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

[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

[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

[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.

"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.