Fake Mobile Phone Towers Found To Be "Actively Listening In" On Calls In UK 122
New submitter nickweller writes: More than 20 Stingray fake phone towers which can collect data from passing devices and listen in on calls have been discovered operating in the UK. The Metropolitan Police have refused to say who is controlling the IMSI catchers, also known as Stingrays, or what is being done with the information they are gathering. Met Commissioner Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe said: "If people imagine that we’ve got the resources to do as much intrusion as they worry about, I would reassure them that it’s impossible.”
Re:Use a cellphone booster? (Score:5, Informative)
Anyone here can comment on using a cellphone booster to nullify stingrays?
No. Because most Stingrays (IMSI catchers) work on 2G - those that work on 3G and 4G play man-in-the-middle (use encryption to "beat" those). If you mean can I get a better antennae so that when I've set my phone to only use 3G I can still get a signal most of the time - then yes (I just did). If you mean you want to boost the 2G reception then you'd need to find a way to only connect to your own boosted 2G connection - which is problematic to say the least. How do you ensure it is not boosting a Stingray? How do you legally run a booster? (I don't know the relevant law on amplifiers in the U.K. - in Oz we have to buy them from carriers, which is expensive as well as an act of faith). i.e. the way to "nullify" Stingrays is only use 3G and use encryption (if you use encryption then you can use any mobile protocol, which makes your "booster" redundant). Better to get a stronger signal with a better antenna than boost a weak one using an active repeater/amplifier (most mobiles have crap reception). Were you planning on lugging the repeater everywhere?
Re: (Score:2)
The key quote (Score:5, Interesting)
Translation: "It is important that we be completely transparent on this single fact: we are not transparent, and we will do bad things, because reasons."
Re: The key quote (Score:1)
And where would the new be? Here in France "raison d'état" trumps everything. "State reasons". It translates as "we're doing something you won't like, which will go against the very laws of the Republic, and we're not telling you why or the details. Because it's good for the State and you cannot be trusted to understand or know what's best for yourself. End of discussion." It has been going on ever since we had kings. After a while you come to understand you can't fight city hall, much less the
Re: (Score:1)
For some reason or another, Slashdot does not like your French Fancy Accents. Unless Ãlisée is a cool nerdy l3t3spe4k cafe.
Guess they never heard of UTF-8 storage...
Re:What is a republic? (Score:5, Informative)
"The time France had a king was in the 1800's
How come you guys still allow draconian bullshits in your lawbooks??"
Look who's talking.Did you ever check your own laws?
Here are a few:
It is considered an offense to open an umbrella on a street, for fear of spooking horses. ...
It is illegal to sell peanuts in Lee County after sundown on Wednesday.
It is illegal to wear a fake moustache that causes laughter in church.
In New York, adultery is still a crime.
Citizens may not greet each other by “putting one’s thumb to the nose and wiggling the fingers”.
In Alabama putting salt on railroad tracks may be punishable by death.
Re:What is a republic? (Score:5, Funny)
It is considered an offense to open an umbrella on a street, for fear of spooking horses. ...
It is illegal to sell peanuts in Lee County after sundown on Wednesday.
It is illegal to wear a fake moustache that causes laughter in church.
In New York, adultery is still a crime.
Citizens may not greet each other by “putting one’s thumb to the nose and wiggling the fingers”.
In Alabama putting salt on railroad tracks may be punishable by death.
That's my plans for the weekend shot to s**t then....
Re: (Score:1)
I drove/rode around the country at complete random (as much as is humanly possible, at any rate) the vast majority of the time. We would cross a state line and get off the nearest exit. Our spartan itinerary meant that we could do what we wanted for however long we wanted with regards to our lack of destination. Sometimes we would camp in a hotel for days and just explore an area that looked interesting. (For instance, Florida is a bit like a car wreck - you have to stare.) Anyhow, the appropriate site is h [dumblaws.com]
Re:What is a republic? (Score:5, Interesting)
Why should adultery not be a crime. We place such a high importance on marriage rights apparently that being free to enter that institution with anyone you wish is now being considered a basic human right. If that contract is so sacred that nobody should be denied it, than are not those who violate the integrity of harming society?
