US Pushing Local Police To Keep Quiet On Cell-Phone Surveillance Technology 253
schwit1 (797399) writes with this story from the Associated Press, as carried by Yahoo News: The Obama administration has been quietly advising local police not to disclose details about surveillance technology they are using to sweep up basic cellphone data from entire neighborhoods, The Associated Press has learned. Citing security reasons, the U.S. has intervened in routine state public records cases and criminal trials regarding use of the technology. This has resulted in police departments withholding materials or heavily censoring documents in rare instances when they disclose any about the purchase and use of such powerful surveillance equipment. Federal involvement in local open records proceedings is unusual. It comes at a time when President Barack Obama has said he welcomes a debate on government surveillance and called for more transparency about spying in the wake of disclosures about classified federal surveillance programs.
Oh my ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Oh my ... (Score:5, Insightful)
>> compared to Gitmo and the phoney wars we had because of George W Bush
I hope you realize Gitmo is Obama's mess now. He's had six years now to clean it up - in fact ran on a platform to clean it up - and has done little there except release some pretty evil dudes back into the wild.
Re: (Score:2)
Obama hasn't been scary as a Black President at all.
He doesn't rock the boat any more than his melanin-challenged predecessors.
Re:Oh my ... (Score:4, Informative)
The sad truth about the travesty of Gitmo is that it was attempted to be closed but was blocked via procedural means. Only certain penitentiaries can accept prisoners from outside of US soil and in order to do so they must have authorization from the Governor of that region. Sadly all of the penitentiaries that were able to take the prisoners had Republican governors. All of them were asked in turn by the administration, and all of them said no.
It is disturbing how so many actively chose to allow that human rights fiasco to continue just to make one man look bad. Not that you care, considering you think all those people that did not get a trial, that have no evidence against them are "pretty evil dudes".
Re: (Score:2)
Sadly all of the penitentiaries that were able to take the prisoners had Republican governors. All of them were asked in turn by the administration, and all of them said no.
It is disturbing how so many actively chose to allow that human rights fiasco to continue just to make one man look bad. .
Right. It can't possibly be that they thought having high ranking members of terrorist groups in their prisons was an open invitation to having their prisons attacked to free those people.
It always has to be about the black man in the white house for you, doesn't it.
Re: (Score:2)
If one book twenty years ago count as "too much", then you may be right.
I do like his movies, though.
Re: (Score:3)
and in order to do so they must have authorization from the Governor of that region.
It may not have been intentional but you illustrate a big part of the problem with this surveillance: with very few exceptions, the Federal government has no jurisdiction OR other authority to be involved in local/state criminal matters. The only time the Feds are legally allowed to be involved is if it involves interstate or international crime.
If I were someone who was a victim of this illegal surveillance (according to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, as another story mentioned just today, it *IS* a
Re: (Score:2)
The sad truth about the travesty of Gitmo is that it was attempted to be closed but was blocked via procedural means.
Just set up a court and hold criminal trials. Try them in gitmo if you have to. Then they're either guilty or innocent.
Nobody objects to people being held in gitmo because the prison happens to be located at gitmo. The concern is that people are being held prisoner without any kind of trial or determination of guilt. Simply moving them around doesn't solve that.
Hold a trial, and if they're innocent you let them go. If the evil Republicans or whatever won't fund flying them home then just let them out a
Re: (Score:3)
Graham warns of Republican impeachment push over Gitmo [thehill.com]
Congress tried to build in a safeguard against Obama making unilateral decisions on releasing terrorist detainees by including language in the National Defense Authorization Act requiring the administration to alert Congress of such moves at least 30 days in advance.
Obama did not follow that law when he swapped five senior Taliban commanders for Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl.
Sen. Carl Levin (Mich.), the Democratic chairman of the Armed Services panel, said Obama had a plausible legal argument for ignoring the law.
“The White House did not comply with the requirement of the 30-day provision. However, the White House said it had power under Article II of the Constitution to do what it did,” Levin said. “I’m not a court that’s going to decide whether or not under Article II the commander in chief has the power to move this quickly even though Congress said you’ve got to give 30 days notice.”
So in order for Obama to close Guantanamo, not only does he have to determine that the concentration camp is bullshit, but he also has to determine that Congress's impertinence on the matter is also bullshit.
Re:Oh my ... (Score:5, Insightful)
These are non-US citizens (generally) & non-uniformed combatants.
