Feds Admit Stingray Can Disrupt Bystanders' Communications 194
linuxwrangler writes The government has fought hard to keep details about use and effects of the controversial Stingray device secret. But this Wired article points to recently released documents in which the government admits that the device can cause collateral damage to other network users. The controversy has heated to the point that Florida senator Bill Nelson has made statements that such devices will inevitably force lawmakers to come up with new ways to protect privacy — a comment that is remarkable considering that the Stingray is produced by Harris Corporation which is headquartered in Nelson's home state.
Default Government Stance (Score:5, Insightful)
The default government stance is that these things are legal, until proven illegal (challenged in court).
This default stance clearly indicates that our government is against its people. We live in a police state.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
How's that hope and change working out?
Re:Default Government Stance (Score:4, Insightful)
About as well as trickle-down economics.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Both of you, stop pretending there's some difference between the parties. Neither party can apparently confront the banking industry. And the industry donates equally to both.
It's pretty clear who's running the show.
Re: (Score:3)
Both of you, stop pretending there's some difference between the parties. Neither party can apparently confront the banking industry. And the industry donates equally to both.
It's pretty clear who's running the show.
No, it's pretty clear we've known this for a very long time.
What is perhaps not so clear to people these days is there's not a fucking thing left to be done about it.
Re:Default Government Stance (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Default Government Stance (Score:4, Insightful)
Obligatory....
Kodos: It's true, we are aliens. But what are you going to do about it? It's a two-party system. You have to vote for one of us.
Man 1: He's right, this is a two-party system.
Man 2: Well I believe I'll vote for a third-party candidate.
Kang: Go ahead, throw your vote away.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I used to think that the major parties would change if enough people voted third party. Now, I'm thinking that - were a third party actually a viable contender, the Democrats and Republicans would work together to alter the rules so that the third party candidate(s) would be removed from the ballots. Not that they'd ban the third party candidates (since that wouldn't hold up in court), but they'd put rules in place that the official Democrat and Republican candidates could easily meet but that the third p
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The closest that an actual third-party has gotten to success since the modern two major parties took over was when a popular former-member of one of those parties created his own party,
Re:Default Government Stance (Score:5, Insightful)
But citations don't work. No true scotsman is the standard response, and then the rhetorical games begin that end with the true statement that "Tobacco has never been proven to cause cancer." We only have a correlation that smoking causes cancer, and there's never been a "pure" study done on it (mainly because of ethical issues, but also some practical issues). So someone could still claim that smoking doesn't cause cancer, and you can't prove them wrong. Voodoo Economics is in the same camp. It's been shown wrong many times, but can't be "proven" wrong in a purely scientific method because the supporters of it wander off into Rhetorical Games territory.
Re: (Score:2)
Would you like citations about what
Re: (Score:2)
I am saying, you need to subscribe to my newsletter.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Google gives me 3 results :
1. One is your slashdot post
2. One about memes with a quote written on an obese lady saying "lowering minimum wage will increase the number of jobs". No explanation/description.
3. One heritage.org, saying somewhat orthogonally "Increased Minimum Wage Does Not Reduce Poverty"
First try answering this question which has proven hard enough for you.
Re:Default Government Stance (Score:5, Informative)
About as well as trickle-down economics.
.. the trickle-down economics [wikipedia.org], which you seem to deride without any clear reasons or citations.
Trickle-down economics is essentially saying let's dump all the money up top, and the overflow, like an overflowing bucket, will reach all the people down below the top. The problem with trickle down economics is that neither the top nor the bucket are fixed sizes, and thus shrinking the top's numbers and increasing the size meant less for everyone else. This is what occurred in reality, and can be easily seen in the consolidation of wealth in the upper 0.5 - 1% at levels not seen since the 1940s. [cbpp.org] It should be noted that the major dip from the 40s through the 2000s also matched a huge growth in total wealth, but as that increase in overall wealth growth has slowed, the top 1% is gathering it back quickly, impoverishing everyone else.
Re: (Score:2)
In 1930-40-ies we were governed by an Illiberal icon — was FDR a proponent of "trickle down"?
IIRC, proportionate wealth and growth were relatively static from about Oct 1929 through 1940, when the war effort began really rolling. So FDR had nothing to do with it.
What makes you think, the wealth-concentration you dislike so much in the second half of 20th century was due to "trickle down economics"?
