Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Indiana State Police Acknowledge Use of Cell Phone Tracking Device

Posted by timothy on from the hoosier-friend-on-the-phone? dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Indiana state police acknowledge use of cell phone tracking device 'Stingray', tricking all cellphones in a set distance into connecting to it as if it were a real cellphone tower. A joint USA Today and IndyStar investigation found earlier this month that the state police spent $373,995 on a device called a Stingray. Often installed in a surveillance vehicle, the suitcase-size Stingrays trick all cellphones in a set distance ('sometimes exceeding a mile, depending on the terrain and antennas') into connecting to it as if it were a real cellphone tower. That allows police agencies to capture location data and numbers dialed for calls and text messages from thousands of people at a time."

155 comments

  1. My Question is by dale.furno · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Who controls the Data that is collected?

    1. Re:My Question is by noh8rz10 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      srsly, that's your question? the collection itself is no biggie, but who gets the records? I assume the police are inept to handle this firehose of real-time data, and are just trying to spend down 9-11 anti-terrorist cash that US gives to agencies at every level. this is why the sheriff's dept in Wasilla, AK has an armored weaponized SWAT vehicle.

      I see a few important questions here, but tbh I'm feeling pretty weary to list them all.

    2. Re:My Question is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      I assume the police are inept to handle this firehose of real-time data, and are just trying to spend down 9-11 anti-terrorist cash that US gives to agencies at every level. this is why the sheriff's dept in Wasilla, AK has an armored weaponized SWAT vehicle.

      One of those northern drunks could go nuts, you know. They do have a lot of guns.

    3. Re:My Question is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

      I assume the police are inept to handle this firehose of real-time data, and are just trying to spend down 9-11 anti-terrorist cash that US gives to agencies at every level. this is why the sheriff's dept in Wasilla, AK has an armored weaponized SWAT vehicle.

      One of those northern drunks could go nuts, you know. They do have a lot of guns.

      easy joke: they need something to drive over their bridge to nowhere.

    4. Re:My Question is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How did you miss what his question was? It's a straightforward question. Let's try this at a 1st grade level. "Who". Which person or entity. "Controls". Gets to decide what happens with. "The". You must be really stupid. "Data". The stuff that they collect (or is that too hard for you?)

    5. Re:My Question is by msauve · · Score: 4, Insightful

      More significantly - cell phone frequencies are licensed, and some have been "sold" to cell providers. Methinks there's a felony here by some within the Indiana State Police, regarding theft of services, or something similar regarding use of frequencies they're not licensed to use. Who watches the watchers?

      This is a recurring issue - what makes law enforcement think they can break the law in order to enforce it (this, and simpler things like speeding while on patrol).

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    6. Re:My Question is by cold+fjord · · Score: 4, Informative

      .... but who gets the records?

      That is a big question, especially since various state governments in the US have passed data privacy laws, and they aren't always complied with by state agencies. This was in the news about six months ago. I have little doubt there are many more instances of illegal or abusive data transfers out there at the state or local level. Bureaucratic overreach is hardly confined to the Federal government, and often occurs in conjunction with it.

      Highway Patrol Handed Concealed Carry Information To Feds - April 11, 2013

      It was revealed in Missouri Senate testimony Thursday morning that the Missouri State Highway Patrol has twice handed over to federal officials information regarding concealed carry permits in the state.

      The revelation validates the concerns of many Republican state legislators who have warned of the “gun list” for longer than a month.

      Sen. Kurt Schaefer (R-Columbia) has led the charge against the Missouri Department of Revenue and others over the list. He said in a press release that the Highway Patrol “asked for and received the full list from the state Division of Motor Vehicle and Driver Licensing.”

      According to Schaefer, the list contains 185,000 names and “had been put online in one instance and given to the patrol on a disc in January.” ....

      Col. Ron Replogle with the Highway Patrol underwent nearly an hour of testimony Thursday morning in a Senate Appropriations Committee hearing. Replogle testified that a Social Security Administration Office of the Inspector General agent received the discs but was not able to read encrypted data and then destroyed the discs.

      “They said no names were retrieved,” Replogle told the committee this morning, according to the Columbia Tribune. “ ...

      The gun list issue was first raised in early March when Lt. Gov. Peter Kinder told KMOX News that the Missouri Department of Revenue was illegally sharing information on concealed gun permit applicants with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    7. Re:My Question is by dale.furno · · Score: 0

      How the fuck did the asshole troll get modded insightful?

    8. Re:My Question is by PPH · · Score: 0

      Who in the cell phone provider chain of managemet is going to file that complaint?

      Cop pulls exec's Mercedes over. "Looks like you've got a broken taillight there, buddy." [Smash, tinkle, tinkle.]

      And its surprising how easy it is to mistakenly enter "Wanted for killing two state patrol officers in cold blood" into the NCIC database instead of "defective equipment".

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    9. Re:My Question is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      I'm going to hang up my hat. Cold is being reasonable and citing sources. The world must be ending. So long, and thanks for all the fish.

    10. Re:My Question is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I think you missed the point in that the police should not be in possession of this information without probable cause and a warrant in the first place. Asking who has access or control of the data skips that first step as if it isn't important when it is probably the most important.

    11. Re:My Question is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I doubt the cell company's execs will be too heartbroken over a $100 tail light. They wipe their asses with $100 bills...

    12. Re:My Question is by Artifakt · · Score: 4, Insightful

      To put it simply, there are things which should not be allowed at all by free men and women, and asking what safeguards are in place implies that there potentially exists some set of safeguards that should make those things allowable. Gathering evidence without both a warrant and probable cause is one of those things, as the U.S. Constitution says, that should NEVER be allowed.
                If you're going to ask a question that assumes there is some way around the Constitution, OR SHOULD BE, you're the person who has to defend your position. You're the person who might want to be more honest and admit you are implicity asking for the Constitution to be set aside. If you really feel that way, how about saying so explicity? Talking down to people who take exception to that point isn't clever, or adult, or enlightened, especially when it's an attempt to deflect that you are the one with the extreme, radical, and generally un-thought-out position you're scared to express openly. I say un-thought-out because if you are consiously supporting just ignoring that 'little' question of the large scale violation of fundamental human rights, you are something much worse than a person who needs things at the 1st grade level.

