Slashdot Mirror
Fake Mobile Phone Towers Found To Be "Actively Listening In" On Calls In UK
New submitter nickweller writes: More than 20 Stingray fake phone towers which can collect data from passing devices and listen in on calls have been discovered operating in the UK. The Metropolitan Police have refused to say who is controlling the IMSI catchers, also known as Stingrays, or what is being done with the information they are gathering. Met Commissioner Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe said: "If people imagine that we’ve got the resources to do as much intrusion as they worry about, I would reassure them that it’s impossible.”
Translation: "It is important that we be completely transparent on this single fact: we are not transparent, and we will do bad things, because reasons."
"If people imagine that we’ve got the resources to do as much intrusion as they worry about, I would reassure them that it’s impossible."
Sure, we're doing a lot of bad illegal shit, but we don't have time to do as much bad illegal shit as you think we are.
Imagine if that logic were applied by a bank robber: Sure, I robbed the bank, but I didn't have time to steal as much money as you thought I did.
Categorizing people by various political and ideological inclinations, fapping, gathering "leverage", fapping, obtaining various bits of time and location data to avoid being caught in a web of lies by physical impossibilities when planting evidence to dispose of people "legally", fapping, enhancing and increasing their collections of various phone or IM sex, fapping, revelling in the very fact that they hold such unaccountable power over the worthless rabble they use it on, and general acts of genital self-stimulation.
What NEEDS to be done is a complete, and permanent dismantling of both the towers and their operators, all the way up the chain.
Physically.
"If people imagine that we’ve got the resources to do as much intrusion as they worry about, I would reassure them that it’s impossible.”
I'm confused. 20 Stringrays in the U.K. And no one should worry because the Chief of Metropolitan Police says they don't have the resources to do as much intrusion as "they" worry about. If that's right - how much less intrusion? Is that because of the 20% budget cuts - or because his area of command is not the entire U.K. (London only, excluding The City of London)? Or maybe because the Metropolitian Police don't have primary access to the Stingray traffic? Is that because the story is wrong - or is one of those Stingrays in The City of London? Is this just bullshit or maybe a ploy to increase funding so that the level of intrusion is something to worry about e.g. if it weren't for the budget cuts he could implement his plan for "total war on crime" and "total policing".
Given the past accuracy of some of the statements from his office I'm still cynical.
It used to be said that 'when America [meaning USA, sorry] sneezes the UK catches cold'. So, as a Londoner, I'm not at all surprised. Probably some of this data [because it's not information] is being 'exported' too, the data version of special rendition.
At the moment our 'imports' are TTIP, private healthcare, GMO crops, US banks, mall-shopping as an activity, cops as thugs, empty celebrity culture, reality TV, US payday lenders [quickquid, for example, is US owned] gangster rap and US style gangs etc. etc. probably because we share a language and to some extent a culture. Two thousand Met [London police] carry arms now too.
Before I'm jumped on, there's lots of things I admire in the US but they are not the things that are making their way into the UK.
On y va, qui mal y pense!
If people imagine that we’ve got the resources to do as much intrusion as they worry about, I would reassure them that it’s impossible.
Based on the fact that there are 20 operating Stingrays I would say that not only is it possible, but you have actually put your resources to good use doing exactly as much intrusion as we're worrying about.
Anyone here can comment on using a cellphone booster to nullify stingrays?
No. Because most Stingrays (IMSI catchers) work on 2G - those that work on 3G and 4G play man-in-the-middle (use encryption to "beat" those). If you mean can I get a better antennae so that when I've set my phone to only use 3G I can still get a signal most of the time - then yes (I just did). If you mean you want to boost the 2G reception then you'd need to find a way to only connect to your own boosted 2G connection - which is problematic to say the least. How do you ensure it is not boosting a Stingray? How do you legally run a booster? (I don't know the relevant law on amplifiers in the U.K. - in Oz we have to buy them from carriers, which is expensive as well as an act of faith). i.e. the way to "nullify" Stingrays is only use 3G and use encryption (if you use encryption then you can use any mobile protocol, which makes your "booster" redundant). Better to get a stronger signal with a better antenna than boost a weak one using an active repeater/amplifier (most mobiles have crap reception). Were you planning on lugging the repeater everywhere?
They probably don't really know. It's probably anyone in the UK or US with a security clearance or who works on the system as an engineer. And what they are doing with it? Who knows? It certainly seems like the politicians don't care, they only care about fake protections against terrorism.
Thank you, Bradley Manning, Edward Snowden and so many others, for courageously defending humanity, my freedom and more!
In other words, "
If people think we're trying to screw them as much as possible with the limited resources we have, I would reassure them we are."
The metropolitan police are not responsible for GSM interference
Doing so legally they would be run by Government Communications Headquarters ( GCHQ)
It matters not most UK communications are intercepted quite legally by the NSA and shared back to UK.
They are most likely test towers or towers created by individuals illegally
The British have always allowed intercepts legally
Regards
John Jones
I'm assuming that their ever-so-coy stance on whether or not the stingrays are their stingrays would evaporate rather quickly if somebody were to climb up, cut one down, and make off with it...
Feds have this funny habit of suddenly getting really possessive of things that previously didn't exist if you start touching them.
Democratic institutions are still in place but freedoms are constantly shrinking
We do it for the Children
We strive all days and all nights to keep you and all your children safe
You can trust us, we are good people
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
"The time France had a king was in the 1800's
How come you guys still allow draconian bullshits in your lawbooks??"
