U.S. Secret Service shuts down NYC cellular disruption network
The U.S. Secret Service announced today that it dismantled a network of electronic devices located throughout the New York tristate area that were used to conduct multiple telecommunications-related threats directed towards senior U.S. government officials, which represented an imminent threat to the agency’s protective operations. The SS say they discovered more than 300 co-located SIM servers and 100,000 SIM cards across multiple sites, and while the photo they provide shows gear set up in what looks like an apartment, it could be that interlopers have infiltrated actual Internet colo facilities. As a colo operator, I’ve turned away more than a few sketchy potential customers due to their flakey stories requesting rooftop or window antenna locations. Be on the lookout. https://www.secretservice.gov/newsroom/releases/2025/09/us-secret-service-dismantles-imminent-telecommunications-threat-new-york#:~:text=NEW%20YORK%20–%20The%20U.S.%20Secret,SIM%20cards%20across%20multiple%20sites.<https://www.secretservice.gov/newsroom/releases/2025/09/us-secret-service-dismantles-imminent-telecommunications-threat-new-york#:~:text=NEW%2520YORK%2520%E2%80%93%2520The%2520U.S.%2520Secret,SIM%2520cards%2520across%2520multiple%2520sites.> -mel beckman
Does this mean people who aren't confident in the US government should do the opposite - enthusiastically accept business from shady customers who want to be near windows? Remember, they could be foreign actors, or they could be our own government... On 23 September 2025 18:46:24 CEST, Mel Beckman via NANOG <nanog@lists.nanog.org> wrote:
The U.S. Secret Service announced today that it dismantled a network of electronic devices located throughout the New York tristate area that were used to conduct multiple telecommunications-related threats directed towards senior U.S. government officials, which represented an imminent threat to the agency’s protective operations.
The SS say they discovered more than 300 co-located SIM servers and 100,000 SIM cards across multiple sites, and while the photo they provide shows gear set up in what looks like an apartment, it could be that interlopers have infiltrated actual Internet colo facilities.
As a colo operator, I’ve turned away more than a few sketchy potential customers due to their flakey stories requesting rooftop or window antenna locations. Be on the lookout.
-mel beckman _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog@lists.nanog.org/message/DXT5MYKR...
Upon actually reading the article, this looks overblown, typical of the current regime. Having a lot of SIM cards, a lot of phones, having phones in a rack-mount form factor, and plugging SIM cards into things that are not phones are not illegal. The fact that a cellphone network could be overloaded by a lot of phones doesn't make it illegal to have a lot of phones. Even if it /does/ overload the cellphone network, AFAIK it's still not illegal unless that was your intention. Their other justification is even worse: "These devices could be used for... facilitating anonymous, encrypted communication between potential threat actors and criminal enterprises" - MEGA YIKES. So they're outlawing encryption now? Anything that can send communication can send encrypted communication. It's one thing if they discovered a criminal enterprise that was actually using this equipment as their communications hub, as I believe the law allows them to seize stuff used for a crime regardless of its other uses. But only in America (and Russia, Iran, North Korea) can they legally seize stuff just because it /could hypothetically/ be used for a crime, and then not give it back. On 23/09/2025 18:46, Mel Beckman via NANOG wrote:
The U.S. Secret Service announced today that it dismantled a network of electronic devices located throughout the New York tristate area that were used to conduct multiple telecommunications-related threats directed towards senior U.S. government officials, which represented an imminent threat to the agency’s protective operations.
The SS say they discovered more than 300 co-located SIM servers and 100,000 SIM cards across multiple sites, and while the photo they provide shows gear set up in what looks like an apartment, it could be that interlopers have infiltrated actual Internet colo facilities.
As a colo operator, I’ve turned away more than a few sketchy potential customers due to their flakey stories requesting rooftop or window antenna locations. Be on the lookout.
-mel beckman _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog@lists.nanog.org/message/DXT5MYKR...
It's one thing if they discovered a criminal enterprise that was actually using this equipment as their communications hub, But that’s precisely what the SS says: “The U.S. Secret Service dismantled a network of electronic devices located throughout the New York tristate area that were used to conduct multiple telecommunications-related threats directed towards senior U.S. government officials,…” and “….early analysis indicates cellular communications between nation-state threat actors and individuals that are known to federal law enforcement.” They dismantled a network that they found were actively prosecuting threats. This wasn’t just some hacker’s randomly assembled kit of penetration tools. This clearly cost a lot of money to set up and maintain. -mel On Sep 24, 2025, at 2:13 AM, nanog--- via NANOG <nanog@lists.nanog.org> wrote: Upon actually reading the article, this looks overblown, typical of the current regime. Having a lot of SIM cards, a lot of phones, having phones in a rack-mount form factor, and plugging SIM cards into things that are not phones are not illegal. The fact that a cellphone network could be overloaded by a lot of phones doesn't make it illegal to have a lot of phones. Even if it /does/ overload the cellphone network, AFAIK it's still not illegal unless that was your intention. Their other justification is even worse: "These devices could be used for... facilitating anonymous, encrypted communication between potential threat actors and criminal enterprises" - MEGA YIKES. So they're outlawing encryption now? Anything that can send communication can send encrypted communication. It's one thing if they discovered a criminal enterprise that was actually using this equipment as their communications hub, as I believe the law allows them to seize stuff used for a crime regardless of its other uses. But only in America (and Russia, Iran, North Korea) can they legally seize stuff just because it /could hypothetically/ be used for a crime, and then not give it back. On 23/09/2025 18:46, Mel Beckman via NANOG wrote: The U.S. Secret Service announced today that it dismantled a network of electronic devices located throughout the New York tristate area that were used to conduct multiple telecommunications-related threats directed towards senior U.S. government officials, which represented an imminent threat to the agency’s protective operations. The SS say they discovered more than 300 co-located SIM servers and 100,000 SIM cards across multiple sites, and while the photo they provide shows gear set up in what looks like an apartment, it could be that interlopers have infiltrated actual Internet colo facilities. As a colo operator, I’ve turned away more than a few sketchy potential customers due to their flakey stories requesting rooftop or window antenna locations. Be on the lookout. https://www.secretservice.gov/newsroom/releases/2025/09/us-secret-service-dismantles-imminent-telecommunications-threat-new-york#:~:text=NEW%20YORK%20–%20The%20U.S.%20Secret,SIM%20cards%20across%20multiple%20sites.<https://www.secretservice.gov/newsroom/releases/2025/09/us-secret-service-dismantles-imminent-telecommunications-threat-new-york#:~:text=NEW%2520YORK%2520%E2%80%93%2520The%2520U.S.%2520Secret,SIM%2520cards%2520across%2520multiple%2520sites.> -mel beckman _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog@lists.nanog.org/message/DXT5MYKR... _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog@lists.nanog.org/message/5YDVUIHK...
