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

[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

[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

[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...