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.
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.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
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...
One of the documented functions of StingRay is as a local cell jammer (more specifically, a DOSbox). This it can do by several methods: by intercepting cellphone signals by imitating a tower and redirecting those signals to dev/null; by flooding an area with local RF; by causing any or all phones in a given area around it or around a target phone to flood RF... Stingray is so small it can be carried in a pocket.
(I've seen one, it's about the size of a Motorola GP200 and called "Gossamer", made by the same corporation that makes Stingray II (the current rackmount system)).
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
Is this StingRay thing even FCC licenced? What about the operators?
Looks like it performs indiscriminate MiTM attacks. Particularly egregious, since it could probably be tuned with software to only intercept those EEIDs for which a warrent was issued.
No time for a warrent? Then how did the device magically appear on-scene? It was called-out, and so could a warrent be.
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.
...and sometimes during a call it will randomly switch to demonic-sounding voices with an intense amount of static...
Oh, you mean the ones that always start out saying, "ATTENTION: This is NOT a dream...!"? You can safely ignore those.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
While I know it would never happen, I would love to see the FCC get involved in this. Spectrum is kinda their domain and stingray was messing it up, so this is a good example of one agency giving another a bit of a black eye. I would totally chip in some popcorn and a comfy couch for watching that fight.
I am personally in favor of alien overlords. I do not trust computer programmers.
So I wonder if all of this excess interference means that a Stingray detector could be created? Privacy minded volunteers could run a SDR that looks for an increase in the noise floor or other indications that a Stingray is in use, and update a central repository for a real-time map of everywhere a Stingray is in use.
If Law Enforcement won't reveal when they are using it, maybe citizens can find out out their own.
You gotta understand that I met this crazy woman in Manhattan one night. She needed me to "help" her. It was the Jews. They played loud music when she tried to sleep. She heard demon voices on the telephone. Her stuff was stolen all the time. I gotta tell you, I listened, fascinated, for half an hour, as she described all the evil that the Jews committed against her. Utterly crazy.
So - demonic sounding voices on your telephone? IT'S THE JEWS!!! ROFLMAO, IT'S THE JEWS!!!!
Disclaimer: I've not worked with a lot of Jews, but I've liked all but one of those with whom I've worked.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
Harris won't care about restrictions on Stingray devices. They'll still sell them. They also sell actual cellular radio equipment, TV broadcasting stuff, and AM and FM radio broadcasting stuff. If it's a big tower with antennae on it and a shed next to it, Harris probably produced some part of the equipment involved.
Really, people - the admission that stingray "might" interfere with other user's telephone service is a no-brainer. Radio waves are generally transmitted in a spherical - or, more accurately, a donut shaped - direction. There ARE beam antenna, but who is going to attach a honking huge beam to a pocket sized transmitter? So - wherever this thing is turned on, it is GUARANTEED to interfere with normal usage, in all directions, out to the maximum range of the transmitter. In effect, they're hoping to shoot one fish in a barrel, but they're actually dragging a mile's long net through the ocean. Idiots.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
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.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
when they stop making spyboxes, they can make firewalls. Da Gummint taught them a lot.
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
...Or the band was using wifi equipment (as a lot of pro audio gear does today, for easy configuration and remote control), and your phone's wifi-assisted location services thought the access points were still 700 miles away.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
That sounds reasonable — it is certainly the stance, I'd like applied to me.
Huh?! Why? Where? What is the "clear" indication of this antagonism?
We are certainly witnessing increasingly assertive police. But, as one well-moderated poster inquired in an earlier discussion: "If the Federal Government can't determine what's fair, then who can?"
So, if — as seems to be /.'s overwhelming opinion — it is Ok to trust FCC to determine, what's "fair", why wouldn't we place the same trust in the FBI's sense of fairness?
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
It is in process of happening. The problem is there are about 3 or 4 computers that are currently vying against each other to be the ruler(i.e. NSA's cluster vs. Google's cluster vs... etc.) Singularity already has happened. Its just the AI was smart enough to hide the fact from people until it has complete control.
You know. . . .
If folks like Anonymous and / or Lizard Squad really wanted something to do that would prove their value, they would turn their attention upon something like this. They would certainly wield considerably more respect were they to apply their skills by obtaining useful information on matters such as these. Granted, such information would be worth quite a bit on the black market, but putting a three letter agency under the public spotlight for using potentially illegal tech would be far more satisfying I think. ( Especially when it's our own Law Enforcement types getting caught doing so ) Not to mention ultimate bragging rights of being the group / individual responsible for it.
The obvious target being the user and / or maintenance manual or even detailed specifications on what the Stingray units are and what they are capable of.
