UK's Home Secretary Says Terrorists Will Be The Real Winners If Country's Cell Coverage Dead Zones Are Fixed

from the 4G-means-four-times-the-terrorism dept

Thu, Nov 13th 2014 4:24am — Tim Cushing

The UK's culture secretary wants to eradicate the nation's patchy cell phone coverage. UK cell phone users aren't able to switch towers on the fly -- something residents of other EU countries (as well as the US) enjoy -- but are forced to connect only with their provider's towers.

But Home Secretary Theresa May would rather UK citizens suffer through a plethora of dead zones (or "not spots" -- the term of choice for these no-service areas) than put her country in harm's way. According to an internal letter written by May, providing near-seamless coverage for UK phone users will open the door for increased terrorist activity.

[M]ay argues in the leaked internal Whitehall letter that Javid’s plans to end “not-spots”, by allowing customers to roam between rival networks, could aid criminals and terrorists. The Times reported that May’s objections centre around concerns that roaming would make it more difficult for the agencies to track suspects.

This is, of course, ridiculous. In the US, cell phone subscribers hop from tower to tower freely, and yet, law enforcement and national security agencies have plenty of options to track suspects and terrorists. It's hard to believe the GCHQ and UK's law enforcement agencies don't have access to the same methods and technology.

For one, IMSI catchers (Stingray devices) are able to spoof any service provider's tower and, if need be, force every phone in its effective range down to a 2G connection for easier surveillance. So, it ultimately doesn't matter whether these "not spots" exist or have been papered over by legislation or cooperative agreements between service providers.

On top of that, these agencies have access to "tower dumps," often without anything more powerful than a subpoena. This gives agencies a record of every connection made to these towers, whether it was a phone call or simply a ping for a viable signal.

Given what we've learned over the past year, UK's intelligence and law enforcement agencies likely have access to plenty of this information already. Even if they don't, they certainly have the power to compel it. In addition, the GCHQ has the invaluable assistance of the NSA -- an agency that isn't weighed down by the nominal privacy protections granted to UK citizens.

It would seem that the nation's security -- at least under the current "Five Eyes" regime -- would be more threatened by dead zones in coverage than vice versa. Going off the grid would seemingly be more conducive to bad behavior than flouncing about from carrier to carrier, spilling your secrets to at least two powerful intelligence agencies.

But even worse than Theresa May's display of ignorance and fear is her suggestion that the public's connectivity be sacrificed on the altar of national security. David Mitchell -- of That Mitchell and Webb Look -- says it best:

Theresa May is the first person, as far as I know, to suggest that people’s activities should be restricted in order actually to facilitate the security services’ surveillance – to claim not only that it’s permissible for the police to snoop on everything we do and say, but also that we should be discouraged or prevented from doing things the police might have trouble keeping track of.

“Come off it!” some of you may be thinking. “She can’t be the first!” And of course you’re right – I’m exaggerating. She’s certainly not the first person ever – throughout history her point has frequently been made. In fact, the states of the former communist bloc were entirely predicated on this principle, as were most fascist regimes. It’s one of the issues over which Lenin and Tsar Nicholas II would probably find common ground if they got stuck with each other at an awkward drinks party in hell.

Mitchell's response is exactly what May's little written panic attack deserves. Politicians who filter everything through the terrorism lens tend to develop outsized blind spots. May would rather have UK citizens deal with lousy coverage (and being one step behind their EU counterparts) than perhaps have a terrorist jump towers and ditch pursuing GCHQ agents. Ridiculous.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: cell phone coverage, dead zones, not spots, surveillance, terrorists, theresa may, uk

68 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Ninja (profile), 13 Nov 2014 @ 2:47am

Yeah, let's go back to Middle Ages because terrorists would have to take several months just to meet if they were located in other countries. That would avoid terrorist attacks!

Wouldn't be less ridiculous if she just said "we want 100% control over the citizenry, get over it".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That One Guy (profile), 13 Nov 2014 @ 2:57am

Expand the argument
The Times reported that May’s objections centre around concerns that roaming would make it more difficult for the agencies to track suspects.