      --
      Who is John Cabal?
    13. Re:My Question is by msobkow · · Score: 1

      That kilo of cocaine they claim they found in the CEO's trunk might be another story...

      --
      I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
    14. Re:My Question is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      To put it simply, there are things which should not be allowed at all by free men and women, and asking what safeguards are in place implies that there potentially exists some set of safeguards that should make those things allowable. Gathering evidence without both a warrant and probable cause is one of those things, as the U.S. Constitution says, that should NEVER be allowed.

                If you're going to ask a question that assumes there is some way around the Constitution, OR SHOULD BE, you're the person who has to defend your position. You're the person who might want to be more honest and admit you are implicity asking for the Constitution to be set aside. If you really feel that way, how about saying so explicity? Talking down to people who take exception to that point isn't clever, or adult, or enlightened, especially when it's an attempt to deflect that you are the one with the extreme, radical, and generally un-thought-out position you're scared to express openly. I say un-thought-out because if you are consiously supporting just ignoring that 'little' question of the large scale violation of fundamental human rights, you are something much worse than a person who needs things at the 1st grade level.

      I really hope that you clicked on the wrong post to reply to, because the one you DID reply to just said what you did. Albeit in a much shorter and less assholish fashion.

    15. Re:My Question is by symbolic · · Score: 1

      > Bureaucratic overreach is hardly confined to the Federal government, and often occurs in conjunction with it.

      Especially if it's funded *by* the federal government. It wouldn't come as a bit of a surprise if the acquisition of this Stingray device was funded by one of many federal grants the the national government has been handing out in an effort to militarize local law enforcement agencies.

    16. Re:My Question is by Holi · · Score: 2

      You really think the cops are going to pull that low rent shit on someone who probably could easily have them fired/transferred. You may suffer a broken tail light but they won't. And you think attempting to frame someone by entering such a fabrication in a national database (especially against a telecom ceo) wouldn't be met by the full power of the US Government. In the end the cop wouldn't even know where he was, and his family would have to deal with multimillion dollar cell phone bills for some curious reason.

      --
      Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
    17. Re:My Question is by Holi · · Score: 0

      Until the FBI took over and started investigating the cops. Your talking a CEO of say Verizon, like he ever has to worry about any criminal law.

      --
      Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
    18. Re:My Question is by flyingfsck · · Score: 1

      Don't worry, they only capture the phone meta data of foreigners...

      --
      Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
    19. Re:My Question is by mysidia · · Score: 2

      Cop pulls exec's Mercedes over. "Looks like you've got a broken taillight there, buddy." [Smash, tinkle, tinkle.]

      Not likely. They couldn't even get Steve Jobs for parking in the handicapped spot, and he was driving around with no license plates.

    20. Re:My Question is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      insightful asshole is insightful. http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4557573&cid=45692205

    21. Re:My Question is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think this violates FCC regulations.

    22. Re:My Question is by Smauler · · Score: 1

      Gathering evidence without both a warrant and probable cause is one of those things, as the U.S. Constitution says, that should NEVER be allowed.

      Yeah.... like that works. The number of cops who "smell marijuana" then get the right to search because of crime in progress laws. It's such an easy out that the cops have - "I smelled drugs". You can't call them on it, because they can claim it may have come from something else, or, if worst comes to worst, they were mistaken about the smell.

      It's lovely having an ideal about when and where cops can stop you, but if something else practicably undermines that, the ideal is useless, even if that ideal is still theoretical enshrined.

    23. Re:My Question is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      the collection itself is no biggie

      The collection itself is a huge biggie; it simply should not happen.

    24. Re:My Question is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Until the Supreme Court says stop it, the Constitution has already been set aside.

    25. Re:My Question is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The boys down in the locker room control it. They sit around listening to calls, geting all hot and steamy, then they go down to the gym and pump each other.
      Typical cop behavior.

    26. Re:My Question is by flyneye · · Score: 1

      LOL, we got an armored SWAT buggy too. So far they've used it to ride to a stand off with an armed meth head, and probably "drove it" to the airport last week for the "Islamic" terrorist with the phony bomb.(Disgruntled airport employee nutball, turned Muslim and bought "components" from an undercover FBI flunky, needless to say, nothing exciting happened). Yeah, I bet it's got a sound system that keeps them groovin when they're movin. Must've been worth every penny since WE paid for it. BTW , fuck the cops.

      --
      *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
    27. Re:My Question is by flyneye · · Score: 2

      Police are selected in the end, by possessing a lowish I.Q., when they run the battery of psych tests during the hiring process. (in large cities) This keeps independent thinkers from exercising judgement calls when on the job, something police shouldn't be doing. Police aren't supposed to think, they are supposed to enforce the law without judging relevance of a situation. Therefore we select the dummies.
      I would look to the city or county administrators, like, the mayors office for the final playground of that data. Look for the lawyers to party when it's found out.

      --
      *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
    28. Re:My Question is by dargaud · · Score: 1
      Yes, and I'm curious to what happens to the messages you send when connected to this fake 'tower': do they just go down the bit bucket or does that suitcase forward them to a real tower. For that matter, can you receive and place calls when you are conneccted to that ? How dangerous could that be, right ?

      Methinks that the only place where this should be allowed is in jail: to monitor the use of cell phones by the inmates. Record or block but don't let them connect to outside normal towers.

      --
      Non-Linux Penguins ?
    29. Re:My Question is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who controls the Data that is collected?

      Irrelevant, what happens to the data collected on individuals NOT SPECIFIED in their warrant? They do have a warrant don't they? The FBI and DOJ are already finding judges to be very hostile about being lied to in court about evidence illegally acquired from a Stingray device being "laundered" by crooked lawyer games and presented as having been legally acquired.

      http://yro.slashdot.org/story/13/03/28/2048220/doj-often-used-cell-tower-impersonating-devices-without-explicit-warrants

      All US courts should automatically throw out any phone records for which the officers can't provide proper documentation that the data was legally acquired (i.e. a legal warrant was issued BEFORE the data was collected that was issued FOR the crime being prosecuted).

