Slashdot Mirror


Indiana State Police Acknowledge Use of Cell Phone Tracking Device

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."

91 of 155 comments (clear)

  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 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
    3. 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
    4. 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.

    5. 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.

    6. 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?
    7. 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.
    8. 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.

    9. 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.

    10. 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.
    11. 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!
    12. 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.

    13. 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.

    14. 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.

    15. 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!
    16. 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!
    17. 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 ?
    18. 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.

    19. 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. 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

      .... 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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 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.

    9. 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.
    10. 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
    11. Re:Is this legal? by FuzzNugget · · Score: 1

      Is this legal

      When did they start giving a shit?

    12. 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.

    13. 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?
    14. Re:Is this legal? by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      Boston, Indiana??

    15. 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.

    16. 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?!
    17. 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.
    18. 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.
    19. 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.

    20. 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

    21. 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.

    22. 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).

    23. 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.

  5. 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.

  6. 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
  7. 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.

  8. 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

  9. 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.

  10. 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: 1

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

    3. 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.
  11. 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 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.
    5. 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.

    6. 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.
    7. 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
    8. 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.

    9. 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?

    10. 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
  12. 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.

  13. 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.

  14. 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
  15. What do you expect by Mister+Liberty · · Score: 1

    in the apathic neck of the woods.

  16. 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
  17. 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.
  18. 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 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.
    2. 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.

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

    In his case, its a minor offense.

  20. 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.
  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. 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...

  23. 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
  24. 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.

  25. 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.
  26. 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?!
  27. 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.

  28. 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
  29. 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
  30. 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".)

  31. 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.
  32. 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.