Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

US Pushing Local Police To Keep Quiet On Cell-Phone Surveillance Technology

Posted by timothy on from the all-you-debaters-are-welcome dept.

schwit1 (797399) writes with this story from the Associated Press, as carried by Yahoo News: The Obama administration has been quietly advising local police not to disclose details about surveillance technology they are using to sweep up basic cellphone data from entire neighborhoods, The Associated Press has learned. Citing security reasons, the U.S. has intervened in routine state public records cases and criminal trials regarding use of the technology. This has resulted in police departments withholding materials or heavily censoring documents in rare instances when they disclose any about the purchase and use of such powerful surveillance equipment. Federal involvement in local open records proceedings is unusual. It comes at a time when President Barack Obama has said he welcomes a debate on government surveillance and called for more transparency about spying in the wake of disclosures about classified federal surveillance programs.

61 of 253 comments (clear)

  1. Oh my ... by MondoGordo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...and the police state gears up ...

    1. Re:Oh my ... by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 4, Insightful

      >> compared to Gitmo and the phoney wars we had because of George W Bush

      I hope you realize Gitmo is Obama's mess now. He's had six years now to clean it up - in fact ran on a platform to clean it up - and has done little there except release some pretty evil dudes back into the wild.

    2. Re:Oh my ... by fustakrakich · · Score: 2

      Bush is history. Obama runs Gitmo now, and the wars. So you can stop with that tired old crap.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    3. Re:Oh my ... by johnsie · · Score: 2

      They are both idiots. And the people who voted for them are also idiots too.

    4. Re:Oh my ... by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 4, Funny

      Trollin, trollin, trollin
      Keep those doggies trollin
      Rawhide!

    5. Re:Oh my ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      The sad truth about the travesty of Gitmo is that it was attempted to be closed but was blocked via procedural means. Only certain penitentiaries can accept prisoners from outside of US soil and in order to do so they must have authorization from the Governor of that region. Sadly all of the penitentiaries that were able to take the prisoners had Republican governors. All of them were asked in turn by the administration, and all of them said no.

      It is disturbing how so many actively chose to allow that human rights fiasco to continue just to make one man look bad. Not that you care, considering you think all those people that did not get a trial, that have no evidence against them are "pretty evil dudes".

    6. Re:Oh my ... by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 2

      Graham warns of Republican impeachment push over Gitmo

      Congress tried to build in a safeguard against Obama making unilateral decisions on releasing terrorist detainees by including language in the National Defense Authorization Act requiring the administration to alert Congress of such moves at least 30 days in advance.

      Obama did not follow that law when he swapped five senior Taliban commanders for Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl.

      Sen. Carl Levin (Mich.), the Democratic chairman of the Armed Services panel, said Obama had a plausible legal argument for ignoring the law.

      “The White House did not comply with the requirement of the 30-day provision. However, the White House said it had power under Article II of the Constitution to do what it did,” Levin said. “I’m not a court that’s going to decide whether or not under Article II the commander in chief has the power to move this quickly even though Congress said you’ve got to give 30 days notice.”

      So in order for Obama to close Guantanamo, not only does he have to determine that the concentration camp is bullshit, but he also has to determine that Congress's impertinence on the matter is also bullshit.

    7. Re:Oh my ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      In case you needed any more proof that Obama has had the power to close Gitmo all along, he just traded five detainees for Bergdahl. (the "illegal" portion of his actions was that he didn't inform Congress far enough in advance as required by law)

      I think you'll find that a huge number of people will continue to vote for the terrible Republicans, just as a huge number of people will vote for Democrats even when they act little better than the Republicans. And even if Obama hadn't just openly stated that he can release detainees without anyone else's consent, he has always had a massive amount of influence on policy through the bully pulpit. He's not getting crappy results because we have lots of useless and obstructionist Republicans and some useless Democrats, he's getting crappy results because he really doesn't care about the moral positions he previously advocated. To suggest that things are largely the Republicans' fault simply isn't rational, after the willful continuation of virtually all the existing War on Terror policies, and the weakest possible healthcare reform that could still be argued to be a "victory."

      I don't want to believe that Obama and the Democrats are useless, since it makes improvement solely through the electoral system (as opposed to through large scale strikes or serious economic problems) seem far off and unlikely, but it's certainly not helping to make excuses for politicians' bad behavior.