When prosecuting murders killing the person who was cheating with your spouse generally makes it a crime of passion and frequently is used to justify reducing the charges to second degree murder or even down to manslaughter. So obviously adultery poses a significant danger of triggering of provoking other serious crimes like battery and murder.
Its the frequent cause of dissolution of homes which negatively effects the development of children.
The list could go on. I think there is clear pattern of harm to society at large resulting from adultery. It SHOULD be a crime. If you are concerned about being and adulterer don't marry.
Re:What is a republic? (Score:4, Insightful)
Marriage should be a matter of contract law, not criminal law. Anything dictated on government terms is Big Government, which the Republicans allegedly eschew.
Re: (Score:3)
Making it Contract Law, means that marriage is no longer a "civil right" as such. If it is a civil right, then it is in the realm of criminal law, and thus eligible for criminal penalties for those that violate those rights. Having an affair is a violation of the civil rights of the partner, as it is a direct cause of harm to that right. I would even suggest that having an affair is a crime, even if ALL parties are consenting to it, for the same reason one cannot consent to being a slave or being a human sa
Re: (Score:1)
Marriage is not a civil right. I am not attempting to argue with you, really, but I am expanding on your statement(s) for some clarity and to opine on the subject. I actually agree with you but am a bit concerned that my reply may be misunderstood and the assumption made that I am taking an opposing view. This is not true. I may be taking an alternate view but it is not one that is in opposition to your statements. The topic is complex (to some) but I will attempt brevity, though I fear a novella... You hav
Re: (Score:2)
The reason it isn't illegal is that making it so would only make things worse for everyone involved and society in general. Many marriages can recover from affairs, and sometimes people separate but don't get divorced for various reasons (often children) while beginning romantic relationships with others. If adultery was a crime a lot of people who might otherwise have been able to repair their marriage or who were in an all but legally dissolved relationship would be punished, and that doesn't seem to be i
Re: (Score:1)
Oh, bullshit.
Who you fuck is not a matter for the state to be prosecuting or otherwise interfering with. Because it's none of their damned business.
If battery and murder occur, you have plenty of laws for that.
Boo hoo, divorce can make children sad. Isn't that bloody tragic? So in order to prevent children from being sad we will criminally charge people for adultery, and put their parents in jail ... and make the fucking little children sad.
If you think adultery should be an actual crime involving the la
Re: (Score:2)
> Who you fuck is not a matter for the state to be prosecuting or otherwise interfering with.
Except for rape, child molestation, incest, trading sex for promotions, demanding sex for promotions, sex with infected partners who refuse to warn others, and shall i go on?
The "state" has always regulated sex, often though not always for compelling reason.
Re: What is a republic? (Score:2)
ignore the AC - he's obviously a dullard who wouldn't understand the difference between negative rights and positive privileges if they hit him upside the head.
Re: (Score:2)
Who you fuck is not a matter for the state to be prosecuting or otherwise interfering with. Because it's none of their damned business.
Except that it is, by the very fact that the state sanctions such contracts and as established it as a right. This isn't Schrodinger's cat, which is both a Right and Not a Right until you look at it.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Murder in your own home falls under the same reasoning? Criminal activities suddenly do not become legal when done within a home. I would challenge the Supreme Court's interpretation, and have it reconsidered.
Re: (Score:2)
Because every time people try to legislate morality, it turns out bad, Perhaps if everyone had the exact same religion and same sexual preferences that might work out, but we live in the real world. Some people have mutually consensual open marriages - what would making adultery mean for them? If there is anything that would drive a number of nails into the coffin of the institution of marriage, it would be outlawing adultery. When there's a choice between crimi
Re: (Score:2)
I'll admin my initial post was does somewhat to act as a provocateur (though not a troll because I am genuinely interested in discussing the subject).
Its my personal view that government should get out of the marriage business. We should simply pass a low recognizing all existing marriage licenses as "Civil union licenses" and convert all marriage rights next of kin, child custody, 5th amendment testimony protections etc, to civil partner rights. Than any two people regardless of sex or gender can enter a
Re: (Score:1)
Many laws do, in fact, legislate morality. Laws such as theft, murder, rape, etc... Those laws may ring a bell.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Translation: Silence citizen we are above the law and not subject to the oversight of peasants like yourself.