Other factors that make it more difficult for agencies, police or government, to track a suspect:

-The ability to travel without being forced to send your name and location to a central database as you travel(police can track someone via their cellphone, but what if a suspect leaves it at home, intentionally or on accident?)

-The ability to pay with cash. Digital transactions can be traced, and record just who bought what and when. With cash it's much more difficult to track this information.

-Anonymity. The ability for people to use something other than their real names, whether offline or on.

If 'it would make it more difficult for agencies to track suspects' is a valid excuse to intentionally leave the telecommunications system in a broken state, than that same argument could easily be applied to all three of the above.

Unfortunately, and of great concern, that very argument, 'X makes it harder for the police/spy agencies to do their job, therefor it needs to be curtailed or limited' has in fact been used to attack the above, or at least the anonymity entry in the list, as though anything that makes the the jobs of the police and government agencies more difficult is an obstacle by default, rather than, fairly often, a safety measure meant to protect the public from government and police overreach.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Nov 2014 @ 4:44am

When societies start compromising their way of life. You know that the terrorists have won the war. Maybe we should limit terrorist movement even more by banning planes, trains, and automobiles. Horses are pretty fast too, so we'll need to put them down so the terrorists can't ride on them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Nov 2014 @ 4:45am

TIL that those without phone signals are terrorists.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Capt ICE Enforcer, 13 Nov 2014 @ 5:01am

100% agree
I agree with her. If the US was more like the UK. Then we wouldn't be considered a war zone. What ever happened to the good old days of smoke signals for communication. Noooo they had to mess that up with 2 Dixie cups and a really long string. KISS. Let's go back to our roots...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Prashanth (profile), 13 Nov 2014 @ 5:09am

Road and mail
These arguments could exactly be applied to not expanding road networks or [snail] mail service to more rural areas. Why again does anyone believe this type of argument?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Nov 2014 @ 5:12am

Divide and conquer is an old tactic, and is here being applied to the citizens.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Vidiot (profile), 13 Nov 2014 @ 5:21am

Meanwhile, in Italy
An local politician reports that terrorists will travel freely and wantonly across the face of Italy if Italian automakers ever learn how to build electrical systems that don't crap out twice a week.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Nov 2014 @ 5:22am

So if we keep them underground we'll know where they are. , oh i get it (not really).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Nov 2014 @ 5:24am

The only terrorist I see here is the Home Secretary for her attempts at instilling fear into the masses with this non-sense.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DannyB (profile), 13 Nov 2014 @ 5:27am

Carry this to its logical conclusion
Eliminating cell phone service would be a setback to terrorists.

It's a sacrifice everyone should be proud to make.

(meanwhile terrorists communicate via other methods)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Michael, 13 Nov 2014 @ 5:39am

We should implement something similar for the US highways.

Just think, if we stopped everyone at the state borders and had them present some form of identification - for simplicity sake, let's call them "papers" - we would be able to track terrorist and criminal movements much easier. Every time someone had to present their papers, we could keep track of them in a database and could then determine based on movement who may be involved in terrorist activities.

I wonder why nobody has implemented this in the past...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Nov 2014 @ 5:45am

Those mobile phone operators will feed any excuse they can think off to the politicians, so as to avoid actually having to build out their network in rural areas.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Nov 2014 @ 5:48am

"allowing customers to roam between rival networks, could aid criminals and terrorists."

Sounds like corporate influence who seem to believe that:
Loss of captive customers and or profit == terrorism.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Michael, 13 Nov 2014 @ 5:58am

Re:
Totally wrong.

Loss of captive customers == terrorism
Loss of profit == child pornography
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Nov 2014 @ 6:26am

Computers aid terrorism
Computers aid terrorism.

If people can install encryption software on their computers without being tracked, or disconnect the cable there is no practical way to track terrorists using encryption before they strike.

May I suggest a law requiring a government root account on all general purpose computers.

And to prevent circumvention, all computers must be remotely accessible to the police without delay.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Nov 2014 @ 6:34am

Re: Re:
Opps, my bad. You are correct.