    30. Re:My Question is by Aaden42 · · Score: 1

      All US courts should automatically throw out any phone records for which the officers can’t provide proper documentation that the data was legally acquired (i.e. a legal warrant was issued BEFORE the data was collected that was issued FOR the crime being prosecuted).

      It’s unfortunate, but under US law, this is actively unnecessary in many cases. IE if the prosecution can show that they had some other legal way to find a thing, then the fact that the thing was in fact illegally found is ignored. Investigators can pretty much do what they like, and if they can possibly find a way to justify after the fact that they inevitably would have found it, then the abuse is ignored. They even get to use the illegally acquired information in further investigative steps to find something legit. They get to peek at what they broke the law getting, and if they can use that information to discover a way to get it without having to break the law, then the whole lot stays in as evidence.

      1) Tap the phone, hear about a drug deal time & place
      2) Setup a “random” traffic stop at the right time & place
      3) “Randomly” stop & search the car, find drugs, seize the phone, arrest one of the people on the phone.
      4) Phone was legitimately seized in a search incident to arrest, so they get to search the phone & “find” the other party to the conversation.
      5) Now they get to arrest both sides of the phone conversation, all based on illegal phone tap.

      Probable cause, after the fact.

    31. Re:My Question is by hoggoth · · Score: 1

      I think you don't understand who owns who in this country. Upper management in a big corporation owns the politicians and the cops. They work at the pleasure of the corporation.

      --
      - For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat /dev/random (may take some time)
  2. Excellent! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    I have nothing to hide. If this helps catch bad guys, I'm all for it!

    1. Re:Excellent! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      yes you do, fucking liar. It is called your dick. Go out in public and show it off and see if you get arrested.

    2. Re:Excellent! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
                                                                -- Benjamin Franklin

    3. Re:Excellent! by Skarecrow77 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I have nothing to hide, and if this helps catch bad guys, it's still a tremendous invasion of privacy and morally wrong under just about any definition of "moral" you want to use (aside from the "moral = whatever the hell I say it is" definition that seems to be increasingly more prevalent).

      If I spend my spare time doing the most boring, non-threatening things imaginable, that is nobody's business but my own. If I spend my spare time doing unusual or asinine things, that's still nobody's business but my own. If I spend my spare time hurting other people and committing crimes that result in damage... then hey, maybe it's time to look into what I'm doing, not before.

    4. Re:Excellent! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You may have nothing to hide today, but tomorrow, what was acceptable yesterday, may not be. This is not to disparage your point, (which is the same as I'm arguing for), just to clarify for the coming trolls.

    5. Re:Excellent! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      In his case, its a minor offense.

    6. Re:Excellent! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      They who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. -- Benjamin Franklin

      Yes, and he clearly meant that LIBERTY = ASSAULT RIFLES.

    7. Re:Excellent! by DavidClarkeHR · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I have nothing to hide, and if this helps catch bad guys, it's still a tremendous invasion of privacy and morally wrong under just about any definition of "moral" you want to use (aside from the "moral = whatever the hell I say it is" definition that seems to be increasingly more prevalent).

      If I spend my spare time doing the most boring, non-threatening things imaginable, that is nobody's business but my own. If I spend my spare time doing unusual or asinine things, that's still nobody's business but my own. If I spend my spare time hurting other people and committing crimes that result in damage... then hey, maybe it's time to look into what I'm doing, not before.

      Moxie Marlinspike had a great article/journal entry/essay on this topic. I'm not saying he's the next hemmingway, but I'd rather let him explain why we should all have something to hide.

      TL;DR - Lots of good things were illegal, once. Big things, like equality (smaller things, too).

      --
      - Nec Impar Pluribus, or so I'm told.
    8. Re:Excellent! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is an article about cell phones you idiot. Your post should read:

      Yes, and he clearly meant that LIBERTY = No cell tower man in the middle attacks.

    9. Re:Excellent! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have nothing to hide. If this helps catch bad guys, I'm all for it!

      If you have nothing to hide, then obviously they don't need to track your cellphone.

    10. Re:Excellent! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I have nothing to hide. If this helps catch bad guys, I'm all for it!

      There have been over 2,000 people sentenced to life in prison or death, who have been exonerated after it's been proven they did not actually commit the crime.

      You might not think you have anything to hide, but you WERE the only cell phone in the vicinity of a grisly murder last week. And hey, you don't have a solid alibi, the cops don't have any other leads, and the Prosecutor is up for an election soon. So you can either spend the next 10 years of your life trying to fight through the courts, and get a death penalty for raping and murdering that child, or you can agree to life in prison without parole you twisted fucking piece of shit.

    11. Re:Excellent! by Holi · · Score: 1

      And your comment comes from where. If your going to yell reactionary comments its best to be on topic.

      --
      Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
    12. Re:Excellent! by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      If you have nothing to hide, gathering this data about you is a waste of time and effort.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    13. Re:Excellent! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obvious troll is obvious. The rest of you are suckers.

    14. Re:Excellent! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      While I appreciate such well-reasoned arguments, I see the "you have nothing to hide" argument itself as fallicious. It flips the debate on its head, by assuming a false premise. I have nothing to hide -- you have something you want to know. About me.
      So tell me: why should I help you with that? Why should I even allow that?
      In other words, the question should not be "do I want to reveal something?". The question ought to be "why do you want to know something about me?"

      No reason, no info. Give me a reason I like, and I'll consider your request for data.

      (Note to the pedantic: read "society" for "me/I".)

    15. Re:Excellent! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While I appreciate such well-reasoned arguments, I see the "you have nothing to hide" argument itself as fallicious. It flips the debate on its head, by assuming a false premise. I have nothing to hide -- you have something you want to know. About me. So tell me: why should I help you with that? Why should I even allow that? In other words, the question should not be "do I want to reveal something?". The question ought to be "why do you want to know something about me?"

      No reason, no info. Give me a reason I like, and I'll consider your request for data.

      (Note to the pedantic: read "society" for "me/I".)

      WHAT IS YOUR NAME I NEED TO KNOW

    16. Re:Excellent! by Aaden42 · · Score: 1

      a waste of time and effort

      And tax payer funds, to the tune of near enough to a half million a piece. Given the cost of these things, that seems like almost as big a crime as going fishing through peoples’ personal communications without due process. About eight times the median household annual income to *maybe* find out about somebody cooking some meth. Really can’t see any way that’s justifiable.