"non-uniformed combatants" is a made up thing; they are civilians. Criminals perhaps, but if Iran invades your home town and starts
As such, they are afforded protection from neither the US Constitution
Why not? Isn't there something in there about 'all people'? I don't recall it being limited to American citizens?
I mean, granted we don't have authority to impose the constitution or justice system on foreign nationals in their own country -- but we did arrest them, and remove them from their country to territory we control. There's no reason they can't or shouldn't be extended to the rights of our justice system? Why shouldn't we? Would their trial be somehow unfair?
Additionally, most countries where the detainees originate are not signatories to the Geneva Convention, and thus the protections further do not apply to them.
It still applies to us stupid. Sure legally we aren't obligated by treaty but so what? Its the morally right thing to do, and there is certainly nothing in the treaty that PREVENTS us from extending them those protections? Why on earth would we desire NOT to extend them?
You make it sound like we'd like to give them fair trials, and we'd like to extend them rights but we can't. That's bullshit.
Re:Oh my ... (Score:5, Insightful)
"non-uniformed combatants" is a made up thing; they are civilians. Criminals perhaps, but if Iran invades your home town and starts
sorry somehow missed finishing that sentence. ... and starts wrecking the place, and you resist, even with violence, and they capture you and take you into 'custody'. You are still a civilian. Even if they wanted to treat you as a soldier, that'd be fine too.
But to invent a new classification for the express purpose of depriving people of the rights you would extend civilians and soldiers is BULLSHIT.
Re: (Score:2)
The Geneva Conventions (a number of them at any rate) extend generally to uniformed combatants in the armed services of a government, not non-uniformed combatants working for an NGO or nobody (except in a very diffuse way).
However, for them to be criminals, there would have to be jurisdiction for legal process to occur. I'm fairly certain that the there is no law enforcement jurisdiction belonging the US in some of the places these combatan
Re: (Score:2)
When Obama was elected, everything was going to be different. Warrantless wiretaps would be going away, Gitmo would be going away, extraordinary rendition would stop, and so on.
Then the new President got his first National Security Briefing. Then nothing changed and the surveillance powers extended, drone strikes intensified, Gitmo is still there, and so on.
His opinion was that once anyone und
Re: (Score:3)
Yes. (Quote from Men in Black)
I want the truth. I don't want to be protected by ignorance.
However, I'm not sure if the majority of people actually feel this way. My wife and I are truthful to the other, in the extreme. It has meant our first year of marriage was AWFUL, and here 15 years later it is AMAZING, and continuing to get better. It is hard to speak and accept the truth, but it is worth it IF you are willing to handle it.
Again, I'm not sure everyone, or even a majority, is willing to handle it correc
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
In case you needed any more proof that Obama has had the power to close Gitmo all along, he just traded five detainees for Bergdahl. (the "illegal" portion of his actions was that he didn't inform Congress far enough in advance as required by law)
I think you'll find that a huge number of people will continue to vote for the terrible Republicans, just as a huge number of people will vote for Democrats even when they act little better than the Republicans. And even if Obama hadn't just openly stated that he
Re:Oh my ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course, you ignore the fact that President Obama's party had complete control of Congress, with the Supermajority of the Senate, yet did nothing to shut down Gitmo. Now he gets to blame those damn Republicans, just as you do, for all his failings.
Re:Oh my ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Unfortunately for the democrats they are not as "United" as the republicans. They don't vote in lockstep with each other nor do they judge each other by some RINO like measure where it's a bad thing not to vote in lock step with what the party says regardless of their constituents. As a result even though the bill to close gitmo was brought up several times the bill never passed nor really ever had a chance to beat the 60 vote fillibuster threshold needed to advance in the Senate.
Instead was was passed in it's stead was a requirement that he not close, it that he not spend a DIME studying closing, discussing closing or even thinking about closing it. This basically bared the president from doing any sort of research that would convince congress it could be done. This was the work of people like John McCain, rather ironically a former POW, working concert with the republican party and a handful of cooperative blue dog democrats.
