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.

Comments

Default Government Stance

[Archangel Michael]

The default government stance is that these things are legal, until proven illegal (challenged in court).

This default stance clearly indicates that our government is against its people. We live in a police state.

Re:Default Government Stance

[JDAustin]

How's that hope and change working out?

Re:Default Government Stance

[ihtoit]

how about the right to privacy in communication and freedom from unlawful* interference in personal, family and associative affairs as guaranteed by not only the US Constitution but also the UN Declaration of Human Rights?

*for a metric, read: "any activity which does not meet standards of the Statute Law, or moral or societal standards of behaviour"

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.

Re:Default Government Stance

[Anonymous Coward]

About as well as trickle-down economics.

Re:Default Government Stance

[Runaway1956]

Better? How, exactly?

When do we, the peasants, begin to understand that we serve two masters. One master offers us a shit sandwich, so we turn to the other in hopes of a better shit sandwich. At the end of the day, the smartest among the peasants figure out that both masters are shoveling shit from the same damned pile.

Tell me more about this republican misrule. Perhaps you refer to DHS, and TSA? Or, do you refer to totally meaningless immigration policies that no one enforces? Maybe you're concerned with NSA and it's siblings from the Five Eyes spying on everyone? Maybe you're upset about the totally screwed up tax structure? Go ahead - tell us exactly WHAT the republicans were doing wrong.

Once you've done that - tell me how we are one iota better off today with the democrat in the White House.

Only chumps and fools defend either party. Republicans and Democrats are an inbred family, sleeping together for the past three generations.

"infinitely better", huh? Go ahead, and tell us HOW it is better.

Re:Default Government Stance

[Anonymous Coward]

Both of you, stop pretending there's some difference between the parties. Neither party can apparently confront the banking industry. And the industry donates equally to both.

It's pretty clear who's running the show.

Re:Default Government Stance

[Holi]

Well the Supreme Court would be very different for 1. Actually that may be the most important. If we had had a Republican president we certainly would not have Sotamayor and Kagen. That in itself is a huge thing that will have repercussions far beyond Obama's presidency.

Re:Default Government Stance

[ebyrob]

What part of "Congress shall make no law..." don't you understand? That these "federal laws" are even on the books is just proof of how far we've strayed from constitutional government. That everything nowadays is just wedged under the "commerce clause" is the tip of the Hindenburg.

Re:Default Government Stance

[xanthines-R-yummy]

Obligatory....

Kodos: It's true, we are aliens. But what are you going to do about it? It's a two-party system. You have to vote for one of us.
Man 1: He's right, this is a two-party system.
Man 2: Well I believe I'll vote for a third-party candidate.
Kang: Go ahead, throw your vote away.

Re:Default Government Stance

[AK Marc]

Anyone who demands citations for "Voodoo Economics" should be 12 or under. Despite Bush deriding it, he practiced it, along with his son. We've had it for many years, and the result is that it harms the economy. Increasing the minimum wage increases the number of jobs. Increasing the pay spread between the lowest paid and highest paid people in a company (expecting some trickle-down), has been shown to decrease jobs.

But citations don't work. No true scotsman is the standard response, and then the rhetorical games begin that end with the true statement that "Tobacco has never been proven to cause cancer." We only have a correlation that smoking causes cancer, and there's never been a "pure" study done on it (mainly because of ethical issues, but also some practical issues). So someone could still claim that smoking doesn't cause cancer, and you can't prove them wrong. Voodoo Economics is in the same camp. It's been shown wrong many times, but can't be "proven" wrong in a purely scientific method because the supporters of it wander off into Rhetorical Games territory.

Re:Default Government Stance

[spire3661]

And in practice, we see how horrible this is. Citizens have to speak with their OWN voice, not use a profitable corporations as amplification for their voice.

Re:Default Government Stance

[Runaway1956]

Health insurance. I'm paying considerably MORE for my health insurance than I did in years past. All the suckers who THINK that they are paying for their new health insurance are deluded - they can only get that insurance with the aid of SUBSIDIES. How long do you think the subsidies are going to last?

Read Pieroxy's comment below. France's version of Obolacare is bankrupt - and so are all the other versions of Obolacare around the world.

Queer people marry? Nope. It doesn't happen. You can have a legal fiction built in the image of marriage, but queers can't marry. And - you're going to give CREDIT TO OBAMA FOR THAT???? Utter nonsense. Activist judges around the nation deserve the blame for that. They have been moving forward with this agenda for the past twenty years.

Which party do I prefer? I PREFER conservatism. Neither party offers that though. I've become more and more libertarian over the years, largely because both major parties are utter failures, and both have betrayed the American people.

Yes, they are identical.

Oh - you believe that ages old tripe about Republicans being warmongers, while Dems avoid wars? That nonsense was laid to rest long ago. Remember Johnson? That rat bastard set up a false flag operation and got some Americans killed to make propaganda to get us into VietNam.

Lay aside your worn out stereotypes about the parties. Your democrats promote that nonsense, and laugh at you for believing it!

Re:Default Government Stance

[Marful]

The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act makes it a federal crime to unlawfully access any computer device that is used by an financial institution, government institution or a private computer that is used for interstate commerce or communication.

This already covers cell phones as they are 1.) Computers, 2.) Used for interstate communication and 3.) Used for interstate commerce.

Given that the Stingray Devices operate by performing a "Man in the Middle" style attack by masquerading as a legitimate cell tower and thereby intercepting cellular data from all users in the vicinity of the Stingray Device (regardless of whether they are the target or not), and part of the cellular data transfer requires (non-secure) authentication (identifying carrier, ID, etc), I fail to see how use of a Stingray Device is legal even via a warrant.

First, the basic nature of the Stingray Device requires a violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act to operate (connect to the cell phone and send/receive data). Combine this with how the Stingray Device cannot operate in such a fashion that it targets a single individual; it intercepts ALL communications in it's area. This device is the epitome of unconstitutional. It cannot even be operated legally with a warrant because it can't narrow it's target to a single individual and thus runs afoul of the 4th Amendment (in addition to 18 U.S. Code 1030).

"Feds admit, they probably belong in prison"

[TheCarp]

That is how I read these story headlines. Exactly how I read them, a fact which has been obvious since the whole fiasco with NDA agreements came out. They know they are not respecting people's rights, they KNOW what they are doing would not withstand an hour of public scrutiny.

In short, the federal government is harboring criminals who belong in prison, and is currently helping protect them and pay them to commit more crimes rather than admit the truth.

Re:Collateral Damage

[geekmux]

Not only does a Stingray impair other network user's experiences', but it tracks their usage along with the target's. There is evidence that various law enforcement agencies along with the federal government are actively taking steps to conceal the details of their use of this device from public scrutiny. The government needs to be open with their use of this device and others like it in order to prevent abuse, and to preserve American citizens' Constitutional rights.

Nice history lesson there. I do appreciate at least being reminded of what the government used to give a shit about.

As for today, you've got to be fucking kidding me if they'll ever admit to this level of illegality.

If and when they ever do, it will be right after they pass laws to make all of activity legal.

Don't worry. Apathy will ensure those laws pass too.