  3. put it in my butt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    all that RF pissing in my butt, i love it
    i don't care - i love it
    i don't care - i love it
    i don't care - i love it
    gotta use duct tape so the wifey won't know
    i don't care - i love it
    i don't care - i love it
    i don't care - i love it
    just like an eel twisting in my rectum
    i don't care - i love it
    i don't care - i love it
    i don't care - i love it
    they call me a beaner until they taste my wiener

  4. I'll answer all questions now by wbr1 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Because fuck you, that's why.

    --
    Silence is a state of mime.
    1. Re:I'll answer all questions now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      You are a cunt. Go back to watching African American Ass Fucking in your mom's basement.

    2. Re:I'll answer all questions now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      No, you're a cunt!

    3. Re:I'll answer all questions now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      No, you're a cunt!

    4. Re:I'll answer all questions now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      .... And that is how those two sad people came to an unpleasant end, deadlocked in mutual loathing and unwilling to be the last to call the other an insulting name. But there was a bright side of it - with their passing the human race become both smarter and more polite.

    5. Re:I'll answer all questions now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      ...but only after someone tossed in the giant two-sided 4' long pneumatic dildo known as "the duocunterator". But at least they both died with (somewhat bizarre) smiles on their faces...

    6. Re:I'll answer all questions now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      No, you're a cunt!

      you fucking fucking cunt

  5. Pussies. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Why is the most armed nation such pussies? Scared of any and every damn thing.

    Fuck the government.errr....my bad...FUCK the citizens!!!!!!!!!!!!

    ps....fuck your karma, slashdot.

  6. Is this legal? by BitterOak · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Doesn't the FCC regulate the frequencies used by cell phone towers? Do state police have the authority to use them as well? Do they have a special license from the FCC?

    --
    If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
    1. Re:Is this legal? by Skarecrow77 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Even if it is technically illegal, and I don't know whether it is or not, who is going to arrest them?

      Do police have a tendency to be held accountable for their abuse of power in your jurisdiction?

    2. Re:Is this legal? by tftp · · Score: 4, Informative

      Cell phone bands are licensed to providers (AT&T, Verizon, etc.) They paid big bucks for the licenses. Nobody else is legally allowed to use those frequencies. A "tower in a suitcase" would be a major violation of the rights of license holders.

      I do not know if FCC allows the law enforcement to violate FCC's own rules and regulations. (Those are not laws, as I understand - if you run a pirate radio station you will be fined, but not imprisoned.) But why the police should care? Nobody is going to arrest them. The police can raid your home at 3am, kick your door in, shoot your dog and perhaps you, and nobody (except you) will be in trouble.

    3. Re:Is this legal? by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Do state police have the authority to use them as well? Do they have a special license from the FCC?

      Surly you jest! Are you not aware that laws do not apply to "LE"? Especially when tracking "terrorists"? Come on, dude, get out of the basement!

      And if the Boston coppers were passing this all on to a Three Letter Agency, you can bet the FCC knew and turned a "blind eye".

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    4. Re:Is this legal? by Mister+Liberty · · Score: 1

      Why do you focus on freqs? That involves copporations, after all. I.e. money.
      Fuck them. Did you ever expect those to march to your tune?

      Come on, get some sense of reality.
      What I mean to say: Have you submitted to the idea that you have no rights yourself ?

    5. Re:Is this legal? by Mister+Liberty · · Score: 1

      So it is.

    6. Re:Is this legal? by dale.furno · · Score: 1

      If I had mod points, I'd mod you up. Only because you are a balrog.

    7. Re:Is this legal? by cold+fjord · · Score: 3, Informative

      Doesn't the FCC regulate the frequencies used by cell phone towers? Do state police have the authority to use them as well? Do they have a special license from the FCC?

      Two things to remember. First, each state police agency is already a licensed user of sophisticated radio equipment that will generally have state-wide reach, a law enforcement agency, increasingly automated with sophisticated equipment, and able to engage in surveillance. Second, Congress has passed laws that the FCC is involved with overseeing for the assistance of law enforcement.

      Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act

      In response to concerns that emerging technologies such as digital and wireless communications were making it increasingly difficult for law enforcement agencies to execute authorized surveillance, Congress enacted CALEA on October 25, 1994. CALEA requires a "telecommunications carrier," as defined by the Act, to ensure that equipment, facilities, or services that allow a customer or subscriber to "originate, terminate, or direct communications," enable law enforcement officials to conduct electronic surveillance pursuant to court order or other lawful authorization. CALEA was intended to preserve the ability of law enforcement agencies to conduct electronic surveillance by requiring that telecommunications carriers and manufacturers of telecommunications equipment modify and design their equipment, facilities, and services to ensure that they have the necessary surveillance capabilities as communications network technologies evolve

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    8. Re:Is this legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do police have a tendency to be held accountable for their abuse of power in your jurisdiction?

      They do here, but it's a bit hit and miss. Judges are independent of police and able to hold them to account, so you are able to take them to court. How hard it is to win depends on how cut-and-shut the case is, and how large you are (treat it as taking any large company to court).

    9. Re:Is this legal? by tftp · · Score: 2

      What I mean to say: Have you submitted to the idea that you have no rights yourself ?

      Having rights, and having those rights respected by others, logically are two different things. Technically, however, the only thing that matters is what men with guns tell you.

    10. Re:Is this legal? by sgt+scrub · · Score: 1

      You can get a license to "offer alternative cell phone connectivity"? Nice!

      --
      Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
    11. Re:Is this legal? by msauve · · Score: 2

      Where's the "court order?" Furthermore, there's nothing which would allow blanket surveillance of all users in an area, as opposed to individuals covered under a legitimate warrant.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    12. Re:Is this legal? by FuzzNugget · · Score: 1

      Is this legal

      When did they start giving a shit?

    13. Re:Is this legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I had mod points, I'd mod you up. Only because you are a hotdog.

    14. Re:Is this legal? by cold+fjord · · Score: 0

      Where's the "court order?"