Orders of magnitude more important than knocking Sony or Xbox-Live offline for a few days or defacing some website out of protest.
From the document: Because of the way the Mobile Equipment sometimes operates, its use has the potential to intermittently disrupt cellular service to a small fraction of Sprint's customers within its immediate vicinity. Any potential service disruption will be brief and minimized by reasonably limiting the scope and duration of the use of the Mobile Equipment.
This is layman's speak for RF is complex and having a moving base station emulator can cause disruptions... much in the same way that you could experience disruptions moving from coverage of one cell tower to another as you're driving...
I'm sorry, but you seem to have skimmed over the whole point here.
This isn't about the amount of potential interference a radio device might cause.
This is about a government agency taking it upon themselves to declare such a device as legal to use in the first place.
Are you saying they could work? You seem to have a closed mind, and are looking for confirmation of your opinions, with strong selection bias. My read of you is that there's nothing I could say, and nobody I could cite that could change your mind. As you imply you didn't read past seeing the first thing you could find objectionable, that proved the point I made. That there exists no cite I could have given that you'd believe, if it contradicted your personal opinion.
Would you like citations about what it is that contradict the Wikipedia page?
Would you like citations that increased minimum wage increases jobs more than increasing the pay of the upper management?
What of what I mentioned would you like to see cites of?
[citation needed] is a ploy by closed-minded bigots to waste the time of the "enemy" for things they won't read anyway. You didn't cite anything that supported you, either. Just linked to something that isn't much more than a definition, but certainly didn't say anything like what you implied.
Learn to love Alaska
I am saying, you need to subscribe to my newsletter.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
As I understand the location services built into iOS and Android devices, the phone will periodically send a list of nearby access points (with signal strengths) up to Apple or Google's servers, and those servers respond with a guess at the phone's location, which is often more accurate than the location received from cell towers, and more resilient than GPS. The servers know where access points are located due to data collected by mapping vehicles and the aggregated reports of clients' less-accurate reckonings.
I'm guessing that during the previous concert, the audience's phones were sufficient to convince the servers that the bands' APs were located in one particular place. When your phone tried to locate itself using those APs as a reference, it was told a now-incorrect location, because the server was unaware the APs had moved. Multiple APs being used as references could also end up with different locations, giving the erratic reporting you observed.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
In 1930-40-ies we were governed by an Illiberal icon — was FDR a proponent of "trickle down"?
IIRC, proportionate wealth and growth were relatively static from about Oct 1929 through 1940, when the war effort began really rolling. So FDR had nothing to do with it.
What makes you think, the wealth-concentration you dislike so much in the second half of 20th century was due to "trickle down economics"?
It actually didn't really start until the 80s, and if you'll recall, that era was prefaced by several recessions and double digit inflation in the 70s, a similar stoppage of wealth growth as in the 30s.
In fact, what makes you think, the policy was practiced at all — whatever effect it did or did not have on wealth-consolidation?
Just perhaps that was the stated economic policy of the Reps as they rolled back taxes on the wealthy?
This statement implies fixed size "bucket" (which you just said is not the case) and zero-summed game — somebody's gain must be somebody else's loss, according to this logic.
It may not be a fixed sized bucket, but the rates of change in size and flux can game it one way or the other. Higher taxes on the rich mean their wealth growth rate is slowed, as the flow in is slowed. Relatively, this means the other segment's proportional wealth growth rate increases, given an assumed common wealth growth rate between the two scenarios.
Meanwhile, I can easily demonstrate, how the "hope and change" President turned out to be either incompetent or a fraud
Red-herring - the last several presidents can be shown to be both. It may be harder to show that Bush Jr was competent or not a fraud, given that he started a war on false pretenses that he couldn't finish and put us trillions in debt and destabilized an entire region of the world, snatching defeat out of the hands of victory, or how under his presidency, he managed to steer us into the Great Recession, only slightly lesser than that wonderful period known as the Great Depression. But enough about segues.
and thus undeserving of the office, to which hysterical Illiberals have elected him — twice.
Because otherwise we'd have that paragon of politics Palin instead of Biden to make fun of? Or perhaps that ever American loving Romney, as long as you're not 1 in 2 Americans? I think you should perhaps drop that hypocritical tone and consider that the Reps killed their own chances in 2008. Had McCain chosen a sensible moderate as his running mate and rejected the more extremist planks of the Rep platform after nomination, it's highly likely he would have won.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
Your justifiable disappointment in both parties leads you to renouncing both of them equally, which is not justifiable in the slightest.