In other words... (Score:5, Interesting)
"If people imagine that we’ve got the resources to do as much intrusion as they worry about, I would reassure them that it’s impossible."
Sure, we're doing a lot of bad illegal shit, but we don't have time to do as much bad illegal shit as you think we are.
Imagine if that logic were applied by a bank robber: Sure, I robbed the bank, but I didn't have time to steal as much money as you thought I did.
Re: (Score:2)
Bank Robber: "I don't have the wherewithal to steal as much money as I want to, so you can worry a bit less about me"
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
How would they know it's impossible unless they've atleast researched the possibility of doing so?
Re:In other words... (Score:4, Interesting)
Because the fact is, our standard police forces can't deal with the things they're meant to be dealing with as is, hence why certain things have become defacto legalised because they don't have time to deal with them.
The idea that they've then got time to dick around doing something like mass spying on top makes little sense.
Any such spying would typically be carried out by the security services, or by one of the new pseudo security forces that are effectively national police agencies like SOCA or whatever name they're going by nowadays.
So frankly I believe Hogan-Howe, I don't think it's his guys doing this, I think he's probably exactly right when he says it's nothing to do with him and his force. I think they genuinely have neither the resources or the will to do this.
That doesn't mean it's not another branch of the government of course, and it most likely is. When he refuses to comment it's probably because he knows it's nothing to do with him and doesn't want anything to do with the political debate of who is doing it or the rights and wrongs of it.
Frankly, whoever approached the met to ask who is operating them approached the wrong person. It's like asking the chief of a hospital why some members of parliament support homeopathy. How the fuck are they meant to know why they support what they do and vote for what they do? it effects them but they have no real control over it, nor can they say why the MPs think or do what they do. It's a question best put to the MPs themselves, not some unrelated chief of a hospital.
Re:In other words... (Score:4, Interesting)
Don't be mislead about the lack of resources to violate privacy on a massive scale. They may not have operators actively listening to every call, monitoring every URL accessed and every form submitted, but they certainly can capture all of that data. They certainly capture all the metadata, and that's where the real danger lies.
For example, they like to see who is visiting an area by collecting the IMEIs of all phones that connect to their fake tower. Say there is a political event, or a protest or some other gathering of people they dislike. They record every IMEI that was anywhere near it. Then when the next one happens they do the same thing and compare the two lists, eventually creating a master list of known dissidents and unfortunate people who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Whenever they have the opportunity they match the IMEI up with an identity. If they ever examine a phone they make sure they get the IMEI. They also like to try to tie it up with things like car number plates and patterns of movement. The information is shared with other police forces, and stored indefinitely.
The police are building vast databases on everyone. The DNA database, for example, includes millions of innocent people. We must keep up efforts to get these databases wiped, permanently, and the people who built them brought to trial and punished.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you have any evidence for any of that whatsoever, or is it all just conspiracy theory?
The met's entire budget is £4.1bn, and the price tag on GCHQ's equivalent system was £6bn. Where are the police getting the money for this exactly?
The only evidence of police overuse of phone records is that some providers are giving the police free reign of call logs:
http://www.theguardian.com/wor... [theguardian.com]
That's a far cry though from having their own database that also tracks and compares location dat
Speculative Rubbish! (Score:2)
They told you to piss off it's non of your damn business, not where the data is going or how it's being used. If you believe anything that you are told by a Government which has a proven track record of lying to the public (and not giving a shit) you are a fool.
Your speculation that it's perfectly innocent because police are busy is worth the same amount as the conspiracy speculation of the next guy. You don't know what they are doing the the data, nor do you know who the collection point is sharing data
Re: (Score:2)
No, you've entirely missed the point.
I'm not saying it's not a concern, I'm not saying it's not a problem. I'm saying going after the people who have neither the time nor the budget, nor the technical skills to operate this sort of thing is pointless, when you should instead be focussing on the government organisations that can do this - i.e. the people who will actually be running it.
The problem is that our general police forces are for the most part actually quite good and reasonable in the UK. My point i
Important to the debate (Score:2)
"If people imagine that we’ve got the resources to do as much intrusion as they worry about, I would reassure them that it’s impossible."
Sure, we're doing a lot of bad illegal shit, but we don't have time to do as much bad illegal shit as you think we are.