It actually didn't really start until the 80s, and if you'll recall, that era was prefaced by several recessions and double digit inflation in the 70s, a similar stoppage of wealth growth as in the 30s.
In fact, what makes you think, the policy was practiced at all — whatever effect it did or did not have on wealth-consolidation?
Just perhaps that was the stated economic policy of the Reps as they rolled back taxes on the wealthy?
This statement implies fixed size "bucket" (which you just said is not the case) and zero-summed game — somebody's gain must be somebody else's loss, according to this logic.
It may not be a fixed sized bucket, bu
Re: (Score:2)
But was the high level of stratification due to "trickle down" at all? Or, maybe, the policy does not really have anything to do with the wealth-consolidation you decry?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
How's that hope and change working out?
Pretty shitty, but infinitely better than another 8 years of republican misrule would have.
Re:Default Government Stance (Score:5, Insightful)
Better? How, exactly?
When do we, the peasants, begin to understand that we serve two masters. One master offers us a shit sandwich, so we turn to the other in hopes of a better shit sandwich. At the end of the day, the smartest among the peasants figure out that both masters are shoveling shit from the same damned pile.
Tell me more about this republican misrule. Perhaps you refer to DHS, and TSA? Or, do you refer to totally meaningless immigration policies that no one enforces? Maybe you're concerned with NSA and it's siblings from the Five Eyes spying on everyone? Maybe you're upset about the totally screwed up tax structure? Go ahead - tell us exactly WHAT the republicans were doing wrong.
Once you've done that - tell me how we are one iota better off today with the democrat in the White House.
Only chumps and fools defend either party. Republicans and Democrats are an inbred family, sleeping together for the past three generations.
"infinitely better", huh? Go ahead, and tell us HOW it is better.
Re:Default Government Stance (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
More people can get health insurance, and fewer Americans are dying in wars, than under the previous administration. Also, more and more queer people can get married and enjoy the various legal benefits of that.
You can condemn both parties (although you carefully don't say what you'd actually prefer, and whether a majority of the country would agree with you) without saying they're both completely identical. They're not, and only fools think they are.
Re: (Score:3)
They are very identical in one VERY IMPORTANT way: They'll both push their agenda of the day, but in the end, they'll keep ignoring the real problems and protecting their benefactors (which is a part of the real problem) along with distributing the money to friends, family and allies.
And there's nothing you can do about it.
In that way, they are identical. Now, their agenda du jour... in the end is pretty much irrelevant. Your so called health insurance, we have it in France since about 65 years now. It's 2B
Re: (Score:3)
One exception I have to note (since Runaway1956 is citing me) is that gay marriage *is* the only thing that won't cost anything and is a real social benefit. THIS is something positive.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Health insurance. I'm paying considerably MORE for my health insurance than I did in years past. All the suckers who THINK that they are paying for their new health insurance are deluded - they can only get that insurance with the aid of SUBSIDIES. How long do you think the subsidies are going to last?
Read Pieroxy's comment below. France's version of Obolacare is bankrupt - and so are all the other versions of Obolacare around the world.
Queer people marry? Nope. It doesn't happen. You can have a lega
Re: (Score:3)
Health insurance. I'm paying considerably MORE for my health insurance than I did in years past.
If Obamacare had never passed, would you be paying considerably MORE for your health insurance now than you did in years past? Yes, yes you would, because they insurers raise rates sky-high because they can. The law gives them a great deflection tool, though, a way for the insurers to try to claim that they wouldn't have raised rates if that law hadn't forced them to. What a joke.
Queer people marry? Nope. It doesn't happen. You can have a legal fiction built in the image of marriage, but queers can't marry. And - you're going to give CREDIT TO OBAMA FOR THAT???? Utter nonsense. Activist judges around the nation deserve the blame for that. They have been moving forward with this agenda for the past twenty years.
Depending on the state, some gay people can marry. I certainly did. But you're right, Obama deserves credit merely for going with
Bad vs. Awful (Score:2)
Your justifiable disappointment in both parties leads you to renouncing both of them equally, which is not justifiable in the slightest.
Had a Republican won, we would've still been capturing enemies to be held in Guantanamo — instead of simply killing them [theguardian.com]. Osama bin Laden would've been on trial, rather than fallen victim to extrajudicial killing [rall.com].
Putin would not have dared to invade Ukraine. Gaddafi — who has ma
Re: (Score:2)
Putin would not have dared to invade Ukraine.