      It's a normal part of the investigative process for police, so figure it out.

      Furthermore, there's nothing which would allow blanket surveillance of all users in an area, as opposed to individuals covered under a legitimate warrant.

      Do you think it might be possible that there is an imperfection in either your understanding of the methodology of use, or the law, given that these devices are in use and no doubt the combination has withstood legal challenges? But please, summon your facts if you have any, I'd love to see them.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    15. Re:Is this legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They haven't been legally challenged or that would be TFA...TFA as it is would be moot if there were anyone suing over this.
      LOL, the police won't say how it is used because that would be "giving away our playbook." LAME!
      DEFcon 18 had a presentation about this kind of thing. All it does to get people to connect is lie and say it has max signal strength. Anyone can make a mini version of this for under $1000. The police spent a third of a million dollars, but then again they get some good range so... probably worth it.

    16. Re:Is this legal? by DanielRavenNest · · Score: 4, Insightful

      > Nobody is going to arrest them.

      That's not necessary. The major phone companies can sue the Indiana State Police for whatever the corporate lawyers can come up with. And those lawyers don't live in Indiana, so they aren't subject to being pulled over in a traffic stop by the local cops. Alternately, independent lawyers can start a class action on behalf of the phone customers for violation of their civil rights. The cops may not go to jail, but their employers may face big financial settlements.

    17. Re:Is this legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can get a license to "offer alternative cell phone connectivity"? Nice!

      There is no connectivity.

      It's basically like taking a regular wifi router with no password, setting it up to look normal, but not actually hooking it up to a network. You can still scrape a lot of data as people drive/walk past and their smartphones automatically connect to it.

      This is the same type of thing.

    18. Re:Is this legal? by BitterOak · · Score: 3, Informative

      Even if it is technically illegal, and I don't know whether it is or not, who is going to arrest them?

      Do police have a tendency to be held accountable for their abuse of power in your jurisdiction?

      I think the point here is that these laws are federal laws and these are state police. I'm not sure how much deference the FCC pays to state police.

      --
      If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
    19. Re:Is this legal? by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      Boston, Indiana??

    20. Re:Is this legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Looks like the "B team" is moderating tonight.

    21. Re:Is this legal? by mysidia · · Score: 1

      I do not know if FCC allows the law enforcement to violate FCC's own rules and regulations.

      The FCC agents can deliver a forfeiture order to the local law officers, ordering them to pay a $100,000 fine, for operating an unlawful radio station, same as anyone else.

    22. Re:Is this legal? by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      The major phone companies can sue the Indiana State Police for whatever the corpdne customers for violation of their civil rights. The cops may not go to jail, but their employers may face big financial settlements.

      That's hardly a victory at all. You know who their employers are, right? Hint: they probably live in roughly the same area where the cops are active....

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    23. Re:Is this legal? by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 1

      Yeah yeah, got confused with the Boston licence plate scanning thing...

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    24. Re:Is this legal? by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      they haven't changed the laws and licenses regarding cellphone comms to accommodate this, that's why they're keeping using them on the down low...

      theres no legal challenges because we know of it only because of they spent money on the device itself, it's used for fishing not as evidence. if they knew who they wanted to track and could go for a permit they wouldn't bother with this hack..

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    25. Re:Is this legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Where I come from, there are actually laws protecting police from what appear to be willful criminal actions as long as those actions are undertaken "in good faith", i.e. with the intent of doing their jobs. Worst case in egregious examples (say, when someone gets gunned down and it looks like it was for spite, not really public safety) the cop will get fired.

    26. Re:Is this legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      All I can find so far: http://files.cloudprivacy.net/FOIA/FCC/fcc-stingray-reply.pdf

    27. Re:Is this legal? by swb · · Score: 1

      My guess is that the Stingray device is licensed by the FCC to law enforcement agencies and when a local agency buys it, they get a license issued to them for its use.

    28. Re:Is this legal? by mysidia · · Score: 1

      Even if it is technically illegal, and I don't know whether it is or not, who is going to arrest them?

      Perhaps they could target the manufacturer's first

      Someone manufactured and distributed these devices -- which is only lawful with the proper licenses..

      The FCC could start by revoking their certification of all their manufacturer's goods, and requiring a mandatory recall ---- and penalize the manufacturer by impairing their certifications for all products (even unrelated goods that just happen to be intentional or unintentional RF emitters).

    29. Re:Is this legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If evidence is gathered illegally, the defense attorney will work to exclude it, and also all other evidence that follows from it ("fruit of the poisoned tree".) Using this device could compromise the prosecution's case. It's a foolish move, IMO.

    30. Re:Is this legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No License needed, you can buy a $199 Microcell and do it for yourself at home, if you add an antenna and remove the provider lock you have something very similar as the $373,995 Stingray.

    31. Re:Is this legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The FCC could start by revoking their certification of all their manufacturer's goods, and requiring a mandatory recall ---- and penalize the manufacturer by impairing their certifications for all products (even unrelated goods that just happen to be intentional or unintentional RF emitters).

      Yeah right. An agency of the Federal government is going to limit the police surveillance state that the Reagan, Bush and Obama administrations have taken decades to set up and put into place.

  7. I just have one question. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who the fuck do these people think they are?

    UnAmerican scumbags, that's who.

    1. Re:I just have one question. by Cryacin · · Score: 1

      They're "Peace keepers". You'd do well to remember that, citizen.

      --
      Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
    2. Re: I just have one question. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's what they think. Which is ironic, considering they aren't thinking much. They're sowing more seeds of dissent than capturing criminals.

      At what point does the majority of society deem this unacceptable andand start acting to fix this?

      This is wholly unbelievable!

    3. Re:I just have one question. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just do whatever the officer says and everything will be alright...
      (unless you live here where there is a regional outbreak of homosexual rape by jailers, no shit,3 cases this year alone and one conviction so far)
      I wanna see some on duty officers raped, you know it's coming. Some nutball here is gonna take down an officer and get a nut. I hope the car camera gets it all.

  8. Captain Picard - So Sexy in That Chair! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    http://imgur.com/gallery/1tBxe

  9. Good question by globaljustin · · Score: 1

    I wonder about internal security first and foremost on this stuff.