    8. Re:Oh my ... by fustakrakich · · Score: 4, Interesting

      They are both idiots.

      Wrong! They are con men, who hit the jackpot. The voters are the only idiots here, and they are just as corrupt as those people they reelect. The corruption of the politician is a reflection.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    9. Re:Oh my ... by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Of course, you ignore the fact that President Obama's party had complete control of Congress, with the Supermajority of the Senate, yet did nothing to shut down Gitmo. Now he gets to blame those damn Republicans, just as you do, for all his failings.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    10. Re:Oh my ... by currently_awake · · Score: 2

      Bush and Obama are politically identical (middle of the road Republican) so you can't really blame people for confusing the two.

    11. Re:Oh my ... by rahvin112 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Unfortunately for the democrats they are not as "United" as the republicans. They don't vote in lockstep with each other nor do they judge each other by some RINO like measure where it's a bad thing not to vote in lock step with what the party says regardless of their constituents. As a result even though the bill to close gitmo was brought up several times the bill never passed nor really ever had a chance to beat the 60 vote fillibuster threshold needed to advance in the Senate.

      Instead was was passed in it's stead was a requirement that he not close, it that he not spend a DIME studying closing, discussing closing or even thinking about closing it. This basically bared the president from doing any sort of research that would convince congress it could be done. This was the work of people like John McCain, rather ironically a former POW, working concert with the republican party and a handful of cooperative blue dog democrats.

      Anyone that can argue Obama didn't try to close Gitmo is a blind partisan liar. And anyone that argues Obama is responsible for that atrocity is a fucking idiot. The republican party has responsibility for that prison. Even today the Republican parties official platform includes support for perpetual detention at Gitmo. I'll never understand people that think it's a good idea to waste our soldiers time playing guard duty in what is pretty close to a paradise. It's a waste of money and valuable resources. Those people should have long ago been transferred to a special federal prison such as the recently closed super-max in Illinois that tried very hard to become the site. But people not unlike you insisted without reason that those guys remain in Cuba and the taxpayers to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to house them in the most expensive military base the US has.

    12. Re:Oh my ... by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 2

      and in order to do so they must have authorization from the Governor of that region.

      It may not have been intentional but you illustrate a big part of the problem with this surveillance: with very few exceptions, the Federal government has no jurisdiction OR other authority to be involved in local/state criminal matters. The only time the Feds are legally allowed to be involved is if it involves interstate or international crime.

      If I were someone who was a victim of this illegal surveillance (according to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, as another story mentioned just today, it *IS* a 4th Amendment violation), and I had evidence that the Federal government was involved, I think I'd press charges under 18 USC 242, "Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law".

      Now that a Federal court (even if it's not my circuit) has ruled that it IS a 4th Amendment violation, there is probably a pretty good chance of making it stick.

    13. Re:Oh my ... by amiga3D · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If you think Gitmo is a paradise you're the idiot. It's not a hell hole but it's still a prison. You can blather on about the Republicans all you want but the people that dangle the Republican puppets by their strings dangle the Democratic puppets too. You partisan fools that still believe the smoke and mirror show that is the US political two party mafia system astound me. What little shred of doubt I had about it is gone after the last six years. Obama looks like Bush version 2.0

    14. Re:Oh my ... by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 4, Interesting

      If President Obama had wanted to close Gitmo, he would have shamed the Democrats in Congress into doing it.

      He doesn't care that Gitmo is open. If anything, he loves it being open, because it gives him another cudgel to bash the Republicans with. And people like you eat it up.

      Also, if the Republicans had this great lockstep mentality you mention, the term RINO wouldn't exist.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    15. Re:Oh my ... by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 2

      Those people should have long ago been transferred to a special federal prison such as the recently closed super-max in Illinois that tried very hard to become the site.

      They should have been there from the very beginning. Leaving aside the rest of your rant, you don't seem to get it that they're there because of Bush and Obama administration "legal theories" that they can be treated there in ways that would be illegal on U.S. soil. While the whole concept might have started with Bush administration, people in the Obama administration haven't seemed to try to refute the concept, either.

