https://www.axios.com/newsletters/axios-pm-76a155d0-9b02-11f...
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/gaza-hit-by-teleco...
Reminds me how at some point the U.S. was so strong that it didn’t even have to show up to dick swinging contests anymore. No military parades and the like, which feels antiquated and kind of embarrassing when you see the Russians or North Koreans doing it.
Though the Americans are into military parades again… hmmm…
But it can copy the sound of a phone call to separate channels, or copy the data being sent (even on wifi), or it can activate emergency messages or broadcasts. It can also transmit audio and video when the phone is not actually in a call. That sort of thing.
In practice there are a great many different basebands and of course most states couldn't be bothered to actually write a decent system to use them (well, they tried forcing carriers to do it for them, but anyone who ever worked at a large carrier on a big project can tell you how that went), so only lowest common denominator features are in practice accessible. That means location and getting audio. But nothing is stopping countries from implementing more. I bet the NSA has something with a lot more features, for example.
1. israel cyberarmy is just better
2. they dont need to hide it anymore (where US and china do it may gain unnecessary publicity)
Let's allow the ICC to decide that for us, with the wealth of available evidence at their disposal.
> The prime minister’s office also claimed that the Israeli army had taken over mobile phones in Gaza to broadcast his message, though AP journalists inside Gaza saw no immediate evidence of Netanyahu’s speech being broadcast on phones there.
My understanding that it is a standard feature, this is how earthquake warning works in Japan.
Point being there is no "hacking" involved. Standard feature
Hacking every cellphone sounds unrealistic.
Making a call to every phone connected to a tower sounds plausible.
But a user would have needed to actively tap on the link to open the stream.
Since the 'beep' is just an audio file, my hunch is that some A/B testing was going on, with most people getting the 'beep' and some getting the message read out.
I imagine that broadcast capability is fully built in, so that mobile phones can replace what we had in the olden days when the government could take over the TV and radio to broadcast whatever they thought was important. I can't remember the last time that the U.S. President spoke to the people in this way, but it used to be fairly common.
I don't think that calling every phone is plausible. In a competitive telecoms market, no provider would build that out. Instead they would keep capacity just above what they know is needed on a daily basis.
Reportedly, some phones have a setting to toggle TTS for emergency alerts...
Not because it would be impossible, although the "every phone" is a bit of a stretch given how hard it would be to build an exploit that reliably works on all the messed up versions of Android that vendors put out.
But because if you had a capability like this, you wouldn't burn several full exploit chains just to broadcast a speech.
Doing something on the network side (either compromising existing infrastructure, simply being the infrastructure provider, or providing fake base stations) and then simply calling each phone - sure.
Pushing emergency alert cell broadcast messages with a link to the stream - sure.
Actually exploiting the phones? Nah.
You guys read too much Tom Clancy.
If spammers can do it and send me links to phishing sites so can one of the most technologically-proficient governments. You really think they would waste multiple 0-days on some bullshit like this?
Isn't this is the nation that planted explosives into pagers? I think they're the ones reading too much Clancy.
> so can one of the most technologically-proficient governments.
How would you feel if China did this to your nation? Would you marvel at their proficiency or perhaps focus on the complete lack of diplomacy it displays?
How would you feel? Insulted?
Seymour Hersh, actually.
Putin has treaty rights to attend the General Assembly, same as Netanyahu. Neither are under legal threat in the U.S. as we never signed the Rome Statute that established the ICC.
I don't see why Putin would be prohibited from making a speech in the time alloted for speeches either? He's the head of state of a member country as well. And it's one of the permanent members of the security council, so among equal peers, it's more equal. Russia's slot is currently listed as Saturday morning [1], I don't know who will speak.
[1] https://www.thenationalnews.com/news/us/2025/09/15/un-genera...
