Department of Justice Harvests Cell Phone Data Using Planes

Tyketto writes The US Department of Justice has been using fake communications towers installed in airplanes to acquire cellular phone data for tracking down criminals, reports The Wall Street Journal. Using fix-wing Cessnas outfitted with DRT boxes produced by Boeing, the devices mimic cellular towers, fooling cellphones into reporting "unique registration information" to track down "individuals under investigation." The program, used by the U.S. Marshals Service, has been in use since 2007 and deployed around at least five major metropolitan areas, with a flying range that can cover most of the US population. As cellphones are designed to connect to the strongest cell tower signal available, the devices identify themselves as the strongest signal, allowing for the gathering of information on thousands of phones during a single flight. Not even having encryption on one's phone, like found in Apple's iPhone 6, prevents this interception. While the Justice Department would not confirm or deny the existence of such a program, Verizon denies any involvement in this program, and DRT (a subsidiary of Boeing), AT&T, and Sprint have all declined to comment.

Comments

About time for a Free baseband processor

[Anonymous Coward]

Having a database of the cell towers a phone *should* see in a given region (it should be possible to crowdsource that) should make it possible to throw an alarm if a cell tower with suspicious characteristics "appears" at some spot.

For that, we'd need reasonably documented baseband processors.

Of course, political involvment is the more adequate approach to a political problem. But why neglect the technical tools?

Re:About time for a Free baseband processor

[arth1]

Of course, political involvment is the more adequate approach to a political problem.

According to the US constitution, arms is the correct approach to governmental oppression.

But far be it for me to advocate the constitution, because that's illegal...

Re:About time for a Free baseband processor

[Anonymous Coward]

How is a free baseband processor going to solve the issue in the story? You don't think they can spoof legit cell towers or get the cell companies to help them to do so?

Also how is a free baseband processor gonna help when the telecom can still funnel all the data about you to the feds?

Re:About time for a Free baseband processor

[gstoddart]

But far be it for me to advocate the constitution, because that's illegal...

You sound like you're having subversive thoughts, citizen.

A car has been dispatched to bring you to the nearest thought re-alignment camp, where you will realize the government is here to serve you, and these are necessary steps.

Your kitchen should be dispensing a nice, tasty glass of Kool Aid for you.

Don't you Remember,
The Fifth of November,
'Twas Gunpowder Treason Day,
I let off my gun,
And made'em all run.
And Stole all their Bonfire away.

Re:About time for a Free baseband processor

[Anonymous Coward]

Having a database of the cell towers a phone *should* see in a given region (it should be possible to crowdsource that) should make it possible to throw an alarm if a cell tower with suspicious characteristics "appears" at some spot.

Won't work. One: Giving an alarm is irrelevant because by the time the alarm is given your phone has already connected to the bogus tower and has had its data sucked. Two: Once phones start refusing to connect to bogus towers, the Feds will set their Stingrays to mimic valid tower IDs.

The only way to stop this practice is to make it illegal without a warrant.

Re:About time for a Free baseband processor

[Charcharodon]

You are forgetting about the Pre-pre-amble to the Constitution aka the Declaration of Independence. It has a few things to say about the rule of government and the rights and responsibilities of the people.

"...Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government.......But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security

Re:About time for a Free baseband processor

[Anonymous Coward]

According to the US constitution, arms is the correct approach to governmental oppression.

There is nothing in the Constitution about using arms against our oppressively corrupt government. You are thinking of the preamble of the Declaration of Independence.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Re:About time for a Free baseband processor

[umghhh]

dream on.

That was maybe well intentioned but naive and written in a context of a large continent emptied nicely of local populations by germs and steel tools.

Re:About time for a Free baseband processor

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh, last time I checked, the Preamble to the Constitution was, you know, in the Constitution.

In fact, the Constitution explicitly states that it is the supreme law of the land, followed by federla laws, treaties, state laws, etc. Nowhere does it mention the Declaration. Go ahead, try citing it as legal authority in a courtroom and see how far it gets you, Mr. Constitutional Scholar.

Re:About time for a Free baseband processor

[mrchaotica]

The U.S. Constitution was written by people who had just violently overthrown their government, who were quoted saying things like "the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." If the American Revolution were happening today, King George would be calling them "terrorists." And you think the 2nd Amendment somehow doesn't suggest using force against government oppression?

Re:About time for a Free baseband processor

[Anonymous Coward]

When the US Constitution was written, a well regulated militia was the PEOPLE. That means the people have a right to bear arms.... for whatever reason. Furthermore, the sentence structure is one that has the "why" before the what. So to better understand the statement, flip it. The people have the right to bear arms because we need a well regulated militia(which is the PEOPLE).

Re:About time for a Free baseband processor

[IamTheRealMike]

Having a database of the cell towers a phone *should* see in a given region (it should be possible to crowdsource that) should make it possible to throw an alarm if a cell tower with suspicious characteristics "appears" at some spot.

There's no need for a free/open source baseband or really any technical changes at all to fix this at a technical level. Just disable 2G/GSM on your phone (not sure what the equivalent would be for Verizon). 3G/UMTS onwards involves the phone/SIM authenticating the tower cryptographically. That means - only way to create fake towers is to go get the keys from the phone companies. But at least the phone companies can know about it and mount a legal fight, if they so choose. It's not simply up to a donut eating agent to buy some cool hardware and charter a plane. Although in the USA that might not help much, such fights can go different ways in different jurisdictions.

The problem of course is that 3G coverage is usually not as good as 3G+2G coverage.

Re:About time for a Free baseband processor

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't say without a wrrant, because a warrant IS NOT supposed to be issued except upon certain conditions for which one is a limited scope and person. The way this works its a violation of the law and any warrant is invalid or illegal.

Re:About time for a Free baseband processor

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny, last time I checked, there is exactly one sentence in the Constitution that talks about arms. And it is an amendment to the original text, talks about such arms in the context of a well regulated militia, and is surrounded by hundreds of paragraphs discussing suffrage, voting procedures, organization of government, the process for the creation, enforcement, and review of laws, provisions on damages and legal remedies, etc., all of which are designed for the principled and peaceful settlement of Politcal questions.

But hey ARMZ R IN TEH CONSTITUTIONS!

Not an NRA type, but I do believe in being allowed to own "arms." The Constitution of the USA is a list of things the government can do, not a list of citizens rights. Taking into account the Declaration of Independence ("self-evident" and "inalienable" rights) and the Constitution, every person in the USA has natural rights and the governments has none except those expressed in the Constitution, i.e., those we given up as part of our desire for "a more perfect nation."

Sometimes, maybe not now, taking up arm might be necessary. If you're happy being tracked like an endangered elephant, good for you. Personally, I can stomach all this security theater. I doesn't make us safe, it simply tames us so the government doesn't have to work that hard.

Re:About time for a Free baseband processor

[Will.Woodhull]

I think that on the whole the country would be better off if the right would form a militia to arm bears. I fear grizzlies carrying AK47s in the forests of Yellowstone a lot less than I fear what some of the right are trying to do in Washington. But then again I live on the left coast so I probably do not reflect the values of the heartland. Which was once the bread basket, but there apparently have been anatomical changes.

I for one welcome our gun toting ursine overlords. Heck, they can't make a bigger mess of things than what we've seen in Congress the last two years.

If left is right, then right is wrong. Conversely, if right is wrong, then left is right. But if right is right, then left is wrong-- but that breaks symmetry so it cannot be right. Which means that since left is left it must be right and therefore right must be wrong. No wonder USA politics is so fscked up: the English language does not provide logical support for the USA political system.

This post is a tribute to Sarah Palin, who undoubtedly wished that she had said it first.

Re:About time for a Free baseband processor

[bkr1_2k]

You think making it illegal without a warrant will actually stop it? Keep dreaming.

Re:About time for a Free baseband processor

[Anonymous Coward]

Phone companies fighting the Feds? That's side-splitting hilarity.

Re:About time for a Free baseband processor

[Andy Dodd]

"But at least the phone companies can know about it and mount a legal fight, if they so choose'

Really hard with current legislation.

Remember Lavabit? It's already been proven that the government has been using legal means to acquire the private keys of service providers for the purposes of MITM attacks just like this one.

Re:About time for a Free baseband processor

[Anonymous Coward]

Arms ? HA HA - the only thing that will get Americans to take up arms these days is Black Friday or a free cheeseburger!

Re:About time for a Free baseband processor

[Anonymous Coward]

Again, no mention there of "arms". You aren't going to overthrow a despotic government with your guns from Walmart.

A BB shot to the head can be just as fatal as an 9mm bullet. Obama is the new plantation master and he is living in the big house. I wouldn't be surprised to hear Obama has promised his daughter to a couple Saudi sheiks given the way he fawns over the House of Saud.

Re:About time for a Free baseband processor

[arth1]

There is nothing in the Constitution about using arms against our oppressively corrupt government. You are thinking of the preamble of the Declaration of Independence.

Yes, I was. Which I consider a part of the constitution, because without the DOI, the constitution is null and void.

