Judge Unseals 500+ Stingray Records

An anonymous reader sends this excerpt from Ars Technica: A judge in Charlotte, North Carolina, has unsealed a set of 529 court documents in hundreds of criminal cases detailing the use of a stingray, or cell-site simulator, by local police. This move, which took place earlier this week, marks a rare example of a court opening up a vast trove of applications made by police to a judge, who authorized each use of the powerful and potentially invasive device

According to the Charlotte Observer, the records seem to suggest that judges likely did not fully understand what they were authorizing. Law enforcement agencies nationwide have taken extraordinary steps to preserve stingray secrecy. As recently as this week, prosecutors in a Baltimore robbery case dropped key evidence that stemmed from stingray use rather than fully disclose how the device was used.

Comments

Consent of the Governed

[saloomy]

You can not consent to what you do not know. A free society mandates that the governing be done in open view of the public. Otherwise, how can we consent to what we are unaware of. As Lincoln said: "... of the people, by the people, for the people..."

Re:Consent of the Governed

[cold fjord]

The US is a Republic, not a direct democracy. The lawmakers are representatives that do some things behind closed doors out of practical necessity. Abraham Lincoln had people spying on the Confederacy, and that wasn't done in the open view of the public either. There is always going to be a tension between the need to keep the public informed and the need to keep some things secret. Trying to resolve that tension by asserting there must be no secrets in government is a losing game and it goes against practically all experience and wisdom.* One may reasonably argue about where the boundaries should be, not not about the practical necessity of the government keeping some things secret.

*Hence the popularity among some on Slashdot.

Re:Consent of the Governed

[saloomy]

...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 ... End of story. There can be no action taken by a government on behalf of its people argued to be for its people, yet conceal that action from its people in the name of its people. It's oxymoronic.

need to keep some things secret

Need to keep things secret? Who decides what is needed to be kept secret? Patriots? Those who stand with liberty and freedom certainly don't.

Re:Consent of the Governed

[AHuxley]

Re Need to keep things secret?
Thats what the release of the records will show. Legal teams can go over past cases and talk about what was done to the press.
Issues of parallel construction, what legal teams saw or where not allowed to see and when can be talked about to the press.
Legal teams can then talk to the press about the use of a IMSI catcher, IMSI catcher like devices with denial-of-service attack options, location monitoring, transceiver amplifiers.
Meet the machines that steal your phone’s data (Sept 26 2013)
http://arstechnica.com/tech-po...
If the US wants a secret court it can talk to all the legal teams and find cleared legal staff and experts depending on the case.

Re:Consent of the Governed

[fustakrakich]

Good to you so proudly standing for the queen....

Re:Consent of the Governed

[cold fjord]

You seem to hold some mistaken ideas about what "those who stand with liberty and freedom" actually do in some cases. The people that wrote that text you quote employed spies and kept some matters secret, both before and after the Revolution.

Resolution of Secrecy Adopted by the Continental Congress, November 9, 1775

Resolved, That every member of this Congress considers himself under the ties of virtue, honour, and love of his country, not to divulge, directly or indirectly, any matter or thing agitated or debated in Congress, before the same shall have been determined, without leave of the Congress; nor any matter or thing determined in Congress, which a majority of the Congress shall order to be kept secret. And that if any member shall violate this agreement, he shall be expelled this Congress, and deemed an enemy to the liberties of America, and liable to be treated as such; and that every member signify his consent to this agreement by signing the same.

Maybe you should read that again just so it sinks in - not keeping certain secrets could make you an enemy of the liberties of America in the eyes of the Founding Fathers.

Do you understand the meaning of representative government? The consent is to be governed, not to every single individual action of government.

Re:Consent of the Governed

[cold fjord]

I know you're not really detail oriented, but your overlooking the first sentence of my post is a bit egregious even for you.

The US is a Republic .....

Re:Consent of the Governed

[Anonymous Coward]

The US is a republic in name only, in reality it is an oligarchy where large business interests and corruption rule. The difference between, say, Russia and the US is that the population in the former is kept peaceful by the vodak and handouts from oil revenues, and in the latter by the fat from hf corn syrup and the slavery of two jobs while dreaming of getting fabulously rich.

Re:Consent of the Governed

[someone1234]

The US doesn't invade AND occupy its neighbors. They go farther, and don't stay there for decades. Anyone rich enough (in the US) can get a fair trial. In Russia, you have to be a friend of Putin.
So, there are subtle differences.

Re:Consent of the Governed

[cold fjord]

The US is an oligarchy in rhetoric only, in reality it is a republic in which corporations can't vote but citizen can. Election still determine the composition of Congress and it is Congress that makes the laws, not corporations, even if corporations can and do influence the contents of various laws. The recently stated intent of the President to ignore the power of Congress is a troubling development, but one which I expect many on Slashdot will agree with.

Re:Consent of the Governed

[Anonymous Coward]

Reading TFA I am left with the distinct impression that the legislative and judicial branches are also in the dark about the technology and its applications. That is, nobody is in a position to informedly consent or decide on the issue, except the useful idiots, who cannot consent by definition.

Re:Consent of the Governed

[Anonymous Coward]

You are severely unread when it comes to modern politics, in addition to lacking observation faculties to see the obvious. Maybe you should abstain from peppering all discussions here with patriotisms and read more instead. Here's a start: http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=9354310

This is the conclusion, for your weekend education:

Let's talk about the study. If you had 30 seconds to sum up the main conclusion of your study for the average person, how would you do so?

I'd say that contrary to what decades of political science research might lead you to believe, ordinary citizens have virtually no influence over what their government does in the United States. And economic elites and interest groups, especially those representing business, have a substantial degree of influence. Government policy-making over the last few decades reflects the preferences of those groups -- of economic elites and of organized interests.

Re:Consent of the Governed

[Anonymous Coward]

I never said the government is not acting with the full consent of the voters. I just like watching you justify hiding the corruption behind the closed doors. (probably goes with the job, eh?) We should be using a battering ram on those doors and their damn laws. And please, your singling out this president is just... well.. silly. Obviously you're just on the same bandwagon as the idiots who believe FOX news.

Corporations and government are one. You can't separate them. The government is little more than the corporations' private security, and I do indeed recognize that the public allows it out of expedience, ignorance, and various other psychological syndromes, and the government actually reflects that on the outside of those closed doors. But, that doesn't fit your narrative, does it?

I'm going to post AC because the word 'idiot' is not politically correct. Plus I found that using direct talk is highly frowned upon.

-f

Re:Consent of the Governed

[davester666]

Unfortunately, now the gov't is "Abraham Lincoln" and the rest of the population is "the Confederacy".

Re:Consent of the Governed

[Anonymous Coward]

The US is a Republic, not a direct democracy. The lawmakers are representatives that do some things behind closed doors out of practical necessity.

The founding fathers were so paranoid about outside influences that they put strict controls on who could be a representative, senator, and President - which in that case was a native born person only (or a citizen at time of Constitution). On top of that, they made the titles of Nobility clause that restricted government officials holding any office from accepting titles or gifts from foreign governments (without Congressional approval).

The Constitution was a test of Democracy when the rest of the western world had none. The French Revolution just about to start a few years later and the rest of Europe being mired in Monoarchies. They probably didn't forsee the power of money in politics as it's so blatant today.

Now what do we have? Corporations giving money to any candidates they feel like. Hollywood gave to Joe Biden, a Delaware Senator. The AIPAC head (American Israeli PAC) bragglng how he can get 70 signatures on a napkin within an hour (and by inference how they can get bills of interest passed):
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2005/07/04/real-insiders

And last but not least, Goldman Sachs and many like it being a revolving door for government officials when they leave office. (Plus that whole economic collapse thing and really only paying a few slap on the wrist fines). Fuck, my local PUC (public utility commission) is known as a revolving door right into cushy do-nothing-not-even-show-up job of the very utility they are overseeing. And I'm stuck paying electric rates 2.5 times that national average.