      I'm not going to try to argue that Obama didn't at least make some small effort. But my impression was that it was pretty small. And that impression is bolstered by the fact that in so many other matters, Obama really doesn't seem to give a shit what Congress thinks or does.

    16. Re:Oh my ... by rtb61 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So it is neither Republicans nor the Democrats fault, it is the lazy electorate, thumb in bumb, mind in neutral who pays no attention at primaries time and allows both parties to be stacked against them and let the Republicans and the Democrats to be turned into the Corporate Party, the party of corporations, by corporations and for corporations, only major corporations and multi-nationals get to play of course.

      Whoops there's been a major upset, it seems more people are starting to pay attention to the primaries. If Hilary Clinton gets through, Americans will be seen as bigger idiots than the world already believes them to be and there are just so many other blatant corporate politicians that should all be dropped. Time to Kill Wall Street and rebuild Main Street and both parties need to be focused on it by ensuring the electorate pays attention at primaries time.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    17. Re:Oh my ... by vux984 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      These are non-US citizens (generally) & non-uniformed combatants.

      "non-uniformed combatants" is a made up thing; they are civilians. Criminals perhaps, but if Iran invades your home town and starts

      As such, they are afforded protection from neither the US Constitution

      Why not? Isn't there something in there about 'all people'? I don't recall it being limited to American citizens?

      I mean, granted we don't have authority to impose the constitution or justice system on foreign nationals in their own country -- but we did arrest them, and remove them from their country to territory we control. There's no reason they can't or shouldn't be extended to the rights of our justice system? Why shouldn't we? Would their trial be somehow unfair?

      Additionally, most countries where the detainees originate are not signatories to the Geneva Convention, and thus the protections further do not apply to them.

      It still applies to us stupid. Sure legally we aren't obligated by treaty but so what? Its the morally right thing to do, and there is certainly nothing in the treaty that PREVENTS us from extending them those protections? Why on earth would we desire NOT to extend them?

      You make it sound like we'd like to give them fair trials, and we'd like to extend them rights but we can't. That's bullshit.

    18. Re:Oh my ... by vux984 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "non-uniformed combatants" is a made up thing; they are civilians. Criminals perhaps, but if Iran invades your home town and starts

      sorry somehow missed finishing that sentence. ... and starts wrecking the place, and you resist, even with violence, and they capture you and take you into 'custody'. You are still a civilian. Even if they wanted to treat you as a soldier, that'd be fine too.

      But to invent a new classification for the express purpose of depriving people of the rights you would extend civilians and soldiers is BULLSHIT.

    19. Re:Oh my ... by rahvin112 · · Score: 2

      If President Obama had wanted to close Gitmo, he would have shamed the Democrats in Congress into doing it.

      Assuming what you say is true the Democrats NEVER had a filibuster proof 60 votes. So even if the Democrats were as united and you seem to think and EVEN if every single Democrat somehow would bow down and do whatever Obama wanted (which they don't) he couldn't have got it done.

      How stupid are you? The Democrats don't vote in lock step. Trying to organize the Democrats in congress is like trying to heard cats. It's the single most important reason why the Republicans voting exactly how the party tells them to can always out maneuver the Democrats.

      Obama has no responsibility for Gitmo, he didn't create it, he tried to close it and he'd close it tomorrow if Congress would let him. See here in the real world the President isn't all powerful. What's Ironic is that you idiots keep claiming he's all powerful and can do whatever he wants, yet the Republican party policy is to oppose everything he does. It's the biggest bunch of horseshit you partisan fools have ever tried selling.

    20. Re:Oh my ... by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 4, Informative

      If President Obama had wanted to close Gitmo, he would have shamed the Democrats in Congress into doing it.

      Assuming what you say is true the Democrats NEVER had a filibuster proof 60 votes.

      Yes, they did. Not for a long time, but they had it and wasted it. How do you think Obamacare got passed? No Republican voted for it, and no Republican voted to end debate on it. The Democrats had 60 votes to force cloture once they bribed enough of their own party. The Republicans couldn't stop them.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    21. Re:Oh my ... by kaladorn · · Score: 2

      The Republicans aren't responsible for Gitmo, nor are the Democrats. The US electorate and America is. It is an American prison. Governments placed by American electors created it and maintained it.