And to those who focused on the word "arms", I was not referring to firearms and the 2nd amendment at all - it's our duty to use what means we have to overthrow a despotic government no matter what type of arms we use - whether it's pitchforks, a designer virus, muskets, Internet mobs or beating them to submission with pink teddy bears. The trouble may be to get enough people to agree whether a government is despotic. In my view ruling on despite not having a majority of the eligible voters behind them should qualify.

Re:About time for a Free baseband processor

[smooth wombat]

a well regulated militia was the PEOPLE. That means the people have a right to bear arms....

And well regulated means registering with the government so it knows who has a gun so they can be called upon it times of invasion or insurrection.

Re:About time for a Free baseband processor

[Anonymous Coward]

Again, no mention there of "arms". You aren't going to overthrow a despotic government with your guns from Walmart.

Correct, governments are usually overthrown with the government's guns. Personally, I'd rather just see us just take back our elections from the two-party rigged system we have now. Peaceful means are better than violence no matter how justified.

Re:About time for a Free baseband processor

[Anonymous Coward]

a well regulated militia was the PEOPLE. That means the people have a right to bear arms....
And well regulated means registering with the government so it knows who has a gun so they can be called upon it times of invasion or insurrection.

No, it does not. It means "well trained".

Re:About time for a Free baseband processor

[bigpat]

The well regulated militia clause has a very clear dual meaning. One meaning is that the militias need weapons, but the other is that in order to regulate the militias the people need weapons. Otherwise, the militias would have all the power in society and be unstoppable, unregulated.

Re:About time for a Free baseband processor

[PPH]

Wouldn't that just be a GSM modem? Instead of giving a baseband processor direct access to a phone's memory and storage, these are controlled over a serial link using an enhanced AT command set. That gives a decent level of isolation between the RF processor and phone logic so as to prevent a network operator from poking around in the phone's OS. It is also reasonably well documented and, although it still might be possible for a malicious operator to monkey around in the modem's RF system, the phone OS as a separate system can't be fooled as easily.

There have been a few DIY cellphone projects built around modem/processor combinations. Although much less cpable than a late model iPhone or Andriod, they could implement some security not available to proprietary RF platfoms.

Re:About time for a Free baseband processor

[Anonymous Coward]

You are an unschooled idiot. At the time the amendment was written, the phrase "well regulated" meant properly functioning. Even into the late 19th century, a well-regulated clock was one that kept accurate time. A militia cannot function properly without armed participants. Training follows naturally as another necessity. The last thing the phrase means is "controlled by politicians".

Re:About time for a Free baseband processor

[s.petry]

The second amendment does claim this. .. to be secure in their person .. which means "free". A person living under and oppressive government is not free, therefor not secure. The language used in the Constitution is beautifully written, and full of intentional generalizations.

Re:About time for a Free baseband processor

[Anonymous Coward]

problem with this, if the malicious operator can increase your phone's RF output to maximum levels which most other phones do not do on a regular basis, then all it takes is a cursory glance into connection lists to isolate and track your particular phone. an open source baseband processor can mitigate this by giving you full control over what the baseband processor is allowed to do. it's like this, we have realtek ethernet cards which are essentially software based drivers which allows the OS to fully control the card's transmission settings. what we truely need is a realtek baseband processor .

Re:About time for a Free baseband processor

[pla]

Nowhere does it mention the Declaration. Go ahead, try citing it as legal authority in a courtroom and see how far it gets you, Mr. Constitutional Scholar.

Don't confuse "legal" for "ethical", Mr. Rules Lawyer.

All people have a right - An obligation - To resist an oppressive government to the greatest extent possible. For some people, that means voting. For some, it means running for office. For some, it means running issues ads. For some, it means stalling paperwork as a low-level clerk in some office deep in a government building. And for some... It means preparing for when, not if, all the lesser options fail to achieve the desired result.

FWIW, I don't think we've reached that point - yet. Getting harder and harder not to notice that the asshats in Washington seem intent on getting us there as rapidly as possible, however.

Re:About time for a Free baseband processor

[s.petry]

Correction, in haste rushing out the door for work I gave the wrong quote. It should have been "security of a free State" but the definition of security is the same as in other amendments of the Constitution, such as the 5th amendment.

Re: About time for a Free baseband processor

[Anonymous Coward]

Obviously you are a moron. Well regulated at the time that was written meant to make regular. It means that the militia was trained. Not that the militia was registered. God help this country if you are what the schools are producing these days.

Re:About time for a Free baseband processor

[IamTheRealMike]

Lavabit is a bad example - the FBI only requested the private SSL key directly after the Lavabit guy refused to co-operate with a more tightly scoped warrant and claimed he had no way to intercept the data of just the user they were interested in (Snowden) ..... a claim that was manifestly false and everyone knew it. If he had handed over just the data of the one user requested, the SSL key would probably still be private. But after proving that he was utterly unco-operative and quite possibly untrustworthy too, the approach the FBI took was not entirely surprising. Additionally it did go through all the motions and there was plenty of oversight of the whole thing - a lot better than some silent interception.

Yes, if the NSA decided that the signing keys for cell tower certificates had to be handed over using some crappy secret national security court then there's not much the phone companies can do. However, it's still good enough to stop your average local police force who just can't be bothered justifying themselves to a judge and going through the overhead of a proper legal request ... which is what TFA says the driving rationale for these devices is.

Re:About time for a Free baseband processor

[rwa2]

Of course, political involvment is the more adequate approach to a political problem. But why neglect the technical tools?

According to the US constitution, arms is the correct approach to governmental oppression.

But far be it for me to advocate the constitution, because that's illegal...

Why not both? The database of cell phone towers that shows you which tower you're connected to already exists:
http://opensignal.com/android/

It's more useful for trying to figure out where to go to get the best signal in your environment, but if you can use it to figure out when you're being oppressed, then all the more power to you.

Re:About time for a Free baseband processor

[Anonymous Coward]

You are an unschooled idiot. At the time the amendment was written, the phrase "well regulated" meant properly functioning. Even into the late 19th century, a well-regulated clock was one that kept accurate time. A militia cannot function properly without armed participants. Training follows naturally as another necessity. The last thing the phrase means is "controlled by politicians".

Militia still meant militia though, and not everybody.

Re:About time for a Free baseband processor

[ai4px]

Article 1 section 8 of US Const says congress cannot allocated monies for an army for more than two years. Take this hand in hand with the 2nd amendment language around the people being a militia, and you'll have an idea that the framers didn't want the expensive army we have now. They wanted the people to come together and form a militia as necessary.

Re:About time for a Free baseband processor

[ai4px]

The Dick Act of 1902 provided for the training part by creating the nation guards. State militias with access to money for weapons and training. I agree with your assertion that well regulated means in proper working order. I think the founders are turning over in their graves at the way that our language gets stretched. We don't have to change the words in sentences we don't like... we just change the meaning of the words we don't like.

Re:About time for a Free baseband processor

[ai4px]

Maybe we should pass a law that says the government must follow the laws of our land? Oh wait.... nevermind. I got it!!!! we'll put the feds on double secret probation. Yeah, that'll work.

Re:About time for a Free baseband processor

[myowntrueself]

a well regulated militia was the PEOPLE. That means the people have a right to bear arms....
And well regulated means registering with the government so it knows who has a gun so they can be called upon it times of invasion or insurrection.

No, it does not. It means "well trained".

No, it didn't. It meant that the guns had been properly tested.

Re:About time for a Free baseband processor

[SuricouRaven]

The problem with this approach comes from trying to define 'oppressive.' You may like the idea of a clerk misplacing the paperwork required to authorise the use of force on peaceful protesters, yes. But elsewhere, another clerk has decided that the government has no right to 'redefine marriage' and is quietly smuging the ink on the appropriate applications to make sure gay couples don't get processed. Both would view themselves as the heroes, bravely risking their job to fight against a government exceeding lawful authority.

Re:About time for a Free baseband processor

[gizmo2199]

all the 2nd amendment says is "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." Not about being secure in your person.

Re:About time for a Free baseband processor

[SuricouRaven]

The meanings of words change over time. This all gets confusing. A text with multiple meanings tends to reflect the reader's own views back upon them. Just look at what diversity of religious denominations may exist while sharing a common holy text.

Re:About time for a Free baseband processor

[Archangel Michael]

Oh, the "why bother resisting treasonous dictators" crowd shows up. Good job sitting on the sidelines.

Re:About time for a Free baseband processor

[SuricouRaven]

The DoI has no actual legal power or status. It's just a historical artifact.

Re:About time for a Free baseband processor

[SuricouRaven]

There are certain practical reasons for the memory access. It's basically DMA. Faster data transfer for less power. In mobile devices, power is everything. The baseband processor runs a seperate processor and OS for legal reasons - no need to get approval for ever new minor revision of a phone that way, and less chance of some clever hacker managing to root the thing and modify it to trample everyone else's timeslots and make sure they can still place calls when the network is overloaded.

Re:About time for a Free baseband processor

[Archangel Michael]

Regulation doesn't mean "Control via government laws and edicts" in the 2nd Amendment. It means "well formed" and the SCOTUS decisions through the years have clearly indicated all able bodied men are to be considered the Militia.

If you want MHO, it means that EVERY able bodied man should be armed, according to his own conscience, and the government should fear its rightful masters, the citizens. The moment the government ceases to be afraid of its citizens, is the moment tyranny has already formed.