Lastly, teacher's unions and other government unions using member money to fund political campaigns.

We have no representative government until several things happen:
1. Politicians of all levels can accept only money from the people they seek to represent. Someone seeking to be major of hicksville should only be able to accept funding money from Hicksville residents. Senator candidates from Delaware should only be accepting money from residents/citizens of Delaware.
2. Corporations and Unions need to be barred from giving political money. Either to candidates or to PACs or anything. If citizens belonging to a corp or union want to give their own money, that's a different matter.
3. PACs need to operate under the same rules of candidates, if they receive $300 in Ohio, that's all they can spend in Ohio.
4. Politicians need to be barred from lobbying for 7 years at least, or whatever their length of service was. These people get healthy pensions, there is no other reason than greed to do this.

We need a new Constitional Amendment enshrining some of this. As it is, we don't have a republic, we have a Corporate/Union Oligarchy.

Re:Consent of the Governed

[cold fjord]

Wait, are you telling me that there is a disparity in the influence of the patricians and the plebeians?!? And it's only been found out now?!? Quick, send runners to Caesar and the Senate! They must be informed at once! All of Rome and its traditions are in peril!

Everything old is new again.

Re: Consent of the Governed

[Anonymous Coward]

We don't consent to be governed at all. We're all just Helotrs waiting our chance to plunge the knife into our rotten Spartan shipmasters. Kill them all, and all their children. What you call a republic, we call a police state.

Re:Consent of the Governed

[Anonymous Coward]

A free society mandates that the governing be done in open view of the public ...

No. A free society mandates that the government be accountable. That requires the public to have some knowledge of the acts committed by the agents of said government. When the government must report to its citizens is a matter of debate. Conversely, when the government hides ever more of its actions with the excuse of 'national security', it stops being accountable and the society under it stops being free.

Re: Consent of the Governed

[cold fjord]

If you call the US a police state then you are mistaken as to the nature of police states. It may be less free than it was, and less free than it should be, but it is still no police state.

Re:Consent of the Governed

[Anonymous Coward]

The US doesn't invade AND occupy its neighbors. They go farther, and don't stay there for decades.

HAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!

No, they go in, set up their corporations to dominate economically, and pistol whip anybody that steps out of line. Why spend money on garrisons when you can make the strongest force of the world "project power" anywhere on the globe in a matter of hours? Occupation is so mid-20th Century and expensive.

Look at the shithole you Americans turned Mexico into, while they were begging the entire time for you guys to ease off on that War on Drugs nonsense.

Now come back at me with some self-righteousness while you play some Team America theme in the background.

Re: Consent of the Governed

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't stay there? Ask Hiwaiians. Germans. Japanese. Iraq. Still there with military basis. And trust me, you get nothing of a fair trial in the US. You can't win on trial. The best you can hope for is to walk away after a lot of stress and wasted time and money. The worst is they execute you after imprisoning you in a hell for twenty years. So tell me, how can you win when you are put on trial? There is nothing just about American justice at all, nor anything free about American freedom.

Re:Consent of the Governed

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey dumbass.... This was done this was done 3 months after the King declared that EVERY rebel was a traitor, and offered a reward for the capture of rebel leaders. This was signed by 87 such leaders. I think it a wise and prudent thing to have the names of everyone that KNEW FOR A FACT what was going on written down so that you knew who to look to if something leaked.

As for your completely asinine remark about representative government. You are correct to a point.. However we the governed have the reasonable expectation that our representative government hasn't become a totalitarian regime bent upon destroying our constitutional rights because it is convenient for them to do so. By mass collecting data in this way they indiscriminately target EVERYONE in an area, and not just the target of their warrant. if the technology being discussed were programmed to only accept connections from the targets specific phone then I would agree that this was acceptable behavior. It, however, is not targeted. This is nothing short of mass surveillance. If I were to get my hands on one of these and turn it on i would be charged under wiretapping laws. If the police do it it isn't a crime. That, my friend, is a double standard, and it is the beginning of fascism.

There is a massive difference between a nation keeping a secret(such as the Manhattan Project), and a local yokel firing up what amounts to a fake cell tower; soaking up everyone's location, info, and data indiscriminately. Local yokel should NOT have the ability to do that. When I sign a deal with I have a reasonable expectation that my phone will connect to their service(and any partner services used to extend their network). I have a reasonable expectation that my data is not being intercepted by anyone with a whim and a badge. If there is not warrant for my Phone data, location, etc. I have a reasonable expectation that my person and my papers(which I transmit and receive via my data plan) are reasonably secure from outside interception, and that the people who do intercept are either criminals, or authorties who have respected my constitutional rights enough to get a warrant.

An NDA, while enforceable if the technology is classified(by a valid classification authority), does not protect the two parties if the technology violates state or federal law. In fact a clever attorney could probably allude conspiracy and make their lives hell in court if he found a friendly DA(which is going to be the hard part).

Re:Consent of the Governed

[Anonymous Coward]

As Lincoln said: "... of the people, by the people, for the people..."

I may not be American but come on even I know this hasn't be true for decades for you guys. If ever.

Re:Consent of the Governed

[Uberbah]

No. A free society mandates that the government be accountable. That requires the public to have some knowledge of the acts committed by the agents of said government. When the government must report to its citizens is a matter of debate.

And how do you propose to have this "accountability" if the actions are kept secret? You seem to be contradicting yourself.

Re:Consent of the Governed

[Uberbah]

The US is a Republic, not a direct democracy.

He didn't say it was. If you think Republic and Democracy are incompatible, you don't understand either term.

The US is an oligarchy in rhetoric only, in reality it is a republic in which corporations can't vote but citizen can. Election still determine the composition of Congress and it is Congress that makes the laws, not corporations, even if corporations can and do influence the contents of various laws.

What kind of dumbfuckery is this? The bank bailouts alone make a very bad liar out of you. The mandate to purchase for-profit health insurance further pulls back the curtain to reveal that you've put on your clown shoes.

Again.

Re:Consent of the Governed

[Anonymous Coward]

...in reality it is a republic in which corporations can't vote but citizen can.

and then

Election still determine the composition of Congress and it is Congress that makes the laws.

Yet the influence of the wealthy is ignored, and this - along with the corporations - greatly influences what laws may be passed, not the content of them.

I guess you ignore it because it doesn't suit your view.

Re:Consent of the Governed

[Endymion]

We have no representative government until several things happen:

So time to bring back "No taxation without representation"?

Re:Consent of the Governed

[anegg]

A corollary to the indiscriminate use of broad data gathering technology is that it will likely lead to a desire on the part of the general public for more secure technologies to keep these abuses from affecting them. So the overreach may (eventually) lead to more secure technology being generally available, which means the bad guys will have it along with the general public. And law enforcement will be worse off than before. This problem was apparently recognized by the NSA but the cooler heads did not prevail, and we are seeing public Internet services becoming more secure, which will protect the public, but which will also protect the scum.

Re:Consent of the Governed

[Zontar The Mindless]

No, they just invade and annex big chunks of their neighbours.

Re:Consent of the Governed

[Zontar The Mindless]

That would be just peachy if votes for particular candidates/parties actually counted for something.

It really amazes me that someone who appears to be as intelligent as you do cannot see the state-within-a-state that has grown up in the US since the Second World War. Just as Eisenhower warned it would.

Re:Consent of the Governed

[DexterIsADog]

...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 ... End of story. There can be no action taken by a government on behalf of its people argued to be for its people, yet conceal that action from its people in the name of its people. It's oxymoronic.

need to keep some things secret

Need to keep things secret? Who decides what is needed to be kept secret? Patriots? Those who stand with liberty and freedom certainly don't.

You are arguing that *nothing* should be kept secret from the people. Not the use of these devices by law enforcement, or the plans to go kill bin Laden, nuclear launch codes, etc.

If you claim you're not arguing that, then you *must* believe that *some* things should be kept secret, and if you do, I'll ask you who decides which things should be. You?