Ya, because fear of a neocon president sure scared him away from invading Georgia.
Re: (Score:2)
Because of you sir, I think Slashdot needs a new moderation selection: "Exactly".
Me too!
Re: (Score:3)
Stingray was already being used by LAPD in 2006:
http://www.laweekly.com/news/l... [laweekly.com]
Maybe this is an issue that actually has little to do with the President and is just a result of the general move across local, state, and federal government that we prefer less privacy if it *sounds* like it is making us safer.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Default Government Stance (Score:5, Informative)
But it only fair to point out that the Supreme Court Justices who voted to grant citizenship rights to corporations (whose interest are, more often than not, quite apart from those of real citizens) were appointed by Republican presidents.
You referring to Citizen's United here? Try this [wikipedia.org]:
In 1819, the members of SCOTUS and the party of the President that appointed them were:
Now, you might try to claim that four of the seven were "Democratic-Republicans", but keep in mind that they were appointed by Thomas Jefferson, and the other three by James Madison (the Federalist). Both were pretty familiar with both the intent and the language of the Constitution, so they undoubtedly appointed people who held the same knowledge and views.
By the way, many of the people who make up a corporation are "real citizens", as real as you are, and certainly all of them who formed Citizen's United were "real citizens," with all the rights you claim for yourself.
Re:Default Government Stance (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Default Government Stance (Score:4, Informative)
Not very well I must admit. But it only fair to point out that the Supreme Court Justices who voted to grant citizenship rights to corporations (whose interest are, more often than not, quite apart from those of real citizens) were appointed by Republican presidents.
True, if you're including Grant, Hayes, Arthur, etc. as Republicans (which they were, although the Republican party of the 1880s is a bit different than that of today). Also, you'd need to include Democratic-Republican Presidents like Madison and Monroe on that list.
Corporate personhood is NOT a new phenomenon - it's been a well-established principle since (for varying purposes) the 1880s or the 1810s.
Re: (Score:2)
How is a "government" agency the same thing as a "Corporation"?
Re:Default Government Stance (Score:5, Insightful)
how about the right to privacy in communication and freedom from unlawful* interference in personal, family and associative affairs as guaranteed by not only the US Constitution but also the UN Declaration of Human Rights?
*for a metric, read: "any activity which does not meet standards of the Statute Law, or moral or societal standards of behaviour"
Also consider the fact that the Constitution ofthe United States specifically limits the function of Government to that which is SPECIFICALLY ALLOWED by Law; any activity which is NOT specifically legislated for is in fact ILLEGAL for Government to carry out. As always, the Constitution wins out absent an Amendment, ergo warrantless wiretapping or active unlawful interference in communications is unconstitutional hence ILLEGAL.
Re:Default Government Stance (Score:5, Informative)
Also consider the fact that the Constitution ofthe United States specifically limits the function of Government to that which is SPECIFICALLY ALLOWED by Law; any activity which is NOT specifically legislated for is in fact ILLEGAL for Government to carry out. As always, the Constitution wins out absent an Amendment, ergo warrantless wiretapping or active unlawful interference in communications is unconstitutional hence ILLEGAL.
The FBI's activities are specifically authorized by a host of laws [wikipedia.org]. That you didn't bother to learn about them doesn't invalidate their existence.
Re:Default Government Stance (Score:4, Interesting)
which ones allow them to proactively interfere with radio frequency communications?
Re:Default Government Stance (Score:4, Informative)
28 U.S. Code 534(a)(1), 47 CFR 2.701(b), and 47 CFR 15.9, to start.
Of course, let's not forget 47 CFR 15.15(c), which effectively says that interference is unavoidable and should be minimized, and when considered along with 47 CFR 15.5(c), you'll have a hard time convincing a judge (which is really what matters, legally) that the FBI's actions were actually illegal, unless the FCC has told them to stop. Good luck getting that to happen.
Re:Default Government Stance (Score:5, Informative)
on 28 U.S. Code 534(a)(1): the only two Authorities for such action are judicial administration and national defense. Unless the United States Government has declared war on its own citizens (it hasn't as far as the White House still being vertical evidences), then neither Authority can be invoked since the activity is also warrantless and proactive.
On 47 CFR 2.701(b), and 47 CFR 15.9: this requires LAWFUL AUTHORITY (ie a WARRANT from a JUDGE), which requires JUST CAUSE.
