On 24/12/21 5:03 am, Curt wrote:
>
> It wasn't really that "rhetorical" a van because it was precisely the
> very concrete "mobile FBI van" described on the Wikipedia page the OP
> referenced.
>
> As for the accurate representation of reality, I'm afraid we can only
> hope, however vainly, that people are capable of determining for
> themselves who might or might not be an expert in the field.
>
>> https://theintercept.com/document/2015/12/17/government-cellphone-surveillance-catalogue/
>>
>
The tools listed in the intercept article don't allow interception of
actual voice calls. They are intended to perform traffic analysis and
test functions.
Any competent authority would simply get a warrant (or not) and
intercept calls at the exchanges. It's very easy and happens all the
time. In conflict countries like Syria and Ukraine you can be certain
that 100% of call metadata are recorded and a significant fraction, if
not 100%, of voice data recorded for future use. It's not a lot of data
on the scale of things.
Getting back to the OP, on the scale of likelihood:
- zero probability a bad guy was sitting across the street to intercept
his phone
- zero probability a carrier exchange was compromised by a non-state actor
- moderate probability the financial institution PBX was compromised
- good probability the OP computer *could* have been compromised - it's
relatively easy but may not have happened
My working theory is the financial institution PBX was compromised and a
small percentage of inbound calls intercepted. It was the OP's bad luck
to be one of those.
--
Jeremy
Thank you.