had their hits organised on this app.....why then did the hits still eventuate????

Clearly their lives where expendable according to the watchers also.

a reply to: CthruU

That's a good point.

I wonder who those 4 people were.

Depending on the details given over the phone, and the location, and of course they would've needed enough time, but they could've possibly been able to intervene without 'blowing the cover of their sting operation.

I wonder if maybe they did successfully intervene in some other circumstances, but just not in those particular 4. (or if they ever even tried)


ETA: Probably not, to any of that↑, but is possible.

a reply to: BrokenCircles

Well, okay...however they got the phones, what makes them illegal and how would anyone know this?

It's not like the phone has "Illegal Phone" stamped on it.

a reply to: bellagirl


Does anyone believe the 'idea over beers' story?


More likely a planned 'sudden idea' by fbi who was/is doing the same thing elsewhere IMO.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Heh, the feds can do whatever they wanna' do, they just make up new rules as they go along! You know that!

Exactly, good answer.

a reply to: CthruU

What if the hits were to take out competition? Would you have stopped Hirohito if he wanted to take out Hitler? Especially if it meant that it could be determined that Enigma had been compromised? You would say sorry about your luck Adolph...unless of course the blowback freed up the Pacific Theater two years earlier.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

I didn't exactly say they were illegal. I said they didn't get them legally.

Like I said, I could be wrong. I'm not claiming to know what I'm talking about.

But the phones weren't acquired through an official legitimate purchase. I doubt that any of the people arrested could provide any document or receipt of a transaction proving that they purchased these phones legally. So it's their own fault that the item they acquired already contained an app that allowed the F.B.I. to spy on them. It didn't come with any warranty, or quality guarantee.



Makes sense to me

a reply to: BrokenCircles

I completely understand what you are saying, but that's not my point.

My point is...you said (not a direct quote) '...it would not be illegal to tap the phones because the phones were obtained illegally'. So, what defines illegally? What is an illegal phone? If I buy a phone off some guy on the street, did I obtain that phone illegally? Where is that a law? To the best of my knowledge, it isn't. So there must be something else about them which makes them illegal, right?

You argued it wasn't 'entrapment' because the phones were weren't legal. Again to my point; what defines legal?

Now, please don't think I'm just being contrary here; I'm not. I work in the communications industry, and I deal with cellular technology on a daily basis. My question is a bit rhetorical, and here's why. I suspect the real issue here is not the phones themselves, but the technology being used on the phones which makes them illegal. So I'll just put this out there to be clear. Now for the rest of the story.

The US and many other countries have laws about encryption, and basically what they boil down to in a nutshell is...any encryption the spooks can't hack into is illegal. These laws aren't worded like that, obviously, but that's the net result of it. Many of these laws come with long sentences, hefty fines and penalties even as extreme as execution in some cases. Yes, even here in the US; that's how serious they are about it! So, back to my original question...

In order for a criminal to know a phone would be illegal he would:
a.) Have to know such laws exist
b.) Have to know what capability the phone has which is a breach of the law, and
c.) Procure the device with the above understanding(s).

So...how do they know the phone is illegal??

Are you starting to see the problem here now?