Anyone that can argue Obama didn't try to close Gitmo is a blind partisan liar. And anyone that argues Obama is responsible for that atrocity is a fucking idiot. The republican party has responsibility for that prison. Even today the Republican parties official platform includes support for perpetual detention at Gitmo. I'll never understand people that think it's a good idea to waste our soldiers time playing guard duty in what is pretty close to a paradise. It's a waste of money and valuable resources. Those people should have long ago been transferred to a special federal prison such as the recently closed super-max in Illinois that tried very hard to become the site. But people not unlike you insisted without reason that those guys remain in Cuba and the taxpayers to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to house them in the most expensive military base the US has.
Re:Oh my ... (Score:5, Insightful)
If you think Gitmo is a paradise you're the idiot. It's not a hell hole but it's still a prison. You can blather on about the Republicans all you want but the people that dangle the Republican puppets by their strings dangle the Democratic puppets too. You partisan fools that still believe the smoke and mirror show that is the US political two party mafia system astound me. What little shred of doubt I had about it is gone after the last six years. Obama looks like Bush version 2.0
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So it is neither Republicans nor the Democrats fault, it is the lazy electorate, thumb in bumb, mind in neutral who pays no attention at primaries time and allows both parties to be stacked against them and let the Republicans and the Democrats to be turned into the Corporate Party, the party of corporations, by corporations and for corporations, only major corporations and multi-nationals get to play of course.
Whoops there's been a major upset, it seems more people are starting to pay attention to the p
Re: (Score:3)
I said the prison was in a paradise, not that it was a paradise. It's called reading comprehension.
And you are making a terrible assumption to assume I favor the democrats, I think both parties are full of shit. But when we're talking about blame for Gitmo that is squarely on the Republicans and will remain there because it IS their fault. Calling them out on that is not favoring the democrats. I'm happy to point out both parties failings, maybe if more people called the parties on it we could degrade this
Re:Oh my ... (Score:5, Interesting)
If President Obama had wanted to close Gitmo, he would have shamed the Democrats in Congress into doing it.
He doesn't care that Gitmo is open. If anything, he loves it being open, because it gives him another cudgel to bash the Republicans with. And people like you eat it up.
Also, if the Republicans had this great lockstep mentality you mention, the term RINO wouldn't exist.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, if the Republicans had this great lockstep mentality you mention, the term RINO wouldn't exist.
Exactly. They'd all be good Southern Democrats^B^B^B^B^B^B^B^B^B^B^B^B^B^B^B^B^B^B Real Republicans (TM)!! Bengazi!!!!1!!!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Assuming what you say is true the Democrats NEVER had a filibuster proof 60 votes. So even if the Democrats were as united and you seem to think and EVEN if every single Democrat somehow would bow down and do whatever Obama wanted (which they don't) he couldn't have got it done.
How stupid are you? The Democrats don't vote in lock step. Trying to organize the Democrats in congress is like trying to hear
Re:Oh my ... (Score:5, Informative)
Assuming what you say is true the Democrats NEVER had a filibuster proof 60 votes.
Yes, they did. Not for a long time, but they had it and wasted it. How do you think Obamacare got passed? No Republican voted for it, and no Republican voted to end debate on it. The Democrats had 60 votes to force cloture once they bribed enough of their own party. The Republicans couldn't stop them.
Re:Oh my ... (Score:4, Informative)
I believe that the problem is that Al Franken wasn't sworn in until well after that session was well under way, Senator Ted Kennedy was missing for many votes due to his brain cancer, and Arlen Specter didn't switch sides until much much later. There were a few other Democratic Senators who were either out or "Blue Dog" and "DINOs" - the Democratic "Party" is actually more of a loose coalition. The Democrats had the seats, perhaps, but nothing more, for a total of 72 days [sandiegofreepress.org].
(Reprinted from the last time I did this comment.)
The problem in closing Gitmo is that there have NEVER been enough people in Congress who are willing to take the political hit of letting anyone leave; witness the fact that we captured Chinese Uyghurs back in 2002, determined they weren't terrorists in 2008, and FINALLY released the last of them in 2014. These were GUYS WE KNEW WERE INNOCENT FOR SIX YEARS and still hadn't let go.
Re: (Score:3)
Those people should have long ago been transferred to a special federal prison such as the recently closed super-max in Illinois that tried very hard to become the site.
They should have been there from the very beginning. Leaving aside the rest of your rant, you don't seem to get it that they're there because of Bush and Obama administration "legal theories" that they can be treated there in ways that would be illegal on U.S. soil. While the whole concept might have started with Bush administration, people in the Obama administration haven't seemed to try to refute the concept, either.