      That's who is responsible.

      --
      -- Mal: "Well they tell you: never hit a man with a closed fist. But it is, on occasion, hilarious."
    22. Re:Oh my ... by Insightfill · · Score: 3, Informative

      I believe that the problem is that Al Franken wasn't sworn in until well after that session was well under way, Senator Ted Kennedy was missing for many votes due to his brain cancer, and Arlen Specter didn't switch sides until much much later. There were a few other Democratic Senators who were either out or "Blue Dog" and "DINOs" - the Democratic "Party" is actually more of a loose coalition. The Democrats had the seats, perhaps, but nothing more, for a total of 72 days.

      (Reprinted from the last time I did this comment.)

      The problem in closing Gitmo is that there have NEVER been enough people in Congress who are willing to take the political hit of letting anyone leave; witness the fact that we captured Chinese Uyghurs back in 2002, determined they weren't terrorists in 2008, and FINALLY released the last of them in 2014. These were GUYS WE KNEW WERE INNOCENT FOR SIX YEARS and still hadn't let go.

    23. Re:Oh my ... by rahvin112 · · Score: 2

      I said the prison was in a paradise, not that it was a paradise. It's called reading comprehension.

      And you are making a terrible assumption to assume I favor the democrats, I think both parties are full of shit. But when we're talking about blame for Gitmo that is squarely on the Republicans and will remain there because it IS their fault. Calling them out on that is not favoring the democrats. I'm happy to point out both parties failings, maybe if more people called the parties on it we could degrade this sham of a two party system.

      Gitmo goes against every single one of our values and the Republican party and their representatives were the ones that decided it was a good idea, justified it with secret memo's and to this day continue to block every attempt to close it and have been running a propaganda campaign against closure from day one.

    24. Re:Oh my ... by Aqualung812 · · Score: 2

      Yes. (Quote from Men in Black)

      I want the truth. I don't want to be protected by ignorance.

      However, I'm not sure if the majority of people actually feel this way. My wife and I are truthful to the other, in the extreme. It has meant our first year of marriage was AWFUL, and here 15 years later it is AMAZING, and continuing to get better. It is hard to speak and accept the truth, but it is worth it IF you are willing to handle it.

      Again, I'm not sure everyone, or even a majority, is willing to handle it correctly. It is an honest question.

      --
      Grammer Nazis - I mod you "troll" unless you actually add something on-topic. Yes, I know I have mispellings in my sig.
  2. "Obama has said he welcomes a debate " by bigpat · · Score: 5, Interesting

    EFF put together this great debate between Joe Biden 2006 and Barrack Obama 2013

    1. Re:"Obama has said he welcomes a debate " by sconeu · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Obama is a politician. By definition, when he opens his mouth, he's lying.*

      * DISCLAIMER: This also applies to Boehner, Pelosi, Cantor, Reid, McConnell and any other politician.

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    2. Re:"Obama has said he welcomes a debate " by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Which is why, if you continue to vote for either of the two incumbent parties, you're part of the problem. And why I am a Libertarian. I'm sure the Libertarian party will have similar issues at some point, if they get stronger, however the Libertarian are the best guidelines for why this stuff matters more than most people care about. So I am not worried about Libertarian party getting corrupt any time soon.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    3. Re:"Obama has said he welcomes a debate " by s.petry · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If everyone starts to vote for Libertarian the problem will just be extended. Look at how the "insiders" have taken over groups like the "Tea Party" and moved them from grass roots "People" back to "Career Politicians with new branding.

      I certainly appreciate the motivation, but if you are not addressing the right problem then the solution will also be incorrect. The real problem is that corrupt politicians have become entrenched in every possible political office. In order to fix things, the entrenched political power needs to be removed from every political office.

      That is not to say 100% of the people in politics are bad, any more than to say 100% of the NSA's employees are bad. Consider it a farm where enough plants are diseased and festering that we have to remove the crop and burn it all, or risk immediate contamination to new plants sown. The farm is fine, the founders did a great job building it where we could do exactly what needs to be done and still be a farm.