    Who in the **Indiana State Police** is monitoring the usage of this data? Some IT dude? State Police are especially 'bro' types b/c they have an inferiority complex.

    What's keeping them from just parking outside a popular youth area on a Friday night and lurk when things are slow down at the precinct?

    I"m saying, I question whether the people who approved this system even **know** what it is capable of and how the cops out in the field are using it on a daily basis.

    We already know the NSA used their system to check in on former lovers and other such tawdry stuff..

    --
    Thank you Dave Raggett
  10. RTFA by avelyn · · Score: 2

    I RTFA and got the first two words of the headline backwards, reading "Police State Acknowledge Use Of Cell Phone Tracking Device." Guess it's really the same either way, though.

    1. Re:RTFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      State Police State Police State Police State Police State Police State Police
      Police State Police State Police State Police State Police State Police State
      State Police State Police State Police State Police State Police State Police
      Police State Police State Police State Police State Police State Police State
      State Police State Police State Police State Police State Police State Police

      Which do you see?

      First seen at protests in Boston--in the 1980's.

    2. Re:RTFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm blind, you insensitive clod!

  11. Explain it like I'm a 3 year old... by Eggplant62 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    How is this not illegal wiretapping?

    1. Re:Explain it like I'm a 3 year old... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      the same exact way "parallel construction" isnt illegal.

    2. Re:Explain it like I'm a 3 year old... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How is this not illegal wiretapping?

      "We have guns'n'swat."

    3. Re:Explain it like I'm a 3 year old... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because it's just 'metadata' (unless they're recording the calls too, but likely they're encrypted end-to-end between the phone and MNO).

    4. Re:Explain it like I'm a 3 year old... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I'm going to play Devil's Advocate here: if the police actually have a warrant, then it isn't illegal.

    5. Re:Explain it like I'm a 3 year old... by sgt+scrub · · Score: 1

      No wires are involved. The law protecting you from wire tapping does not provide explicit language for non-wired communication and therefore does not apply.

      --
      Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
    6. Re:Explain it like I'm a 3 year old... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Warrant are issued by judges when the police have evidence to justify it. What kind of evidence would the police have to present to get a warrant that would cover recording all the metadata from everyone who just happens to be within range of this "tower"?

      "Your honor, as part of an ongoing investigation, we need a warrant to perform cell phone surveillance on .... uh ... everyone."
      "Everyone?"
      "Yes, your honor. Everyone. Including you."
      "Even me, huh? Well, what evidence do you have?"
      "It's double-secret evidence, your honor. You'll have to take our word for it."
      "Well, I can't argue with a double-secret. Single-secret? Yes, on a good day, yes, but not double-secret. Warrant issued."

      What kind of clown show has the US justice system devolved into?

    7. Re:Explain it like I'm a 3 year old... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Law is a funny thing. It only protects the other party. Always. It doesn't explicitly mention that I can't kill someone with a bottle either, but in that case you are expected to interpret it in a certain way. But not in this case? So if I happen to tap a phone of someone without using the actual wire, I'm safe, right? What a joke.

    8. Re:Explain it like I'm a 3 year old... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because it was ruled legal in a secret hearing. In a century or two when they release the court records you will be able to even see the evidence for yourself.
      Now fall back in line. If we catch you asking these anti-freedom and anti-democratic questions again we will have no choice but to assume you are an enemy combatant and will bring freedom and democracy to your face by any means necessary.

    9. Re:Explain it like I'm a 3 year old... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is illegal wiretapping - you are powerless to stop it. The only response you can produce that will have _any_ effect is a violent one. For example, protesting a bunch of cops will have 0 net effect in the way of them stopping. However...killing that same bunch of cops means that those bunch cannot illegally surveil you anymore. Perhaps more will take their place, then you can stop that by repeating the previous action.

  12. Possible countermeasure... by 50000BTU_barbecue · · Score: 1

    if GPS determines the phone hasn't moved, question this new "tower"...

    --
    Mostly random stuff.
    1. Re:Possible countermeasure... by tftp · · Score: 1

      The GPS reading on your phone may not change even if the calculation uses triangulation. The fake tower only needs to transmit its correct position.

      And how would you "question" "that" tower? A cell phone does not tell you much about anything, and it has no controls to select one tower or another. Perhaps a criminal could turn the phone off; this would make this whole scheme even worse: only honest people would be spied upon.

    2. Re:Possible countermeasure... by C18H27NO3+ · · Score: 2

      I have an app on my Android phone that logs cell tower locations and plots them on a map. I wonder if this Stingray device's ID would show up in multiple locations whenever it's moved. If so, that in itself would give it away in places that it's being used.

    3. Re:Possible countermeasure... by sgt+scrub · · Score: 1

      Someone finally got to the point. Know what cell towers you connect to so you know you are not connected to one that suddenly came into existence.

      There is an app for that

      --
      Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
    4. Re:Possible countermeasure... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not only that, if you could access your PRL tables, you might be able to completely lock the thing out if you could determine it's ID.

    5. Re:Possible countermeasure... by wbr1 · · Score: 2

      I am no expert on CDMA/GSM protocols, but it would seem to me that they spoof an existing nearby tower, then rebroadcast to it. Modifying your PRL or watching for bogus tower IDs would probably help little.

      --
      Silence is a state of mime.
    6. Re:Possible countermeasure... by C18H27NO3+ · · Score: 1

      I won't pretend to know how they do it either but even if that were the case it would still show that tower ID in a different location from where the valid one is. eg., The map would show tower 00699 499m away at -72dBm but at some point before or after would show tower 00699 (the real one) 742m away at -65dBm. That certainly wouldn't jive for a static tower to have been in two different places.

    7. Re:Possible countermeasure... by 50000BTU_barbecue · · Score: 1

      Neither am I, an expert I mean, but suspicious shifts in received RF power of a tower might be an indicator as well, no?

      --
      Mostly random stuff.
    8. Re:Possible countermeasure... by plover · · Score: 1

      There are legitimate reasons for towers moving around. The cellular service might temporarily bring in a tower-on-a-truck to support a large event, such as a state fair. They might also use a portable tower to temporarily stand in for a non-functioning tower. Those may be uncommon scenarios, but they're still likely more common than a Stingray.