Imagine if that logic were applied by a bank robber: Sure, I robbed the bank, but I didn't have time to steal as much money as you thought I did.
Actually, this is a quintessential part of the debate. The Supreme Court considers it now on technology cases that involve the ability to do dragnet surveillance on large numbers of people or over an extended time period on the same person. The idea is basically that what used to be okay because cops were practically limited by the cost of extensive surveillance might no longer be okay when they are able to collect a LOT of surveillance data cheaply.
This came up in a GPS tracking case a few years back.
Re: (Score:2)
So it's okay to violate the law by listening on telephone calls as long as you don't do it too much, because back in the day it wouldn't have been possible to do it too much? So then it's okay if I rob a bank and only steal a thousand dollars, because back in the day (because of inflation) that's all the teller's drawers would have had?
Re: (Score:2)
So it's okay to violate the law by listening on telephone calls as long as you don't do it too much, because back in the day it wouldn't have been possible to do it too much? So then it's okay if I rob a bank and only steal a thousand dollars, because back in the day (because of inflation) that's all the teller's drawers would have had?
Differences of degree matter to everyone except idiots and those spouting religious dogma.
That intrusion into the individual sphere of liberty that is only slightly concerning when so extremely limited by impracticality that it cannot be employed in practice becomes much more concerning when it is done to everyone all the time.
The scope of an intrusion matters. Listening to one phone call at a time isn't good, but listening to all of them at the same time is a fundamental threat to society.
Re: (Score:2)
I know it's overused on Slashdot, but this really is a classic case of these aren't the droids you're looking for
Re:In other words... (Score:5, Interesting)
But isn't it reassuring that the first thing stopping them doing surveillance that comes to Sir Bernard's mind is the lack of resources? Not things like legality or moral justification?
Lack of money; the police's new moral compass.
Re: (Score:1)
The underlying problem is this: The police HAS to use all available tools, unless these tools are declared illegal.
Why?
Because if they don't and some criminal gets away, then they have to answer some tough questions.
So the only solution is to declare all this mass surveillance illegal. Which is exactly what our Leaders will never do.
"We do all these for the children" (Score:3, Insightful)
We do it for the Children
We strive all days and all nights to keep you and all your children safe
You can trust us, we are good people
What Is Being Done (Score:1)
Categorizing people by various political and ideological inclinations, fapping, gathering "leverage", fapping, obtaining various bits of time and location data to avoid being caught in a web of lies by physical impossibilities when planting evidence to dispose of people "legally", fapping, enhancing and increasing their collections of various phone or IM sex, fapping, revelling in the very fact that they hold such unaccountable power over the worthless rabble they use it on, and general acts of genital self
Re: (Score:3)
The Brits should treat those bogus cell towers the same way they treat speed cameras. [redditmirror.cc]
Re:What Is Being Done (Score:4, Informative)
First you have to find them. Fortunately there is software for that: on a rooted Android, use https://github.com/SecUpwN/And... [github.com] and https://opensource.srlabs.de/p... [srlabs.de]
Thanks Sir (Score:4, Interesting)
"If people imagine that we’ve got the resources to do as much intrusion as they worry about, I would reassure them that it’s impossible.”
I'm confused. 20 Stringrays in the U.K. And no one should worry because the Chief of Metropolitan Police says they don't have the resources to do as much intrusion as "they" worry about. If that's right - how much less intrusion? Is that because of the 20% budget cuts - or because his area of command is not the entire U.K. (London only, excluding The City of London)? Or maybe because the Metropolitian Police don't have primary access to the Stingray traffic? Is that because the story is wrong - or is one of those Stingrays in The City of London? Is this just bullshit or maybe a ploy to increase funding so that the level of intrusion is something to worry about e.g. if it weren't for the budget cuts he could implement his plan for "total war on crime" and "total policing".
Given the past accuracy [wikipedia.org] of some of the statements from his office I'm still cynical.
We 'always' follow the US (Score:2)
At the moment our 'imports' are TTIP, private healthcare, GMO crops, US banks, mall-shopping as an activity, cops as thugs, empty celebrity culture, reality TV, US payday lenders [quickquid, for example, is US owned] gangster rap and US style gangs etc.
Possible! (Score:5, Interesting)
If people imagine that we’ve got the resources to do as much intrusion as they worry about, I would reassure them that it’s impossible.
