The state spies on you

GIDEON NKALA
Staff Writer | Wednesday December 1, 2010 00:00

 

* The police wanted a spy equipment that could intercept private conversations with out the networks and phone users  knowing

* The police want to know who is talking to who and who knows who

* The police cancelled the tender because the spying equipment could only intercept Orange but not Mascom phones

The obsession by security forces to tap peoples' cellular phones cannot be hidden anymore. In Chief Justice Maruping Dibotelo's court, the penchant for security forces to intercept information transmitted by cellular phones was openly discussed in a case filled with revelations and more revelations in the dark hem of the spy world.

All the spy details were traded in public after it emerged a Botswana Police tender to supply, deliver and install a GSM cellular computer surveillance went awry and was eventually cancelled. The company that had supplied the equipment, Dukef Holdings, through its managing director Duke April has taken the police to court over the failure to pay an equivalent of US$1,529,000 for breach of contract.

Yesterday, when the case started, the state wanted the evidence of Senior Superintendent Edward Mholo to be heard away from the public glare saying his testimony was bound to touch on serious issues of national security.

State Counsel, Nchunga Nchunga pleaded with the judge that Mholo's evidence be taken in camera to prevent state security details being discussed in public. But Advocate Sidney Pilane resisted saying the tender that precipitated the case was floated in public and that the state refused to have the issue settled out of court. 'You Lordship cannot be asked to hold a secret trial now when the state chose to put this matter in the public glare. It was their choice my lord,' Pilane said.

The judge brushed aside the call to have a trial in camera saying if the state wanted to challenge the evidence of Mholo, it can always bring a witness to do so. The judge even remarked that after all 'we always read public statements that these things are not intercepted'. The relief in the public gallery was palpable when it emerged that there will be no closed door session.

Mholo, who is a serving police officer albeit on suspension, has been brought to court by a subpoena by Dukef Holdings.

He told court that sometime in 2005,  together with some members of the security and intelligence services, he was given the task of investigating the possibility of finding surveillance equipment that could intercept cellular phone conversations without the knowledge of the service providers and their customers. It was the evidence of Mholo that the investigating team, which he chaired in his capacity as the Information Technology Manager, found that there was some equipment in the market that could do the envisaged surveillance. Such equipment could only be sold to governments but not individuals.

Mholo, who introduced himself as an engineer, told court that they found that there were two types of systems.

There was a passive system which could intercept data without the knowledge of the service provider or the targeted cellphone users. The other was an active system that could intercept information but the service providers and their customers will be aware that there is interference.

The passive system, he said had real time attribute, meaning that a conversation can be listened to at the material time. He said the system had Real Time Playback, meaning that it can be recorded and played back at the material time. He explained that cellphone service providers encrypted conversations so that an ordinary ear cannot pick it up. This is important to a service provider and customers because it makes sure that conversations remain private.

It however emerged that the police wanted a system that could break into private conversations without seeking the permission of the service providers.

Mholo told court that there were three different systems (platforms) in the market that could decrypt or break into the networks. These he identified as A5.0, A5.2. and A5.1. While 5.0 was identified as a native platform that really did not need any decoding or decryption, the other two were sophisticated systems with 5.1 being an improved version of 5.2. Platform 5.0 is used by FM radio stations and police and security guard communication gadgets known as walkie-talkie.

According to Mholo,w at the time the tender was floated, the two existing cellular networks in Botswana then (Mascom and Orange) were on 5.2. He said soon after the tender was floated, Mascom upgraded to the more sophisticated 5.1 platform. He said that when the equipment finally arrived, it meant that it could only intercept data on the Orange platform because Mascom and new entrant, Be Mobile were on a more sophisticated platform.

Later on, Orange upgraded its platform.Mholo said when they carried out their investigations, they realised that the 5.1 platform cannot be hacked without the service provider knowing what is going on, while 5.2 could be decrypted in passive mode and in real time. He said there was another platform called 5.3 which was still under construction and was not used anywhere in the market.

At first the police wanted to buy a comprehensive (fully-fledged) system that could decrypt conversation to the highest level. 'They also wanted a system with a capacity to pass on information to other auxiliary equipment. For instance, equipment that will record patterns, circle of friends, who is talking to who and who knows who,' he explained.

Mholo said the police had a budget of P3 million for the equipment. He said recommendations were made but the tender was not awarded because the budget was insufficient to cover the cost of a fully-fledged system. He said the company that was recommended quoted P36 million but the decision to secure the equipment was not abandoned. Mholo said it was postponed to the next financial year with the hope that enough money will be available.

In the next financial year, only P12 million was budgeted for. Mholo said it was then agreed that a lower system would have to be used with the possibility of an add-on module or an upgrade. He said the 5.2 was amenable to this upgrade.

It was the evidence of Mholo that they recommended Dukef, and passed on the recommendation to the upper departmental committee which then forwarded the matter to PPADB and an award to Dukef was made on May 8, 2008.

In his affidavit, Dukef MD, April said after the on site tests on the equipment were carried out successfully in Dubai with the participation of police officers, the equipment was eventually supplied and installed but the government has failed to pay. The state's case is that the equipment supplied is a 5.2 instead of 5.1 and hence they cancelled the contract. In fact, it is stated in one of the court summaries that deputy Commissioner of Police, Ikotlhaeng Bagopi complained that while the equipment was working, it could only intercept data on the Orange network and not Mascom. The case continues today. Attorney Nchunga Nchunga appears for the state, while Advocate Sidney Pilane on instructions of attorney Sadique Kebonang acts for Dukef.