      Nope, it's not the only problem to deal with but it's at the root. In order to get rid of the people bribing and coercing politicians, new people with hopefully better morals need to expose them after a swap. It took a long time to break the system and it will take a while to clean it up and heal.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    4. Re:"Obama has said he welcomes a debate " by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 2

      Notice at about 34 seconds, he's trying to figure out how to lie convincingly.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    5. Re:"Obama has said he welcomes a debate " by amiga3D · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The problem is the people themselves. They all want something from the government and the people in power know this. They buy us with our own tax money and people just don't get it.

    6. Re:"Obama has said he welcomes a debate " by Imrik · · Score: 2

      Would rather hear Senator Obama debate against President Obama.

    7. Re:"Obama has said he welcomes a debate " by dryeo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That's last century. Now they buy the voters with borrowed money.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
  3. Stingrays by globaljustin · · Score: 4, Insightful

    this is about Stingrays... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...

    more importantly, sources and methods

    i think the Justice Dept. is trying to keep this tech out of the hands of the general public

    they can't, of course

    --
    Thank you Dave Raggett
    1. Re:Stingrays by jodycwilliams · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Perhaps as a secondary rationale. Primarily, they are trying to continue to circumvent privacy protections, warrant requirements, etc. and don't want people to know how they are doing such things so they can't put together a proper case against them.

    2. Re:Stingrays by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      > i think the Justice Dept. is trying to keep this tech out of the hands of the general public

      I expect it is really about the fact that if people know how it works, it becomes easy to avoid.

      It should be super simple to write an app that will detect them and warn you about it. They all work by putting up a "microcell" and convincing your phone to connect to their microcell and then on the back-end they route your calls back through the regular cell network. The thing is, they have to use a tower-id that does not conflict with the real towers in the area else they would cause random failures on any phone trying to talk to the real tower (something like when two computers have the same IP address on the same subnet). So, an app that just records the tower-ids your phone sees along with the GPS coordinates would quickly notice if a new "tower" popped up in your neighborhood.

      I'm surprised there isn't such an app already (maybe there is, I haven't checked since I first heard about stingray like 2 years ago).

    3. Re:Stingrays by Thruen · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It's already in the hands of the public, really. Someone used one as part of a demonstration at Defcon in 2010. What I imagine they don't want is to show the public how capable they are of collecting all the information they want without anyone else needing to know, like any business providing any sort of transparency report.

  4. What did you expect would happen? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The smartphone: a general purpose computational device with a GPS, camera and microphone, typically carried around on one's person or in one's general vicinity at all times. Most smartphones have built-in functionality below the operating system layer that allows the carrier to execute arbitrary code on the device.

    It's the ultimate tracking tool.

  5. Very curious by blackiner · · Score: 2

    The more I hear about them trying to quell discussion about these things the more interested I get. What in the world is so important about them? What are they hiding? I saw a strange object on a power pole when I was out for a run the other day, it looked like tree roots laid out horizontally... I can only assume it was an antenna of some sort. Was gone the very next day, and wasn't there the day before either... I wonder if it was one of these things?

    1. Re:Very curious by sumdumass · · Score: 3, Informative

      Interestingly, a federal court just rules that the coppers need a warrant to get cellphone location data as it is assumed to be confidential and falls within the 4th amendment scope.

      http://www.cnet.com/news/court...

  6. His true colors.... by Dega704 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Those spoofed Obama posters that replaced HOPE with OBEY seem more and more appropriate.

    1. Re:His true colors.... by RyoShin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Oh, come now. Given our political climate, I'm sure any despot that the oligarchy put on the ballot (for either party) would be just as happy to allow or order such acts.

      It's not that you give President Obama too much blame, it's that you give him too much credit.

  7. it will be leaked soon by FudRucker · · Score: 2

    the federal government cant keep any secrets they are too clumsy, stupid and corrupt to garner loyalty from that many police officers

    --
    Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
    1. Re:it will be leaked soon by PPH · · Score: 2

      Already done. Local cops are morons. Nobody told them not to sit around and bullshit about all their cool tech with the local riff-raff.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
  8. It all means nothing by fustakrakich · · Score: 4, Insightful

    98% of you will still vote democrat or republican, thinking this time things will change. You're right. Things will change... for the worse. And then you will STILL vote democrat or republican again. You have the government you asked for. And quit your bellyaching about lack of choice. I ain't listening. It's bullshit. You decide who is on the ballot.

