Anonymity of prepaid phone chip-cards

baudmax23 at earthlink.net baudmax23 at earthlink.net
Fri Mar 26 21:41:19 PST 2004


And yet one would've thought that a smart radical would have been able to 
purchase a measly couple of 50 lb bags of (NH4NO3)  without having to call 
all over the place and brag about it, and for cash at that.  You don't want 
it known, don't say it on the phone..

Just like a bunch o' pussys that'll crack the first time they fall into the 
clutches of the man.

-Max

At 09:39 PM 3/26/2004, "Black Unicorn" <unicorn at schloss.li> wrote:
>Nichols was dumb enough to actually be caught in possession of a card used
>in at last part of the conspiracy.
>
>Other cards that seem to be linked to Nichols were used to locate or obtain
>ANFO and call the rental agency for the Ryder truck as well as other numbers
>linked to the crime.
>
>That is public knowledge at this point.  Clearly, logs are available to law
>enforcement vis-a-vis pre-paid calling cards when they wish to use them.
>Given the time between the bombing and the capture of at least one of the
>cards (3-4 days) I suspect those logs are available for at least a few days.
>Given that the prosecutors claim to be able to link the ANFO purchase via
>calling cards it is probably a lot longer.
>
>What is confusing are the reports that the calling card (or one of them)
>"bore the name Daryl Bridges."  Pre-paid cards don't have names imprinted on
>them.  They would have to have a spot to write them in deliberately.  I
>haven't seen this on any and why would anyone (particularly as part of a
>criminal conspiracy) do such a thing?
>
>Keeping calling cards from leaking information probably isn't possible.
>
>Limiting the information leaked to that which is already known or is useless
>is probably the best bet.   Using separate cards for separate operations /
>cells and immediate disposal seems pretty critical.
>
>Note something else, however.  I haven't heard of any instances of real time
>calling card interception.  One was described here on the list but that
>presupposes that a degree of surveillance already exists around the subject.
>All bets are pretty much off in that event.  Calling cards are "after the
>fact" evidence, not preventative evidence.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-cypherpunks at minder.net
> > [mailto:owner-cypherpunks at minder.net] On Behalf Of R. A. Hettinga
> > Sent: Friday, March 26, 2004 7:10 PM
> > To: Thomas Shaddack; Cypherpunks
> > Subject: Re: Anonymity of prepaid phone chip-cards
> >
> > At 7:51 PM +0100 3/26/04, Thomas Shaddack wrote:
> > >I strongly suspect the usage logs exist for individual
> > cards, allowing
> > >to back-trace the phonecalls done with the given card, thus
> > tracing the
> > >identity of the card's owner by the call patterns.
> >
> > Of course.
> >
> > How do you think they caught the Oklahoma City bombers?





More information about the cypherpunks-legacy mailing list