Loss of profit == child pornography and or piracy
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Nov 2014 @ 6:35am

Re: Computers aid terrorism
You forgot the sarcasm tag
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DocGerbil100 (profile), 13 Nov 2014 @ 6:38am

tl;dr
Theresa May is an imbecile.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Nov 2014 @ 6:47am

Re: Re: Computers aid terrorism
It is not sarcasm to describe what the governments and police want.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Nov 2014 @ 7:02am

is there a single thing that needs to be done, that can be done to aid customers that isn't then condemned by governments or leading government ministers using the same old 'but terrorism' whinge?? the way things are going, the whole planet has got to stop developing except for whatever advances can be put into place that allows governments to completely spy on all people. the terrorists, remember, are out of the equation, being far more clever, not only than of the people, but the governments as well.
this 'but terrorist' thing needs to stop before the whole planet is reduced to nothing other than a 24/7 monitored entity, where ordinary people have no privacy and no freedom, all because of 1 paranoid government who has threatened others if they dont help it out!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Call me Al, 13 Nov 2014 @ 7:03am

Re: tl;dr
Yep.

She didn't start badly as Home Secretary and it seemed possible she'd make some good changes and actually stand up a bit for civil liberties.

However as time as gone on it has become more and more apparent that she has various law enforcement and security agencies constantly whispering in her ear "beware the terrorists" and so she now pretty much does whatever they tell her.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
tqk (profile), 13 Nov 2014 @ 7:10am

Re: Carry this to its logical conclusion
Eliminating cell phone service would be a setback to terrorists. It's a sacrifice everyone should be proud to make.

Eliminating the government would be a setback to terrorists. They'd no longer have credulous, paranoid, easily manipulated luddites to push around interrupting the lives of perfect strangers. It's a sacrifice they should be proud to make.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
psiu, 13 Nov 2014 @ 7:31am

Coming soon in the UK
"I tried to call in the suspicious guys loading dynamite with alarm clocks on top into their van, but I was in a not-spot. Tea?"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That Anonymous Coward (profile), 13 Nov 2014 @ 7:32am

I posit that having Home Secretary Theresa May in office makes terrorism worse. One need only look at the growing record of terrorist related activities that have happened under her watchful glare. It would seem that one could directly connect her policies and statements with growing terrorist activity within the nation. Perhaps the radical idea of forcing her from office is the best possible way to cut back on terrorism.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Nov 2014 @ 7:53am

Re:
Some states already require everybody to stop at their border; they just don't ask for "papers". (And this has been going on for a long time.)

PLEASE don't give them any ideas!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Nov 2014 @ 7:56am

It's better - saner - to mentally substitute 'zombie' for 'terrorist' whenever one of these officials speak.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Nov 2014 @ 8:06am

That Terrorist Mitchell Look
David Mitchell can now look forward to an increased probability of being treated as a terrorist by UK security agents should he decide to avail himself of airline travel in the future.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Nov 2014 @ 8:14am

Terrorists drink water therefor if water would be illegal there won't be any terrorists anymore.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Nov 2014 @ 8:20am

Re: Computers aid terrorism

You forgot the sarcasm tag

Well, such a plan was actually proposed by a boneheaded Italian Euro MP so it's not so far from what politicians want.

The only reason why it has not been seriously considered is likely that it's not practical to provide government connectivity to all privately held devices.

But once always on connectivity is tied to a device's core functions like ICloud or apps run from the cloud, everything is possible.
The only catch is that you can still install third party encryption software and that data encrypted locally can't be uploaded automatically to the cloud without consuming a lot of bandwidth.

But cloud providers can't refuse to do the government's work, and who knows what Apple and Google can do on their devices in the background.

Only a computer with no ethernet, wifi or GSM connection is relatively secure.

But how many computers come without these functions baked in the hardware?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DaveK (profile), 13 Nov 2014 @ 9:27am

An obviously bogus fear.
The cellcos aren't going to build any system that leaves them not knowing where to send the bills, and if they can do it, so can the cops.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Michael, 13 Nov 2014 @ 9:44am

Re: Coming soon in the UK
That was just the FBI helping out the UK police.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Tony (profile), 13 Nov 2014 @ 9:47am

Re: Re:
Which states are those? I've never encountered that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Tony (profile), 13 Nov 2014 @ 10:04am

Re:
"If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - forever."