Stingray is in direct violation of 47 CFR 15.15(c) *by design*, therefore its use would be illegal even if all other conditions were met. For "authorised users of the radio frequency spectrum", read: "ANYBODY WHO USES A CELLPHONE!"
See, I *can* read.
Re: (Score:2)
on 28 U.S. Code 534(a)(1): the only two Authorities for such action are judicial administration and national defense. Unless the United States Government has declared war on its own citizens (it hasn't as far as the White House still being vertical evidences), then neither Authority can be invoked since the activity is also warrantless and proactive.
On 47 CFR 2.701(b), and 47 CFR 15.9: this requires LAWFUL AUTHORITY (ie a WARRANT from a JUDGE), which requires JUST CAUSE.
Stingray is in direct violation of 47 CFR 15.15(c) *by design*, therefore its use would be illegal even if all other conditions were met. For "authorised users of the radio frequency spectrum", read: "ANYBODY WHO USES A CELLPHONE!"
See, I *can* read.
Now that we've established you can read, perhaps you can take a few minutes and read a bit more on the one called the PATRIOT Act.
Pay particular attention to the parts that state "FUCK YOU VERY MUCH" when questioning the legality or priority of the Act above any other law in existence today.
I believe you'll find all of the legal transgressions you're looking for in there.
Re: (Score:2)
No, the NSA warrantless wiretapping program in the United States is not legal under the patriot act, because the act is still in violation of the constitution. Same goes for the 2008 FISA amendments as they're spawned from section 213.
http://www.studentpulse.com/ar... [studentpulse.com]
spank you happy helpy.
Re: (Score:2)
and there's really no such thing as a retro warrant because the application has to be in before any surveillance can take place, and sneak-peak is right out (Fourth Amendment, dash it all!)
Re: (Score:2)
The last line of your source:
Section 213 of the Patriot Act is constitutional, and has never been found to be otherwise by any court.
Re:Default Government Stance (Score:4, Interesting)
and also, where is the notion of a mass dragnet ALLOWED by the constitution?
its not. never was allowed. any dragnets were always illegal (not to mention immoral).
they over-reach with this mass surveillance stuff. they know they are on borrowed time and that, eventually, we the people will not tolerate it. it may take years to get the laws fixed; meanwhile, they enjoy the fruits of the poison tree and enjoy their little spy-fest.
Re: (Score:2)
The FBI's activities are specifically authorized by a host of laws. That you didn't bother to learn about them doesn't invalidate their existence.
There is nothing there or in the NTIA that allows law enforcement agencies to violate FCC rules, especially without a warrant. Please point out the specific law that, in your opinion, authorizes such activities by law enforcement.
And even if such interference was allowed, that still does not invalidate 4th Amendment protections both for the intended targeted individual(s) nor the innocent people in the area whose civil rights are violated in the course of Stingray use.
Strat
Re:Default Government Stance (Score:4, Insightful)
What part of "Congress shall make no law..." don't you understand? That these "federal laws" are even on the books is just proof of how far we've strayed from constitutional government. That everything nowadays is just wedged under the "commerce clause" is the tip of the Hindenburg.
Re: (Score:2)
The default government stance is that these things are legal, until proven illegal (challenged in court).
And how exactly is that different from any other government in the world?
Perhaps the more interesting question is how you would rather the system worked. Should new tools and tactics be assumed to be illegal for law enforcement use until such new developments are added to a whitelist of legal tools? Under such a system, what is the defense against a criminal enterprise using that whitelist as a simple checklist for their opsec? Do you expect that the whitelist changes (with proper bureaucratic review) would
Harris can put this experience to use (Score:2)
when they stop making spyboxes, they can make firewalls. Da Gummint taught them a lot.
Re: (Score:2)
Clearly didn't work out too well for this guy. [fox4news.com]
Trust FCC, distrust FBI? (Score:2)
That sounds reasonable — it is certainly the stance, I'd like applied to me.
Huh?! Why? Where? What is the "clear" indication of this antagonism?
We are certainly witnessing increasingly assertive police. But, as one well-moderated poster inquired [slashdot.org] in an earlier discussion: "If the Federal Government can't determine wha
Re:Default Government Stance (Score:4, Insightful)
This already covers cell phones as they are 1.) Computers, 2.) Used for interstate communication and 3.) Used for interstate commerce.