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    1. Re:It all means nothing by rossz · · Score: 3, Informative

      Voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil.

      If every single person who said they would vote third party if it wasn't throwing away their vote actually voted third party, we'd see some serious changes. Just accept that it doesn't matter one bit whether a democrat or a republican wins the election. The results will be the same. Once you accept this simple truth, you are free. Now you can vote for a third party candidate without that fear of letting "the other guy" win. Vote third party. Always. I don't care which third party. Just don't vote for the status quo.

      --
      -- Will program for bandwidth
    2. Re:It all means nothing by currently_awake · · Score: 2

      Voting 3rd party isn't throwing your vote away. Most elections are only won by a few percent. When politicians see votes going to 3rd party candidates they ask how they can take those votes, and if borrowing a few ideas from the 3rd party is cheap enough they will do it. So voting 3rd party will shift the politics of the major candidates.

    3. Re:It all means nothing by OhPlz · · Score: 2

      What "state's right crap" are you referring to? That's the system of government that we were supposed to have. Everything not delegated to the feds by the Constitution is the domain of the state or local governments. Doesn't it make sense to keep government as local as possible?

      I don't think it matters who you vote for. Isn't that the Obama "yes we can" lesson of the last six years? We're more divided then ever. There's a major scandal like clockwork, every couple of weeks. People who were lobbyists when the President promised not to appoint them are now serving in government. The NSA not only spies on foreign powers, it spies on every one of us. I don't think it's the parties, I think it's the system. The federal government wields too much power, is too massive, and it makes it far to easy to use it to abuse the people. Absolute power corrupts, absolutely. A new party or candidates without party affiliations won't fix this.

  9. The Question To Ask... by NotSanguine · · Score: 2

    Is why does the Federal government care? That they do begs the question, what are they trying to hide? Are the Stingrays (which are useful as a law enforcement tool -- assuming proper warrants are obtained and appropriate restrictions adhered to) just a smokescreen for other spy technologies being used by the Feds (think parallel construction here) and shared with local LEO? If so, that's a big problem.

    If not, I'm guessing that Hanlon's Razor applies here in spades.

    --
    No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
    1. Re:The Question To Ask... by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 4, Informative

      Are the Stingrays (which are useful as a law enforcement tool -- assuming proper warrants are obtained and appropriate restrictions adhered to) ...

      There are no proper warrants that can be acquired that can authorize the Constitutional use of a Stingray device, nor are there appropriate restrictions other than a total ban on their use. They are the very definition of blanket surveillance and can not be used in any other way. There is no way to utilize them in a warranty-compliant manner because they will always sweep up the details of everyone in the vicinity, and there is no warrant for that. They are impossible to target, therefore their use by law enforcement (or any private organization being using to whitewash their use by law enforcement) is unconstitutional and therefore illegal.

      That's black letter law, too, which is why it's being hidden. There is no sell-us-down-the-river Supreme Court decision that has ruled blanket surveillance legal, unlike, say, the assinine decision that is going to get the 11th Circuit overturned for claiming we have an expectation of privacy for our cell phone records (we do, but the Supreme Court has already ruled, in a massive fit of stupidity, that we don't because the phone company is some sort of magical "third party"). That hasn't happened (yet) with blanket surveillance, and it's hard to imagine even the Roberts court going that far around the bend.

      That said, I echo the question you and others posted. How could these devices possibly be so valuable that federal agents are conspiring with local law enforcement to hide their illegal use? I'm assuming they're just unwilling to give up their toys, any toy at all, like the petulant children they are.

  10. Hollywood co-operates with NSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The USA was the first nation to mandate BY LAW that every cell phone sold in the USA had to constantly provide location tracking information, and the laughable excuse given by Congress is that this facility would help locate some 911 callers. This functionality became a requirement MANY years ago, and has absolutely NOTHING to do with GPS.

    After the new law, Hollywood modified the plots of its TV dramas to account for the fact that anyone with a powered mobile phone was locatable to within several meters using the cell tower triangulation methods that actually track the position of every cell phone owner in the USA. If the plot required a person to be 'lost', an excuse had to be found for the lack of a cell phone, or the inability of the cell phone to work properly (exhausted battery- not within the range of a cell tower). BUT THEN EVERYTHING CHANGED.