We are well on our way there, and not likely to change direction any time soon.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Nov 2014 @ 10:10am

Re:
Just wait.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Nov 2014 @ 10:24am

Re: Re: Computers aid terrorism
Only a computer with no ethernet, wifi or GSM connection is relatively secure.

well chosen word: relatively
"How to leak sensitive data from an isolated computer (air-gap) to a near by mobile phone - AirHopper "
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2OzTWiGl1rM
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Michael, 13 Nov 2014 @ 10:42am

Re: Re: Re:
Hawaii
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Tony (profile), 13 Nov 2014 @ 10:48am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
That would explain why I never encountered it...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jyjon, 13 Nov 2014 @ 11:03am

The lady is 100% Right
Being able to roam easily will definitely help the criminals and terrorists and whatever other boogymen and boogywomen you can think of.

Just like Roads and Highways, mail, and the rest of the utility infrastructure would.

What is ridiculous is the complete lack of critical thinking that pretty much everyone has.

It's time everyone stopped paying attention to the ramblings of the villiage idiots and get on with being adults.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Nov 2014 @ 2:40pm

Re: Road and mail
I don't think anyone believes this type of argument. I just find it hard to believe anyone is stupid enough to try and make this type of argument. All sorts of ideas flood through our minds, but human beings are supposed to have a little internal voice that says "Filter this, it's too ridiculous to say out loud, and people would laugh."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That One Guy (profile), 13 Nov 2014 @ 2:50pm

Re: Re: Road and mail
Thing is, the governments have gotten so used to people and politicians just rolling right over at the mere mention of 'terrorists' that it's become their go-to phrase anytime they want to do something, and because it's been so successful in allowing them to do insane or illegal actions, they no longer show any hesitation in using it, no matter how ridiculous the argument it(because let's face it, once you get people to swallow the idea of 'The best way to fight terrorists is to be afraid all the time', pretty much anything goes at that point).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
michaelb958 (profile), 13 Nov 2014 @ 3:52pm

New depths of "anti-terror" right here
When I heard about the whole Snowden thing I was shocked.
When big surveillance upgrades passed without argument (I live in Australia) I was somewhat surprised.
When I read this post I was flabbergasted. I cannot even begin to explain what is wrong with this. It makes so little sense that I cannot process it at all.
(Except, why would it be a problem, with all these extensive databases to cross-reference? Surely any government idiot can make carrier-independent queries?)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
martyburns (profile), 13 Nov 2014 @ 4:02pm

Re:
Zombies can't use cell phones.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
tqk (profile), 13 Nov 2014 @ 5:19pm

Re: Re: Computers aid terrorism
Only a computer with no ethernet, wifi or GSM connection is relatively secure.

... If it's powered down and locked in a vault. After all, a USB key can do wonders, and if you can pull the hard drive, ...

The LEOs have access to warrants they don't have to tell you about, and burglars don't even need warrants. I'd also have to say that the phrase "relatively secure" is fairly slippery, as in what's it mean? The screen door on a house will stop a not too determined paperboy. Bank vaults regularly fall to determined safe crackers.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
tqk (profile), 13 Nov 2014 @ 5:42pm

Re: Re: Re: Road and mail
... once you get people to swallow the idea of 'The best way to fight terrorists is to be afraid all the time', pretty much anything goes at that point).

"Those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it."

Anyone above the level of retardation should have learned from the example of Nazi Germany (at least; there's plenty of other examples besides Nazis). Refusing to learn from history takes less intellectual friction than the alternative, so that's where the majority goes, to our collective detriment.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Coyne Tibbets (profile), 13 Nov 2014 @ 6:17pm

Why would he suggest this?
Only a terrorist would suggest a cell company shouldn't have totalitarian control of its customers.

If we were to eliminate that totalitarian control, those terrorists win.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ben (profile), 14 Nov 2014 @ 1:39am

Five eyes
I'd guess this has more to do with keeping the five eyes (who seem to have unlimited access) from tracking all UK citations in real time. I understand "five eyes" not as an agreement to not spy on each other but as a convenient way around there own domestic spying restrictions.

~Just my two cents.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Nov 2014 @ 2:53am

Terrorists.

Pirates.

Children.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Nov 2014 @ 3:57am

Terrorist here, terrorist there, terrorist everywhere.