Yes, you can't trust the current administration's announcements. These sorts of setups are not used for jamming or disrupting cell networks (you'd just use a jammer), instead they are used for tunneling international VoIP traffic onto national cellular lines, allowing for (admittedly illegal) cheaper calls. Or sometimes pokemon go account farming (though then you'd expect them to be mobile). On Wed, Sep 24, 2025 at 4:39 AM Mel Beckman via NANOG <nanog@lists.nanog.org> wrote:
It's one thing if they discovered a criminal enterprise that was actually using this equipment as their communications hub,
But that’s precisely what the SS says: “The U.S. Secret Service dismantled a network of electronic devices located throughout the New York tristate area that were used to conduct multiple telecommunications-related threats directed towards senior U.S. government officials,…”
and
“….early analysis indicates cellular communications between nation-state threat actors and individuals that are known to federal law enforcement.”
They dismantled a network that they found were actively prosecuting threats.
This wasn’t just some hacker’s randomly assembled kit of penetration tools. This clearly cost a lot of money to set up and maintain.
-mel
On Sep 24, 2025, at 2:13 AM, nanog--- via NANOG <nanog@lists.nanog.org> wrote:
Upon actually reading the article, this looks overblown, typical of the current regime.
Having a lot of SIM cards, a lot of phones, having phones in a rack-mount form factor, and plugging SIM cards into things that are not phones are not illegal.
The fact that a cellphone network could be overloaded by a lot of phones doesn't make it illegal to have a lot of phones. Even if it /does/ overload the cellphone network, AFAIK it's still not illegal unless that was your intention.
Their other justification is even worse:
"These devices could be used for... facilitating anonymous, encrypted communication between potential threat actors and criminal enterprises" - MEGA YIKES. So they're outlawing encryption now? Anything that can send communication can send encrypted communication. It's one thing if they discovered a criminal enterprise that was actually using this equipment as their communications hub, as I believe the law allows them to seize stuff used for a crime regardless of its other uses. But only in America (and Russia, Iran, North Korea) can they legally seize stuff just because it /could hypothetically/ be used for a crime, and then not give it back.
On 23/09/2025 18:46, Mel Beckman via NANOG wrote: The U.S. Secret Service announced today that it dismantled a network of electronic devices located throughout the New York tristate area that were used to conduct multiple telecommunications-related threats directed towards senior U.S. government officials, which represented an imminent threat to the agency’s protective operations.
The SS say they discovered more than 300 co-located SIM servers and 100,000 SIM cards across multiple sites, and while the photo they provide shows gear set up in what looks like an apartment, it could be that interlopers have infiltrated actual Internet colo facilities.
As a colo operator, I’ve turned away more than a few sketchy potential customers due to their flakey stories requesting rooftop or window antenna locations. Be on the lookout.
https://www.secretservice.gov/newsroom/releases/2025/09/us-secret-service-dismantles-imminent-telecommunications-threat-new-york#:~:text=NEW%20YORK%20–%20The%20U.S.%20Secret,SIM%20cards%20across%20multiple%20sites <https://www.secretservice.gov/newsroom/releases/2025/09/us-secret-service-dismantles-imminent-telecommunications-threat-new-york#:~:text=NEW%20YORK%20%E2%80%93%20The%20U.S.%20Secret,SIM%20cards%20across%20multiple%20sites> .< https://www.secretservice.gov/newsroom/releases/2025/09/us-secret-service-di... .>
-mel beckman _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list
https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog@lists.nanog.org/message/DXT5MYKR... _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog@lists.nanog.org/message/5YDVUIHK... _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list
https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog@lists.nanog.org/message/BBUFODT7...
Actually in this case, it was being used to flood the carrier networks with SPAM text messages. On Wed, Sep 24, 2025 at 11:39 AM Kurtis Heimerl via NANOG < nanog@lists.nanog.org> wrote:
Yes, you can't trust the current administration's announcements. These sorts of setups are not used for jamming or disrupting cell networks (you'd just use a jammer), instead they are used for tunneling international VoIP traffic onto national cellular lines, allowing for (admittedly illegal) cheaper calls. Or sometimes pokemon go account farming (though then you'd expect them to be mobile).
On Wed, Sep 24, 2025 at 4:39 AM Mel Beckman via NANOG < nanog@lists.nanog.org> wrote:
It's one thing if they discovered a criminal enterprise that was actually using this equipment as their communications hub,
But that’s precisely what the SS says: “The U.S. Secret Service dismantled a network of electronic devices located throughout the New York tristate area that were used to conduct multiple telecommunications-related threats directed towards senior U.S. government officials,…”
and
“….early analysis indicates cellular communications between nation-state threat actors and individuals that are known to federal law enforcement.”
They dismantled a network that they found were actively prosecuting threats.
This wasn’t just some hacker’s randomly assembled kit of penetration tools. This clearly cost a lot of money to set up and maintain.
-mel
On Sep 24, 2025, at 2:13 AM, nanog--- via NANOG <nanog@lists.nanog.org> wrote:
Upon actually reading the article, this looks overblown, typical of the current regime.
Having a lot of SIM cards, a lot of phones, having phones in a rack-mount form factor, and plugging SIM cards into things that are not phones are not illegal.
The fact that a cellphone network could be overloaded by a lot of phones doesn't make it illegal to have a lot of phones. Even if it /does/ overload the cellphone network, AFAIK it's still not illegal unless that was your intention.