Given that the Stingray Devices operate by performing a "Man in the Middle" style attack by masquerading as a legitimate cell tower and thereby intercepting cellular data from all users in the vicinity of the Stingray Device (regardless of whether they are the target or not), and part of the cellular data transfer requires (non-secure) authentication (identifying carrier, ID, etc), I fail to see how use of a Stingray Device is legal even via a warrant.
First, the basic nature of the Stingray Device requires a violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act to operate (connect to the cell phone and send/receive data). Combine this with how the Stingray Device cannot operate in such a fashion that it targets a single individual; it intercepts ALL communications in it's area. This device is the epitome of unconstitutional. It cannot even be operated legally with a warrant because it can't narrow it's target to a single individual and thus runs afoul of the 4th Amendment (in addition to 18 U.S. Code 1030).
Violation of Federal Law (Score:5, Informative)
Use of a stingray then arguably becomes a violation of 47 U.S.C. Section 333, prohibiting the causing of interference with radio communications.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/U... [gpo.gov]
https://www.fcc.gov/encycloped... [fcc.gov]
Re:Violation of Federal Law (Score:4, Interesting)
As I recall, wasn't this one of the first issues in Roe V Wade? Specifically it was that a woman who was being blocked from a medically necessary abortion would effectively be barred the right to bring her issue to court because the issue of pregnancy would likely be over, either with a birth or her death before the courts could be expected to have ruled on the matter... leading to a necessary exception to normal standing rules.
Seems similar here....since no person who was a victim would ever know they were and would know they had standing to bring a case, it seems that normal standing rules would effectivly deny such a case from ever being heard even if it was an otherwise valid case, so it seems to me it would warrant an exception.
Re:Violation of Federal Law (Score:4, Interesting)
As I recall, wasn't this one of the first issues in Roe V Wade? Specifically it was that a woman who was being blocked from a medically necessary abortion would effectively be barred the right to bring her issue to court because the issue of pregnancy would likely be over, either with a birth or her death before the courts could be expected to have ruled on the matter... leading to a necessary exception to normal standing rules.
Seems similar here....since no person who was a victim would ever know they were and would know they had standing to bring a case, it seems that normal standing rules would effectivly deny such a case from ever being heard even if it was an otherwise valid case, so it seems to me it would warrant an exception.
"Capable of repetition, yet evading review" is the language. That applies when something is always over before an appellate court gets a chance to rule on it.
There is some role for that here, but the big thing first is how are you suing someone. It's one thing if you're arguing a constitutional violation (like in Roe v. Wade), but quite another if you're just arguing they broke federal law. The circumstances where a private citizen or even a public interest group can sue for a violation of federal law are very limited.
The FCC could go after them.
Re: (Score:2)
That would make sense to me for a suit against any entity....except the government. The one organization that has no excuse for breaking the law without extremely good and public justification *IS* the government itself. They should always be under more scrutiny and their crimes held as especially aggravating because its their job to uphold them.
I would argue that whenever the government breaks the law, all citizens are victims as the law itself was the promise they made to us.
Re: (Score:2)
So we should all use that line of defence:
If speeding, go faster to prevent arrest ==> Win!
If running over somebody, run away and kill witnesses to prevent arrest ==> Win!
If robbing a bank, kill anybody trying to stop you. ==> Win!
If owning a bank, launder money and pay off people to prevent arrest ==> Win!
If [hurting other people for profit], pay government or Kill/harass people to prevent arrest ==> Win!
The wild west is back. Carry a gun people and be ready to use it.
not "collateral damage", it's by design (Score:3)
One of the documented functions of StingRay is as a local cell jammer (more specifically, a DOSbox). This it can do by several methods: by intercepting cellphone signals by imitating a tower and redirecting those signals to dev/null; by flooding an area with local RF; by causing any or all phones in a given area around it or around a target phone to flood RF... Stingray is so small it can be carried in a pocket.
(I've seen one, it's about the size of a Motorola GP200 and called "Gossamer", made by the same corporation that makes Stingray II (the current rackmount system)).
Can disrupt? How about INTENDED to disrupt! (Score:5, Interesting)
Is this StingRay thing even FCC licenced? What about the operators?
Looks like it performs indiscriminate MiTM attacks. Particularly egregious, since it could probably be tuned with software to only intercept those EEIDs for which a warrent was issued.