I love absolutist arguments like the one you made. You represent a "pure" view - really, *no* action can be taken by the government to benefit the people, and be kept secret? The fact is, you're in the same boat as the rest of us. This is far from the end of the story.

Re:Consent of the Governed

[cold fjord]

You skipped over something.

... it is Congress that makes the laws, not corporations, even if corporations can and do influence the contents of various laws.

Didn't suit your view?

Re:Consent of the Governed

[cold fjord]

This was done this was done ... You are correct to a point..

So you basically agree with me. Thanks.

BTW - Starting off your reply with "dumbass" detracted from your argument.

Re:Consent of the Governed

[cold fjord]

He didn't say it was. If you think Republic and Democracy are incompatible, you don't understand either term.

If you think a republic and direct democracy are compatible, you don't understand the term. That is an important distinction that plays into that whole "representative government" thing, not to mention secrecy debates.

What kind of dumbfuckery is this? The bank bailouts alone make a very bad liar out of you. The mandate to purchase for-profit health insurance further pulls back the curtain to reveal that you've put on your clown shoes.

Consulting the Congressional record I could find votes by Senator Mccain and Reid. Could you show me in the Congressional record the votes by Citibank and United Healthcare? Or aren't there any?

Where are Citibank and United Healthcare registered to vote?

I find it hard to believe you took a trip in your clown car for this.

Re:Consent of the Governed

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree with him. You are a dumbass.

Re:Consent of the Governed

[Anonymous Coward]

So you agree with cold fjord too? That must make you a dumbass.

Re: Consent of the Governed

[Anonymous Coward]

No, dimwit, I am telling you that the population of the US has no control over its government, and its government is not working for the population. In other words, that US is a republic by name only, and that explains the surveillance program that is the topic of FA. You're being run in the same way Russians are under Genosse Putin, and you like it, because you're too stupid to figure it out on yer own.

Re:Consent of the Governed

[cold fjord]

And how do you propose to have this "accountability" if the actions are kept secret? You seem to be contradicting yourself.

WW I, WW II, the Viet Nam war, and others all had massive amounts of secrecy associated with them. Were elections suspended? No.

Re:Consent of the Governed

[fustakrakich]

Everything old is new again.

:-) Yes... Even the part you play as the emperor's chief philosopher has been part of the show since its inception.

Re:Consent of the Governed

[Anonymous Coward]

If you think a republic and direct democracy are compatible, you don't understand the term.

You're the only one who's mentioned "direct democracy" here.

Re:Consent of the Governed

[wierd_w]

The pedant's pedant antecedant was to see the point, but fail to read it.

Since your pedantry has you all tied up in knots, let me break down what others are so desperately trying to get you to realize.

1) Yes, The people casting the votes for legislation are indeed the elected officials. HOWEVER, the laws being voted on are often NOT PENNED BY THESE PEOPLE. Instead, they are often first penned as proposals by interest groups, which then get run through an approvals and support process, and get folded into larger bills, which then eventually get voted on. This is known as a "Christmas Tree Bill"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...

2) While anyone may theoretically petitiion congress, many studies have been conducted which indicate that congressional members (used generically for both house and senate) do not give any weight at all to such petitions, and give all their attention to the lobbyists that show up with suitcases full of money, minivans full of hookers, and dumptrucks full of blow.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

These things are the elephant in the room my friend. It has been fucking PROVEN that the popular vote and popular issue created interest groups have practically no power to influence US policy, and yet you cling to the "VOTE!, IT'S THE WAY!" statement.

Somebody here is being delusional, and it isnt the people you are arguing with.

Re:Consent of the Governed

[cold fjord]

It has been fucking PROVEN that the popular vote and popular issue created interest groups have practically no power to influence US policy, and yet you cling to the "VOTE!, IT'S THE WAY!" statement.

Really? I hear that the NRA, unions, ACLU, AARP, NAACP, and plenty of other organizations have influence. You'll telling me they don't? .

Re:Consent of the Governed

[Anonymous Coward]

WW I, WW II, the Viet Nam war, and others all had massive amounts of secrecy associated with them.

And was the government accountable? Nope, US entered all of these wars against the will of its population, in each case the government concocting a massive manipulation to get the public opinion behind its actions. So much closer to a banana than to a democratic republic.

Re:Consent of the Governed

[wierd_w]

If you note in the article I cited, there was research that concluded this after reviewing data for 20 years.

If you disagree with the position, the onus of proof is on you to show how the interpretation is wrong.

you don't get an easy out.

Re: Consent of the Governed

[Anonymous Coward]

If you call the US a police state then you are mistaken as to the nature of police states. It may be less free than it was, and less free than it should be, but it is still no police state.

according to who? So called free countries acting like police states is certainly a reality for some ... I guess denial is comforting

Re:Consent of the Governed

[Anonymous Coward]

actually, I see no real reason for any secrecy whatsoever, if you can't win openly, then maybe you just aren't ethical enough

winning at too great a cost is actually losing

Re:Consent of the Governed

[sjames]

First, Abe wasn't any part of the government of the Confederacy so the obligation to openness didn't apply there.

However, no matter where you might draw the line for public disclosure, surely the executive has no right to keep Congress and the judicial branch in the dark as they have done with Stingray. I would go further and say that the existence and use of the tech should be publicly disclosed while I understand they may need to keep the operational details of a particular use secret until they either prosecute or abandon the investigation (but no longer).

Any longer than that and they have defied consent of the governed and lost all moral legitimacy.

Re: Consent of the Governed

[Anonymous Coward]

Then it's merely a "quasi" police state?

Re: Consent of the Governed

[Anonymous Coward]

OJ the juiceman Simspon won in a trial. but then got cleared out by civil cases lol.

Re: Consent of the Governed

[Anonymous Coward]

cold fjord is a fucking troll who keeps moving the goal posts to suit his argument. eat a fat dick and please leave slashdot. nobody likes your bitch ass. all you do is troll and lie.

Re:Consent of the Governed

[cold fjord]

It doesn't matter if you have 100 years of data if the study is wrong.

Here is Center For American Progress President Neera Tanden explainging how she helped write one of the biggest pieces of legislation in US history, Obamacare. It seized control over 1/6th of the economy and had many far reaching effects, not all of which have been seen yet.

I don't recall that the Center for American Progress is noted as a being an advocate for "the rich." So it looks like interest groups do have some pull after all.

Re:Consent of the Governed

[Anonymous Coward]

You are arguing that *nothing* should be kept secret from the people. Not the use of these devices by law enforcement, or the plans to go kill bin Laden, nuclear launch codes, etc.

Obviously there needs to be some balance. I don't think anyone is saying that actual security codes: passwords, launch codes, active military secrets, etc. should be disclosed. At least, not while they're active. Knowing after the fact that, for example, the nuclear launch codes were set to 00000000 is very much in the public interest. It's a good thing for the public to be aware that their nuclear arsenal is/was being guarded by people whose emphasis on easy access to nuclear weapons resulted in a passive-aggressive disloyalty to their own chain of command.

As for Bin Laden. Once again, I don't think anyone is saying that the civilian authorities have to give away their plans publicly when they're gearing up for a large police raid to arrest someone. Or that the military have to give away _their_ plans publicly when they're gearing up for a covert military operation. Of course, on the other hand, civilian authorities are meant to be specifically forbidden from going out and murdering people. They're supposed to capture, although they have fairly broad authority to kill in self-defense during the process. The military isn't actually supposed to murder people either. There are are rules of engagement, treaties and centuries, if not millenia of tradition and discussion on the subject of what makes a military killing different from a murder.

Basically, the military isn't supposed to go out and conduct secret wars. That means no military incursions into countries you're not at war with. So, when the US plans a military incursion into a technically allied country with a force flying multiple flags of convenience (the SEALS involved in the operation were only ambiguously SEALS at the time, since they'd been intentionally temporarily made CIA agents instead, specifically to create legal ambiguity about their actions) to murder rather than capture a criminal suspect in a mass murder who should be going on trial, then the public really should know about it. Those in charge felt that the ends justified the means and were disgusted by the fact that playing by the rules meant that their target could get away. The public has a right to know that the government plans to ignore all concepts of law and diplomacy and simply do as they please because those kinds of decisions have long-term consequences to the public.