Their other justification is even worse:
"These devices could be used for... facilitating anonymous, encrypted communication between potential threat actors and criminal enterprises" - MEGA YIKES. So they're outlawing encryption now? Anything that can send communication can send encrypted communication. It's one thing if they discovered a criminal enterprise that was actually using this equipment as their communications hub, as I believe the law allows them to seize stuff used for a crime regardless of its other uses. But only in America (and Russia, Iran, North Korea) can they legally seize stuff just because it /could hypothetically/ be used for a crime, and then not give it back.
On 23/09/2025 18:46, Mel Beckman via NANOG wrote: The U.S. Secret Service announced today that it dismantled a network of electronic devices located throughout the New York tristate area that were used to conduct multiple telecommunications-related threats directed towards senior U.S. government officials, which represented an imminent threat to the agency’s protective operations.
The SS say they discovered more than 300 co-located SIM servers and 100,000 SIM cards across multiple sites, and while the photo they provide shows gear set up in what looks like an apartment, it could be that interlopers have infiltrated actual Internet colo facilities.
As a colo operator, I’ve turned away more than a few sketchy potential customers due to their flakey stories requesting rooftop or window antenna locations. Be on the lookout.
https://www.secretservice.gov/newsroom/releases/2025/09/us-secret-service-dismantles-imminent-telecommunications-threat-new-york#:~:text=NEW%20YORK%20–%20The%20U.S.%20Secret,SIM%20cards%20across%20multiple%20sites <https://www.secretservice.gov/newsroom/releases/2025/09/us-secret-service-dismantles-imminent-telecommunications-threat-new-york#:~:text=NEW%20YORK%20%E2%80%93%20The%20U.S.%20Secret,SIM%20cards%20across%20multiple%20sites>
< https://www.secretservice.gov/newsroom/releases/2025/09/us-secret-service-di...
.<
https://www.secretservice.gov/newsroom/releases/2025/09/us-secret-service-di...
.>
-mel beckman _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list
https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog@lists.nanog.org/message/DXT5MYKR...
_______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list
https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog@lists.nanog.org/message/5YDVUIHK...
_______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list
https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog@lists.nanog.org/message/BBUFODT7... _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list
https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog@lists.nanog.org/message/3IXZWOES...
Mel, https://youtu.be/BlAu6X0piHQ?si=yVzGjUWrtTG-lgEQ Good thing only the Escalators were affected! 🤣 L****** On Wed, Sep 24, 2025 at 04:42 nanog--- via NANOG <nanog@lists.nanog.org> wrote:
Does this mean people who aren't confident in the US government should do the opposite - enthusiastically accept business from shady customers who want to be near windows?
Remember, they could be foreign actors, or they could be our own government...
The U.S. Secret Service announced today that it dismantled a network of electronic devices located throughout the New York tristate area that were used to conduct multiple telecommunications-related threats directed towards senior U.S. government officials, which represented an imminent
On 23 September 2025 18:46:24 CEST, Mel Beckman via NANOG < nanog@lists.nanog.org> wrote: threat to the agency’s protective operations.
The SS say they discovered more than 300 co-located SIM servers and
100,000 SIM cards across multiple sites, and while the photo they provide shows gear set up in what looks like an apartment, it could be that interlopers have infiltrated actual Internet colo facilities.
As a colo operator, I’ve turned away more than a few sketchy potential
customers due to their flakey stories requesting rooftop or window antenna locations. Be on the lookout.
https://www.secretservice.gov/newsroom/releases/2025/09/us-secret-service-dismantles-imminent-telecommunications-threat-new-york#:~:text=NEW%20YORK%20–%20The%20U.S.%20Secret,SIM%20cards%20across%20multiple%20sites <https://www.secretservice.gov/newsroom/releases/2025/09/us-secret-service-dismantles-imminent-telecommunications-threat-new-york#:~:text=NEW%20YORK%20%E2%80%93%20The%20U.S.%20Secret,SIM%20cards%20across%20multiple%20sites> .< https://www.secretservice.gov/newsroom/releases/2025/09/us-secret-service-di... .>
-mel beckman _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list
https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog@lists.nanog.org/message/DXT5MYKR... _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list
https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog@lists.nanog.org/message/22OZXSPJ...
On Wed, Sep 24, 2025 at 11:39 AM Kurtis Heimerl via NANOG <nanog@lists.nanog.org> wrote:
These sorts of setups are not used for jamming or disrupting cell networks (you'd just use a jammer), instead they are used for tunneling international VoIP traffic onto national cellular lines, allowing for (admittedly illegal) cheaper calls.
Is that actually against the law in the US? -Rusty
On Wed, Sep 24, 2025 at 9:06 AM Rusty Dekema via NANOG <nanog@lists.nanog.org> wrote:
On Wed, Sep 24, 2025 at 11:39 AM Kurtis Heimerl via NANOG <nanog@lists.nanog.org> wrote:
These sorts of setups are not used for jamming or disrupting cell networks (you'd just use a jammer), instead they are used for tunneling international VoIP traffic onto national cellular lines, allowing for (admittedly illegal) cheaper calls.
Is that actually against the law in the US?
No, mostly, but it's often against the law in the other country. Anyway, if the owner is legit we'll know when they step forward and explain what the equipment is actually used for. It's way too expensive to walk away from over a "misunderstanding." Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin bill@herrin.us https://bill.herrin.us/
On Wed, Sep 24, 2025 at 11:21 AM Rusty Dekema via NANOG <nanog@lists.nanog.org> wrote:
On Wed, Sep 24, 2025 at 11:39 AM Kurtis Heimerl via NANOG <nanog@lists.nanog.org> wrote:
sorts of setups are not used for jamming or disrupting cell networks (you'd just use a jammer), instead they are used for tunneling international VoIP traffic onto national cellular lines, allowing for (admittedly illegal) cheaper calls. Is that actually against the law in the US?