Re:About time for a Free baseband processor

[Aighearach]

While I applaud your interest in the Constitution, I'm not sure it says what you imply it says.

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years

It just says that armies raised by Congress have to have a new budget written up every 2 years. This means that every newly elected House will have a say in continuing or changing the budget. One Congress can't set aside money for 10 years and send them off on an unpopular mission. The military budget has to be on the same time scale as House elections. That is it, that is all. There is nothing there about how much Congress should spend, or anything that would limit the size of the army.

Reading the Constitution: Good. Ignoring what it says and making up a whole new interpretation where no interpretation is even necessary: Bad.

Re:About time for a Free baseband processor

[kwbauer]

"Right of the People to alter or abolish it" and "their right [and] duty, to throw off such Government" kind of speaks to that. I think it is obvious that many of the same people involved in writing the Declaration of Independence were also instrumental in writing the Constitution.

They recognized that extreme measures may be called for to perform one's duty and that required being armed. Only blubbering idiots beholden to an ideology of lies would even consider the premise that the Founding Fathers had any other intentions in regards to weapons than that individual citizens could arm themselves with whatever was considered modern.

Any less is admitting that the government is not restricted by the Constitution from searching your computer and cellphone as they did not exist 200 years ago.

Re:About time for a Free baseband processor

[Aighearach]

There is nothing in the Constitution about using arms against our oppressively corrupt government. You are thinking of the preamble of the Declaration of Independence.

Yes, I was. Which I consider a part of the constitution, because without the DOI, the constitution is null and void.

What is or isn't part of the US Constitution is fact, not a matter of opinion. And the Declaration of Independence is not part of it.

Since much of the discussion mentions the 2nd Amendment, I'll just point out that many of us Americans are willing to take up arms, if need be, to defend the Constitution from the addition of new extra parts and conditions that have never been ratified.

Nobody cares what you "consider." What Americans care about is what is actually in the Constitution. This isn't England, we don't have a whimsical "unwritten Constitution." We have a written one. And we know what words are in it, and what words are not in it.

Re:About time for a Free baseband processor

[kwbauer]

Ah yes, the old "stop promoting adherence to an ancient document and get oppressed the modern way" argument.

Re:About time for a Free baseband processor

[smooth wombat]

It is quite apparent you have never read the words of the guy who wrote the Constitution, James Madison, because in both The Federalist Papers and in his own writings, he makes it very clear that the state shall have a listing of people to call up in case of invasion or insurrection and that these same lists would be used to insure the people could properly use their weapons.

In fact, this was the exact process put in place during Colonial times because how were you supposed to call up the militia if you didn't know who had a weapon? Just shout and hope people showed up?

Re:About time for a Free baseband processor

[kwbauer]

but it also says the right of the people and every other amendment that uses people (or the singular, person) has never been interpreted by the right of the left to mean anything other than individuals. really. Why don't we read the first amendment as claiming that State governments have the right to make political speech but no individual person does? It really is that simple; either the Constitution guarantees the right of individuals to be armed or it does not guarantee the right of any individual to free speech.

Re:About time for a Free baseband processor

[Obfuscant]

What Americans care about is what is actually in the Constitution.

No, sadly, most of them do not. Most of them care about what they can get the government to do for them so they don't have to do it themselves. If what they want done doesn't happen to mesh with what the Constitution says can be done, well, if you change the meaning of the words and read them backwards then the Constitution says you CAN do what I want...

Re:About time for a Free baseband processor

[ausekilis]

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

Where exactly does that text say anything about overthrowing the government?

Lets break this down: "Well regulated militia" because there was no standing military. Also, who do you think is actually doing the regulating? Why?"Necessary to the security of a free state" the 'militia' or 'military surrogate' defending its borders/people. "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" you can own a gun if you so choose, and no one can take it from you.

Looking at the time it was written, it was up to the people to defend themselves. There was no military, it wasn't organized yet... our country was a bunch of immigrants looking to start anew. Today the right has been (in my opinion) perverted to the point its about dick waving instead of self defense. Sure, get that hunting rifle and kill a few elk. Have a handgun in case of an intruder. Just don't bitch and moan that you need that semi-automatic rifle for "self defense, just in case Obama comes to your house to take your 9mm". The amendment is not saying the people need to mount a violent uprising because they don't like what the president is doing. It only says you can own a gun, not what you need to do with it.

Re:About time for a Free baseband processor

[Charcharodon]

Who buys their guns from Walmart? I get my guns from the same places as the police (not to mention better quality than what the military uses) from a wonderful place. It's called a gun store. Sure they don't sell bombers and guided missiles, but then if we ever get to that point, there won't be much of a military left for the gov't to use against us, because they are US.

Unlike in the rest of the world, we as civilians have access to just about everything your standard infantryman is issued.

Re:About time for a Free baseband processor

[Charcharodon]

Uh, last time I checked I said the Pre-Preamble to the Constitution. Thanks for the fact check fail. It was quite amusing.

Re:About time for a Free baseband processor

[Anonymous Coward]

Really hard with current legislation.

Even harder when they wouldn't fight this even if they could.

Re:About time for a Free baseband processor

[dunawayc]

You are mis-interpreting the phrase well regulated incorrectly, I believe. It has nothing to do with regulations, or something that is regulated. In this context, in 18th centurty english, the phrase well regulated means properly functioning or working well. A clock that keeps good time was said to be well regulated (i. e. working well). So the amendment could be read as:

A properly functioning militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Re:About time for a Free baseband processor

[DeputySpade]

Militia still meant militia though, and not everybody.

It means just about everybody.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/usc...

US code Title 10, Section 311:

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

In other words, just about everybody.

Re:About time for a Free baseband processor

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope, "well regulated" means trained and skilled.

Re:About time for a Free baseband processor

[arth1]

What is or isn't part of the US Constitution is fact, not a matter of opinion. And the Declaration of Independence is not part of it.

No, but without the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution has no legality. It's just pieces of paper you could wipe your ass with if it were softer.
The DOI is the foundation on which the Constitution rests, and from which it derives its powers.

Re:About time for a Free baseband processor

[dgatwood]

You are mis-interpreting the phrase well regulated incorrectly, I believe. It has nothing to do with regulations, or something that is regulated. In this context, in 18th centurty english, the phrase well regulated means properly functioning or working well. A clock that keeps good time was said to be well regulated (i. e. working well).

Although on the surface, that statement is technically correct (the best kind of correct), it is a bit disingenuous when folks stretch that definition to imply a lack of rules. It is difficult to imagine any complex system that would qualify as well-regulated in the "functioning properly" sense without also being well-regulated in the "has a specific set of rules or constraints that govern its operation" sense. So by definition, your definition implies the other definition.

For example, any properly working mechanical clock has hardware that controls its speed. In fact, the term "regulator clock" came into common use long before the Constitution was written and during the period, and was a household term by the late 1700s. It got its name because of the escapement regulator that governed its operation. So "well-regulated", even in the 1700s, could not realistically have be interpreted to imply an absence of governance—quite the opposite, in fact. In the context of clocks, the primary meaning of the term in that era would have been "precision", not "properly functioning". Precision, in turn, demands some form of either internal or external regimentation.

Re:About time for a Free baseband processor

[Safety Cap]

Sure they don't sell bombers and guided missiles, but then if we ever get to that point, there won't be much of a military left for the gov't to use against us, because they are US.

LOL. It is so cute when someone who has never served brings out the "they'll never attack US citizens!!! DERP!" line.

Here's how it goes down. First, the military brass will come up with some disparaging name for the citizens who are the new enemy, just as they did for every other war:

"Haji" is the troops' term of choice for an Iraqi. It's used the way "gook" or "Charlie" was used in Vietnam. "From 'Gook' to 'Raghead'"

Next, the citizens (the bad ones) are depicted as subhuman. (The government will also direct the news to depict the new enemy as dangerous psychopaths, so the average citizen will not join in the revolt.)

Final step: 6-round burst, every time. Change barrels every 10 minutes.

Re:About time for a Free baseband processor

[Charcharodon]

LOL. It is so cute when someone who has never served tries to call out someone who is currently serving in the military, for 20 years btw, and doesn't have a clue how the rank and file feel about the things our government does.

There are those that squealed like teenage girls when the President stopped by for a visit, but then the girls of the finance section are only a danger to you if you are a sugary baked good, the bulk of the rest of us would not tolerate the military turning on the civilian population.

Re:About time for a Free baseband processor

[dgatwood]

No, it didn't. It meant that the guns had been properly tested.

You're both partially correct. A well-regulated militia, in the context of that century, meant that the militia was a precision organization, which by extension means properly trained and coordinated and ready to fight (e.g. with working weapons), as opposed to a loose-knit bunch of random people with guns that may or may not work. To that end, we have a well-regulated militia. It has five branches: the Army, the Navy, the Air Force, the Marines, and the Coast Guard.

This is not to say that we shouldn't allow people outside of that militia to own firearms, just that a strict interpretation of that amendment using the meaning of the word "regulated" from the 1700s does not require such an allowance.