    The US Justice Department contacted every major entertainment company, and asked them to STOP informing ordinary Americans that their mobile phones were constantly location tracked. And Hollywood complied- so now TV dramas constantly inform naive viewers that most mobile phones CANNOT be location tracked unless
    1) special software has been installed on the phone
    2) the phone has a GPS chip
    3) AND the phone network company has been informed, and currently has a Human operator attempting to locate the phone.

    Hollywood TV shows and films can actually have plots revolving around the use of a mobile phone, and at the same time absolutely denying that the phone has ANY location tracking facility. The US remake of 'Shameless' had a 'genius' 'hacker' character attempting to locate a person trapped in a container on a moving truck, and despite the fact that the 'lost' individual was in the USA, and communicating with the 'genius' 'hacker' by mobile phone, not once did the 'genius' 'hacker' suggest that the phone itself provided the location.

    You see the same thing with 'crime' plots, where Hollywood agrees to NEVER show effective criminal procedures, even to the extent of NEVER accurately depicting something as trivial as lock-picking. But extending this dubious principle to general public knowledge about the true functionality of their electronic devices is despicable- and straight out of 1984.

    Such NSA inspired programs join other NSA FUD like:
    -the NSA FUD attack against Truecrypt
    -the NSA FUD attack against the validity of properly erasing files by over-writing them with new, random data that the OS cannot distinguish from other, valid data. The NSA pays shills to hit forums like these with garbage about 'magic' forensic technology that directly recovers such deleted data from the surface of the HDD platter. The intention is to drive the sheeple to use subverted, corporate deletion tools that actually leave most of the data untouched, making it likely the NSA and others can recover it.
    -The Bill Gates/NSA home spy project called Kinect 2. Due to the complete failure of the Xbox One in the marketplace, Microsoft has reversed every Gates/NSA requirement for the original Xbox One launch. No great loss to the NSA, since the Kinect2 was just a tiny part of the NSA grooming project to get sheeple accepting of NSA cameras, microphones and associated computer processing in their own homes. Almost every brand of smart TV has cameras and microphones that CANNOT be disabled, and continuously stream data from these to NSA servers in the so-called 'cloud', if people are dumb enough to connect these TVs to the internet.

    1. Re:Hollywood co-operates with NSA by mythosaz · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Hollywood uses phone tracking when it's convenient to the plot, and discards it when it's not. The biggest procedural crime drama on TV (NCIS) had phones being instantly trackable as recently as this season, with people specifically removing their batteries for exactly that reason. That same show ignores that ability when it makes the storyline more interesting without it.

      No secret conspiracy to show it one way or the other.

      Take off your tinfoil hat and go out side, dolt.

  11. Then they learned nothing from Snowden by EngineeringStudent · · Score: 2

    This is going to come out. Not if, just when.
    When it does - lots of local heads will roll. Politically, not literally.

    The scope is very large. The level of participation is very large. The value of a leak is huge, so the first leaker wins the lottery - made for life. Do police get paid enough for that to make economic sense? nope.

    The blowback for those who administer this outside of "required to cooperate" is huge. The only response of the leaders that gets them off the hook is to pass that buck upward. "The law made me do it" or "the feds made me do it" will save their careers, some.

    Eventually it has to break. How is it handled at that point?
    Look at the NSA/Cisco/IBM related consequences of Snowden and imagine that at a local level.

    That or those who rule by consent of the governed would want to educate and train the people (not serfs) under them so that there is sustainable rule of law AND good quality of freedom enjoyed in the land of the free, home of the brave, place where justice wears a blindfold. Too bad those way up in power are less interested in that quality - they are the ones with the greatest ability to support it.

  12. Spidey: Stingray Detector App for Android by Bob9113 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Spidey is a stingray detector app developed by the ACLU and MIT. This page is a page to get notified when it goes live. The source code is on GitHub. It works by comparing the towers you can see at any given moment against what you've seen before and data from the OpenCellID Project.

    Who watches the watchers? I do.

