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.
...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.
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.
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"
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.
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.
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.