Re:Consent of the Governed

[Pablew Nopl]

someone who appears to be as intelligent as you do

You are referring to cold fjord, right...?

Re:Consent of the Governed

[Anonymous Coward]

You can not consent to what you do not know.

As has been mentioned several times in other discussions on these devices, the fact that law enforcement are desperately trying to keep the knowledge from the courts and defense lawyers (and sometimes even the prosecutors) of how Stingray is being used means that law enforcement clearly KNOWS that what they are doing is illegal.

Re:Consent of the Governed

[Anonymous Coward]

You can not consent to what you do not know. A free society mandates that the governing be done in open view of the public. Otherwise, how can we consent to what we are unaware of. As Lincoln said: "... of the people, by the people, for the people..."

I agree, I have real problems with secret laws and secret courts, and all other forms of star chamber justice.

Re: Consent of the Governed

[cold fjord]

"Denial" may be "comforting," but too many engage in fantasy when considering these matters.

Which are these so called "free countries acting like police states" that you claim is a reality? How is it acted out?

Re:Consent of the Governed

[Anonymous Coward]

It isn't a question of ethics. It isn't complete clear if you simply lack understanding, are terribly confused, or are trolling. Perhaps it is best that you are governed by others.

Re: Consent of the Governed

[cold fjord]

The subject of the article is centered on investigation and actions by local police, not the federal government. Based on your post that must mean that the US is a republic again. That's a good thing since the US just held an election for the next Congress. If the US wasn't a republic anymore then the candidates that just won would have nowhere to go in January next. Thank goodness they still do. And when they get there they will be about the People's business again. It looks like it was a good thing I was here to explain that to you since you got it wrong.

Re:Consent of the Governed

[cold fjord]

Excellent question. I see you're coming along nicely.

Re:Consent of the Governed

[cold fjord]

You may recall that Eisenhower warned about the so-called "Military Industrial Complex." At the end of WW 2 the GDP devoted to defense spending was just under 40%. It has been falling since then with just a few interruptions. Today defense spending hovers around 4-5% of GDP after climbing a bit after 9/11. If the "MIC" is a "state within a state" it isn't a very successful one given its long slide in the resources it controls which is now only about 10% of what it controlled when Eisenhower was a General of the Army.

Pardon me .... I just made a huge assumption, didn't I? Were you referring to Eisenhower's often overlooked other warning? That one seems to have come true far more than the warning about the so-called "Military Industrial Complex." To quote:

Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific technological elite.

Man, that raises goose pimples.

As to voting ... Although there are many areas of broad agreement today between the parties*, there are important differences between them too. It's pretty clear that voting for the different parties does mean something. You may recall that Obamacare was a 100% Democratic party vote. If the Democrats in the administration and Congress had been unfettered there would have been another futile "assault weapons" ban, and that didn't happen at the national level although Democrats in various states have pushed something like that through. There are enough differences between the parties and their typical policy preferences so as to make voting meaningful.

* US remains a democratic republic with a more or less capitalist economy, civil rights are good, foreign powers aren't allowed to invade, Europe is a friend, racism is bad, something resembling law and order will be maintained, etc..

Re:Consent of the Governed

[ChrisMaple]

Mexico turned itself into a shithole. It has been a country of corruption and robbery for centuries, and no outside influence can do much to change that, for better or worse.

Re: Consent of the Governed

[ChrisMaple]

Hawaii became a state by the vote of its own residents. Germany and Japan gain tremendous economic advantage by not having to provide fully for their own defense; American forces would be gone quickly if either government insisted. American forces remain in Iraq for the same reason hospitals use disinfectant.

Re:Consent of the Governed

[ChrisMaple]

Corporations and government are one. You can't separate them.

Skilling and Madoff are in prison, so they're not separated from the government. Still, the situation hardly seems to be to their advantage.

Grow up.

Re: Consent of the Governed

[ChrisMaple]

Says the person too cowardly to identify himself.

Re: Consent of the Governed

[Anonymous Coward]

Man, what a mess do you have in your head. I've never seen such epic non-sequiturs like the ones you spew. By your mental paradigms (can't call it 'logic', cuz it ain't logical), the USSR was a stellar democratic repubic as well, they not only had elections, they had the great halls of the Kremlin where the winning candidates assembled about the People's business. Guess what, it was the same in China, where they have the renmin dahui tang for the same purpose. Elected candidates assembled in Germany in the late 30s in the Reichstag. Even Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala had electedd candidates working for 'the people' in their own small republics, propped by the big fathers in the White house. Chile, too, had a great republican Mr. Pinochet and with his help elections took place and representatives assembled and worked for the good of the people. Even when that meant torturing and killing them a little.

Going by the motions isn't the same as getting the substance, and normal people realize this early enough in life. Alas, all that drinking late at night has crippled what little brain you had as a molested kid, my fella slashdotter, and the conservative radio has transformed the rest of your body into an organ for patriotic spamming.

But keep dreaming of Norway, there's a glimmer of hope there. Unless it is about the drinking on ice.

Re:Consent of the Governed

[Anonymous Coward]

Secrecy is not forever. The people have found that their government is indiscriminately spying on them, recording their conversations, determined to keep these records for as long as they can given their storage space, while at the same time making opaque processes such as the no-fly list, NSLs, FISA court, and passing legislation which says essentially that an individual has no rights to any due process when assigned an arbitrary label.

My advice to you is to fix yourselves before the people fix you.

Re:Consent of the Governed

[wierd_w]

While your example is indeed a high profile one, it is still just that-- one example-- which is not what is needed to counter the claim of the researchers.

That claim being that statistically, politicians listen more to campaign financiers and lobbyists than they do to their actual constituency of registered voters, and do so by a very large margin.

"Oh look! This voter advocacy group got what they wanted! That means 'You're Wrong!'"

No, it means one of several things:

1) The disparity is not an absolute; (which the researchers never asserted.)

2) The agenda of the advocacy group coincided with another, more influential group's agenda.

3) The actual reason for the group's proposal being acted upon was more "political stunt" than "normal politics."

Love the false equivalence argument there too; It stems from over-application of boolean thinking. It makes several false assumptions, in the effort to disprove a point of contention. Those being: (YourArgument$="Politicians ONLY give time and resources to campaign financiers and corporate lobbyists"), and (Exception$="ACA was co-authored by a member of the Center for American Progress, an organisation that is neither of those, so YourArgument$ is false!" The reality is that YourArgument$= "Politicians STRONGLY FAVOR giving time and resources to campaign financiers and corporate lobbyists", which permits, and expects such exceptions turning up. Meaning, your argument doesn't prove anything other than your own inability to read.

All that is necessary for it (voting) to no longer be a viable method of reliably enacting change, is for the politicians to favor their financial interests sufficiently more than the interests of their constituency. This has been demonstrated by the cited research. Showing that it does not happen more frequently is what you need to prove. NOT that there are exceptions, no matter how exceptional they are. Proving the existence of exceptions only works with boolean properties. The cited problem is not a boolean property.

Try again. Show how the researchers misinterpreted 20 years worth of data, such that voting becomes a viable method of reliably getting political change.

For an example that I think you might better comprehend-- The lottery is not rigged. For every ticket you buy, you increase your odds of winning, which are never a zero percent probability as long as you have purchased at least one ticket. Pointing out how somebody won the lottery does not prove that buying lottery tickets is a good way to reliably make money.

A person stating "You wont win." is supported statistically. Sure, you MIGHT win-- but your odds of it happening are vanishingly small.

