Slashdot Mirror
Feds Admit Stingray Can Disrupt Bystanders' Communications
linuxwrangler writes The government has fought hard to keep details about use and effects of the controversial Stingray device secret. But this Wired article points to recently released documents in which the government admits that the device can cause collateral damage to other network users. The controversy has heated to the point that Florida senator Bill Nelson has made statements that such devices will inevitably force lawmakers to come up with new ways to protect privacy — a comment that is remarkable considering that the Stingray is produced by Harris Corporation which is headquartered in Nelson's home state.
Use of a stingray then arguably becomes a violation of 47 U.S.C. Section 333, prohibiting the causing of interference with radio communications.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/U...
https://www.fcc.gov/encycloped...
Also consider the fact that the Constitution ofthe United States specifically limits the function of Government to that which is SPECIFICALLY ALLOWED by Law; any activity which is NOT specifically legislated for is in fact ILLEGAL for Government to carry out. As always, the Constitution wins out absent an Amendment, ergo warrantless wiretapping or active unlawful interference in communications is unconstitutional hence ILLEGAL.
The FBI's activities are specifically authorized by a host of laws. That you didn't bother to learn about them doesn't invalidate their existence.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
28 U.S. Code 534(a)(1), 47 CFR 2.701(b), and 47 CFR 15.9, to start.
Of course, let's not forget 47 CFR 15.15(c), which effectively says that interference is unavoidable and should be minimized, and when considered along with 47 CFR 15.5(c), you'll have a hard time convincing a judge (which is really what matters, legally) that the FBI's actions were actually illegal, unless the FCC has told them to stop. Good luck getting that to happen.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
But it only fair to point out that the Supreme Court Justices who voted to grant citizenship rights to corporations (whose interest are, more often than not, quite apart from those of real citizens) were appointed by Republican presidents.
You referring to Citizen's United here? Try this:
In 1819, the members of SCOTUS and the party of the President that appointed them were:
Now, you might try to claim that four of the seven were "Democratic-Republicans", but keep in mind that they were appointed by Thomas Jefferson, and the other three by James Madison (the Federalist). Both were pretty familiar with both the intent and the language of the Constitution, so they undoubtedly appointed people who held the same knowledge and views.
By the way, many of the people who make up a corporation are "real citizens", as real as you are, and certainly all of them who formed Citizen's United were "real citizens," with all the rights you claim for yourself.
Not very well I must admit. But it only fair to point out that the Supreme Court Justices who voted to grant citizenship rights to corporations (whose interest are, more often than not, quite apart from those of real citizens) were appointed by Republican presidents.
True, if you're including Grant, Hayes, Arthur, etc. as Republicans (which they were, although the Republican party of the 1880s is a bit different than that of today). Also, you'd need to include Democratic-Republican Presidents like Madison and Monroe on that list.
Corporate personhood is NOT a new phenomenon - it's been a well-established principle since (for varying purposes) the 1880s or the 1810s.
on 28 U.S. Code 534(a)(1): the only two Authorities for such action are judicial administration and national defense. Unless the United States Government has declared war on its own citizens (it hasn't as far as the White House still being vertical evidences), then neither Authority can be invoked since the activity is also warrantless and proactive.
On 47 CFR 2.701(b), and 47 CFR 15.9: this requires LAWFUL AUTHORITY (ie a WARRANT from a JUDGE), which requires JUST CAUSE.
Stingray is in direct violation of 47 CFR 15.15(c) *by design*, therefore its use would be illegal even if all other conditions were met. For "authorised users of the radio frequency spectrum", read: "ANYBODY WHO USES A CELLPHONE!"
See, I *can* read.
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
More people can get health insurance, and fewer Americans are dying in wars, than under the previous administration. Also, more and more queer people can get married and enjoy the various legal benefits of that.
You can condemn both parties (although you carefully don't say what you'd actually prefer, and whether a majority of the country would agree with you) without saying they're both completely identical. They're not, and only fools think they are.
About as well as trickle-down economics.
.. the trickle-down economics, which you seem to deride without any clear reasons or citations.
Trickle-down economics is essentially saying let's dump all the money up top, and the overflow, like an overflowing bucket, will reach all the people down below the top. The problem with trickle down economics is that neither the top nor the bucket are fixed sizes, and thus shrinking the top's numbers and increasing the size meant less for everyone else. This is what occurred in reality, and can be easily seen in the consolidation of wealth in the upper 0.5 - 1% at levels not seen since the 1940s. It should be noted that the major dip from the 40s through the 2000s also matched a huge growth in total wealth, but as that increase in overall wealth growth has slowed, the top 1% is gathering it back quickly, impoverishing everyone else.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.