Wire fraud/theft of service, probably. Consumer cellular providers don't authorize resale of their services. Also US law forbids any type of willful or malicious interference against licensed or authorized radio communications. - https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/333 Presumably their investigation continues; As the news release is scant on details. That also means they can have seized gear finding extremely suspicious circumstances, but that they have not yet determined what exactly if any violations were being committed. Law enforcement simply has power to seize anything they want if their belief is strong enough. They could remove all servers in a large datacenter co-lo without warning due to suspecting one tenant of running a Tor node. The only potential barrier is finding a judge somewhere to sign off on an oath "Upon my belief based on information Officer B, told me that Officer C said that servers here contain evidence of a conspiracy promoting the illegal download of such and such pirated record albums" Etc, etc. Finding unauthorized radio signals coming from abandoned buildings is also already evidence of a trespass. So the law enforcement only has to have probable cause to suspect a violation, which is a low bar, then they can seize all potential evidence in order to investigate, and figure out of there are actually any violations much later after they've had time to disassemble all equipment and analyze the storage on its chips or disk drives for any past logs or configurations.
-Rusty -- -JA
Yeah another typical use case for these things, but again not for DoS attacks as you want your spam to go through. On Wed, Sep 24, 2025 at 8:42 AM Shane Ronan <shane@ronan-online.com> wrote:
Actually in this case, it was being used to flood the carrier networks with SPAM text messages.
On Wed, Sep 24, 2025 at 11:39 AM Kurtis Heimerl via NANOG < nanog@lists.nanog.org> wrote:
Yes, you can't trust the current administration's announcements. These sorts of setups are not used for jamming or disrupting cell networks (you'd just use a jammer), instead they are used for tunneling international VoIP traffic onto national cellular lines, allowing for (admittedly illegal) cheaper calls. Or sometimes pokemon go account farming (though then you'd expect them to be mobile).
On Wed, Sep 24, 2025 at 4:39 AM Mel Beckman via NANOG < nanog@lists.nanog.org> wrote:
It's one thing if they discovered a criminal enterprise that was actually using this equipment as their communications hub,
But that’s precisely what the SS says: “The U.S. Secret Service dismantled a network of electronic devices located throughout the New York tristate area that were used to conduct multiple telecommunications-related threats directed towards senior U.S. government officials,…”
and
“….early analysis indicates cellular communications between nation-state threat actors and individuals that are known to federal law enforcement.”
They dismantled a network that they found were actively prosecuting threats.
This wasn’t just some hacker’s randomly assembled kit of penetration tools. This clearly cost a lot of money to set up and maintain.
-mel
On Sep 24, 2025, at 2:13 AM, nanog--- via NANOG <nanog@lists.nanog.org> wrote:
Upon actually reading the article, this looks overblown, typical of the current regime.
Having a lot of SIM cards, a lot of phones, having phones in a rack-mount form factor, and plugging SIM cards into things that are not phones are not illegal.
The fact that a cellphone network could be overloaded by a lot of phones doesn't make it illegal to have a lot of phones. Even if it /does/ overload the cellphone network, AFAIK it's still not illegal unless that was your intention.
Their other justification is even worse:
"These devices could be used for... facilitating anonymous, encrypted communication between potential threat actors and criminal enterprises"
MEGA YIKES. So they're outlawing encryption now? Anything that can send communication can send encrypted communication. It's one thing if they discovered a criminal enterprise that was actually using this equipment as their communications hub, as I believe the law allows them to seize stuff used for a crime regardless of its other uses. But only in America (and Russia, Iran, North Korea) can they legally seize stuff just because it /could hypothetically/ be used for a crime, and then not give it back.
On 23/09/2025 18:46, Mel Beckman via NANOG wrote: The U.S. Secret Service announced today that it dismantled a network of electronic devices located throughout the New York tristate area that were used to conduct multiple telecommunications-related threats directed towards senior U.S. government officials, which represented an imminent threat to the agency’s protective operations.
The SS say they discovered more than 300 co-located SIM servers and 100,000 SIM cards across multiple sites, and while the photo they provide shows gear set up in what looks like an apartment, it could be that interlopers have infiltrated actual Internet colo facilities.
As a colo operator, I’ve turned away more than a few sketchy potential customers due to their flakey stories requesting rooftop or window antenna locations. Be on the lookout.
https://www.secretservice.gov/newsroom/releases/2025/09/us-secret-service-dismantles-imminent-telecommunications-threat-new-york#:~:text=NEW%20YORK%20–%20The%20U.S.%20Secret,SIM%20cards%20across%20multiple%20sites <https://www.secretservice.gov/newsroom/releases/2025/09/us-secret-service-dismantles-imminent-telecommunications-threat-new-york#:~:text=NEW%20YORK%20%E2%80%93%20The%20U.S.%20Secret,SIM%20cards%20across%20multiple%20sites>
< https://www.secretservice.gov/newsroom/releases/2025/09/us-secret-service-di...
.<
https://www.secretservice.gov/newsroom/releases/2025/09/us-secret-service-di...
.>
-mel beckman _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list
https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog@lists.nanog.org/message/DXT5MYKR...
_______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list
https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog@lists.nanog.org/message/5YDVUIHK...
_______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list
https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog@lists.nanog.org/message/BBUFODT7... _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list
https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog@lists.nanog.org/message/3IXZWOES...
Afaik yes, as it circumvents a bunch of telecommunication fees, taxes, and stuff, but I am not a telco lawyer. It's also obviously against the terms of service, though that's not illegal. On Wed, Sep 24, 2025 at 9:22 AM Rusty Dekema via NANOG < nanog@lists.nanog.org> wrote:
On Wed, Sep 24, 2025 at 11:39 AM Kurtis Heimerl via NANOG <nanog@lists.nanog.org> wrote:
These sorts of setups are not used for jamming or disrupting cell networks (you'd just use a jammer), instead they are used for tunneling international VoIP traffic onto national cellular lines, allowing for (admittedly illegal) cheaper calls.
Is that actually against the law in the US?
-Rusty _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list
https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog@lists.nanog.org/message/FLSXKBPW...
Upon actually reading the article, this looks overblown, typical of the current regime.