The people you are arguing against are saying "Voting wont get you the change you want." This is supported by the statistics presented by the research cited, as more often than not this is indeed the case. Just like the lottery, somebody has to win. In the case of politics, sometimes the underdog gets his way. It does not make either into reliable methodologies.

 

Re:Consent of the Governed

[Anonymous Coward]

nuclear launch codes, etc.

It's "00000000". Easy to remember, hard to guess randomly.

Re: Consent of the Governed

[cold fjord]

It's a pity you don't seem to be able to distinguish fact from fiction, form from substance, or even identify the important facts. But such is often the case on Slashdot where memes substitute for thinking, troublesome facts are ignored, and wishful thinking treated as facts. Not being able to distinguish between the USSR and the US? Pitiful.

Re:Consent of the Governed

[Anonymous Coward]

Skilling and Madoff...

Are a couple of monkeys.. They were replaced by other crooks and nothing has changed. Grow up your own damn self! And open your damn eyes. Unless you're some kind of shill for system as it is. The government is strictly the corporations' security division, nothing else. Put away your grade school social studies books and learn how the world really works!

Re:Consent of the Governed

[uninformedLuddite]

There are only two things that I stand for

1: The Queen
2: To Pee

Re: Consent of the Governed

[uninformedLuddite]

This is becoming a serious issue of demarcation. It is my job to be rude and obnoxious. Please kindly fuck off.

Re:Consent of the Governed

[Zontar The Mindless]

Wrong != stupid.

Re:Consent of the Governed

[Pablew Nopl]

In cold fjord land:
1) You have the right to be subjected to mass surveillance by your government. This is neither a violation of your rights nor a violation of the constitution.
2) You have the right to be molested at airports and anywhere else TSA thugs might want to harass people at. Again, magically not a violation of the 4th amendment or your rights.
3) It's perfectly okay for the government to ban drawings of children having sex, because society doesn't like that sort of thing. Not a free speech issue at all.
4) Free speech zones are a-okay. Not a violation of the first amendment as long as it's temporary. Have to give other people a chance to speak by violating some people's free speech rights.
5) The courts are always right, regardless of what the constitution says or what its spirit is.
6) Pretty much any policy or law that violates your privacy and the constitution is fine as long as it's done in the name of safety. Mass surveillance of public places, DUI checkpoints, etc.
7) Questioning any of this means that you want "license" and not 'real liberty.'

All these while he claims to want limited government. If that doesn't show that he's devoid of critical thinking skills and principles, I don't know what does.

Re:Consent of the Governed

[Zontar The Mindless]

I think it shows he's misguided.

Re:Consent of the Governed

[Pablew Nopl]

Given how misguided he is, I think there may be a serious issue with his brain.

Re: Consent of the Governed

[beastofburdon]

Any state which has the power to arrest you and detain you indefinitely without charge is a police state.
Any state which can assassinate you without being charged and convicted of a crime is a police state.

Guess what two powers our executive branch has claimed for themselves!

Re: Consent of the Governed

[beastofburdon]

Not at all true. You should read this, particulary "Overthrow of 1893" and "Annexation":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H...

TLDR: Rich Americans overthrew the monarchy in Hawaii then signed the treaty to annex it into the US.

Re:Consent of the Governed

[beastofburdon]

Yes, I was going to post this one if nobody else hadn't.
Americans see our history through rose colored glasses as they read a highly redacted version of it where all the parts that could be criticized are removed.

Re:Consent of the Governed

[Anonymous Coward]

Idiotic drivel 90+ % of people wanted something done about guns and nothing happened, changing who you vote for would make absolutely no difference to just about anything. Lobbyists and money run the country and not the voters anymore.

Re:Consent of the Governed

[cold fjord]

You're wrong. 90% of the people didn't want "something done about guns." That is drivel. Besides, even if they did, the 2nd Amendment provides an individual right that laws have to be consistent with or they are subject to being struck down as has been happening in a number of states and cities.

If you don't think Republicans and Democrats pursue different policies then you aren't paying attention. Even when they generally agree there are often significant differences in the details.

Let me know when you identify a member of Congress that was elected by $100 bills or just lobbyists. They still are elected the same old way: by voters.

Re: Consent of the Governed

[cold fjord]

If done in a purely civilian context during peace you have an argument. However it doesn't hold up during armed conflict. It is completely lawful and reasonable to either kill or capture and detail people fighting as part of the enemy in an armed conflict. The US happens to be in that state at present. The US is not a police state.

Re: Consent of the Governed

[beastofburdon]

So, would you like to enlighten me as to what country is currently invading the United States to justify assassination lists and indefinite detention?

The simple fact is that our country is the one who has invaded many countries in the middle east with absolutely no real justification for any of them.
They are not the terrorists, we are. Until you can admit this you are nothing more than a pathetic enabler.

Police legal authority

[currently_awake]

In the absence of a judicial order/warrant a police officer should have the same rights as any ordinary citizen, except when they see a crime being committed. If police can operate a stingray then anyone should be able to do so. If police can demand (and get) telephone records without cause then so should everyone else.

Re:Police legal authority

[saloomy]

If the police do not have a warrant, then you can refuse to give the police information. Like an individual can plead the 5th, and remain silent, short of a court order, so can a corporation. Verizon / AT&T do not have to hand over anything without a warrant or law saying they have to. But the question is, how much money do they get for cooperating? How much does the government spend on telecom services, and how much grant money is spent on the telecom industry? They are incentivized to cooperate.

Re:Police legal authority

[currently_awake]

If the police have in their possession the full telephone meta-data for all phone calls, then we should be able to get that with an access to information request. Since it's not part of an ongoing police investigation and there are no privacy considerations in meta-data.

Re:Police legal authority

[jonwil]

The issue here isn't that AT&T or Verizon are handing over data.
The police are basically using devices produced (without the cooperation of carriers in many cases) that essentially "man in the middle" cellular telephony signals to capture the information they want.

Re:Police legal authority

[saloomy]

I know, the stingray is essentially a hacking tool. That makes you think though, why on earth is there a large wireless network carrying sensitive data without TLS (transport layer security), or encryption between the modem on the phone, and the carrier? Either the contents are not sensitive, or the carriers / cell phone manufactures are complicit or worse.. incompetent.

Re:Police legal authority

[Anonymous Coward]

When GSM first came to the US, encryption worked everywhere except near DC. Around DC encryption was disabled. I experienced this personally.

The next generation, encryption was not supported anywhere.

No evidence, but my money is on good old uncle Sam putting pressure on the telcos.

Re:Police legal authority

[wiredlogic]

except when they see a crime being committed

Citizens already have the same powers as police when they see a crime being committed. That is to say that police officers have nothing special other than a presumed reliability when testifying in court.

Re:Police legal authority

[future assassin]

No no thats not how it works. When it comes to you asccesing you info its breach of privacy. SIlly citizen tricks are for kids...

Re:Police legal authority

[JWSmythe]

The way to make them was shown at Defcon years ago, and there is plenty of information online on how to make a femtocell.

You could make one and use it, but unless you're only intercepting your own phone, you'll likely get some unwelcome attention from law enforcement.

Re:Police legal authority

[sumdumass]

I agree with one exception....

The police should have less rights than an ordinary citizen when acting in their official capacity. Our rights guaranteed in the constitution are protections from government intrusions and the police are government plain and clear. The people however have more leeway in some matters that government is expressly prohibited in or limited unless certain hoops are cleared first.

Re:Police legal authority

[Marful]

Police also have qualified immunity. Which is the most important part that separates regular citizens and police from effecting arrests.

Re:Police legal authority

[AHuxley]

Re 'Either the contents are not sensitive"
Think back to the early cell standards. Who set them and why? Emerging cell networks had to be safer from random strangers but totally open in real time to govs and mil needs.
Cost, time and who works on the telco networks can also be important to local law enforcement officials.
Why risk a computer database entry or tracked code change in a national or global telco system? A number or location is now been tracked.
Who at the telco has seen or can track the local or national law enforcement sensitive database changes?
Local law enforcement officials become the telco connection in an area for a time and the only people who have full details on who is been tracked.
No courts, no requests to telco staff or vast databases, no lawyers later, media, FOIA for paper work at a city or state level. Just all the call data.

