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

[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

[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]

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.

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...

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.

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.