Having a lot of SIM cards, a lot of phones, having phones in a rack-mount form factor, and plugging SIM cards into things that are not phones are not illegal.
The fact that a cellphone network could be overloaded by a lot of phones doesn't make it illegal to have a lot of phones. Even if it /does/ overload the cellphone network, AFAIK it's still not illegal unless that was your intention.
Yes, it's very overblown. The reports say these items were found inside of a "35 mile radius" of the UN. The total population inside that area is roughly 17 million people. 100k SIMs is a rounding error relative to the number of cellular network devices in that area. On Wed, Sep 24, 2025 at 5:13 AM nanog--- via NANOG <nanog@lists.nanog.org> wrote:
Upon actually reading the article, this looks overblown, typical of the current regime.
Having a lot of SIM cards, a lot of phones, having phones in a rack-mount form factor, and plugging SIM cards into things that are not phones are not illegal.
The fact that a cellphone network could be overloaded by a lot of phones doesn't make it illegal to have a lot of phones. Even if it /does/ overload the cellphone network, AFAIK it's still not illegal unless that was your intention.
Their other justification is even worse:
"These devices could be used for... facilitating anonymous, encrypted communication between potential threat actors and criminal enterprises" - MEGA YIKES. So they're outlawing encryption now? Anything that can send communication can send encrypted communication. It's one thing if they discovered a criminal enterprise that was actually using this equipment as their communications hub, as I believe the law allows them to seize stuff used for a crime regardless of its other uses. But only in America (and Russia, Iran, North Korea) can they legally seize stuff just because it /could hypothetically/ be used for a crime, and then not give it back.
The U.S. Secret Service announced today that it dismantled a network of electronic devices located throughout the New York tristate area that were used to conduct multiple telecommunications-related threats directed towards senior U.S. government officials, which represented an imminent
On 23/09/2025 18:46, Mel Beckman via NANOG wrote: threat to the agency’s protective operations.
The SS say they discovered more than 300 co-located SIM servers and
100,000 SIM cards across multiple sites, and while the photo they provide shows gear set up in what looks like an apartment, it could be that interlopers have infiltrated actual Internet colo facilities.
As a colo operator, I’ve turned away more than a few sketchy potential
customers due to their flakey stories requesting rooftop or window antenna locations. Be on the lookout.
https://www.secretservice.gov/newsroom/releases/2025/09/us-secret-service-dismantles-imminent-telecommunications-threat-new-york#:~:text=NEW%20YORK%20–%20The%20U.S.%20Secret,SIM%20cards%20across%20multiple%20sites <https://www.secretservice.gov/newsroom/releases/2025/09/us-secret-service-dismantles-imminent-telecommunications-threat-new-york#:~:text=NEW%20YORK%20%E2%80%93%20The%20U.S.%20Secret,SIM%20cards%20across%20multiple%20sites> .< https://www.secretservice.gov/newsroom/releases/2025/09/us-secret-service-di... .>
-mel beckman _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list
https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog@lists.nanog.org/message/DXT5MYKR... _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list
https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog@lists.nanog.org/message/5YDVUIHK...
On Sep 24, 2025, at 9:56 AM, Tom Beecher via NANOG <nanog@lists.nanog.org> wrote:
Upon actually reading the article, this looks overblown, typical of the current regime.
Having a lot of SIM cards, a lot of phones, having phones in a rack-mount form factor, and plugging SIM cards into things that are not phones are not illegal.
The fact that a cellphone network could be overloaded by a lot of phones doesn't make it illegal to have a lot of phones. Even if it /does/ overload the cellphone network, AFAIK it's still not illegal unless that was your intention.
Yes, it's very overblown.
The reports say these items were found inside of a "35 mile radius" of the UN. The total population inside that area is roughly 17 million people.
100k SIMs is a rounding error relative to the number of cellular network devices in that area.
Perhaps of interest: https://cybersect.substack.com/p/that-secret-service-sim-farm-story Regards, -drc
On Wed, Sep 24, 2025 at 11:50 AM Kurtis Heimerl via NANOG <nanog@lists.nanog.org> wrote:
Afaik yes, as it circumvents a bunch of telecommunication fees, taxes, and stuff, but I am not a telco lawyer. It's also obviously against the terms of service, though that's not illegal.
Breaking Terms of Service you agreed to is Illegal. That is called a breach of contract, which is an illegal action or inaction. It is a civil matter that becomes a crime if you planned to never follow the agreement in the first place (And other conditions exist, such as possibly a certain dollar amount threshold). It is extremely likely all those conditions are met if they have got 1000 SIM cards to go into business, and activated on any type of Telecom service that has terms of service inconsistent with what they're doing. If from before the day you signed up: You have a business scheme already designed to profit mainly from violating an agreement which is part of a business plan that causes a gain for yourself at a loss to the party you reached an agreement with, and persuaded them you would follow, Their Terms of Service, as part of the transaction to obtain their services. Your agreement encourages the other party to provide something of value (Telecom services), which they would not likely offer without you signing an agreement, and by accepting the agreement you had represented you would follow their rules. Your agreement to their terms becomes a deception at the service provider's expense: if you specifically intended to break the agreement. Especially if on the same day you agreed; you already had a business plan that would require violating the same agreement. You have what is called a fraudulent scheme If you agreed to a ToS always intending to violate it in order to profit at another party's loss, and you actually do profit. -- -JA
On Wed, Sep 24, 2025 at 10:25 AM Jay Acuna via NANOG <nanog@lists.nanog.org> wrote:
Breaking Terms of Service you agreed to is Illegal. That is called a breach of contract, which is an illegal action or inaction.