Re:Police legal authority

[meerling]

The fact that (onduty) police would rather throw away evidence gathered using Stingray that admit they used Stingray seems to heavily indicate that even the police don't believe that evidence gathered without a warrant through the use of Stingray can very well get them into legal trouble.
If you think I'm talking about the Stingray "evidence" being excluded, that obviously isn't it for two reasons. First, they themselves dropped it, which if that was the penalty they were worried about, it would be extremely self-defeating to do so. Second, they have a tendency to "throw it at the wall and see what sticks". If you don't understand that phrase, it means try everything you can get away with, and see what works and then go with that.

It is easy to infer from their secrecy and actions that they don't think what they are doing is legal. Of course, who's going to arrest them or slap their dirty hands because you know damn well it won't be the cops. I guess they just got some coal in their stocking now that one of judges has decided to break ranks and make this information available.

Re:Police legal authority

[Zxern]

And that's it exactly. The stingray is basically a wireless phone tap without the pesky need to go through the phone company to do it and therefore no need to goto a judge for a warrant or even an NSL letter.

Right now they can tap anyone they want whenever they want with no oversight whatsoever. They don't want this brought before a court as this would reveal their (probably illegal) parallel construction schemes. So it shouldn't be a surprise they'd rather throughout a case than have it brought up for review.

Re:Police legal authority

[bl968]

It's being kept such a secret because the government doesn't want you to know the police are running these devices for the NSA. I can bet you that they are getting copies of anything these things vacuum up.

That's the whole secret here the government has turned the powers of the NSA on the American people in the name of the war on drugs, and the war on crime by claiming they want to fight terrorism. People will give up freedom for that. They will fight tooth and nail the other two reasons. The NSA is providing information directly to local, state, and federal law enforcements on crimes committed by ordinary Americans.

Re:Police legal authority

[CrimsonAvenger]

a police officer should have the same rights as any ordinary citizen, except when they see a crime being committed.

Your sentence should have ended right after the word "citizen" if you really were talking about "rights".

Note that if you're talking about "powers" (something governments have instead of "rights"), I'm curious what "powers" you think a police officer should have when they see a crime being committed that you don't think an ordinary citizen should have.

Re:Police legal authority

[IamTheRealMike]

I know, the stingray is essentially a hacking tool. That makes you think though, why on earth is there a large wireless network carrying sensitive data without TLS (transport layer security), or encryption between the modem on the phone, and the carrier? Either the contents are not sensitive, or the carriers / cell phone manufactures are complicit or worse.. incompetent.

GSM dates to 1987. When it was created, the previous mobile telephony standard was analogue - you could listen in on calls just with a regular radio. There was a very small amount of digital signalling to the network, but the field of commercial crypto hardly existed back then and subscriber cloning/piracy was rampant. GSM introduced call encryption and authentication of the handset using (for the time) strong cryptographic techniques. It was very advanced. But it didn't involve authentication of the cell tower to the handset, partly for cost and complexity reasons and partly because a GSM base station involved enormous piles of very expensive, complex equipment that had to be sited and configured by trained engineers. The idea of a local police department owning a portable, unlicensed tower emulator was unthinkable, as the technology to do it didn't exist, and besides .... trust in institutions has fallen over time. Back then it probably didn't seem very likely police would do this because they could always just get a warrant or court order to turn over data instead.

When 3G was standardised, this flaw in the protocol was fixed. UMTS+ all require the tower to prove to the handset that it's actually owned by the network. Little is publicly known about how exactly Stingray devices work but it seems likely that it involves jamming 3G frequencies in the area to force handsets to fall back to GSM, which allows tower emulation.

The latest rumours are that the company that makes Stingrays has somehow found a way to build a version that works on 3G+ networks too called "Hailstorm", but it's dramatically more expensive and as mobile networks phase out GSM in the coming years police departments are having to pay large sums of money to upgrade. The whole thing is covered in enormous secrecy of course so it's unknown how Hailstorm devices are able to beat the tower authentication protocol. Presumably the device is either exploiting baseband bugs, or is using stolen/hacked/court-order extracted network keys, or it was built in cooperation with the mobile networks, or there are cryptographic weaknesses in the protocols themselves.

Re:Police legal authority

[DexterIsADog]

It's being kept such a secret because the government doesn't want you to know the police are running these devices for the NSA. I can bet you that they are getting copies of anything these things vacuum up.

This is unnecessary paranoia. I'm sure you can bet police are sending copies of the data to the NSA, but I'm also sure you'd also wave goodbye to your money.

The police and the NSA have different agendas, and are unlikely to be interested in the same targets. The amount of overlap is probably so small that they just don't bother to ask. Your assumption that the police simply send everything they get to the NSA is tinfoil-hat territory. It would take too much effort to incorporate it into what the NSA is *actually* monitoring.

Re:Police legal authority

[Anonymous Coward]

It's the other way around. We already know the NSA has sent some information to local police.

Re:Police legal authority

[Anonymous Coward]

The police and the NSA have different agendas...

Not really; ultimately they have the same agenda as all bureaucracies have, to expand their power and obtain more money.

Re:Police legal authority

[AHuxley]

The only trick is getting local state and city officials to upgrade for 4G LTE without paperwork showing to local media or a FIOA request.
Cities scramble to upgrade “stingray” tracking as end of 2G network looms (Sept 2 2014)
http://arstechnica.com/tech-po...

Re:Police legal authority

[RockDoctor]

If technical standards (in this case, for GSM) mean anything, then you should be able to design and implement such a pseudo-tower from the documentation. GETTING the documentation, on the other hand, may be expensive : many standards are actually quite expensive to purchase, and many are also particularly encumbered with patent rights too. But these [should be | are] implementation issues which should be resolvable.

So in theory, you ought to be able to work out the maximal capabilities of such a device from the documentation. But then deciding what features are actually of interest to $ThreeLetterAgency$ is a separate question. I would be entirely un-surprised to find that the manufacturers of such equipment have a modular design to allow implementation of different capabilities at different price points, and also to allow the implementation of capabilities which are illegal in some countries, in equipment destined for other countries. Since GSM is used in both Sweden and Saudi Arabia, a company manufacturing this interception equipment in Sweden may not be able to sell equipment for some functions in Sweden, but shouldn't face any significant encumbrance selling much more invasive capabilities to a Saudi $ThreeLetterAgency$.

Indeed, it seems that the OpenBTS project is getting a long way down the line towards doing this sort of work. The tricky thing would seem to be getting the permission to run the radio transmitters. And if you're willing to break the law, or you "Am The Law" (quoth Judge Dredd, but please, not the Stallone pooftah). that's not much of a technical problem.

Crikey That's a Lot of Rays!

[Anonymous Coward]

https://imgur.com/gallery/fqsr...
https://imgur.com/gallery/2hxN...

What I really want to know is...

[frikken lazerz]

If they will reveal which one killed Steve Irwin.

In Soviet America...

[Anonymous Coward]

In United Russia, you track down cell phone...

In Soviet America, cell phone track you down.

--sf

What a name

[Anonymous Coward]

The Charlotte Observer and its news partner, WBTV, filed a petition last month in Superior Court to unseal Mecklenburg County records dating to 2006. Senior Resident Judge Richard Boner this week ordered the records unsealed.

Senior Resident Judge Dick Boner.

Troy Tempest

[rossdee]

and his copilot "Phones" of the W.A.S.P.

punishing Dice with griefer bots?

[globaljustin]

these extreme trolls are complex enough that they might mean something

i wonder what organization (and their PR wing) would be pissed that Slashdot published this story

it could be that if they can't keep it from being published then they systematically subvert it by putting racist/homophobic stuff as first post to make it obnoixious

in other words, sockpuppet griefers

Re:punishing Dice with griefer bots?