I'm not going to try to argue that Obama didn't at least make some small effort. But m
Re: (Score:2)
nor do they judge each other by some RINO like measure where it's a bad thing not to vote in lock step with what the party says ... working concert with the republican party and a handful of cooperative blue dog democrats.
Just made me snarf coffee all over my keyboard.
(not that I don't find the Republicans more despicable than the Democrats, but the above is still very funny)
Re: (Score:3)
That's who is responsible.
Re: (Score:2)
he could have just executive ordered it's closure on the same basis it was opened for the current use.
Re: (Score:2)
America (USA) was a democracy, democracy died long ago at the hands of the Roman Catholic Church driven defense industry mafia in what they did in the 50's and 60's, and they cannot even create the illusion of it anymore. Washington is nothing more than theatrics now and they know it. The path back to a democracy was removed by what they did to the Mason's, the only people that were genetically driven to care for the people. What you are all seeing now is the product of these actions with the screwed fore
Re: (Score:2)
Bush is history. Obama runs Gitmo now, and the wars. So you can stop with that tired old crap.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Oh my ... (Score:4, Interesting)
They are both idiots.
Wrong! They are con men, who hit the jackpot. The voters are the only idiots here, and they are just as corrupt as those people they reelect. The corruption of the politician is a reflection.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Bush and Obama are politically identical (middle of the road Republican) so you can't really blame people for confusing the two.
A "middle of the road Republican" would not have tried to force the ACA down everybody's throats.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah the biggest windfall to the health insurance companies, the hospitals, doctors and big pharma. A license to print money. In the movie "The Graduate" the hero gets some advice "One Word: Plastics." Screw that, it's not plastics, get into healthcare and screw patients over and print money. And now we have all those new IRS agents with nothing to do but stick their thumbs up their asses all day or wait..., this in, I just got an IRS letter today questioning 30 dollars from 5 years ago. W00H00 yeah,
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, it was Carter's fault, but I hate Clinton more so will agree with you. :^P
Re:Oh my ... (Score:5, Funny)
Trollin, trollin, trollin
Keep those doggies trollin
Rawhide!
"Obama has said he welcomes a debate " (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:"Obama has said he welcomes a debate " (Score:5, Insightful)
Obama is a politician. By definition, when he opens his mouth, he's lying.*
* DISCLAIMER: This also applies to Boehner, Pelosi, Cantor, Reid, McConnell and any other politician.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Which is why, if you continue to vote for either of the two incumbent parties, you're part of the problem. And why I am a Libertarian. I'm sure the Libertarian party will have similar issues at some point, if they get stronger, however the Libertarian are the best guidelines for why this stuff matters more than most people care about. So I am not worried about Libertarian party getting corrupt any time soon.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If everyone starts to vote for Libertarian the problem will just be extended. Look at how the "insiders" have taken over groups like the "Tea Party" and moved them from grass roots "People" back to "Career Politicians with new branding.
I certainly appreciate the motivation, but if you are not addressing the right problem then the solution will also be incorrect. The real problem is that corrupt politicians have become entrenched in every possible political office. In order to fix things, the entrenched po
Re:"Obama has said he welcomes a debate " (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is the people themselves. They all want something from the government and the people in power know this. They buy us with our own tax money and people just don't get it.
Re:"Obama has said he welcomes a debate " (Score:5, Insightful)
That's last century. Now they buy the voters with borrowed money.
Re: (Score:2)
You are providing a symptom, not the problem. Deregulation and a lack of enforcement for existing regulations has resulted in the monopolization of media. The same people that have been monopolizing media for the last 2 (at least) decades are not just paying off politicians, but actually controlling who gets on a ballot with celebrity hype and hysteria. The same media will not allow discussion or countering positions on our Government. The same media will repeat propaganda handed out by the establishment
Re: (Score:3)
Notice at about 34 seconds, he's trying to figure out how to lie convincingly.
Re: (Score:3)
Would rather hear Senator Obama debate against President Obama.
Stingrays (Score:5, Insightful)
this is about Stingrays... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S... [wikipedia.org]
more importantly, sources and methods
i think the Justice Dept. is trying to keep this tech out of the hands of the general public
they can't, of course
Re:Stingrays (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I feel like a Late Show host who's just discovered Dan Quayle and Sarah Palin in the same afternoon.