No time for a warrent? Then how did the device magically appear on-scene? It was called-out, and so could a warrent be.
Re:Can disrupt? How about INTENDED to disrupt! (Score:5, Interesting)
Is this StingRay thing even FCC licenced? What about the operators?
The operators are FBI. They aren't subject to FCC rules or licenses. NTIA [doc.gov].
Re:Can disrupt? How about INTENDED to disrupt! (Score:4, Funny)
2) NTIA may well help manage spectrum, and the Feds certainly can use their reserved spectrum however they wish. But that does not grant them immunity to use any spectrum they wish, however they wish. Carriers (and their customers) have paid dearly for that spectrum which gives it many of the characteristics of private property. There certainly is a well-established expectation of privacy. (This is supposed to be a nation of laws not lawmen.)
Re: (Score:2)
1) I thought some operators were locals.
Feds admit that Stingray...
2) NTIA may well help manage spectrum, and the Feds certainly can use their reserved spectrum however they wish. But that does not grant them immunity to use any spectrum they wish, however they wish.
Please show me where I said otherwise. There is a significant difference between "not subject to the laws of X" and "not subject to any laws."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
even if were a product available to the public it couldn't be because it is *designed* to interfere with radio communications at a fundamental and highly targetable level.
FCC? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
While I know it would never happen, I would love to see the FCC get involved in this. Spectrum is kinda their domain
But the FBI use of spectrum is not.
Re: (Score:2)
You keep insisting, not only in this article but also in other Stingray-related /. articles, that the NTIA allows the Feds to do whatever they want radio-spectrum-wise which simply and plainly is not the case.
I have to wonder if either you're that stubborn & obtuse, or do you get paid to shill?
Strat
Re: (Score:2)
You keep insisting, not only in this article but also in other Stingray-related /. articles, that the NTIA allows the Feds to do whatever they want radio-spectrum-wise
I have said no such thing. In fact, whenever people like you try to twist what I've actually said into this lie, I've corrected you in public.
Once again, I find myself wasting time responding to people who either cannot understand the difference between "not subject to FCC rules" and "not subject to any rules", or who deliberately ignore the difference so they can lie about what I've said.
That's especially stupid to try, given that you have just let slip that I've actually said they are subject to NTIA
Re: (Score:2)
There you go again, trying to sidetrack and obfuscate the central issue. Neither the NTIA nor any other federal law or regulation allows Stingrays to be legally used in the manner that law enforcement has used them. That's why Stingray use by LE has been so secretive in the first place.
The fact is that the US government has been taken over by
Re: (Score:2)
There you go again, trying to sidetrack and obfuscate the central issue. Neither the NTIA nor any other federal law or regulation allows Stingrays to be legally used in the manner that law enforcement has used them.
Show me where I said it does or admit that you lied. I never said did. I've told I never said it did. Yet you keep on...
The SOLE thing I replied to was the comment about getting the FCC to deal with federal use of this. That's the ONLY issue I replied to.
You are free to rant on about the government, but stop deliberately misinterpreting what I've said.
Re: (Score:2)
While I know it would never happen, I would love to see the FCC get involved in this. Spectrum is kinda their domain
But the FBI use of spectrum is not.
Why is that? Is there an exception to the law or to FCC rules which allows police officers to operate unlicensed radio transmitters? If so, when may they do so?
Re: (Score:2)
The device was approved by the FCC. However the approval process is not in this case transparent. We don't know whether the FCC took into account whether the device's capacity to create interference, or whether they may have played favorites.
One thing we can be certain about is that the FCC didn't worry about Constitutional or laws that protect citizen privacy, and certainly not the use of the devices without a warrant. That's not their bailiwick.
So to summarize the FCC approved this device but we don't k
Stingray detector? (Score:5, Interesting)
So I wonder if all of this excess interference means that a Stingray detector could be created? Privacy minded volunteers could run a SDR [wikipedia.org] that looks for an increase in the noise floor or other indications that a Stingray is in use, and update a central repository for a real-time map of everywhere a Stingray is in use.
If Law Enforcement won't reveal when they are using it, maybe citizens can find out out their own.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is an awesome idea.
From the state's perspective, the worst that happens here is that criminals can avoid creating accessible evidence, but that comes at a significant cost for each private phone call, making their entire operation more costly. That in itself is a bit of justice, and a hindrance on coordinated criminal activity.