    --
    Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
    1. Re:Spidey: Stingray Detector App for Android by dark_requiem · · Score: 3, Interesting

      This is interesting. I was just discussing this with my friend last night, and proposed this exact solution. However, it's still a reactive solution. It will detect that you may be the victim of a stingray attack, but it won't stop your phone from connecting in the first place. But there is another potential solution, I just don't have enough experience developing android roms to say how it would have to be implemented. The idea is this: maintain a database of all know cell towers (your link to OpenCellID would do nicely, they offer their DB for download). Using a rooted or fully custom ROM, such as cyanogenmod, have the phone compare any new tower to the database prior to connecting. If it doesn't exist in the database, red flag it and don't connect.

      The question is, can this be done on the OS level, or does it have to happen on the driver level? If it can be done at the OS level, easy peasy, just modify the code to establish tower connections to include this check. If it has to happen on a driver level, it gets trickier. Most phones use proprietary binary drivers for their cell radios, so they couldn't be readily modified. However, it may be possible to load an intermediate driver, which in turn loads the proprietary driver. If it could be determined which driver calls involved connecting to a new tower, you could just pass through everything else, and only pass through calls to the tower connect function if they passed your database lookup. Trickier, but doable. Because really, you want to avoid connecting to these things at all. Nice though it is to see you're being attacked, it's better to stop the attack before it starts.

    2. Re:Spidey: Stingray Detector App for Android by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'm a major C/C++ developer with the skills you mention.

      I've already started work on such a tool and will be instead changing my efforts to enhance the provided GitHub page.

      I'm also aiming to replace the binary blob with a debugging shim that *then* uses the blob. Essentially keeping a log of what's going on there.

      Don't worry brother. Others are also outraged and using their development skills to fight for freedom.

    3. Re:Spidey: Stingray Detector App for Android by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      This would almost certainly need work at the driver level. I'd be rather astonished if the decision to switch towers is made outside the driver. Most likely this doesn't even reach the processor(s) running the main kernel and remains on the isolated processor which handles talking to the cell network. This might be something to hope for in the future, but it will take pushing the various companies to add this feature. You might be able to get this feature out of CryptoPhone in a reasonable timeframe.

  13. Hope and change ? by Crashmarik · · Score: 2

    Not that his opposition was any better but really people were acting like he was the second coming.
    Turns out it was the second coming of Richard Nixon.

    Anyway it shouldn't surprise anyone that this came out of a big government establishment administration.

  14. How can we? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    When Ralph Nader was running in 2000, he was barred from the debates.

    The Democrats and Republicans have a oligarchy here in the States when it comes to political candidates.

    We also have a populace that has been programmed by propaganda to fear the "other side" soooo bad, that they'll vote for the "lesser evil".

    There are plenty of BS reasons and rationals that people use - "throwing your vote away" is the most idiotic one of all.

    So, people, the parent is right. And we DO have the government that reflects the people. And the people are lazy, easily manipulated cows.

    But the thing is, just try to go against the flow of mindless walking cows.

    I will continue to throw my vote away and listen to people who bitch about how things never change with disgust.

    Obama is Bush term 3 &4? WTF did you expect?! That's his campaign rhetoric was the truth?

    And if you think Romney would have been better, you are just as delusional and just as much of a sheep as everyone else.

    Pathetic sheepeople - ALL of you!

  15. Re:"jody williams" is a paid commentor by chihowa · · Score: 2

    There are many many people in Texas named "Jody Williams". If you consider that Jody can be short for Joseph, there are even more. Nutjob, indeed.

    --
    If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
  16. Re:why worry about Gitmo? by MobSwatter · · Score: 2

    America (USA) was a democracy, democracy died long ago at the hands of the Roman Catholic Church driven defense industry mafia in what they did in the 50's and 60's, and they cannot even create the illusion of it anymore. Washington is nothing more than theatrics now and they know it. The path back to a democracy was removed by what they did to the Mason's, the only people that were genetically driven to care for the people. What you are all seeing now is the product of these actions with the screwed foreign policy creating enemies all over the world that are circling the US now and so many years of uncontrollable deficit spending and printing money just to make ends meet these other countries are smelling blood. There's really only one way it can go now, and is exactly why the brain trust in the US has already left or in that process, the intelligent tend to prefer to live in a democracy. With problems like that, do you really think they care about Gitmo?