[DexterIsADog]

these extreme trolls are complex enough that they might mean something

i wonder what organization (and their PR wing) would be pissed that Slashdot published this story

it could be that if they can't keep it from being published then they systematically subvert it by putting racist/homophobic stuff as first post to make it obnoixious

in other words, sockpuppet griefers

Ah, thank goodness the core /. membership hasn't abandoned the site.

Why recognize that some people just like being assholes, when you can posit another paranoid conspiracy? Really, the conspiracies are more fun.

Sting Ray?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wasn' that the Cor'Vette 4 door model back from 1970?

Re: Gay Wigger Association of DICE

[Anonymous Coward]

Nah, you'll probably find most of them at www.apple.com

NDAs

[NormalVisual]

Regarding the NDAs that have been signed with Harris and the government not to disclose information regarding the Stingray devices - I was under the impression that a civil contract could not override state or federal law, and any such clauses requiring such are non-enforceable. These judges need to be finding every single one of the officers and prosecutors in contempt when they present "but we're under an NDA" as an argument in a court of law.

Re:NDAs

[Shadow of Eternity]

Yes, and torturing people is a war crime. Good luck getting either enforced.

Re:NDAs

[Anonymous Coward]

That is why the U.S.A. has not declared any war in 50 years, so they can play word games and get around the geneva convention.
The only wars that the U.S.A has been declaring are against concepts: war, terrorist, etc.

Re:NDAs

[thegarbz]

Bah water boarding is not torture. It's more of a kind gesture to entire people to hand over sensitive information. The vice president told me so.

Re:NDAs

[Anonymous Coward]

In the case of waterboarding not being torture, the judge won't have a problem waterboarding police officers until they reveal the pertinent information about the Stingray device.

Re:NDAs

[Zontar The Mindless]

That is why the U.S.A. has not declared any war in 50 years, so they can play word games and get around the geneva convention.
The only wars that the U.S.A has been declaring are against concepts: war, terrorist, etc.

See? The dangers from ACs trying to spread pernicious truths such as these is exactly why we need everyone's communications tapped at all times!

Re: Gay Wigger Association of DICE

[Anonymous Coward]

The gay ones, at least. No idea where you'd find the wiggers.

Living in Soviet USA

[Bar666Bar]

Poor people who have to live in countries like Russia, USA or North Korea. They don't know what is "freedom" anymore.
Government makes decision for them, poor chaps just need to bend over and take it in the asssssss

Re:Living in Soviet USA

[serviscope_minor]

There are many, many things wrong with the USA, but comparing it to Russia never mind North Korea is just plain stupid.

Re:Living in Soviet USA

[Anonymous Coward]

USA is closer to Russia like never before. Many multi-million properties across the country, companies, voting stock are owned by Russians. Russian and American oligarchs attended the same prestigious schools in Boston or Switzerland. They spend vacation together and their kids are best friends. Not to mention "old" US families very close to high level of government who are friends with Saudis going back for decades. Many decisions regarding business in USA are made during stays in private resorts.
Do you think they care about people in Smallville USA? Russia or USA, what difference does it make? It is just another place to squeeze profit from.

Re:Living in Soviet USA

[Pablew Nopl]

Rather, a result like North Korea and Russia are possible if we do not get our government to start following the constitution and respecting our fundamental liberties.

Personally, I don't understand why all these pro-mass surveillance people don't just move to North Korea. It already has all that they want, or what they'll eventually get if they keep pushing their hardcore authoritarian agendas.

Re:Living in Soviet USA

[uninformedLuddite]

You actually think that you have more freedom in the USA than the average person in Russia? That's priceless.

Re: Gay Wigger Association of DICE

[Anonymous Coward]

www.worldstarhiphop.com

Justice is hardly blind

[Anonymous Coward]

They just want you to look the other way....

Never trust a cop. It's their job to make you suffer.

Re: Gay Wigger Association of DICE

[Anonymous Coward]

It's good to see slashdot core returning.

The Best and the Greatest

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, say can you see by the dawn's early light
What so proudly we hailed at the twilight's last gleaming?
Whose broad stripes and bright stars thru the perilous fight,
O'er the ramparts we watched were so gallantly streaming?
And the rocket's red glare, the bombs bursting in air,
Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there.
Oh, say does that star-spangled banner yet wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?

On the shore, dimly seen through the mists of the deep,
Where the foe's haughty host in dread silence reposes,
What is that which the breeze, o'er the towering steep,
As it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses?
Now it catches the gleam of the morning's first beam,
In full glory reflected now shines in the stream:
'Tis the star-spangled banner! Oh long may it wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

And where is that band who so vauntingly swore
That the havoc of war and the battle's confusion,
A home and a country should leave us no more!
Their blood has washed out their foul footsteps' pollution.
No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight, or the gloom of the grave:
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

Oh! thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand
Between their loved home and the war's desolation!
Blest with victory and peace, may the heav'n rescued land
Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation.
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: "In God is our trust."
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

Re:The Best and the Greatest

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sorry, baby, it's just not the same if you don't wear your bold and emphasis tags...

Dear Judges,

[brxndxn]

Clandestine agencies in the US have circumvented all pillars of free and open government in order to slice off your balls, and tell you that you do not need to look down when you notice the pain. Please act with urgency while there are still means to sew them back. It is your duty to push back. No matter what maze-like justification is used to create a framework that undermines the foundation of our country; it is never justified nor does it serve to create justice. Stingray breaks the law just by existing.\

Re:Dear Judges,

[Kariles70]

Here is an idea. Lets give the government even more power than before. That will show them! And lets always vote the party of big government because they say they want to give us freebies all the time!

When you give up your rights, no matter how seemingly insignificant they may seem at the time or for whatever good reason they have to justify it, you will not get them back. Most people sleepwalk through that thinking their government is their friend. Thousands of years of history have shown otherwise. Stingray should not exist. But since its as unconstitutional as the social security system is now, some Gilligan out there will ask "but what would we replace it with". I'm sure they'll also say Stingray is "for the children" like they claimed that law enforcement not being able to intercept iphone6 encrypted data would support pedophiles.

Re:Dear Judges,

[Pablew Nopl]

And lets always vote the party of big government because they say they want to give us freebies all the time!

"the party is big government" is The One Party, which is actually just the Republican and Democrat parties. Surely you aren't under the illusion that there are truly meaningful differences between the two? The One Party has been taking away our fundamental liberties in the name of safety for a long time; there is consensus between the 'two' fake parties. They just distract people with issues like welfare, abortion, the economy, and same sex marriage and pretend that that's all there is.

The only people you should vote for are people not affiliated with The One Party and who care about freedom and the constitution.

Re:Dear Judges,

[Anonymous Coward]

Everybody treats government like it's some kind of monolith. It's not. There are certain parts of it that are entirely at odds with a free society, and right now law enforcement is seriously one of them. So is the management of the military that does corporate bidding and protects corporate assets. Please note that these are the two kinds of government that conservatives always seem to support expanding as long as they attack poor people. Now that it includes more than that, all of the sudden it's a problem when it's been a problem all along. The parts of the government that function to guarantee freedom or economic opportunity are always the targets of the "small government" crowd even when they get into power. They have never cut military spending as it pertains to corporate welfare with unneeded weapons systems or corporate welfare as it pertains to guarding and acquiring their overseas assets, or law enforcement and it's time for both to be slashed seriously.

Unfortunately...especially with law enforcement, if you start to cut it and don't micromanage what gets cut, the people in charge will start cutting services that actually benefit citizens first because fuck them. It's their way of ensuring their budgets never get cut.

Meanwhile, what gets ignored here is that we have a private company which has a product the sole purpose of which is to violate peoples' rights, and which is not being held accountable either legally or by reputation and public opinion. Legally is a bit of a stretch in the US. I mean, I could go to jail for even discussing the possibility of committing a crime with you even if nothing happens, and yet the notion of having laws that hold corporations accountable for their behaviors is just such an alien idea to a disturbingly large portion of our population, plus an unbelievable majority of our lawmakers.