Re:About time for a Free baseband processor

[HeckRuler]

To be fair, you're also mis-interpreting it. At the time a properly functioning army was quite "regular". As in... orderly, acting as one, well disciplined, didn't route, would stand in a line and get shot full of lead waiting for their leader to tell someone to drum out an order. Their weapons were standardized(ish), and their uniforms were, well, uniform. And they all shot as one in a well regulated action so the smoke didn't obscure their aim during firing and sparks didn't explode anyone's powder horns during reloading.

The problem with militia of the time was that they were quite irregular. Even called "irregulars". They had whatever weapons they had, which means when the line fires, half the shots aren't at ideal ranges. They run and save themselves rather than hold the line. Lacking strong leadership, they're more prone to that whole rape and pillage thing. They had no uniforms, so who knows who is the officers and who you're not supposed to shoot. Yeah, that's how they did it back in the day. Weird.

So, you're right in saying that a well regulated militia meant that it was a militia that was properly functioning (and more like a regular army). But a properly functioning militia was indeed well regulated using the term as we use it today. Back then the two were synonymous. The generals and higher ups like George Washington and Samuel Adams didn't have great things to say about the militia, but they were used constantly because, well, that's what we had.

Re:About time for a Free baseband processor

[Anonymous Coward]

Peaceful means are better than violence no matter how justified.

Tell that when to the rape victim while she/he is being raped.

Re:About time for a Free baseband processor

[camg188]

It depends on what information they are collecting. The article is paywalled so I didn't read it. Are they doing a Man in the Middle attack where they could collect data sent from people or are they tracking phones when they poll for available mobile bases?

Re:About time for a Free baseband processor

[PPH]

There are certain practical reasons for the memory access. It's basically DMA.

I'm assuming that most GSM modems have their own RAM for their baseband processor to access. And the parts of that memory (and processor registers) critical to proper (legal) RF operation are secured from modification over the serial link. Given a fast enough link, TX.RX data can be transferred between the baseband and application procesors without risking one poking around in the memory space of the other. Yes, there would be some performance hit. But the upside would be security (keeping the network operator and the NSA out of application memory space).

Re:About time for a Free baseband processor

[beastofburdon]

You greatly underestimate the level of indoctrination in the military. I was in it as well, and I got to see the idiots who will follow any order without hesitation for myself.

Re:About time for a Free baseband processor

[mrchaotica]

Although on the surface, that statement is technically correct (the best kind of correct), it is a bit disingenuous when folks stretch that definition to imply a lack of rules.

I can agree with that, but the rules should be more along the lines of "every able-bodied adult is required to own a firearm and attend marksmanship training regularly," not "we're going to make it as hard as possible for private citizens to own a gun."

Re:About time for a Free baseband processor

[Aighearach]

What is or isn't part of the US Constitution is fact, not a matter of opinion. And the Declaration of Independence is not part of it.

No, but without the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution has no legality. It's just pieces of paper you could wipe your ass with if it were softer.
The DOI is the foundation on which the Constitution rests, and from which it derives its powers.

That is really... ignorant drivel. The Declaration of Independence was a political document intended to "sell" the revolution as legitimate to European powers so that those of them who hated England would feel OK about helping the rebels. That is what it was, and all it was. It did not identify an actual legal basis for revolution. Instead, it detailed some of the crimes that the English King had committed against the colonies, and made a case that he was actually not governing. That he would overturn laws decreed by his own appointed Governors was a big part of that; the rebels were being denied governance, even governance by the government they were fighting. They also made a bunch of other less specific claims that cite general principles but were not then and are not now a basis for legality.

The legality of the Constitution was established by being Ratified by the States after having won the war. That is 100% of the legal basis. They won the war, and they agreed to a Constitution, and they had a Process, and came to some Agreed Result. There is no authority at all derived from the DOI.

Interestingly, the Constitution does recognize Common Law as existing authority, and under Common Law the DOI had no weight, it was just a political document. The Magna Carta, for example, is a valid legal authority. The DOI is not.

Re:About time for a Free baseband processor

[arth1]

Interestingly, the Constitution does recognize Common Law as existing authority, and under Common Law the DOI had no weight, it was just a political document.

That's putting the cart before the horse. Before the constitution, civil law was what was in effect. The constitution cannot retroactively change that for the time the declaration of independence was written.

Re:About time for a Free baseband processor

[Aighearach]

You're conflating the DOI and the Constitution there. Again. I recommend reading about them on wikipedia, it will give you a basic understanding of what the two documents are.

And no, there was no requirement to maintain English common law. Why English, anyways? Many colonists were from other parts of Europe. And by the time the Constitution was written, the war was over and England had conceded and it was agreed by all the involved parties that we weren't under English authority anymore. Many countries when adopting a new Constitution in a post-colonial period do not in fact keep any of the laws from whatever Empire had ruled them. Do you assume the English common law to have some sort of magical properties? Was there some sort of World Government that decided common law was an "authority?" No? The only Authority was the ones the States agreed to by ratifying the Constitution; an Authority gained through force of arms, not through some clever legal principle or declaration.

Re:About time for a Free baseband processor

[Charcharodon]

You must have been in the Marines or Army. In the Air Force junior members question everything.

Of course we don't have much in the way of soldiers, but we do have all the planes.

Re:About time for a Free baseband processor

[beastofburdon]

Actually I was in the Navy. It wasn't as extreme as you would find in the Army or Marines, but it was still quite evident. This was seen most in those who had been in for a long time and those with weak minds.

"individuals under investigation"

[QilessQi]

i.e., "everyone".

Re: "individuals under investigation"

[rmdingler]

"everyone" will be translated into something grotesquely governmental like subjects of interest, which will include you if your cousin's niece's hairdresser's brother-in-law took a Middle Eastern Studies freshman course.

Boeing cooperating with the government is like my son cooperating with me and taking out the garbage. I'm his biggest source of income.

Cellphone reception issues?

[Tyr07]

I'm not exactly against them catching criminals, but how often has someone receive shitty cell service and 'drops' because of these fake towers?

Re:Cellphone reception issues?

[arth1]

I'm not exactly against them catching criminals, but how often has someone receive shitty cell service and 'drops' because of these fake towers?

If they have caused just one 911 call to fail or be delayed, someone needs to be pilloried.
The end does not justify the means.

Re:Cellphone reception issues?

[BitZtream]

Never?

Your phone communicates with multiple towers at any given time if they are in range.

Cell phones don't ALWAYS use the strongest signal, in fact, I don't know of any cell phone in the US which is set to use signal strength as the highest value in its tower selection.

Provider comes first. Your phone will select a weaker but usable tower from a list the provider provides it over a flawless signal from a tower that would cost it 'roaming' charges.

So it really doesn't matter what these boxes put out from a signal strength. Your phone will listen to the tower, maybe even exchange some info with it, then determine its not part of your providers network or the tower 'rejects' your phone and your phone will continue using a real tower.

At no point is your phone stupid enough to talk to some random signal exclusively, UNLESS it has all the authentication information required for your phone to believe it is a tower from your provider specifically unless it can't find a tower from your provider.

Caveat: These boxes could authenticate themselves as your provider (Sprint, AT&T, Verizon, etc), but there is no need to do so to get the IMEA number of your device so there is no reason for them to fake being a real provider.

Re:Cellphone reception issues?

[arth1]

Cell phones don't ALWAYS use the strongest signal, in fact, I don't know of any cell phone in the US which is set to use signal strength as the highest value in its tower selection.

Any GSM phone that is set to full roaming, where it deliberately picks the provider based on signal strength, not provider.

And 911 calls, especially for devices that do not have a provider. When I go hiking, I bring a cell phone without a SIM card, expecting it to work for 911 calls, without anyone being able to contact me. And I expect anything it contacts that identifies as a tower to be able to relay my calls for help.

Re:Cellphone reception issues?

[Charliemopps]

I'm not exactly against them catching criminals, but how often has someone receive shitty cell service and 'drops' because of these fake towers?

You don't understand. You're a criminal. We all are. It's impossible to get through a day in this country without breaking federal law. You've probably done it multiple times this morning and aren't even aware of it. The perp they're after is you.

Re:Cellphone reception issues?

[blackomegax]

People always say this, but they neglect to mention WHICH FEDERAL LAWS are being broken daily by everybody.

Re:Cellphone reception issues?

[PPH]

Your phone communicates with multiple towers at any given time if they are in range

Caveat: These boxes could authenticate themselves as your provider (Sprint, AT&T, Verizon, etc), but there is no need to do so to get the IMEA number of your device so there is no reason for them to fake being a real provider.

But then these devices don't even need to appear as having the strongest signal to get your IMEI number either. So, if TFS is correct and they are doing this, they are doing a lot more than recording serial numbers. They are tricking your phone into negotiating connections through them. So they can intercept the content of these connections. And all without a warrant.

Re:Cellphone reception issues?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know of any cell phone in the US which is set to use signal strength as the highest value in its tower selection.

Of course not, because the phone does not choose the tower, it just obeys the commands from the network. I think it's the Base Station Controller or the Mobile Switching Center that controls which frequency (and time slot) a given handset gets to use.

Re:Cellphone reception issues?

[Shakrai]

When I go hiking, I bring a cell phone without a SIM card, expecting it to work for 911 calls, without anyone being able to contact me.