Don't worry bro, your check is probably in the mail.
yes please (Score:2)
let's see it!
show me the money!
i'm going to have to contradict your theory...see, I set my hair on fire on these /. boards gratis
call me crazy (again) but I actually think what I"m saying is right...and I may be abrasive but I'll always return kindness w/ kindness and discuss anything as long as it's an honest conversation
Re: (Score:3)
There are many many people [whitepages.com] in Texas named "Jody Williams". If you consider that Jody can be short for Joseph, there are even more. Nutjob, indeed.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
> i think the Justice Dept. is trying to keep this tech out of the hands of the general public
I expect it is really about the fact that if people know how it works, it becomes easy to avoid.
It should be super simple to write an app that will detect them and warn you about it. They all work by putting up a "microcell" and convincing your phone to connect to their microcell and then on the back-end they route your calls back through the regular cell network. The thing is, they have to use a tower-id that
Re:Stingrays (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
What did you expect would happen? (Score:2, Insightful)
The smartphone: a general purpose computational device with a GPS, camera and microphone, typically carried around on one's person or in one's general vicinity at all times. Most smartphones have built-in functionality below the operating system layer that allows the carrier to execute arbitrary code on the device.
It's the ultimate tracking tool.
Very curious (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The tech is now very cheap (down from federal/mil/spy/nation only funding) . You are getting a lot of info about people, movements and their devices in a region for state/city funding.
Done with other tech you can get: passenger, driver faces, all the unique data about a phone, data use, location, duration, who is around you. Over time the next step is the voice print.
The legality question is that: fishing for 'anyone' or 'anythi
Re:Very curious (Score:4, Informative)
Interestingly, a federal court just rules that the coppers need a warrant to get cellphone location data as it is assumed to be confidential and falls within the 4th amendment scope.
http://www.cnet.com/news/court... [cnet.com]
His true colors.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
How about this one? [knowyourmeme.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re:His true colors.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, come now. Given our political climate, I'm sure any despot that the oligarchy put on the ballot (for either party) would be just as happy to allow or order such acts.
It's not that you give President Obama too much blame, it's that you give him too much credit.
it will be leaked soon (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Already done. Local cops are morons. Nobody told them not to sit around and bullshit about all their cool tech with the local riff-raff.
If only... (Score:2)
...the words coming out of these politician's mouths were what they were putting onto paper with their pens, the world would be a much better place. Instead, we have them insisting one thing publicly, while working against that idea in every way possible behind closed doors.
Re: (Score:2)
Politicians are to voters what teen-aged boys are to the teen-aged girls they'd like to procreate with.
They say what they need to in order to get erected, er, elected.
It all means nothing (Score:4, Insightful)
98% of you will still vote democrat or republican, thinking this time things will change. You're right. Things will change... for the worse. And then you will STILL vote democrat or republican again. You have the government you asked for. And quit your bellyaching about lack of choice. I ain't listening. It's bullshit. You decide who is on the ballot.
Re:It all means nothing (Score:4, Informative)
Voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil.
If every single person who said they would vote third party if it wasn't throwing away their vote actually voted third party, we'd see some serious changes. Just accept that it doesn't matter one bit whether a democrat or a republican wins the election. The results will be the same. Once you accept this simple truth, you are free. Now you can vote for a third party candidate without that fear of letting "the other guy" win. Vote third party. Always. I don't care which third party. Just don't vote for the status quo.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I particularly like how you disassembled the comment and pointed to every place in which it possibly could be wrong. Tell me, do you have a news letter I can subscribe to?
PS, the next time you threaten me with a good time, could you at least use a nick that isn't so over used like Anonymous Coward so I can pick you from a crowd? It's like you said you will be the one in red and green at the Christmas party.
Re: (Score:2)
PS, the next time you threaten me with a good time, could you at least use a nick that isn't so over used like Anonymous Coward so I can pick you from a crowd? It's like you said you will be the one in red and green at the Christmas party.
I don't agree with your view on voting third party, put that's funny. :^)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't believe that the federal government can change. It's corrupt at all levels. It's too far removed from the people. We need to push control back to the states where the power is more local and the people have more ability to ensure that their representatives actually represent them.
Re: (Score:2)
Local corruption doesn't affect 300M+ people.