Hi Jay, I have to pick a nit here: Illegal = something expressly forbidden by statute. Usually criminal. You could go to jail. Unlawful = inconsistent with the law. You could be sued over it but unless it's also illegal there is no future where you go to jail as a result. Breaching a contract may be unlawful but it is almost never illegal. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin bill@herrin.us https://bill.herrin.us/
Read between the lines: "some cheap VOIP provider was reselling real SIM cards" (not a crime, certainly not a secret-service-worthy crime, might be a civil violation of contract with the network or maybe not even that) "and one of their customers called the white house and threatened to assassinate the president" "so we stole all this provider's equipment and we'll never give it back" Adversarial interoperability is almost the norm now wherever two businesses without clearly aligned interests meet, and it's not illegal except in a few specific cases. One party raises their wall; the other one raises their ladder. See also the use of residential proxies to bypass Cloudflare, which is also not illegal (except where they are obtained by infecting someone's computer with a botnet). In the end nobody wins except the manufacturers of walls and ladders. A good reason to support open protocols. It may be a violation of contract, but it's not illegal to violate contracts; it just entitles your counterparty to force you to repay whatever damages they can convince a judge they suffered. I know it's typical for engineers to interpret contracts as things you MUST follow OR ELSE, but that's not actually universally the case. And AFAIK, it's debatable whether terms of service are even enforceable at all. Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice, and you should seek real legal advice from a lawyer before breaking contracts or terms of service. On 24/09/2025 13:38, Mel Beckman wrote:
It's one thing if they discovered a criminal enterprise that was actually using this equipment as their communications hub,
But that’s precisely what the SS says: “The U.S. Secret Service dismantled a network of electronic devices located throughout the New York tristate area that were used to conduct multiple telecommunications-related threats directed towards senior U.S. government officials,…”
and
“….early analysis indicates cellular communications between nation-state threat actors and individuals that are known to federal law enforcement.”
They dismantled a network that they found were actively prosecuting threats.
This wasn’t just some hacker’s randomly assembled kit of penetration tools. This clearly cost a lot of money to set up and maintain.
-mel
On Sep 24, 2025, at 2:13 AM, nanog--- via NANOG <nanog@lists.nanog.org> wrote:
Upon actually reading the article, this looks overblown, typical of the current regime.
Having a lot of SIM cards, a lot of phones, having phones in a rack-mount form factor, and plugging SIM cards into things that are not phones are not illegal.
The fact that a cellphone network could be overloaded by a lot of phones doesn't make it illegal to have a lot of phones. Even if it /does/ overload the cellphone network, AFAIK it's still not illegal unless that was your intention.
Their other justification is even worse:
"These devices could be used for... facilitating anonymous, encrypted communication between potential threat actors and criminal enterprises" - MEGA YIKES. So they're outlawing encryption now? Anything that can send communication can send encrypted communication. It's one thing if they discovered a criminal enterprise that was actually using this equipment as their communications hub, as I believe the law allows them to seize stuff used for a crime regardless of its other uses. But only in America (and Russia, Iran, North Korea) can they legally seize stuff just because it /could hypothetically/ be used for a crime, and then not give it back.
On 23/09/2025 18:46, Mel Beckman via NANOG wrote:
The U.S. Secret Service announced today that it dismantled a network of electronic devices located throughout the New York tristate area that were used to conduct multiple telecommunications-related threats directed towards senior U.S. government officials, which represented an imminent threat to the agency’s protective operations.
The SS say they discovered more than 300 co-located SIM servers and 100,000 SIM cards across multiple sites, and while the photo they provide shows gear set up in what looks like an apartment, it could be that interlopers have infiltrated actual Internet colo facilities.
As a colo operator, I’ve turned away more than a few sketchy potential customers due to their flakey stories requesting rooftop or window antenna locations. Be on the lookout.
-mel beckman _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog@lists.nanog.org/message/DXT5MYKR...
NANOG mailing list https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog@lists.nanog.org/message/5YDVUIHK...
While this is true (as far as this non-lawyer understands) it's important to note that telecom is a highly regulated space and VoIP links are a constant source of violations and scams. For example, termination rates are an abhorrent mess (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Termination_rates) that have historically been a big part of regional scam setups where rural termination fees were set high by policy (ostensibly to encourage communication infrastructure in rural areas) and then some provider makes sure to land all their calls in that area (then VoIPing it out to the actual call center somewhere else) to gather those fees. As some of the older folks on the list may remember, this is why all of the "free conference call" numbers were in Nebraska. That can be actual fraud as they're avoiding fees and taxes and these sorts of devices are a common part of how to do that. Basically "thar be dragons" in telecom policy law and this may well be actually illegal. Regardless, no one was overloading the cell network with 100k phones in NYC. These are just standard schemes being played in admission controlled and price discriminated networks and it shouldn't be big news that one got popped. On Wed, Sep 24, 2025 at 11:20 AM nanog--- via NANOG <nanog@lists.nanog.org> wrote:
Read between the lines: "some cheap VOIP provider was reselling real SIM cards" (not a crime, certainly not a secret-service-worthy crime, might be a civil violation of contract with the network or maybe not even that) "and one of their customers called the white house and threatened to assassinate the president" "so we stole all this provider's equipment and we'll never give it back"
Adversarial interoperability is almost the norm now wherever two businesses without clearly aligned interests meet, and it's not illegal except in a few specific cases. One party raises their wall; the other one raises their ladder. See also the use of residential proxies to bypass Cloudflare, which is also not illegal (except where they are obtained by infecting someone's computer with a botnet). In the end nobody wins except the manufacturers of walls and ladders. A good reason to support open protocols.
It may be a violation of contract, but it's not illegal to violate contracts; it just entitles your counterparty to force you to repay whatever damages they can convince a judge they suffered. I know it's typical for engineers to interpret contracts as things you MUST follow OR ELSE, but that's not actually universally the case. And AFAIK, it's debatable whether terms of service are even enforceable at all.
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice, and you should seek real legal advice from a lawyer before breaking contracts or terms of service.
On 24/09/2025 13:38, Mel Beckman wrote:
It's one thing if they discovered a criminal enterprise that was actually using this equipment as their communications hub,
But that’s precisely what the SS says: “The U.S. Secret Service dismantled a network of electronic devices located throughout the New York tristate area that were used to conduct multiple telecommunications-related threats directed towards senior U.S. government officials,…”
and
“….early analysis indicates cellular communications between nation-state threat actors and individuals that are known to federal law enforcement.”
They dismantled a network that they found were actively prosecuting threats.