That's a dangerous assumption; it may work to call 911, but even if you're able to call 911 they won't be able to call you back if the call should get dropped. You can call back of course, but you have no guarantee that you'll end up talking to the same PSAP, never mind the same 911 dispatcher. Additionally, without a SIM card the phone won't even try to connect to a network until you attempt to place the 911 call, which will delay your 911 call for seconds or even minutes. CDMA phones work a little differently, they'll connect to networks on the preferred roaming list even if service has been deactivated, so they may be a better bet for a 911-only phone, though I'd still be loathe to rely on a deactivated phone.

If you're going hiking you really should carry a working cell phone. You might even consider investing in a personal locator beacon, because real hiking is going to take you miles away from cell reception. Of course, neither a cell phone nor a PLB is a substitute for having the equipment and skills to save yourself, or at least to survive for the hours or days it will take help to arrive.

Re:Cellphone reception issues?

[rwa2]

People always say this, but they neglect to mention WHICH FEDERAL LAWS are being broken daily by everybody.

You know, the secret ones. They can't tell you what they are, though, that'll ruin the surprise. The essence of surprise is critical. CRITICAL!

Re:Cellphone reception issues?

[bugsy37]

It's not that there are three specific federal laws that are broken by everyone daily. It's that there are so many federal laws that in the course of a normal day you're bound to have broken some of them.

Here is a website with some real world felonies people were convicted of that were completely innocent seeming: http://goo.gl/29G7ff

Example 1: A woman purchases imported lobster in clear plastic bags, a violation of HONDURAN laws. That's a felony.

Example 2: A snowmobiler gets lost in a snowstorm and blunders onto federal land. That's a felony.

Example 3: You find your kids' stash of drugs, destroy them and confront your kid. That's a felony.

Re:Cellphone reception issues?

[bugsy37]

In 1982 the Justice Department tried to tally the number of Federal Criminal laws. After a full two years of investigation among 50 titles and 23K pages of law, they approximated 3,000. However, they could not come up with an exact count because of the breadth and depth of the source material. 32 years later the situation is almost certainly worse.

In 2013 Federal Agencies issued 3,659 final rules. A violation of any of which could tie you up in court for years trying to resolve.

A real-world example: a drug company in the course of making its product was creating as a byproduct: pure water. They wanted to dump it into a nearby body of water, even going to far as offering to precisely add salt to avoid disrupting the salinity of the body of water. The EPA refused saying it was industrial waste, even though chemically it was saltwater, nothing more.

Part of the theory behind the rule of law is that the common man has to be able to understand the rules in which he operates. Otherwise one is living in an environment which is functionally equivalent to ex post facto law creation. IE the Red Queen can sentence you if your existence falls under her gaze and displeases her. Right now in the United States there are so many laws and rules that even experts in a particular field cannot say with certainty if a person is in compliance.

Re:Cellphone reception issues?

[BitZtream]

What YOU expect and reality are two different things. There is no 'full roaming', there is only 'unconfigured', and that ends the instant your phone connects to a network and is considered active. The preference list will be sent to your device before you make the first normal voice call. If you never activate a phone, you may not have a preference list, but thats extremely unlikely in america as pretty much every phone is sold in a way that its biased towards one of the major providers, even with no contract and 'unlocked'.

Your phone has a preference list, the preference list is one of the very first things your phone will get when it connects to the cellular network and finds a provider that considers it active. It comes with one preprogrammed (See above) and I would challenge you to find a phone that doesn't come with that preference list already populated (there are some, but I bet you have no idea which ones they are)

It will use that preference list with or without a sim card. Without a sim card, if the network it talks to accepts the phone to make the 911 call, it will use that network, but the network doesn't have to. Okay, legally it does, but we're not talking about legality we're talking about real world technicality.

If your phone no longer has service, it STILL has the last preference list it was sent, until it can authenticate (based on a valid sim card) with a network to get a new preference list.

Your sim card has a preference as well, based on the provider the sim card came from.

The only way your phone doesn't have a preference list is if its brand new, never been activated on anyones network and never had a sim card in it.

Then it will contact any network tower that will let it communicate, and that communication lasts just long enough for the phone to determine if its an active device with service or not, and if active, what towers it should prefer based on the provider ID of the tower.

Re:Cellphone reception issues?

[BitZtream]

It has a say in the process, a tower can reject you, but the phone can also reject the tower and choose another as it sees fit. The negotiation can be rejected by either party, but has to be accepted by both tower and phone.

Re:Cellphone reception issues?

[X0563511]

Mod this the hell up!

Re:Cellphone reception issues?

[arth1]

The only way your phone doesn't have a preference list is if its brand new, never been activated on anyones network and never had a sim card in it.

For Android:
Settings -> Wireless & networks -> Mobile networks -> Access Point Names
Choose "Reset to default" from the menu.

That gives me an empty list.

We have already lost the authoritarian battle

[Anonymous Coward]

let's just hope we can freely panspermia ourselves around the galaxy fast enough to outrun the authorities.

Dumbed down for ... who?

[arth1]

Not even having encryption on one's phone, like found in Apple's iPhone 6, prevents this interception.

WTF does this statement have to do in TFS? There cannot possibly be any slashdotters ignorant enough about technology to think that encryption of a device would have any impact on the radio signals?

I really miss /. - where did it go?

Re:Dumbed down for ... who?

[Anonymous Coward]

I really miss /. - where did it go?

Trove, née WaPo Labs, sometime after 25 Aug. 2011.

Re:Dumbed down for ... who?

[Anonymous Coward]

Summary simply states that iPhone does not encrypt IMEI. Back to the topic, it's rather disingenuous for carriers like ATT, Verizon, Sprint to say that they are not involved if, at the least, they had to tolerate fake towers and messing with customer connectivity. In addition, how did FCC allow for flying cell towers in the first place?

Re:Dumbed down for ... who?

[Anonymous Coward]

The FCC "allowed it" since they have no authority to stop it. In what universe do you live in where the FCC has authority over the DoJ?

4th Amendment ...

[gstoddart]

Unreasonable search and seizure.

I'm sorry, but this is blanket surveillance, without warrant, probable cause, or oversight.

At a certain point, the court needs to weigh in on this, because DoJ and the rest of law enforcement are completely ignoring the Constitution, the law, and pretty much everything else.

Why is this not landing these clowns in jail?

When your government becomes hostile to your rights, it's time to become hostile to your government.

Re:4th Amendment ...

[ganjadude]

since when has this admin (or the last for that matter) given a flying fuck about the 4th amendment (or constitution in general?)

Re: 4th Amendment ...

[Anonymous Coward]

"The Obama Administration harvests cell phone data using planes"

People try to hide the fact that this is the doing of Obama and his cronies.

Re:4th Amendment ...

[gstoddart]

Sadly, when 9/11 happened, they pretty much decided that the niceties of the Constitution and the law were far too dangerous to allow, and went straight to the fascism.

Essentially, the terrorists won, because they've more or less caused governments around the world to start ignoring our rights.

Now it's security at any costs, and since we're already tracking you, we'll pass that onto law enforcement and teach them how to hide the source of intelligence. Oh, and we'll share it among a bunch of other countries, and secretly enlist the corporations to hand over their data.

So, now we'll monitor everything you do, using laws we said we'd only use for terrorism, and then have the police perjure themselves to make it look like they obtained the information legally.

Papers please, comrade.

I wonder how long before they no longer feel the need to give us the illusion of freedom?

Re: 4th Amendment ...

[gstoddart]

People try to hide the fact that this is the doing of Obama and his cronies.

Some of this was started by Shrub. Some of this had been in the works for years before 9/11. Much of this was legalized in the days after 9/11 as everyone was in a panic. Some of it has been expanded since.

Now, all of the advisers are saying "gotta do this". All of the spy agencies are saying "fuck it, we're doing it anyway, even if we do have to lie to Congress".

When you create a climate of paranoia and hysteria, and suddenly decide your founding principles are optional ... this is what you get.

There have been people who have wanted these powers for decades. And one day they got handed the best justification for it they could hope for.

Yes, Obama has failed to stop it. But he didn't initiate it.

And, quite frankly, I suspect a lot of people welcome this crap with open arms because they believe this shit will keep them safe from the terrorists.

When your population is reduced to cowering in fear, they tend to back a lot of things they can't see the consequences of.

Re:4th Amendment ...

[Anonymous Coward]

No 9/11 didn't cause anything. This has been going on for ever just not to the "right" race. 9/11 just caused it to apply to all races.

Re:4th Amendment ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Hate to tell you but this has been going on for decades just not to the "right" race. 9/11 made it apply to all races.

Re:4th Amendment ...

[Lunix Nutcase]

Because the Bush Administration was a shining beacon of upholding 4th Amendment rights? Don't make me laugh.

It's stupid fucks like you who get distracted by the "Hurr hurr Obummer!!" or "Hurr hurr Dubya!!"'bullshit that allows this crap to happen. You're more worried about your own side looking better while both sides are fucking over everyone. It's nice to see you have the proper priorities. *rolls eyes*

Re:4th Amendment ...

[gstoddart]

No 9/11 didn't cause anything. This has been going on for ever just not to the "right" race. 9/11 just caused it to apply to all races.