      Also, consider that a Stingray lies about the signal strength it's receiving from your mobile phone. In order to monitor as much as possible, it baits your mobile phone with a tempting report of "hey, I get perfectly clear reception from you - even if you're using minimum transmit power. Therefore, you can run on very low battery power, and so you should have no need to switch away to another tower." So that might be a usable telltale: a new tower that reports perfect reception of your phone, even when your own reception of the tower is of poor quality.

      So if you're doing some naughty stuff, and notice some new cell towers suddenly pop up around your house, yeah, you might want to think twice.

      --
      John
    9. Re:Possible countermeasure... by omnichad · · Score: 1

      In other words, it causes poor cell reception for LOTS of people in return for investigative data on a few people.

    10. Re:Possible countermeasure... by omnichad · · Score: 1

      Also, does it lie about the receiving strength only to the target phone or to all the phones it comes in contact with?

    11. Re:Possible countermeasure... by plover · · Score: 1

      All of them, AFAIK. Cell connections are like potato chips to the FBI - they can't stop at just one.

      Actually, that was the job of the old CARNIVORE system - to sniff all the data, but then to get rid of the data that didn't pertain to the target of the investigation. We all mocked it, but at least back then they were trying to respect the privacy of citizens. Nowadays, it's just easier to classify everything and not answer all those pesky questions.

      --
      John
  13. Just keeps getting worse... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Things like this are just going to get worse and worse until either someone in power does something drastic or else we wind up having a revolution / civil war, etc.The sad thing is that I understand the intentions behind it all (behind the things that place privacy in jeopardy, I mean), but we've reached such a fine-grained level of existence now with so many aspects of our everyday life that the gray areas separating privacy and security are no longer "minor inconveniences" but rather tragic infringements upon civil liberties, etc.

    Long story short, if things like this keep happening (as well as continual unemployment increases, fraudulent laws being passed, etc.), sooner or later, something big is going to go down. There's only so much people can take.

  14. Jammer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, how does one jam a mobile network? Since legal is out of the window anyway...

    1. Re: Jammer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Illegally

    2. Re:Jammer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't unless you want to be a pariah. Even if you are standing up for everyone's rights, they won't care when their smartphones don't work and they will blame only you and just to rub it in, they will vote into law that everyone should be bugged at all times just so you can't make your argument again in the future. Why? Because America. That's why.

  15. DO ME CAPTAIN PICARD, MAKE IT SO!!!!!!!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    GAY Captain Picard grinds his chair with his ass

    and he loves his blankey!

    http://imgur.com/gallery/1tBxe

  16. should read "The Joke keeps getting worse" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    It is a joke to the elitists in power, and the joke is on you. They have been in power for thousands of years, selectively inbreeding. They are psychopaths, they will destroy everything before they let us destroy them. Answer to the topic of this question, don't use a cell phone.

    There is only so much people can take until you are taken away and executed for not behaving. Not standing in line, that is the end game of all of this. It happened in Germany not so long ago.

    Unfortunately most don't get it. You think you can out gun these guys, you are fooling yourselves. They'll send the drones in with surgical strikes against the militias, it will be a fucking war zone if you think there will be revolution.

    1. Re:should read "The Joke keeps getting worse" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anything is still possible, though, and would likely begin with a surgical strike of the militia's own by trying something against the President in D.C. or something of that nature. With everything the way it is, I wouldn't be surprised if it would start with an internal power squabble of some sort between the various agencies / departments before it reached a militia level.

    2. Re: should read "The Joke keeps getting worse" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The answer is peaceful non compliance.

  17. What do you expect by Mister+Liberty · · Score: 1

    in the apathic neck of the woods.

  18. Doesn't matter by ArchieBunker · · Score: 1

    Its already been proven the cops and the feds can do whatever they want without repercussions.

    --
    Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
  19. In related news ... by PPH · · Score: 1

    ... the police agencies of 49 other states express displeasure with Indiana for spilling the beans.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  20. Not only is this entirely illegal, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    ...it is also entirely unconscionable. How does this not send Capt. Dave Bursten's head spinning with cognitive dissonance...

    Indiana State Police Captain Dave Bursten said in a statement the department is working well within the bounds of the law.
    [...]
    USA Today and the IndyStar also sought records about what are known as âoetower dumps,â in which police seek court orders requiring cell phone companies to provide investigators with massive amounts of phone data.

    So, 'tower dumps' require court orders (warrant?) for the police to gather the info - which presumably only includes the so-called metadata (yes, metadata is the important part), yet using this cell-tower-in-a-suitcase which has the potential to capture the actual content in addition to the metadata doesn't require a warrant? Even if they aren't gathering content, this is dragnet activity, which there are laws against.

    1. Re:Not only is this entirely illegal, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When you are in a public place, such as a street or a shopping mall where one of these things may be deployed, you have ZERO expectation of privacy in anything you say or hear. Using this device out in public is simply equivalent to listening in as you talk to someone on the phone, which is perfectly legal in a public place.

      The cops are well within the limits of the constitution and the Law.

    2. Re:Not only is this entirely illegal, by Holi · · Score: 2

      I think you are mistaken, We do have an expectation not to be tracked by the police. I believe when the police track you with out a warrant it is called harassment and is illegal.

      After all what do you think meta-data is for.

      --
      Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
    3. Re:Not only is this entirely illegal, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you high? It says these devices can intercept phones up to a mile away. Pretty easy to be in the privacy of your own home, within the radius of this device being used in a "public place."

    4. Re:Not only is this entirely illegal, by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      Most uses of cell phones these days are for non-voice communications, whether SMS, email, web surfing, etc. Compare to five or more years ago when you constantly overheard people talking on their phones in public. And I have a reasonable expectation of privacy from shoulder surfing. I don't expect to be immune from it, just like I don't expect to be immune from someone peeping into a public bathroom stall or glancing to the side at the urinals, but social norms give me expectations of privacy there too. Stingray would pick up SMS traffic easily.

  21. In Soviet Russia, the Modem tracks THEM! by Thor+Ablestar · · Score: 4, Informative

    Once upon a time, working for some Russian defense project I used there a Cellular Modem. The Modem has lots of AT commands that precisely informed about almost everything. As I know, CDMA modems have a similar set of functions.