Based on the fact that there are 20 operating Stingrays I would say that not only is it possible, but you have actually put your resources to good use doing exactly as much intrusion as we're worrying about.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Possible! (Score:5, Interesting)
Way to intentionally try and mislead readers!
824,297 is the total number of cellular sites opensignal has data for, ON THE PLANET.
It is estimated all operators in the UK have around 23,000 cell sites (including microcells).
There appear to be between 100 and 150 TOTAL sites in London.
So no, they could catch a fair bit of all of the trafic in say Central London with those, lets
say one per embassy zone, a couple around Parliment, one for the Queen, etc - they could
drag a nice little bit of data for their colonial cousins with those..
Oh, wait, how foolish of me, they are only used to fight active terrorist groups who are working
to kill us all! how easy to forget.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh come on, everybody know the queen only uses her mobile to play Farm Ville (the peasants rebellion edition)
Re: (Score:2)
Not intended to mislead, a mistake, a pretty easy one at that. Given it's shown up when you are on the UK page.
Why you think people would use cell phones in embassies for important conversations when you would instead be using a secured or encrypted line?
A stingray outside parliament would get rather overwhelmed with all the tourists.
If the government wanted to spy on itself, there are easier ways than this.
Jason.
They refuse to say who's listening, etc (Score:3)
Translation (Score:4, Insightful)
In other words, "
If people think we're trying to screw them as much as possible with the limited resources we have, I would reassure them we are."
Wrong authority (Score:4, Informative)
The metropolitan police are not responsible for GSM interference
Doing so legally they would be run by Government Communications Headquarters ( GCHQ)
It matters not most UK communications are intercepted quite legally by the NSA and shared back to UK.
They are most likely test towers or towers created by individuals illegally
The British have always allowed intercepts legally
Regards
John Jones
Well that's bollocks (Score:1)
The article MENTIONS THAT THE MET BOUGHT STINGRAYS, so we know who uses them.
Whether its legal or not, well UK is a joke when it comes to privacy protection and MET is at the forefront of pushing the boundary beyond even that the law, so who knows.
What we know is they're not confident its legal enough to explain to Joe public (and Judge Public) why they're using them and under what legal circumstances. His excuse is rubbish, explaining in vague terms the legal use so be what the public law does. Most likely
Re: (Score:2)
ok I'll bite...
the report states :
"Scotland Yard was said to have bought some of the IMSI towers in 2009 and began using them last November, according to reports"
If thats a journalist ever hedging their bets... I believe they are there is no proof at all and no statement within the article that the met are doing anything as low sophistication as "stingrays"
There is absolutely no reason for the force such as the metropolitan police to use or invest in such equipment when all data collation is done by
Re: (Score:2)
"There is absolutely no reason for the force such as the metropolitan police to use or invest in such equipment when all data collation is done by other british agencies already do this"
MET is the force that does this, they got the 'domestic terrorist detection role', I even showed you the intelligence division of the MET that does it. They don't deny it, they confirm bad stuff (see below).
As to GCHQ doing it, yep I'm sure they do, and I'm also sure that that is flatly illegal which is why the MET probably does the more illegal stuff on their behalf. MET handles anti-terror which in turn has provided a two way link making a mockery of any domestic spying limits on GCHQ.
"Keith Bristow, the director-general of the National Crime Agency, said: “Some of what we would like to talk about to get the debate informed and logical, we can’t, because it would defeat the purpose of having the tactics in the first place. Frankly, some of what we need to do is intrusive, it is uncomfortable, and the important thing is we set that out openly and recognise there are difficult choices to be made.”"
'Domestic terrorism detection role' would be MI5
Re:Wrong authority (Score:4, Interesting)
Hmm... test towers...?
I use Llama to turn on my phone's wifi when I get near home. I live in a village, so I would assume there can't be more than a handful of cell towers in range of my house. The thing is, I have found I'd get home and my wifi wasn't on, so I get Llama to 'learn' the area, and all is well again until the next time. I think I got to 23 cell IDs before I cleared them all and then started from scratch. Over a period of a few months, I've got 22 in there right now.
One thing Llama doesn't do is tell you when a cell ID was last seen - but in the absence of better information, does anyone know what could be going on here?