I do not disagree.

But 9/11 caused the passage of the PATRIOT act with very little thought for the consequences, and moved the "security at any cost" mentality into the daylight. And that was the one which gave them the keys to the kingdom to pretty much do anything they wanted.

Before 9/11, they had to at least pretend. After, they can do anything they want to in the light of day.

Re:4th Amendment ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Because, no promotion for their "lack of performance" on the service (of whom?).

Re:4th Amendment ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Put your money where your mouth is.

File a lawsuit, because, gee, you are offended.

And good luck with that, btw. US govt is a very powerful crime syndicate - you will lose because they have infinite (read printing press) resources.

The US constitution aint worth the paper its written on anymore.

Re:4th Amendment ...

[Anonymous Coward]

this is the same as putting license plate readers on police cars and cruising the streets looking for stolen cars. If the data gathered was ONLY used for that purpose it would be a reasonable search, but we know that's not the case with the current 'spy on everyone!' administration.

Re: 4th Amendment ...

[Anonymous Coward]

As some comedian said recently, "the home of the brave" does not really fit anymore.

Re:4th Amendment ...

[ganjadude]

really? so you are telling me cell phones have been selectively gathering data on on some races while ignoring phones from people of other races? I didnt know cell phones had a "race" identifier

Re:4th Amendment ...

[Anonymous Coward]

No. It is stupid fucks like you who can't read that allows this crap to happen.

He didn't "Hurr hurr Obummer!!" or "Hurr hurr Dubya!!," as you put it. He said "this admin or the last for that matter." He correctly called out both sides.

Re:4th Amendment ...

[ganjadude]

to be fair, its more so the people who in this admin say "bu bu BUSH!!!" who are the problem, not the ones who call out the current admin

Same was true for all those calling out clinton under bushes admin.

there is nothing wrong will calling out the admin in power for abusing power, and deflecting to previous administrations is not only a useless fight, hes gone get over it but childish

I dont disagree with your point at all, but you also dont help with the way you go about it etiher

Re:4th Amendment ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Lawyer here.

Seeing as the 4th amendment only explicitly mentions protections for "persons, houses, papers, and effects," there really is a question as to whether it really applies to the unencrypted transmission of registration numbers by cell phones. The courts would evaluate it under a "reasonable expectation of privacy" standard, which really is a judicially-created construction, and can be quite squishy. The courts have found that things like listening to walkie talkie conversations on a scanner are legal when the user voluntarily transmits them into the ether without any protections, the DOJ could very well make a colorable legal argument that intercepting the unencrypted portion of the transmission is not off-limits. Now bear in mind also that law enforcement should be required to get a warrant to get the identifying numbers in the first place from the telco, since they can be reasonably expected to lead to the disclosure of private information. However, once they have those numbers, it is a much tougher question whether listening in for those numbers is a breach.

Personally, I do think that this shouldn't be legal, but it's definitely not the slam dunk you make it out to be.

Re:4th Amendment ...

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought this subject was about losing 4th amendment.

Re:4th Amendment ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Essentially, the terrorists won, because they've more or less caused governments around the world to start ignoring our rights.

The "terrorists" won a very long time ago. Your Constitution isn't worth the paper it's printed on. Just ask 1st and 2nd generation natural born citizens of Japanese descent that lost their jobs, houses, freedom, and all rights while they were forced into concentration camps, er, "re-education camps". Just ask the descendents of the slaves that built this country for the whites about the value of that constitution to their ancestors. Just ask the remaining descendents of the indigenous people how well they were protected when being exterminated, relocated, raped, murdered, tortured, and relocated again how valuable that piece of paper was to their rights. Amerika is a fascist country, it just doesn't want to own up to it.

Re:4th Amendment ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Because the Bush Administration was a shining beacon of upholding 4th Amendment rights? Don't make me laugh.

They weren't. But "I am the law" Holder is unprecedented in the total and systematic disregard of any governing law and the absolute absence of any shame in ignoring the Constitution. He would do exactly the same in Germany, Nigeria, China, never mind that the law is entirely different.

I am pretty sure that in his mind, he is not breaking the Constitution but fixing it. Now definitely you can't let a judiciopath like that loose on a Department of Justice that has not been preconditioned for his arrival, just like you could not have jump-started WWII on Hitler and a few fascists without the backdrop of a Europe seeping with nationalism and antisemitism.

Nevertheless, the Holder era is one seeping with systematic disregard for law and decency to a degree where blaming anyone else for corralling this level of perversion is pointless.

Re:4th Amendment ...

[LWATCDR]

Possibly not because observation does not require warrant or a court order.
An example, someone is stealing stuff out of cars at a mall. An unmarked car cruises the mall looking for people breaking into cars.
This is not a search and is not taking anything. It is just observation which is completely legal.

Re: 4th Amendment ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone please mod this up. These practices have been in place for no less than 10 years, well before Obama came into office.

While this is a possibility for "blanket surveillance", there are still supposed checks and balances in place to prevent that. (Do I believe they work? Not really, but there is legal recourse if it's abused.)

The phone service providers have no say over it and no control over it; phone manufacturers however...

Re:4th Amendment ...

[penguinoid]

It's a bird! It's a plane! No, it's a "little birdie" on a plane!

Re: 4th Amendment ...

[ai4px]

I'd mod you up if I could! right on! Obama didn't stop it, and he sure didn't start it.

Re:4th Amendment ...

[kilfarsnar]

I wonder how long before they no longer feel the need to give us the illusion of freedom?

They'll keep it up as long as they can. Maintaining control through propaganda is preferable to maintaining it by force. It's cheaper and more stable. Most people still buy what they hear on the news. Even though people are starting to chafe under the surveillance, most still think it's about terrorism (as opposed to maintaining the status quo). If the powers that be do have to resort to jackboots in the streets, the media will make sure to characterize it in the right way. Again, most people will buy it.

Like they say in the movie, most people are not ready to be unplugged from the matrix. It would take something supremely radical for them to start distrusting the news and make a real break from the world view that they have. Most will never do it. We all know how people will generally continue to believe what they have always believed, even in the face of contrary evidence. At this point the illusion is so pervasive people will maintain it themselves, without help, because they firmly believe the illusion is real.

Re:4th Amendment ...

[ausekilis]

I'm curious how and if this applies to that patent fron earlier this year or last year about location-based advertising. Its bulk grabbing of cell phone data to feed you a coupon for something on or near the shelf you're standing by. True, the underlying motivation is different, but the mechanism is largely the same. I happen to be looking at power tools, look at my phone and am fed Sears adds. I'm sure with the appropriate warrant some agencies could listen in, if they arent already.

Re:4th Amendment ...

[spacepimp]

They had requested the same level of rights pre 9-11. Using 9-11 as the moment they decided they wanted the powers is a lie. They wanted them and were told no many times. (-11 was convenient in scaring people enough to give up their privacy.

Change?

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't it about time we changed that line in The Star-Spangled Banner from: O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave ...to: O'er the land of the watched and the foul suspected knaves?

Re:Change?

[arth1]

Isn't it about time we changed that line in The Star-Spangled Banner from: O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave ...to: O'er the land of the watched and the foul suspected knaves?

I think my country, 'Tis of Thee, would be a better and more mellow place if we reverted to the original lyrics to the song..
Our problem is that too many fellow fucking Americans spend time looking for bogeymen instead of entwining the myrtle of Venus with Bacchus' vine.

Re:Change?

[Anonymous Coward]

We should revert to a monarchy?

I think you are thinking of the Star Spangled Banner.

Why is this allowed?

[Anonymous Coward]

They are falsely pretending to operate as a mobile network operator, ruining its good name, illegally using a exclusive frequency band leased exclusively to this operator and intercepting data of unsusptecting people who should have (and theoretically, at least to some extent) have a right to privacy.

How can things like this happen? Why are governments, even in democracies, often put above the law in practice? Why are the people at large not fighting this?

Re:Why is this allowed?

[HiThere]

Because governmental employees get to decide when to enforce the law.

And we used to make fun of my paranoid friend

[NotDrWho]

I used to have a friend who was convinced that the CIA was flying around in black helicopters spying on everyone. Guess I owe him an apology. He just wasn't thinking big enough.

Re:And we used to make fun of my paranoid friend

[Anonymous Coward]

It really is sad, isn't it?

Re:And we used to make fun of my paranoid friend

[Anonymous Coward]

No he was totally wrong... they were Cessna's and dumpy little inconspicuous prop-jobs spying on everyone.

At war against the citizenship

[Starvingboy]

Why does it feel like they are waging a covert war against average citizens going about their daily routine? FFS, knock it off already!

Just couldn't resist the Apple plug, could you?

[Anonymous Coward]

You fucking dingbat.

Arms?

[Anonymous Coward]

That goes also under "technical tools", I guess?

Why not?

[Anonymous Coward]

To be devils advocate, I remember running Bayesian filters on our corporate mail just to test. Sure as a private company we were legally allowed to do that, but how can Justice Department improve their tools if they are not allowed to experiment?

Re:Why not?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why? Animals have limited rights. They already have something better - a merkin population who agree with it and that says well it keeps us safe from terrorists who hate our freedoms.