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair though, if you're equating "state's rights" with slavery, slavery was there first, and isn't there anymore. Jim Crow laws that replaced slavery are also gone. Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and people of other minority groups have a much larger political voice than they did a few decades ago. That isn't going to change if states insist on their sovereignty again.
Re: (Score:3)
What "state's right crap" are you referring to? That's the system of government that we were supposed to have. Everything not delegated to the feds by the Constitution is the domain of the state or local governments. Doesn't it make sense to keep government as local as possible?
I don't think it matters who you vote for. Isn't that the Obama "yes we can" lesson of the last six years? We're more divided then ever. There's a major scandal like clockwork, every couple of weeks. People who were lobbyists
Re: (Score:2)
There's no way that people can know what a person will do once they're given a position of great power. The problem is, we elect people into positions of great power. Spread the power around, bring it closer to home, divide it up. That's the answer. It's not simply a problem of who we elect, it's what we're electing them to. We elected a "Constitutional scholar" and ended up with someone that doesn't mind trampling it. These positions invite abuse.
How can we? (Score:2, Interesting)
When Ralph Nader was running in 2000, he was barred from the debates. [washingtonpost.com]
The Democrats and Republicans have a oligarchy here in the States when it comes to political candidates.
We also have a populace that has been programmed by propaganda to fear the "other side" soooo bad, that they'll vote for the "lesser evil".
There are plenty of BS reasons and rationals that people use - "throwing your vote away" is the most idiotic one of all.
So, people, the parent is right. And we DO have the government that reflects
Re: (Score:2)
That's why I chose my sig carefully.
The Question To Ask... (Score:3)
Is why does the Federal government care? That they do begs the question, what are they trying to hide? Are the Stingrays (which are useful as a law enforcement tool -- assuming proper warrants are obtained and appropriate restrictions adhered to) just a smokescreen for other spy technologies being used by the Feds (think parallel construction here) and shared with local LEO? If so, that's a big problem.
If not, I'm guessing that Hanlon's Razor [wikipedia.org] applies here in spades.
Re:The Question To Ask... (Score:5, Informative)
Are the Stingrays (which are useful as a law enforcement tool -- assuming proper warrants are obtained and appropriate restrictions adhered to) ...
There are no proper warrants that can be acquired that can authorize the Constitutional use of a Stingray device, nor are there appropriate restrictions other than a total ban on their use. They are the very definition of blanket surveillance and can not be used in any other way. There is no way to utilize them in a warranty-compliant manner because they will always sweep up the details of everyone in the vicinity, and there is no warrant for that. They are impossible to target, therefore their use by law enforcement (or any private organization being using to whitewash their use by law enforcement) is unconstitutional and therefore illegal.
That's black letter law, too, which is why it's being hidden. There is no sell-us-down-the-river Supreme Court decision that has ruled blanket surveillance legal, unlike, say, the assinine decision that is going to get the 11th Circuit overturned for claiming we have an expectation of privacy for our cell phone records (we do, but the Supreme Court has already ruled, in a massive fit of stupidity, that we don't because the phone company is some sort of magical "third party"). That hasn't happened (yet) with blanket surveillance, and it's hard to imagine even the Roberts court going that far around the bend.
That said, I echo the question you and others posted. How could these devices possibly be so valuable that federal agents are conspiring with local law enforcement to hide their illegal use? I'm assuming they're just unwilling to give up their toys, any toy at all, like the petulant children they are.
You keep using that word... (Score:2)
This must be that "transparency" I've been hearing so much about.
Hollywood co-operates with NSA (Score:2, Interesting)
The USA was the first nation to mandate BY LAW that every cell phone sold in the USA had to constantly provide location tracking information, and the laughable excuse given by Congress is that this facility would help locate some 911 callers. This functionality became a requirement MANY years ago, and has absolutely NOTHING to do with GPS.
After the new law, Hollywood modified the plots of its TV dramas to account for the fact that anyone with a powered mobile phone was locatable to within several meters usi
Re:Hollywood co-operates with NSA (Score:4, Interesting)
Hollywood uses phone tracking when it's convenient to the plot, and discards it when it's not. The biggest procedural crime drama on TV (NCIS) had phones being instantly trackable as recently as this season, with people specifically removing their batteries for exactly that reason. That same show ignores that ability when it makes the storyline more interesting without it.
No secret conspiracy to show it one way or the other.
Take off your tinfoil hat and go out side, dolt.
Then they learned nothing from Snowden (Score:2)
This is going to come out. Not if, just when.