Now give my entitled authority.......NOW!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Nov 2014 @ 4:09am

Why dont you force people to not speak unless, ever, unless theres a cop there to take down whats being said, coz, you know, current flavoured bogeyman

Oh wait, thats right, the internet, never mind
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Nov 2014 @ 4:16am

Disrupting enemy communication = disrupting the peoples communication

Have the terrorists payed the western governments to do their "job" /s
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Nov 2014 @ 4:19am

If privacy is no good for a boggeyman, then its certainly no good for LAW abiding citizen

Respect my authority
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Nov 2014 @ 4:36am

Re: Expand the argument
Thats why all roads will eventually lead to TOTAL surveilance in EVRYTHING we do.......those who say otherwise, either havent thought things through, dont care, are lieying, and/or WANT IT

If attacks happen, eithr genuine, or false flag(look at history), what are they gonna continously call more for
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Nov 2014 @ 4:41am

Re: Re: Road and mail
Which probably means they already think their getting their way, and no need for the effort
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Nov 2014 @ 4:46am

Re:
Military procedure

Interupting enemy communication

Is there an enemy?
Is this a two-for?

Are PEOPLE the enemy..........they sure as hell seem to be treating EVERYONE as the enemy, dragnet surveilance being the recent one we know off......which was kept secret.........so i say, WHAT else?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Nov 2014 @ 4:47am

Re:
Your not the only one
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Nov 2014 @ 4:52am

Re:
bulging pockets and "undrstandings", probably helped too
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Nov 2014 @ 4:54am

Re: Re: Re: Computers aid terrorism
We know what they want before they do, or at least, what their willing to talk about

Manipulative "leaders"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Nov 2014 @ 5:00am

Re:
They'll only claim that as terrorism

Like almost as if it were planned.....duh.duh.duhhhhh
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Nov 2014 @ 5:01am

Re:
GENIUS!!!

Signed
Terresa May
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Nov 2014 @ 5:15am

Re: Re: Re: Computers aid terrorism
Thankyou, for awareness's sake

Public service announcement as far as im concerned, thanks for informing my friend

This changes the ball game......i wonder if a jammer device would work, or software written, that can spout random interference
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Nov 2014 @ 5:43am

Re:
Think of the egotiscal politicians
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Pragmatic, 14 Nov 2014 @ 6:12am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Road and mail
^This.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Pragmatic, 14 Nov 2014 @ 6:15am

Re: Re: Carry this to its logical conclusion
Ah, but if we didn't have a government, we'd invent one to maintain order. Anarchy can't create or maintain a functioning society because we actually need some measure of centralized control and bureaucracy to make things work, keep things running, and ensure that people behave themselves.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Tony (profile), 14 Nov 2014 @ 6:40am

Re: Re: Re: Carry this to its logical conclusion
I'm beginning to think anarchy would be preferable.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
F.J. Bergmann (profile), 14 Nov 2014 @ 7:55am

Dead zones
Next step: patchy utilities, food, water decrease terrorist activity.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
tqk (profile), 14 Nov 2014 @ 10:08am

Re: Re: Re: Carry this to its logical conclusion
Anarchy can't create or maintain a functioning society because we actually need some measure of centralized control and bureaucracy ...

That's a fine assertion with zero facts to support it. Why do you assert that centralized control is an obviously positive thing? It's the favourite tool of oppressive dictatorships. Why is it better than distributed control?

Here's a thought experiment for you. A lunatic stands up in a McDs, pulls a weapon and starts firing. Ten others then stand up and blow him away. Why would we prefer centralized control (it'll take fifteen minutes for the cops to get there) over citizens with the right to concealed carry? Usually, the cops just get to clean up the mess and go after whoever got away. They can't prevent anything.

Who're the ones who most stridently vilify anarchy? Could that be the competitor, gov't? I'm not convinced democracy is the least objectionable system of gov't. In the 1850s, my ancestors were looking across the border at mobocracy in action. I'm not at all sure the overhead and fragility of democracy are worth its oft stated benefits.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
waleszka (profile), 16 Nov 2014 @ 11:15pm

Carry this
carry this on my wayward son :D
[ link to this | view in thread ]