This wasn’t just some hacker’s randomly assembled kit of penetration tools. This clearly cost a lot of money to set up and maintain.
-mel
On Sep 24, 2025, at 2:13 AM, nanog--- via NANOG <nanog@lists.nanog.org> wrote:
Upon actually reading the article, this looks overblown, typical of the current regime.
Having a lot of SIM cards, a lot of phones, having phones in a rack-mount form factor, and plugging SIM cards into things that are not phones are not illegal.
The fact that a cellphone network could be overloaded by a lot of phones doesn't make it illegal to have a lot of phones. Even if it /does/ overload the cellphone network, AFAIK it's still not illegal unless that was your intention.
Their other justification is even worse:
"These devices could be used for... facilitating anonymous, encrypted communication between potential threat actors and criminal enterprises" - MEGA YIKES. So they're outlawing encryption now? Anything that can send communication can send encrypted communication. It's one thing if they discovered a criminal enterprise that was actually using this equipment as their communications hub, as I believe the law allows them to seize stuff used for a crime regardless of its other uses. But only in America (and Russia, Iran, North Korea) can they legally seize stuff just because it /could hypothetically/ be used for a crime, and then not give it back.
On 23/09/2025 18:46, Mel Beckman via NANOG wrote:
The U.S. Secret Service announced today that it dismantled a network of electronic devices located throughout the New York tristate area that were used to conduct multiple telecommunications-related threats directed towards senior U.S. government officials, which represented an imminent threat to the agency’s protective operations.
The SS say they discovered more than 300 co-located SIM servers and 100,000 SIM cards across multiple sites, and while the photo they provide shows gear set up in what looks like an apartment, it could be that interlopers have infiltrated actual Internet colo facilities.
As a colo operator, I’ve turned away more than a few sketchy potential customers due to their flakey stories requesting rooftop or window antenna locations. Be on the lookout.
https://www.secretservice.gov/newsroom/releases/2025/09/us-secret-service-dismantles-imminent-telecommunications-threat-new-york#:~:text=NEW%20YORK%20–%20The%20U.S.%20Secret,SIM%20cards%20across%20multiple%20sites <https://www.secretservice.gov/newsroom/releases/2025/09/us-secret-service-dismantles-imminent-telecommunications-threat-new-york#:~:text=NEW%20YORK%20%E2%80%93%20The%20U.S.%20Secret,SIM%20cards%20across%20multiple%20sites> .< https://www.secretservice.gov/newsroom/releases/2025/09/us-secret-service-di... .>
-mel beckman _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list
https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog@lists.nanog.org/message/DXT5MYKR... _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list
https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog@lists.nanog.org/message/5YDVUIHK...
NANOG mailing list
https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog@lists.nanog.org/message/EE35WLTK...
On Wed, Sep 24, 2025 at 1:26 PM Jay Acuna via NANOG <nanog@lists.nanog.org> wrote:
On Wed, Sep 24, 2025 at 11:50 AM Kurtis Heimerl via NANOG <nanog@lists.nanog.org> wrote:
Afaik yes, as it circumvents a bunch of telecommunication fees, taxes, and stuff, but I am not a telco lawyer. It's also obviously against the terms of service, though that's not illegal.
Breaking Terms of Service you agreed to is Illegal. That is called a breach of contract, which is an illegal action or inaction.
Hrm, I wouldn't necessarily say: "illegal" I think it's a thing that can cause the service-provider to terminate the contract though.
Another additional reason to stay away from the US .. 🙂 Ge
Le 24 sept. 2025 à 18:47, Jay Acuna via NANOG <nanog@lists.nanog.org> a écrit :
Law enforcement simply has power to seize anything they want if their belief is strong enough. They could remove all servers in a large datacenter co-lo without warning due to suspecting one tenant of running a Tor node. The only potential barrier is finding a judge somewhere to sign off on an oath "Upon my belief based on information Officer B, told me that Officer C said that servers here contain evidence of a conspiracy promoting the illegal download of such and such pirated record albums" Etc, etc.
"illegal" and "unlawful" mean the same thing : an act that is in violation of a statute. The statute that is violated can be either criminal or civil. It is a common misconception that 'illegal' only means a criminal violation. For example : - It is illegal to exceed the speed limit while driving. This is a civil violation. - It is illegal to operate a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol. This is a criminal violation. You can s/illegal/unlawful/ in the previous two sentences and they mean exactly the same thing. On Wed, Sep 24, 2025 at 2:00 PM William Herrin via NANOG < nanog@lists.nanog.org> wrote:
On Wed, Sep 24, 2025 at 10:25 AM Jay Acuna via NANOG <nanog@lists.nanog.org> wrote:
Breaking Terms of Service you agreed to is Illegal. That is called a breach of contract, which is an illegal action or inaction.
Hi Jay,
I have to pick a nit here:
Illegal = something expressly forbidden by statute. Usually criminal. You could go to jail.
Unlawful = inconsistent with the law. You could be sued over it but unless it's also illegal there is no future where you go to jail as a result.
Breaching a contract may be unlawful but it is almost never illegal.
Regards, Bill Herrin
-- William Herrin bill@herrin.us https://bill.herrin.us/ _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list
https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog@lists.nanog.org/message/4KJ2X6FU...
On Wed, Sep 24, 2025 at 1:07 PM Tom Beecher <beecher@beecher.cc> wrote:
"illegal" and "unlawful" mean the same thing : an act that is in violation of a statute. The statute that is violated can be either criminal or civil.
Hi Tom, If I drop a bag of poop on your front stoop, I have violated no statutes. You can bring a civil action against me for nuisance and you'll win, but no statutes have been broken. My action was unlawful not illegal. Illegal and unlawful are often used as synonyms and in many cases the activity they're used to describe is both. Breaching a contract is not one of those cases. If I breach a contract, the party I've wronged can sue me for damages. No one else can, and that includes the government itself. I have not wronged the state or the people it represents by breaching a contract with _you_. When something is _illegal_, it means that I have. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin bill@herrin.us https://bill.herrin.us/
On Wed, Sep 24, 2025 at 1:23 PM William Herrin via NANOG < nanog@lists.nanog.org> wrote:
If I drop a bag of poop on your front stoop, I have violated no statutes.
