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.
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.
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.