    Then, the second fact. The stingray does NOT use the same frequency as a real tower. It uses any free frequency and real credentials (If it uses the real frequency it will immediately cause lots of interference). And it should overpower the real tower since the phones connect to the most powerful tower. The Chinese cellular suppressors use the same tactic.

    What does it mean: Any sufficiently opensource phone ( http://neo900.org/#main for instance) can have a software that monitors the cellular connections for anything strange and immediately report it.

    Also, the encoded GSM communications become trivial if you control your phone. It does NOT protect your metainfo but there are other means for it.

  22. Gun owners as a rule by hellstromcarbunkle · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    are cowardly. They arm themselves to the teeth as defense against the 'coming black insurrection' but they love prisons and police, since these people keep them 'safe' from those black 'hordes'. And that is why there will never be a revolt of the White Middle Class, just as it was not the White Middle Class that fought the revolutionary war on the side of the Congress. It was wealthy men interested in more wealth, the people they could buy and the poor dross paid by the hour.

    1. Re:Gun owners as a rule by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      You seem to be badly confused on more than one point. Here is a start for you.

      The Klan's Favorite Law

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
  23. Indiana wants me... by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 1

    Indiana wants me, Lord, I can't go back there
    Indiana wants me, Lord, I can't go back there
    I wish I had you to talk to

    Red lights are flashing around me, good Lord, it looks like they found me

    Indiana wants me, Lord, I can't go back there
    Indiana wants me, Lord, I can't go back there
    I wish I had you to talk to...

  24. Indiana Resident by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is so in-Amerocan. It's a gross invasion of privacy that seems to be the norm nowadays with the NSA. I'm pretty sure the foundering fathers would each take turns kicking all involved parties in the balls.

    1. Re:Indiana Resident by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is so in-Amerocan. It's a gross invasion of privacy that seems to be the norm nowadays with the NSA. I'm pretty sure the foundering fathers would each take turns kicking all involved parties in the balls.

      You ought to kick your public school administrators and fifth-grade spelling teachers in the balls, too.

    2. Re:Indiana Resident by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      U I and O are all together on the keyboard, so it's a typo. If the typo didn't exist, I'd chalk up "foundering" to auto-correct. But there's definitely a mistake there.

  25. I thought the US Supreme Court.. by Streetlight · · Score: 1

    banned the use of tracking devices without a warrant. If they are tracking thousands at the same time they need thousands of warrants, one for each trackee. I doubt this happens. I hope the ACLU is on to the Indiana cops like fleas on a dog.

    --
    In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. George Orwell
    1. Re:I thought the US Supreme Court.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Supreme Court banned the act of trespassing on private property for the purpose of attaching a tracking device to someone's vehicle.

      They can still use such devices, but have to attach them while your car is parked on public property.

  26. And you cannot make phone calls by Walter+White · · Score: 1

    Several weeks ago I was driving from Michigan to Indiana on an interstate highway. Ordinarily my carrier (Verizon) has good coverage along interstate highways and I had a strong signal but was unable to place a call. I tried several times and nothing happened after I dialed the number and pressed the call button until the phone reported something like "unable to place the call - try again later." I wonder if the ISP was monitoring cell phones in the area or if Verizon's equipment was just fubar.

  27. Children......... by Lucky_Pierre · · Score: 1

    The State is NOT your friend.

    --
    "Whenever the cause of the people is entrusted to professors, it is lost." ~ V.I. Lenin
  28. Boy I'll bet the cell phone companies feel stewpid by BringsApples · · Score: 1

    They've all been putting up huge towers, paying land-owners large sums of money, paying for the towers, climbers of those towers, and all that comes with upkeep... and all they needed was an array of briefcases.

    Seriously though, how the hell does the briefcase handle the connection between the cell phones? If those towers have to many users on them at once (and remember, each tower isn't dealing with ALL CELL PHONES that are within their range) they cannot handle the traffic, just try to use your celly at some local event where there are thousands of people all within close proximity of each other, using, more than likely, one cell tower - no can do.

    I feel that this is one of those scare tactics that are being used in lieu of the Snowden leaks, that no one obviously gives 2 shits about. Because if anyone gets a warrant based on illegally-gained information, the case gets tossed out in court. So what's the point? If it's just a tool that the cops get to use, then I'll bet they're more than likely just listening to their wives/girlfriends. Nothing to fear here guys.

    --
    Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.
  29. Old news. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Such devices are favorite of Central- and Eastern-European mafias and government insider snoops. Supposedly, it cost about three million czech crowns, acts the same as the aforementioned Stingray device, and allows to instantly eavesdrop. I mean, this is every croock's wet dream come true. Deploy it in a town and you instantly OWN everyone.

  30. another way to look at it.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We're all about RF freedom here on /., right? Cellular blocked scanners are anathema; we should be free (as in speech, not beer) to write software to decode whatever you receive off the air, be it scrambled TV, your neighbor's WiFi, whatever. If it's important to you, you should be encrypting it.

    So if I want to build a device that logs all the WiFi packets, or cellphone transmissions, or whatever, I should be free to do it. And so should some random police agent.

    You're radiating that RF into the public air. There's no real inherent search or seizure going on, so 4th amendment doesn't really apply. This is unlike wireline communications, isn't it?

  31. Cal_Poly Stringray, $5 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Here, pick one up~!
    http://www.publicsurplus.com/sms/auction/view?auc=615501
    ~Michael

  32. Remember when you needed a warrant to by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Tap a phone. You still believe your living in a free country.
    Your rock stupid then.

  33. It's hurting you how? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why do any of you care? You post all your business on social media anyway, that's not private. Facebook Twitter etc.. "Hey I just peed", or "I'm at the gym", why not your post your plot to rob a bank. ?? Redundant

  34. POLICE STATE! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wonder if they saw how well this worked in Utah? Need more revenue? Hire more lice to pre cog everyone and rob and rape them of their liberty and financial means? Are they telling WE THE PEOPLE what it can do? No! Why? For our safety from Terrorism? It's to strip our liberties. We need to vote our elected officials out!