I am sure there are state or local statutes against littering in your jurisdictions. There are famous, classic songs about the legal consequences of littering.
Indeed, and encryption algorithms commonly employ fictional character names such as Ted and Alice. And fictional locations such as Starbucks and Alice’s Restaurant :) -mel via cell
On Sep 24, 2025, at 3:11 PM, Crist Clark via NANOG <nanog@lists.nanog.org> wrote:
On Wed, Sep 24, 2025 at 1:23 PM William Herrin via NANOG < nanog@lists.nanog.org> wrote:
If I drop a bag of poop on your front stoop, I have violated no statutes.
I am sure there are state or local statutes against littering in your jurisdictions. There are famous, classic songs about the legal consequences of littering. _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog@lists.nanog.org/message/SCWCU2VB...
On 9/24/25 13:22, William Herrin via NANOG wrote:
If I drop a bag of poop on your front stoop, I have violated no statutes.
Trespass Littering Vandalism Malicious mischief Possibly others depending on how creative the DA is. -- Jay Hennigan - jay@west.net Network Engineering - CCIE #7880 503 897-8550 - WB6RDV
This is a song about Alice and Her Restaurant…
On Sep 24, 2025, at 6:11 PM, Crist Clark via NANOG <nanog@lists.nanog.org> wrote:
On Wed, Sep 24, 2025 at 1:23 PM William Herrin via NANOG < nanog@lists.nanog.org> wrote:
If I drop a bag of poop on your front stoop, I have violated no statutes.
I am sure there are state or local statutes against littering in your jurisdictions. There are famous, classic songs about the legal consequences of littering. _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog@lists.nanog.org/message/SCWCU2VB...
Black's Law Dictionary (revised 4 ed.; the most recent is 12 ed. but I don't have a copy- if anyone has a newer edition, I'd be curious to see if it still aligns), which is generally to be aligned and authoritative and even the "gold standard" for defining terminology in the legal wheelhouse, defines "illegal" as: ILLEGAL. Not authorized by law; illicit; unlawful; contrary to law; Protest of Downing, 164 Okl. 181, 23 P.2d 173. *Sometimes this term means merely that which lacks authority of or support from law; but more frequently it imports a violation. Etymologically, the word seems to convey the negative meaning only. But in ordinary use it has a severer, stronger signification; the idea of censure or condemnation for breaking law is usually presented. But the law implied in illegal is not necessarily an express statute. Things are called "illegal" for a violation of commonlaw principles. And the term does not imply that the act spoken of is immoral or wicked; it implies only a breach of the law. Tiedt v. Carstensen, 61 Iowa, 334, 16 N.W. 214.* Which *seems* fine and dandy and pretty clear until you get to the 1 1/3 page definition of "law", summarized as: LAW. That which is laid down, ordained, or established. A rule or method according to which phenomena or actions co-exist or follow each other. That which must be obeyed and followed by citizens, subject to sanctions or legal consequences, is a "law." Koenig v. Flynn, 258 N.Y. 292, 179 N. E. 705. (...) "Lawful", however, is a little more helpful in the discussion: LAWFUL. Legal; warranted or authorized by the law; having the qualifications prescribed by law; not contrary to nor forbidden by the law. Ohio Automatic Sprinkler Co. v. Fender, 108 Ohio St. 149, 141 N.E. 269, 275; McDonnell v. Murnan Shipbuilding Corporation, 210 Ala. 611, 98 So. 887, 889; Hafner Mfg. Co. v. City of St. Louis, 262 Mo. 621, 172 S.W. 28, 33. *The principal distinction between the terms "lawful" and "legal" is that the former contemplates the substance of law, the latter the form of law. To say of an act that it is "lawful" implies that it is authorized, sanctioned, or at any rate not forbidden, by law. To say that it is "legal" implies that it is done or performed in accordance with the forms and usages of law, or in a technical manner. In this sense "illegal" approaches the meaning of "invalid." For example, a contract or will, executed without the required formalities, might be said to be invalid or illegal, but could not be described as unlawful. Further, the word "lawful" more clearly implies an ethical content than does "legal." The latter goes no further than to denote compliance, with positive, technical, or formal rules; while the former usually imports a moral substance or ethical permissibility. A further distinction is that the word "legal" is used as the synonym of "constructive," which "lawful" is not. Thus "legal fraud" is fraud implied or inferred by law, or made out by construction. "Lawful fraud" would be a contradiction of terms. Again, "legal" is used as the antithesis of "equitable." Thus, we speak of "legal assets," "legal estate," etc., but not of "lawful assets," or "lawful estate." But there are some connections in which the two words are used as exact equivalents. Thus, a "lawful" writ, warrant, or process is the same as a "legal" writ, warrant, or process.* (*emphasis* added)
Yes, and it involves someone being charged with littering :) -mel
On Sep 24, 2025, at 3:50 PM, sronan--- via NANOG <nanog@lists.nanog.org> wrote:
This is a song about Alice and Her Restaurant…
On Sep 24, 2025, at 6:11 PM, Crist Clark via NANOG <nanog@lists.nanog.org> wrote:
On Wed, Sep 24, 2025 at 1:23 PM William Herrin via NANOG < nanog@lists.nanog.org> wrote:
If I drop a bag of poop on your front stoop, I have violated no statutes.
I am sure there are state or local statutes against littering in your jurisdictions. There are famous, classic songs about the legal consequences of littering. _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog@lists.nanog.org/message/SCWCU2VB...
NANOG mailing list https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog@lists.nanog.org/message/FE5CIVCH...
participants (16)
-
brent saner -
Christopher Morrow -
Crist Clark -
David Conrad -
Ge DUPIN -
Jay Acuna -
jay＠west.net -
Kurtis Heimerl -
L F -
Mel Beckman -
nanog＠immibis.com -
Rusty Dekema -
Shane Ronan -
sronan＠ronan-online.com -
Tom Beecher -
William Herrin