Normal law-abiding citizens can choose to be private or not, at a socially-acceptable low cost for the few times privacy might be desired. The truly paranoid law-abiding citizens
Re: (Score:2)
I have one. It's called a Yaesu VX-5 pocket personal transceiver. It only covers the analogue (voice) channels below 1GHz (covers 450 and 800MHz gear) (doesn't go higher than 1GHz) but if there's a jamming signal being emitted at those frequencies that thing'll pick it up.
(I wouldn't bother to be using it at anything other than a major public gathering, since that's the most likely place LE would use blanket jammers - not that they''re likely to in the UK since they use TETRA which piggybacks any available
Re: (Score:2)
A few projects have been mentioned to help understand the local network conditions and then show the user changes.
Phone Firewall Identifies Rogue Cell Towers Trying To Intercept Your Calls (09.03.14)
http://www.wired.com/2014/09/c... [wired.com]
Bah, Harris produces everything (Score:3)
Harris won't care about restrictions on Stingray devices. They'll still sell them. They also sell actual cellular radio equipment, TV broadcasting stuff, and AM and FM radio broadcasting stuff. If it's a big tower with antennae on it and a shed next to it, Harris probably produced some part of the equipment involved.
The admission is a no-brainer` (Score:3)
Really, people - the admission that stingray "might" interfere with other user's telephone service is a no-brainer. Radio waves are generally transmitted in a spherical - or, more accurately, a donut shaped - direction. There ARE beam antenna, but who is going to attach a honking huge beam to a pocket sized transmitter? So - wherever this thing is turned on, it is GUARANTEED to interfere with normal usage, in all directions, out to the maximum range of the transmitter. In effect, they're hoping to shoot one fish in a barrel, but they're actually dragging a mile's long net through the ocean. Idiots.
Re: (Score:2)
Radio waves are generally transmitted in a spherical - or, more accurately, a donut shaped - direction. There ARE beam antenna, but who is going to attach a honking huge beam to a pocket sized transmitter? So - wherever this thing is turned on, it is GUARANTEED to interfere with normal usage, in all directions, out to the maximum range of the transmitter.
Except the antennas on cell systems are not omnidirectional, and they haven't been for many years. They are both directional and phased, which means they can direct the signal towards the intended receiver.
Re: (Score:2)
I would really like to have that demonstrated to me. My telephone cares little which way I point it. Nor does my telephone much care which side of the tower I am on. Maybe the donut is flattened on one axis, but we all know that there aren't tens of thousands of antenna on the tower, each one mounted on independent gimbals, tracking each user.
Re: (Score:3)
I would really like to have that demonstrated to me. My telephone cares little which way I point it.
Your telephone is not an antenna on a cell system. I could have been more explicit by saying "the antenna on a cell system tower", but I assumed most people would know what I was talking about when I referred to plural antennas.
You cell phone is half the connection, and while it is approximately omnidirectional, the antennas at the other, higher power transmitter end, are not.
Maybe the donut is flattened on one axis, but we all know that there aren't tens of thousands of antenna on the tower, each one mounted on independent gimbals, tracking each user.
You missed the critical word "phased". Please refer to here [youtube.com], here [wikipedia.org], or here [antenna-theory.com] for more info. Suffice to say, your hyperbole that on
Re: (Score:3)
they appear to use a base-loaded helical whip on the pocket-portable version, which is called "Gossamer". The whole thing's about the size of a GP200 and the antenna's about the size of a 5/8 HAM rubberduck. In fact, it might well be a HAM rubberduck - at 450MHz it'd be equivalent to 23/8 wavelength (which would work, actually - my VX-5 is usually equipped with a 2m antenna which does a wonderful job at 70cm).
Re: (Score:2)
... 5/8 HAM rubberduck..."
A rubber duck antenna is not 5/8 wave. It is an intentionally shortened antenna used only because it is inconvenient to have a real, resonant antenna on a handheld.
A 5/8 wave antenna for 2m is (936/144)*(5/8) feet, or 49 inches long, and I doubt that you have such a length of wire on your HT. At 70cm, it's 936/440 * (5/8) or 15.9 inches long.
A 5.8 wave 2m will actually not work as well at 70cm as at 2m even though one is the third harmonic (almost) of the other, because at 70cm the antenna becomes 15/8
Re: (Score:2)
the fuck are you crapping on about? A helical whip is the stated length wrapped around an air core and sleeved in PU or rubber. HENCE THE FUCKING NAME.