When it does - lots of local heads will roll. Politically, not literally.
The scope is very large. The level of participation is very large. The value of a leak is huge, so the first leaker wins the lottery - made for life. Do police get paid enough for that to make economic sense? nope.
The blowback for those who administer this outside of "required to cooperate" is huge. The only response of the leaders that gets them off the hook is to pass that buck upwa
Spidey: Stingray Detector App for Android (Score:5, Interesting)
Spidey [mit.edu] is a stingray detector app developed by the ACLU and MIT. This page [spideyapp.com] is a page to get notified when it goes live. The source code is on GitHub [github.com]. It works by comparing the towers you can see at any given moment against what you've seen before and data from the OpenCellID Project [opencellid.org].
Who watches the watchers? I do.
Re:Spidey: Stingray Detector App for Android (Score:4, Interesting)
The question is, can this be done on the OS level, or does it have to happen on the driver level? If it can be done at the OS level, easy peasy, just modify the code to establish tower connections to include this check. If it has to happen on a driver level, it gets trickier. Most phones use proprietary binary drivers for their cell radios, so they couldn't be readily modified. However, it may be possible to load an intermediate driver, which in turn loads the proprietary driver. If it could be determined which driver calls involved connecting to a new tower, you could just pass through everything else, and only pass through calls to the tower connect function if they passed your database lookup. Trickier, but doable. Because really, you want to avoid connecting to these things at all. Nice though it is to see you're being attacked, it's better to stop the attack before it starts.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I'm a major C/C++ developer with the skills you mention.
I've already started work on such a tool and will be instead changing my efforts to enhance the provided GitHub page.
I'm also aiming to replace the binary blob with a debugging shim that *then* uses the blob. Essentially keeping a log of what's going on there.
Don't worry brother. Others are also outraged and using their development skills to fight for freedom.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
This would almost certainly need work at the driver level. I'd be rather astonished if the decision to switch towers is made outside the driver. Most likely this doesn't even reach the processor(s) running the main kernel and remains on the isolated processor which handles talking to the cell network. This might be something to hope for in the future, but it will take pushing the various companies to add this feature. You might be able to get this feature out of CryptoPhone [cryptophone.de] in a reasonable timeframe.
Dont' worry America we right... (Score:2)
behind your Canadian brothers will not leave you behind http://www.michaelgeist.ca/con... [michaelgeist.ca]
Well I was sharpening my pitch fork last night but my neighbors think that I'm crazy.
Hope and change ? (Score:3)
Not that his opposition was any better but really people were acting like he was the second coming.
Turns out it was the second coming of Richard Nixon.
Anyway it shouldn't surprise anyone that this came out of a big government establishment administration.
I guess by "debate", Obama really means... (Score:2)
... you complaining while he plugs his ears and yells LA LA LA LA LA. XD
Obama Administration (Score:2, Insightful)
They should specify which departments or people are actually making these demands for the locals to not release the info.
They do state specifically in one case, and that was the FBI. You know, one of those three letter agencies that happily lie to Congress, the Senate, and the Whitehouse.
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, quick breakdown we have the three branches of government. Law enforcement reports up through the DOJ to the President. Actually all federal government functions except those of congress, and the judiciary are run from the White House. Here's a little graphic that shows this. [netage.com] The FBI is under the white house. Now, they're supposed to be independent and work within the law, but in the past we know that the FBI has done some underhanded things. Things like the whole Whitey Bulger affair. [go.com]
Typical Chicago Machine politician! (Score:2)
Talking out both sides of his mouth. Or delegating all the offensive stuff for cronies to pass on so he can pretend his hands are clean...
Not saying anyone else would be any better.
Just making an observation.
Can't wait for Bushitler to leave office! (Score:2)
Bushitler wouldn't be in office forever. Hoping for a change, we finally have a real chance of electing a President, who is both technologically savvy [nytimes.com] and committed to open government [whitehouse.gov]!
Oh, wait...
Exposes a vulnerability (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
no, its not a vulnerability. calea laws ensure that comms equipment MUST be tappable by The Man(tm).
cell repeaters are no different. everything that 'talks' has to be tappable, by US law.
it sucks and I hate that concept, but it is currently US law.
if there is a 'vulnerability' the vendor was told to put it there under pain of, well, you know what.
Defendants Denied (Score:2)