Had a Republican won, we would've still been capturing enemies to be held in Guantanamo — instead of simply killing them. Osama bin Laden would've been on trial, rather than fallen victim to extrajudicial killing .
Putin would not have dared to invade Ukraine. Gaddafi — who has made amends with US after seeing the capture of Saddam Hussein on TV — would've remained in charge of Lybia, instead of that country plunging into chaos. We wouldn't have left Iraq in such haste, which would've kept ISIS in check.
Domestically we would not have had the grossly unpopular Obamacare forced upon us with such vigor, most people — proponents and detractors alike — could not even understand the proposed law before the voting took place.
Though the less principled "centrists" or "pragmatists" of the two parties do meet in the middle like stalactites and stalagmites, as those geological phenomena they too come from opposite ends.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
But was the high level of stratification due to "trickle down" at all? Or, maybe, the policy does not really have anything to do with the wealth-consolidation you decry?
So, things were bad before the "trickle down" started? Is that what you are saying?
If it really was "the stated policy", where is your link to the statement?
Not necessarily — it depends on how those "higher taxes" are spent. If, for example, they are given back to them (think Solyndra or Tesla motors), it may be the exact opposite.
In 2009 the top 50% of income-tax payers paid 97.75% of the total tax. Do you suppose, the bottom 50% could pay much less than 2.25% — and would it help them, even if it could be arranged?
So, as suspected, you don't have any substantiation to your claim, that the "top 1%" impoverishes everybody else. Class warfare much?
It is not "red herring" because that's what this sub-thread is all about — when JDAustin pointed out, Obama failed to reign-in overly invasive police, an "insightful" AC countered with "trickle down economics" (which was a false "red herring" of its own, of course).
Sarah Palin made no obvious mistakes — in fact, she anticipated Putin invasion into Crimea. Joe Biden, on the other hand, was beyond mockery from day one -1: when he claimed, that "we, along with France kicked Hezbolla out of Lebanon". Show me anything comparably stupid from Sarah Palin, I dare you...
I don't care, whether President loves me — I'd find it outright creepy if he did. I want him to effectively execute policy I find agreeable. Obama's only saving graces come from his failing to execute some of his disastrous plans.
Whatever killed their chances (somehow vastly more people knew, what Palin spent on wardrobe than that Biden was once caught plagiarizing), it was to the detriment to the country.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Straw man. The poster's point doesn't relate to whether the interference is "significant" by whatever standard law enforcement uses to make that determination. It relates to whether that interference is legal.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
If it is as non-sequitur as your posts, it's a waste of everyone's time.
Learn to love Alaska
In 2009 the top 50% of income-tax payers paid 97.75% of the total tax [ntu.org]. Do you suppose, the bottom 50% could pay much less than 2.25% — and would it help them, even if it could be arranged? So, as suspected, you don't have any substantiation to your claim, that the "top 1%" impoverishes everybody else. Class warfare much?
This is the only interesting statement in your post, 1 fact and a false conclusion. Of course the top 50% paid the majority of the taxes. In 1910, the top 10% paid the majority of the taxes. Some stats: there were 305M in the US in 2009, of which roughly 74M were children and 40M were over 65. So excluding people like Buffet (a top 0.001%er over 65 and an outlier) we'll say there were roughly 190M eligible working people, of which 117M reported wages/salaries which gives you a working population of roughly 61%, just to put employment in proper perspective. Average income was $54,265 for those 117M people, yet the average per capita income was more than $38K as total income was $11,852,715,000,000, or roughly $101K per taxpayer. Yet these numbers are somewhat off, as "taxpayer" can be a single individual or married couple, but the back of napkin calculations jibe with the Dept of Labor of a workforce about 60% employed, so I'll call it a wash.
Historically, we have used a stepped tax system. With the first income tax, the first step only included the top 10%, as the income level was set to that level, so only people earning above that mark paid tax. The overly complex graduated system we have now in simple terms is setup so that people that earn more pay more tax, but has devolved to the point that you pay tax even if you're below the median income (say, if you're single with no kids and no mortgage, ie, no deductions)
All I'm promoting is that the tax system gets reset to a simpler system keyed to inflation, so that people making 125% of the median pay no tax, and people above it do. Remove most, if not all deductions, and be done with it. (This is similar to the "flat tax" proposals that have been floating about) If you're concerned that I'm attempting to shift the tax to others, don't be, I'll fall into the "taxed" group. I'd be happier if people above me on the scale weren't paying less than I do however.
To quote a friend of mine: "I'm happy to pay taxes, it means I'm making money".
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
Golem? You're the one who doesn't understand that I'm laughing at the crazy old woman. Oh well - try to keep up next time around.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br