Not just planes

[Anonymous Coward]

Satellites. But the satellites are used for passive interception by SIGINT, so you can suck up cell phone signaling data from space as well as brainwave emissions and other wired and wireless emanations.

SIGINT/NSA was tasked in the beginning with interception of air waves, and Senator Frank Church warned of it's power if it were ever to be turned against Americans in the 1970s when the first FBI/CIA/NSA/Executive Branch abuses were investigated. This has always been their primary purpose, their main skill, it does not require hardline access or a direct connection the device or network being monitored, and nothing is shielded or encrypted in the consumer realm today allowing it all to go down seamlessly..

Many methods can be used to intercept and break encryption keys even if encryption is used, even intercepting and sniffing the encryption codes direct from vendors and the hardware devices from space using types of interferometry (thanks to the power of quantum mechanics, if a remote state of matter or energy can be read, they can read it bypassing the devices normal function).

Nothing is beyond our reach! Get your kicks on route 66! NRO/NSA/CIA ownz j00. And you fucking noobs don't even know it! REPORT ON WHAT THE BLACK WORLD IS FOR A CHANGE, WE'RE CENTURIES AHEAD OF THIS SHIT AND HAVE NO LIMITS AT ALL. OTHER THAN OUR IMAGINATIONS, ANYWAY..

Patented and black ops whistleblowers behind this: http://www.obamasweapon.com/

"Lap dog press"?

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

I find it interesting that we're getting great investigative journalism out of places like The Wall Street Journal - reread the name if you don't see the irony - rather than the New York Times, the Washington Post, etc. What ELSE do you guys know about that you haven't revealed yet?

Re:"Lap dog press"?

[Anonymous Coward]

The Washington Post has thoroughly reported on federal spying since Snowden. See for example here.

The New York Times has had plenty of spying stories. Furthermore, NYT has recently been key to bringing civil asset forfeiture theft to the public eye. See for example here.

Stand your ground?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hollywood tells us that copying is theft, and the lawmakers agree. "Stand your ground laws" will allow me to shoot thieves on my property, so if those airplanes are trying to steal my data without a legal title to it, I should be allowed to shoot them down, right?

They Might be Giants Again

[Thud457]

Moriarty^W AT&T: "See, it's not our fault you get crappy service when your phone shows four bars, it's the NSA. "

BB strikes again

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow. I have had fighter planes and helicopters fly over my PRECISE location. So I knew they had tracking abilities of some sort. But that was incidental evidence, this article shows the evil eagle of world domination has yet another lightning bolt in its horrid clutches. Were the government a force for good, I'd be pacified, but since they have proven to be in the service of big syndicate, I'm worried.

Re:BB strikes again

[codeButcher]

Were the government a force for good, I'd be pacified, but since they have proven to be in the service of big syndicate, I'm worried.

That's the problem of this post-modernist world. Your definition of "good" does not coincide with the next guy's definition of "good".

Is there anything Obama CAN do?

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

>> Yes, Obama has failed to stop it. But he didn't initiate it.

We voted for this guy to roll back the surveillance state, get out of the torture business, and retract our forces from Iraq. He had one job - roll back what someone else initiated - and he utterly failed.

>> I suspect a lot of people welcome this crap with open arms

How'd those past couple of mid-term elections go for the current pro-surveillance party (D)?

Re:Is there anything Obama CAN do?

[blackiner]

Nobody who was paying attention voted for Obama because of his anti-surveillance promises. The moment he voted for telecom retroactive immunity it was clear he wasn't about "Change" at all. I don't know why people were so easily fooled by his charade, just looking at his voting history would have made it all very clear.

Re:Is there anything Obama CAN do?

[gstoddart]

He had one job - roll back what someone else initiated - and he utterly failed.

I seem to recall a period of time where the Republicans more or less shut down government as they threw a major temper tantrum.

How'd those past couple of mid-term elections go for the current pro-surveillance party (D)?

Are you honestly claiming that support for this crap doesn't enjoy support in both parties?

Because I'm afraid I'm going to call bullshit on that one. I'm not hearing Republicans saying this should stop.

BOTH parties are supporting this crap.

Re:Is there anything Obama CAN do?

[LWATCDR]

"We voted for this guy to roll back the surveillance state, get out of the torture business, and retract our forces from Iraq. He had one job - roll back what someone else initiated - and he utterly failed."
And don't forget the entire Russia is our friend and not a threat thing...
And how did that work out for you...

Re:Is there anything Obama CAN do?

[Anonymous Coward]

Far from everybody were fooled by his charade. Many of us voted for him because the thought of Sarah Palin as Vice President was even worse and revealed a critical flaw in John McCain's leadership (while others were voting against McCain proper,) others were hoping to keep Republicans out of power period, and the next election, fielding Romney, was an even worse choice. So, no hope for change whatsoever and a desire to pick the lesser of two oligarchs.

If we're insistent upon an only-two-viable-party system, I wish to God the Republicans would field Presidential candidates who aren't worse fucknuts than the Democrat party candidate.

Re:Is there anything Obama CAN do?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because Joe Biden is such a stellar V.P.

Fuck man, put don't the joint and just back away.

Re:Is there anything Obama CAN do?

[ganjadude]

that is like voting for herpes instead of aids, either way, you are still an idiot

Re:Is there anything Obama CAN do?

[ganjadude]

If you dont see any R saying so, you clearly are not listening. Rand Paul has been saying exactly as much for a long time now. Thankfully it does look like he will be running in 2 years. there is hope for america, as long as people actually look at the candidate rather than their race or gender when voting

Re:Is there anything Obama CAN do?

[Anonymous Coward]

Better than Palin, all I'm sayin'.

Re:Is there anything Obama CAN do?

[Anonymous Coward]

And yes. Herpes is not as lethal as AIDS, so damn straight if I'm forced to one of two bad choices I'll take the lesser.

Idiotic is choosing an analogy which undermines the very argument you're making. Stupid is not making a decision at all.

Re:Is there anything Obama CAN do?

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos

Re:Is there anything Obama CAN do?

[ganjadude]

you were not forced to vote for those 2 though. you had a number of other choices. you convinced yourselves (or allowed others to convince you) that you only had 2 choices

when you learn that you have more than 2 choices, we will all be better off

as for obama and mccain, id say obama was the aids FWIW

Re:Is there anything Obama CAN do?

[Anonymous Coward]

Better than Palin, all I'm sayin'.

That is why we're having these problems today. Because dolts like you think either of the two major parties are "better than the other".

Re:Is there anything Obama CAN do?

[HeckRuler]

Because the vote for retroactive immunity for the telecoms happened in July, 2008. Four months before the general election. I'm sorry, but the election process takes a little while to select a candidate and while Obama's vote was a real eye-opener for me, at that point in time, the choices were between him and a war-monger getting on in the years with a complete balls-to-the-walls nutzo vice president on standby. I like McCain. Good guy. Skewed views on war from being a vet with the whole "we must not lose the war" mentality when it's not even a war. But Palin? Even a slight CHANCE of Palin? Oh god no.

We FINALLY convinced enough people that the Iraq war was a stupid bloody mistake and we wanted out. McCain wanted to "stick around a hundred years". Now, hey, with ISIS taking over things look different. Maybe another decade of troops dying daily might have made a different. Or maybe he would have invaded Iran. Or fought Russia over Georgia.

I still think it was the better of two choices. But yeah, I hear what you're saying. And this is exactly why Obama's lack of experience was a valid complaint.

Re:Is there anything Obama CAN do?

[Anonymous Coward]

My vote only influences the electorial votes for my state. Only the state's electorial votes count. In my particular state, this gives me 2 options: "vote for which ever candidate is the front runner precluding the republican" and "do anything else". The former option is a vote against the republican and the latter option is the same as voting for the republican.

Please tell me how I have more than 2 options here. Even counting it as more than one option seems like a stretch.

Ghetto Brid 2.0

[Anonymous Coward]

Ghetto Brid 2.0

get over it

[Thud457]

If they can, they will.
It's like melamine in you baby food.
Don't give me no shuck about "legal", "constitutional" or "moral".
Just assume if it's technically possible, somebody is doing it, and act accordingly.

I know you're hiding somewhere with your damsons and prunes. Well I'm ready for you. I've wired meself up to 200 tons of gelignite, and if any one of you so much as makes a move we'll all go up together! Right, right. I warned you. That's it...

-- NOTE -- the quote was satire, relevant to the arms race you've created, NSA

This wasn't common knowledge?

[Anonymous Coward]

I recall touring the facility in Eastern Los Angeles (I got a free hat and T-Shirt) >5 years ago. The plane was parked in the hangar there. If I recall correctly it is part of the Technical Operations Group (TOG) within the USM. It's been awhile but I thought there were 10 TOGs around the USA. The USM crew there made fun of the FBI for their lack of skills and experience even though the Bureau had excessive amounts of cell tracking equipment.

Why not?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because it would be better to use animals for experiments.

From the Inside Out

[artlu]

As someone who has been through the federal justice system, I advise any American to assume that every piece of communication is tracked and saved under the guise of security. It was amazing to me how much information and how many resources the government has the ability to utilize if it wants to target one person, and even if I do make full restitution to my victims, I do not know if I will ever feel free again - not because of my situation, which you can read at The Market is not Random - but because of the knowledge I gained from the inside out.

