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

[Sarten-X]

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.

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

[ihtoit]

which ones allow them to proactively interfere with radio frequency communications?

Re:Default Government Stance

[Sarten-X]

28 U.S. Code 534(a)(1), 47 CFR 2.701(b), and 47 CFR 15.9, to start.

Of course, let's not forget 47 CFR 15.15(c), which effectively says that interference is unavoidable and should be minimized, and when considered along with 47 CFR 15.5(c), you'll have a hard time convincing a judge (which is really what matters, legally) that the FBI's actions were actually illegal, unless the FCC has told them to stop. Good luck getting that to happen.

Re:Default Government Stance

[TheGratefulNet]

and also, where is the notion of a mass dragnet ALLOWED by the constitution?

its not. never was allowed. any dragnets were always illegal (not to mention immoral).

they over-reach with this mass surveillance stuff. they know they are on borrowed time and that, eventually, we the people will not tolerate it. it may take years to get the laws fixed; meanwhile, they enjoy the fruits of the poison tree and enjoy their little spy-fest.

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

[Obfuscant]

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:

The ruling is also often incorrectly characterized as creating the idea that corporations may exercise speech rights, and that "corporations are people." Both notions are also incorrect. The Supreme Court has recognized that corporations, as associations of people, may exercise many of the rights of natural persons at least since Dartmouth College v. Woodward in 1819, and has recognized that corporations are protected under the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment since Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railway was decided in 1886.

In 1819, the members of SCOTUS and the party of the President that appointed them were:

• John Marshal (Chief Justice), Federalist
• Bushrod Washington, Federalist
• Henry Brockholst Livingston, Democratic-Republican Party
• Gabriel Duvall, Democratic-Republican Party
• William Johnson, Democratic-Republican Party
• Thomas Todd, Democratic-Republican Party
• Joseph Story, Federalist

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.

Re:Default Government Stance

[jratcliffe]

Not very well I must admit. 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.

True, if you're including Grant, Hayes, Arthur, etc. as Republicans (which they were, although the Republican party of the 1880s is a bit different than that of today). Also, you'd need to include Democratic-Republican Presidents like Madison and Monroe on that list.

Corporate personhood is NOT a new phenomenon - it's been a well-established principle since (for varying purposes) the 1880s or the 1810s.

Re:Default Government Stance

[ihtoit]

on 28 U.S. Code 534(a)(1): the only two Authorities for such action are judicial administration and national defense. Unless the United States Government has declared war on its own citizens (it hasn't as far as the White House still being vertical evidences), then neither Authority can be invoked since the activity is also warrantless and proactive.

On 47 CFR 2.701(b), and 47 CFR 15.9: this requires LAWFUL AUTHORITY (ie a WARRANT from a JUDGE), which requires JUST CAUSE.

Stingray is in direct violation of 47 CFR 15.15(c) *by design*, therefore its use would be illegal even if all other conditions were met. For "authorised users of the radio frequency spectrum", read: "ANYBODY WHO USES A CELLPHONE!"

See, I *can* read.

Re:Default Government Stance

[AK Marc]

Vote 3rd party. But everyone considers that a waste. If everyone did that, we'd have real change, but nobody will. When you are surrounded by dumb people, democracy is the worst form of government. The solution is to move.

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

[Gr8Apes]

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.

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

[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).

Violation of Federal Law

[Etherwalk]

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...

Re:Violation of Federal Law

[TheCarp]

As I recall, wasn't this one of the first issues in Roe V Wade? Specifically it was that a woman who was being blocked from a medically necessary abortion would effectively be barred the right to bring her issue to court because the issue of pregnancy would likely be over, either with a birth or her death before the courts could be expected to have ruled on the matter... leading to a necessary exception to normal standing rules.

Seems similar here....since no person who was a victim would ever know they were and would know they had standing to bring a case, it seems that normal standing rules would effectivly deny such a case from ever being heard even if it was an otherwise valid case, so it seems to me it would warrant an exception.

Re:Violation of Federal Law

[Etherwalk]

As I recall, wasn't this one of the first issues in Roe V Wade? Specifically it was that a woman who was being blocked from a medically necessary abortion would effectively be barred the right to bring her issue to court because the issue of pregnancy would likely be over, either with a birth or her death before the courts could be expected to have ruled on the matter... leading to a necessary exception to normal standing rules.

Seems similar here....since no person who was a victim would ever know they were and would know they had standing to bring a case, it seems that normal standing rules would effectivly deny such a case from ever being heard even if it was an otherwise valid case, so it seems to me it would warrant an exception.

"Capable of repetition, yet evading review" is the language. That applies when something is always over before an appellate court gets a chance to rule on it.

There is some role for that here, but the big thing first is how are you suing someone. It's one thing if you're arguing a constitutional violation (like in Roe v. Wade), but quite another if you're just arguing they broke federal law. The circumstances where a private citizen or even a public interest group can sue for a violation of federal law are very limited.

The FCC could go after them.

Can disrupt? How about INTENDED to disrupt!

[redelm]

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.

Re:Can disrupt? How about INTENDED to disrupt!

[Obfuscant]

Is this StingRay thing even FCC licenced? What about the operators?

The operators are FBI. They aren't subject to FCC rules or licenses. NTIA.

Re:Can disrupt? How about INTENDED to disrupt!

[redelm]

1) I thought some operators were locals.

2) NTIA may well help manage spectrum, and the Feds certainly can use their reserved spectrum however they wish. But that does not grant them immunity to use any spectrum they wish, however they wish. Carriers (and their customers) have paid dearly for that spectrum which gives it many of the characteristics of private property. There certainly is a well-established expectation of privacy. (This is supposed to be a nation of laws not lawmen.)

Stingray detector?

[hawguy]

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.

"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.