Re:Dear Judges,

[dryeo]

My country has a small government type conservative government, the only thing they believe government should be doing is spying on the citizens and locking them up for thought crimes (and other victimless crimes). Those parts that do things like make sure our food is safe to eat or make sure the railroads are run good enough that towns don't get destroyed by trains rolling into town and exploding, well they get rid of that part of government.
I'd rather have a large government that is interested in civil rights then a small government that is only interested in repressing the citizens. Others are the opposite and prefer a government that only represses the common man.

TWO jobs??

[Anonymous Coward]

Most people in the USA are lucky if they can even get a job, period.

Finally...

[Anonymous Coward]

Justice for Steve Irwin.

Are these cell emulators licensed by the FCC?

[fleebait]

If a device is used on the airwaves in the cell phone bands to emulate a tower, then necessarily, it will have to have a transmitter. Is the device type registered by the FCC, does each emulator have a site license? Does each operator have a license to operate the device?

If it is a "cell phone test device" then it must be associated with a properly licensed technician.

The legal requirements to simply operate the device include much more than the rights of the person of interest. For that reason alone, the concealment of the use of the device would be reason enough to throw out any information obtained from it, even before any case law is considered.

IANAL, but I have had 6 different FCC licenses, and have had to jump through many hoops. (I think only 3 are current now).

Re:Are these cell emulators licensed by the FCC?

[BlueStrat]

If a device is used on the airwaves in the cell phone bands to emulate a tower, then necessarily, it will have to have a transmitter. Is the device type registered by the FCC, does each emulator have a site license? Does each operator have a license to operate the device?

If it is a "cell phone test device" then it must be associated with a properly licensed technician.

The legal requirements to simply operate the device include much more than the rights of the person of interest. For that reason alone, the concealment of the use of the device would be reason enough to throw out any information obtained from it, even before any case law is considered.

IANAL, but I have had 6 different FCC licenses, and have had to jump through many hoops. (I think only 3 are current now).

The FCC is an Executive Branch agency, the same as the NSA, DoJ, etc.

If any bright-boy at the FCC *did* bring up the legal status concerning use of Stingrays FCC-regulation-wise, he'd be told to shut up, and also quite likely put on a surveillance list as a possible security/leak threat. "The most transparent administration in history" is extremely aggressive about stomping on whistelblowers and their families with government jackboots.

Strat

Can cell towers/protocols find & blacklist the

[swb]

Is it possible for the existing cell network/protocols to identify "unknown" towers -- ie, those that appear in the spectrum but aren't known to be legitimate cell towers and somehow blacklist them to limit their functionality?

Do cell towers have a way of communicating to handsets which towers should be avoided or not used?

Cell Phone Interceptor - link to sales page

[eric31415927]

These have been around for years.
Police departments can buy one from:
http://www.meganet.com/meganet...

Human Body Cells?

[AndyCanfield]

I spent an hour trying to figure out what this posting meant. Wikipedia lists lots of meanings for "stringray" but none having anything to do with human body cells. And why would a policeman want to simulate the location of my human body cells? Stimulate, with a T, perhaps, painful like a stingray, but not smulate.

The missing keyword was "phone". I live in Thailand. They're not called "cell phones" over here, they're called "mobile phones". If anyone posts an article about (US cell) phones, I hope they throw in the word "phone" somewhere so that we over here can comprehend it.

Thanks.

Re:Human Body Cells?

[Anonymous Coward]

Stingray, the fake cell phone tower cops and carriers use to ...

This is the 8th hit on a Google lookup on the word "stingray". This is (in theory, at least), a tech site. You're telling us it didn't occur to you to look for something having to do with "stingray" and tech of some sort?

In addition, the linked Ars Technica article has this:

According to the Observer, which did not publish the records in full, but summarized some of them, the “CMPD sought permission to use cellphone surveillance more than 500 times since 2010, or about twice a weekDocuments and interviews suggest judges rarely, if ever, denied authorization requested by CMPD to use equipment that can intercept cellphone information from criminal suspects and innocent people alike.

In any case, now you know: Americans call mobile phones "cell phones".

Go forth now, my son! And spread your hard-won knowledge amongst those less fortunate and diligent than thou. :)

Re:Human Body Cells?

[MoarSauce123]

In Germany a mobile phone is called "Handy".

Seized Stingray

[Anonymous Coward]

I am actually surprised a StingRay device hasn't been seized by activists yet. Get a cell package up, roam around, triangulate sources, and grab one. You know all those police cars parked randomly around town in bank and convenience store parking lots? What do you think are in their trunks, magic cookies? I am confident most criminal organizations with a lick of sense have likely already done this, it's simply the bottom feeder criminals and law abiding citizens that still have to worry about this oppressive surveillance.

Re:Seized Stingray

[Anonymous Coward]

In my medium sized CA city, deep in the heart of the Emerald Triangle, a single engine airplane makes a daily flight. Not so mysteriously, good cell phone reception can be had when that plane is flying nearby.

Re:Seized Stingray

[PPH]

Are you referring to the Stingray brand cell site simulator (made by Harris)? Or just a generic cell site simulator? Because a lot of companies make these and some are more easily available to the public (through gray channels) than others.

Tower Authentication ?

[nehumanuscrede]

I know squat about cellular, but I'm guessing some sort of authentication system is in place to allow mobile units from a particular carrier to connect to a tower from the same carrier and only those towers ? ( ignoring roaming for the moment )

Would it be possible to ' fingerprint ' all of the carriers towers and push that information to a database kept on the phone ? I wouldn't think such a database would be all that big considering any given carrier has a few thousand towers at best. During the handshake process, the phone would query tower info and run it through some sort of hash algorithm and if it doesn't match, it doesn't connect. Or at the very least, it tells you it doesn't match.

Potential issues would then be roaming status on your phone and the Government, under the guise of terrorism and protecting the children clauses, getting the carriers to add tower authentication signatures for their double-naught-spy systems.

Re:Tower Authentication ?

[Anonymous Coward]

it's already there:

http://opencellid.org/

Re: Gay Wigger Association of DICE

[Anonymous Coward]

"There and Back Again"

FTFY

[CaptainDork]

Use Google to search for the word, "trolling."

Download?

[Runaway1956]

I'm looking for the download. No, I don't expect the software to be made available, although that would be cool. I just want to view those records that have been unsealed.

Re:welcome to slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

You're a 6-digit uid noob yourself. You've never been to the slashdot that was worth reading either.

Re:welcome to slashdot

[globaljustin]

almost 10 years isn't a 'noob' on any internet forum

Re:Can cell towers/protocols find & blacklist

[AHuxley]

Phone Firewall Identifies Rogue Cell Towers Trying to Intercept Your Calls (09.03.14)
http://www.wired.com/2014/09/c...
Will the next generation of rogue cell tower have the ability to be another normal cell tower?

Re:welcome to slashdot

[zieroh]

You're a 6-digit uid noob yourself. You've never been to the slashdot that was worth reading either.

Says the anonymous coward.

I am sure the judge knew very well

[MoarSauce123]

There are still some judges left that use common sense and reject to become tools for orvellian spy programs.

A matter of time

[Anonymous Coward]

Its only a matter of time before the technical and operational spec's of STINGRAY are released. Once this happens countermeasures to the system will be developed and render it useless. Big brother gets another poke in the eye, and with point to point encryption now being implemented on cell phones, (DOJ) is already pissed off on this, these technology updates will render the STINGRAY useless.

Codes for Mitsubishi Diagem

[uninformedLuddite]

Does anyone remember the code that turned the Misubishi Diagem into a cell phone scanner? It's been a long time and I cannot remember.

Re:welcome to slashdot

[DexterIsADog]

I think the first /. uid I abandoned was 5 digit.

But that's not the point. The point is you said something reeeaaallly stupid, and I made fun of you.

Deal with it.