-Anthony

Re:From the Inside Out

[Anonymous Coward]

its worst then 1984

Re:From the Inside Out

[Anonymous Coward]

So did you bilk those investors out of their money, or was it just negligence?

Judging by your luxurious lifestyle before your conviction, I'm betting on the former.

Re:I'm not hearing Republicans saying this should

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

>> I'm not hearing Republicans saying this should stop.

Meet Rand Paul (R): http://lmgtfy.com/?q=rand+paul...

Also, here's a 2013 poll demonstrating most of the support for wiretapping is now in the Democratic party:
http://blogs.marketwatch.com/c...

Long story short, if you're not hearing people say it should stop, it's time to open your ears.

Not getting overexcited

[AlecC]

I don't get overexcited by this. It is just observing stuff in a public place. We don't get upset by policemen looking at the faces of all passers by, when searching for a miscreant. If you want to use the cellphone system you are going to broadcast and anybody, good or bad, can pick up your transmissions. It is a downside of a technology we didn't have thirty years ago, and a technology with a lot of advantages.You similarly "broadcast" your car's registration number all the time.

My problem, so far as it goes, is with the various authorities secrecy about it. I think the police should be "keeping an eye" on the neighbourhood - and they should be open about it. If what they are doing it, they should be open about it. If it needs to be hidden, they shouldn't be doing it - in broad principle, if not the details. The police should not have dirty secrets (applies less to counter-intelligence agencies). If they are ashamed of this program, they should not be doing it. If they are not ashamed, tell us what it does.

Re:Not getting overexcited

[ZeroWaiteState]

Incorrect. They are not a simple intercept station. From reading the article, these appear to be airborne Stingrays. In other words, they initiate communication with many phones in a geographic area in order to trick them into authenticating with their equipment as though it's an actual cell tower. There's no reason to use these for ordinary law enforcement wiretaps; they can simply get a wiretrap warrant and go to the phone company. Stingray's largely bypass the subpoena process, and so do not have the same reporting requirements. They also scoop up lots of data that would not ordinarily be available in a legal wiretap, such as other phone conversations in the vicinity, which are still collected incidentally. The main reason for using these is if you want to wiretap someone, but you have no idea what phone they are using, so you grab all the phones in an area and force them to use your equipment as a base station. Then you sift through the conversations until you find the person you're looking for. In other words, a general warrant. It's the electronic equivalent of what they did in Boston after the marathon bombing; door-to-door searches etc. It's understandable why they would want to keep that sort of thing a secret. If they're doing it a lot, it would make voters extremely unhappy. The same sort of thing is theoretically possible by going through the company, but they would have to get a court to authorize it on a general population.

Awful, but ultimately not worth the effort?

[swb]

The use of disposable phones, multiple SIM cards, etc, is a near-universal presence in any kind of mass entertainment featuring espionage or even semi-organized criminal enterprises.

Even at this point, how low-level and stupid do most criminals have to be to use/carry a cell phone any longer than absolutely necessary? And if they do use one, wouldn't it be a throwaway they would get rid of after a short period?

Ultimately sting-ray and it's ilk seem like they would just no longer be useful.

Re:Awful, but ultimately not worth the effort?

[Shakrai]

And if they do use one, wouldn't it be a throwaway they would get rid of after a short period?

That doesn't provide as much protection as you'd think it would. Criminals generally operate in a defined geographical area and it's rather trivial to look at the base stations serving that area to look for new devices popping onto the network. You then examine the numbers that those devices are calling; the game is over as soon as one of them places a call to a number that's already on your watch list. The Times Square would be bomber was caught this way; he used a burner phone that should have been untraceable but made the mistake of calling a number that he had previously contacted from a phone that was known to the authorities.

Re:And Airplane mode?

[Will.Woodhull]

Mmmm... conversate...

It's good to see evidence that the English language is still growing. Let's give this one a try: "I was conversating with these guys on slashdot." Yep, it works, though "conversing" would have saved a couple of keystrokes. Still, verbifying a noun that was nounified from a verb has a certain, je nes sais pas, roundness about it.

Evidence used in one court case, and then...

[Anonymous Coward]

...one question I have with these sort of grey operations is: once they're used in one single court case, isn't full information on the method out in the wild? Or do the police get some magic dispensation allowing them not to disclose to the court the method used to gather evidence? (even if this means the defence can't test its soundness).

Ditto to pretty much any mass surveillance operation.

Or are the results just used to tip off other departments, who always mysteriously forget how they initially came about some useful lead?

Re: Evidence used in one court case, and then...

[Anonymous Coward]

Two words:

Parallel construction

Re: Evidence used in one court case, and then...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah but does this happen often in practice? I can see it happening when the state really hates you, but for more low-level stuff, is everyone sufficiently organised to make something that convinces a court?

Re: Evidence used in one court case, and then...

[messymerry]

The courts don't need convincing when it's one of their own that testifies... U.S. justice is no different than the Mafia...

About time for authenticated towers

[Anonymous Coward]

It's in the phone companies best interests to develop a mechanism that signs tower originated packets and which phones can verify. Even roaming phones could check the DNSSEC/root CA for verizon's tower cert or whatever.

Federal Laws

[Terry Pearson]

People always say this, but they neglect to mention WHICH FEDERAL LAWS are being broken daily by everybody.

I suppose people either just assume it is true, or they know details but do not want to get too sidetracked... This video may help explain which laws we break daily: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

On a more on topic note, StingRay devices cover a broad range of uses. Some simply harvest unique cellular IDs, while others do much more to intercept communication and emulate legitimate towers. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:Federal Laws

[SuricouRaven]

Have you ever read Slashdot at work?

That's a federal crime. You're not authorised by the owner of the system to use it for reading slashdot, so your usage of it is unauthorised. It's supposed to be a law against hacking, it's just badly worded.

And Justice for all....

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck this country.

Had a weird one the other day

[Richy_T]

I had just landed at CLT airport from abroad. Turned on my Verizon phone and the little "roaming" triangle was flickering over the signal bars. Then I received some random text about subscribing to juice bar alerts (I get very few spam texts). So it may not be only the government up to this kind of shenanigans.

Re:And Airplane mode?

[JazzLad]

Bonus points if you can re-nounify it.

Re:And Airplane mode?

[Anonymous Coward]

je nes sais pas

LOL. I saw that, and I think you did it on purpose.

Skynet is coming

[Anonymous Coward]

Pretty soon, the sky will be filled with drones, carrying their own fake mini cellphone towers, circling your house and neighborhood, 24 hours a day.

"Buy a Shotgun."

[Anonymous Coward]

It's possible for a loose cannon to hit the target once in a while.

-- Joe Biden 2016 ? sure, what the heck...

Mod parent up

[rwa2]

Thanks for that... I'm surprised that people on slashdot are calling for political solutions to political "problems" instead of technological solutions that do more to guarantee security and privacy against surveillance, be it "legal" or illegal.

I'll reserve my outrage for when using strong encryption becomes regulated.

DRT Software Defined Radios (SDRs)

[Anonymous Coward]

DRT does make some pretty nice general purpose SDR hardware.

Flying Stringrays....

[Fubari]

Flying Stingrays? Sounds like a movie plot. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2724064/

Well you sure sound thrilled to lose your privacy

[Rujiel]

Don't expect that everyone else should roll over and present their perfurmed anuses to the surveillance state, as you seem content to.

Re:And Airplane mode?

[Will.Woodhull]

I just do bilingual typos.

Person of Interest is here...

[ddtmm]

Every time I hear another story like this I think of Person Of Interest. I'm starting to think that show is based on reality and not some futuristic sci-fi dreams.

Good!

[Anonymous Coward]

About time the government had some useful tools to catch criminals. All the privacy concerns regarding phone interception? BS.

Retaliations

[Anonymous Coward]

Then there can't be any more complaints when people decide to respond with lasers.

Easy for criminals to avoid

[camg188]

This would be so easy for criminals to work around. Just use a cheap prepaid phone and change it often, as seen on Breaking Bad. They are less than $15 at Walmart.

Great, Another "2nd Amendment Solution" Fetishist

[cmholm]

According to the US constitution, arms is the correct approach to governmental oppression.

Ah, no, but thanks for playing. We are currently at a phase when civil participation in the political process is the correct approach. An armed approach is inefficient, and repeated resort to that approach leads to repeated resort to that approach. In addition, to burst a popular bubble, if you're imaging armed participation, it's very likely someone will pry it out of your cold, dead hands.

If you let a reasonably open and civil political system get to the point where an armed approach is the efficient solution, you've been sitting on the sidelines and/or remained clueless for too long. Just to be clear regarding our current situation, how you feel about cultural issues, "Obamacare", or abortion aren't relevant.... until someone comes along who really does care how you feel about it, and uses all that neat anti-terrorist infrastructure to show just how much.

Changing the oil is greatly preferable to replacing the engine.

Strong signal?

[Anonymous Coward]

A strong cell phone signal? In the USA? Ha, that's suspicious enough. No commercial service in the USA provides a half decent signal or service, compared to any other"developed" country.