Re: (Score:2)
FYI: I have a 7/8 70cm antenna, homebuilt into a rubber duck sleeve. It's an inch and a half long.
"Feds admit, they probably belong in prison" (Score:5, Insightful)
That is how I read these story headlines. Exactly how I read them, a fact which has been obvious since the whole fiasco with NDA agreements came out. They know they are not respecting people's rights, they KNOW what they are doing would not withstand an hour of public scrutiny.
In short, the federal government is harboring criminals who belong in prison, and is currently helping protect them and pay them to commit more crimes rather than admit the truth.
New ways to protect privacy are needed! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If a person is a journalist or meeting a journalist understand that just been near a journalist with a connected cell phone can be useful to track that meeting.
The ability to turn on the microphone is another issue.
Better use of talent (Score:3)
If folks like Anonymous and / or Lizard Squad really wanted something to do that would prove their value, they would turn their attention upon something like this. They would certainly wield considerably more respect were they to apply their skills by obtaining useful information on matters such as these. Granted, such information would be worth quite a bit on the black market, but putting a three letter agency under the public spotlight for using potentially illegal tech would be far more satisfying I think. ( Especially when it's our own Law Enforcement types getting caught doing so ) Not to mention ultimate bragging rights of being the group / individual responsible for it.
The obvious target being the user and / or maintenance manual or even detailed specifications on what the Stingray units are and what they are capable of.
Orders of magnitude more important than knocking Sony or Xbox-Live offline for a few days or defacing some website out of protest.
Re: (Score:3)
...and sometimes during a call it will randomly switch to demonic-sounding voices with an intense amount of static...
Oh, you mean the ones that always start out saying, "ATTENTION: This is NOT a dream...!"? You can safely ignore those.
Re: (Score:2)
You gotta understand that I met this crazy woman in Manhattan one night. She needed me to "help" her. It was the Jews. They played loud music when she tried to sleep. She heard demon voices on the telephone. Her stuff was stolen all the time. I gotta tell you, I listened, fascinated, for half an hour, as she described all the evil that the Jews committed against her. Utterly crazy.
So - demonic sounding voices on your telephone? IT'S THE JEWS!!! ROFLMAO, IT'S THE JEWS!!!!
Disclaimer: I've not worked
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
...Or the band was using wifi equipment (as a lot of pro audio gear does today, for easy configuration and remote control), and your phone's wifi-assisted location services thought the access points were still 700 miles away.
Re: (Score:2)
As I understand the location services built into iOS and Android devices, the phone will periodically send a list of nearby access points (with signal strengths) up to Apple or Google's servers, and those servers respond with a guess at the phone's location, which is often more accurate than the location received from cell towers, and more resilient than GPS. The servers know where access points are located due to data collected by mapping vehicles and the aggregated reports of clients' less-accurate reckon
Re:Collateral Damage (Score:4, Insightful)
Not only does a Stingray impair other network user's experiences', but it tracks their usage along with the target's. There is evidence that various law enforcement agencies along with the federal government are actively taking steps to conceal the details of their use of this device from public scrutiny. The government needs to be open with their use of this device and others like it in order to prevent abuse, and to preserve American citizens' Constitutional rights.
Nice history lesson there. I do appreciate at least being reminded of what the government used to give a shit about.
As for today, you've got to be fucking kidding me if they'll ever admit to this level of illegality.
If and when they ever do, it will be right after they pass laws to make all of activity legal.
Don't worry. Apathy will ensure those laws pass too.
Re: (Score:2)
From the document: Because of the way the Mobile Equipment sometimes operates, its use has the potential to intermittently disrupt cellular service to a small fraction of Sprint's customers within its immediate vicinity. Any potential service disruption will be brief and minimized by reasonably limiting the scope and duration of the use of the Mobile Equipment.
This is layman's speak for RF is complex and having a moving base station emulator can cause disruptions... much in the same way that you could experience disruptions moving from coverage of one cell tower to another as you're driving...
I'm sorry, but you seem to have skimmed over the whole point here.
This isn't about the amount of potential interference a radio device might cause.
This is about a government agency taking it upon themselves to declare such a device as legal to use in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
Straw man. The poster's point doesn't relate to whether the interference is "significant" by whatever standard law enforcement uses to make that determination. It relates to whether that interference is legal.