Re: (Score:2)
the cell towers that you connect to depending on the connection type can be "named" differently and in a rural setting you may well see many attempts to connect to geographically far away towers by several providers
you would need to understand the carrier and software sorry I have no clue to what Llama software is and google is not much help, either way invest in a software defined radio to easily and cheaply scan your environment
regards
John Jones
Let me guess... (Score:5, Insightful)
Feds have this funny habit of suddenly getting really possessive of things that previously didn't exist if you start touching them.
Re: (Score:1)
Reminds me of this:
http://www.wired.com/2010/10/fbi-tracking-device/ [wired.com]
Post-democracy (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The Met Police would not have the legal authority to implement such a network. They are bound by the law and require warrants for interception. The only two potential sources are MI5 and GCHQ.
GCHQ would have better options than mere IMSI catchers, so that would leave MI5 as the source. Again, these guys are meant to be bound by UK on telecoms interception.
The network is clearly illegal under UK law, so I am somewhat surprised that the Met Police has not moved to prosecute. Technically, that would be aiding and abetting, perhaps even conspiracy charges.
Given this has hit the media, no doubt it will be taken further.
The MET might have bought them so that MI5 can say "We don't have that capability" and the MET lets MI5 use them so the MET can say "We're not even doing anything with these things!", then MI5 shares the intel with the MET. A bit like the way 5 eyes works but internal to the UK.
So take them as abandoned property (Score:1)
So uproot and walk away with them. If the police don't want to tell you who owns them, I guess you own them now.
Who knows, perhaps they're worth a bit on eBay.
AC
zero evidence (Score:1)
All we have for evidence is the word of a for-profit company and a 50MB RTF log file of meaningless crap, no GPS locations, no photos, nothing.
its trivial to triangulate the location of them yet out of 20 "detections" no physical devices or their locations have been found.
A Question of Trust - RIPA review. (Score:4, Informative)
Track them down and destroy them (Score:1)
Obviously since no one is admitting to setting them up, they must have spontaneously formed from the ether, and are fair game for whomever reaches them first.
Here's the public's chance to get a free Stingray. Just find, or make, a way to track them, and once you reach them they are all yours.
Criminal towers? (Score:5, Insightful)
It was publicly demonstrated not long ago that it's possible to listen into a given persons GSM calls relatively easily with cheap, consumer grade, equipment. If there's a bunch of these impostor towers knocking about and the police's position is that it's not them using them then I'd quite like them to be making an effort to find out who they do belong to ASAP. Shrugging and saying “we don't have the resources to bother tapping your phones” is not an acceptable response even if it's true.
Break one and see what happens (Score:4, Interesting)
Rather you than me...
Aholes (Score:1)
End-to-End Encryption (Score:2)
Where are the apps (Score:3, Interesting)
What surprises me most is that we haven't seen a comprehensive software solution for this yet. Sure, i've seen an implementation or two that only work on specific chipsets with Android, but where is the app that detects these stingrays, notifies all users in the area then triangulates the devices position and tracks it's movements using crowdsourced data? Maybe even an option to shutoff your phones radio or broadcast nonsense identification until it's gone.
It seems to me that if turning one of these on aways resulted in nearly instant identification of the vehicle carrying it, this nonsense would end pretty quick.
Evil government bla bla bla (Score:1)
Lots of philosophical masturbation going on over this. Anyone bother to notice the election results? The people over there want this stuff and are more concerned about closing the border.
Not the same thing as "We aren't doing it." (Score:2)
"If people imagine that we’ve got the resources to do as much intrusion as they worry about, I would reassure them that it’s impossible.”
Basically this is dancing around actually answering "Is your department doing this?" and "Do you know who is setting these up?"
Fixed location implies constant surveillance (Score:2)
It's interesting ... (Score:2)
On a related note, the British press is also pointing out how easily this equipment can make it onto the gray market and into the hands of criminal organizations. At least the Brits are being honest.
Frankly, some of what we need to do is intrusive, it is uncomfortable, and the important thing is we set that out openly and recognise there are difficult choices to be made.
But at least they get to debate those choices, rather than have law enforcement lie to the
Have you cosidered... (Score:1)
I mean, In some countries, they have their own roads, their own phone models, their own whatever...