Look who's talking.Did you ever check your own laws?
Here are a few:
It is considered an offense to open an umbrella on a street, for fear of spooking horses. ...
It is illegal to sell peanuts in Lee County after sundown on Wednesday.
It is illegal to wear a fake moustache that causes laughter in church.
In New York, adultery is still a crime.
Citizens may not greet each other by “putting one’s thumb to the nose and wiggling the fingers”.
In Alabama putting salt on railroad tracks may be punishable by death.
"If people imagine that we’ve got the resources to do as much intrusion as they worry about, I would reassure them that it’s impossible."
Sure, we're doing a lot of bad illegal shit, but we don't have time to do as much bad illegal shit as you think we are.
Imagine if that logic were applied by a bank robber: Sure, I robbed the bank, but I didn't have time to steal as much money as you thought I did.
Actually, this is a quintessential part of the debate. The Supreme Court considers it now on technology cases that involve the ability to do dragnet surveillance on large numbers of people or over an extended time period on the same person. The idea is basically that what used to be okay because cops were practically limited by the cost of extensive surveillance might no longer be okay when they are able to collect a LOT of surveillance data cheaply.
This came up in a GPS tracking case a few years back.
So uproot and walk away with them. If the police don't want to tell you who owns them, I guess you own them now.
Who knows, perhaps they're worth a bit on eBay.
AC
The article MENTIONS THAT THE MET BOUGHT STINGRAYS, so we know who uses them.
Whether its legal or not, well UK is a joke when it comes to privacy protection and MET is at the forefront of pushing the boundary beyond even that the law, so who knows.
What we know is they're not confident its legal enough to explain to Joe public (and Judge Public) why they're using them and under what legal circumstances. His excuse is rubbish, explaining in vague terms the legal use so be what the public law does. Most likely its pre-crime, the MET hides an intelligence unit which is almost political in nature, going after political campaign groups like Occupy London.
http://content.met.police.uk/Article/Met-Intelligence/1400026793326/1400026793326
"Led by Commander Richard Martin this is a new command which was formed in order to deliver a single, joined up intelligence service to the Metropolitan Police Service.
"The service is uniformly professionalised and the command owns all the Metropolitan Police Service intelligence professionals, including those who work in covert policing.
"This enables intelligence support to be flexible and dynamic, enabling the organisation to receive up-to-date and comprehensive intelligence products.
"At local, area and Pan London levels (including connections to regional and national structures) Met Intelligence delivers products to drive police activity based on research, analysis and field intelligence development, as well as giving live-time support to local and specialist operations and investigations. Intelligence both from overt and covert collection is handled by the command and correctly progressed where action is required.
"Met Intelligence is a key contributor to the effective operation and tasking processes at corporate level, ensuring MPS assets are directed against the most pressing threats, harm, risks and opportunities. This includes support to Strategic Assessments and the setting of Control Strategies for boroughs and for the MPS, was well as the continued delivery of Tactical Assessments to internal tasking processes.
"Met Intelligence is strictly managed through robust internal corporate government and legislation including Data Protection Act, Misuse of Computer Act, Regulation of Police Investigation Act and Management of Police Information. "
All we have for evidence is the word of a for-profit company and a 50MB RTF log file of meaningless crap, no GPS locations, no photos, nothing.
its trivial to triangulate the location of them yet out of 20 "detections" no physical devices or their locations have been found.
“A Question of Trust”, the report of my Investigatory Powers Review under DRIPA 2014 s7, was laid before Parliament today. It is available here in print and web accessible versions, together with the accompanying press release and (so far as the authors were willing for it to be published) the evidence submitted to the Review in writing. https://terrorismlegislationre... which may be of interest to some who are viewing this thread.
Obviously since no one is admitting to setting them up, they must have spontaneously formed from the ether, and are fair game for whomever reaches them first.
Here's the public's chance to get a free Stingray. Just find, or make, a way to track them, and once you reach them they are all yours.
It was publicly demonstrated not long ago that it's possible to listen into a given persons GSM calls relatively easily with cheap, consumer grade, equipment. If there's a bunch of these impostor towers knocking about and the police's position is that it's not them using them then I'd quite like them to be making an effort to find out who they do belong to ASAP. Shrugging and saying “we don't have the resources to bother tapping your phones” is not an acceptable response even if it's true.
"Physics is to math as sex is to masturbation." -R. Feynman
Given that there is a defence to a charge of criminal damage of preventing a crime - as demonstrated in the damage done to some jets on their way to an oppressive regime, break one and see who complains. The TLA that emerges will be upset, whilst the defence you proffer will force a discussion of their actual use in a court
Rather you than me...
It is considered an offense to open an umbrella on a street, for fear of spooking horses. ...
It is illegal to sell peanuts in Lee County after sundown on Wednesday.
It is illegal to wear a fake moustache that causes laughter in church.
In New York, adultery is still a crime.
Citizens may not greet each other by “putting one’s thumb to the nose and wiggling the fingers”.
In Alabama putting salt on railroad tracks may be punishable by death.
That's my plans for the weekend shot to s**t then....
Tear them down!
Why should adultery not be a crime. We place such a high importance on marriage rights apparently that being free to enter that institution with anyone you wish is now being considered a basic human right. If that contract is so sacred that nobody should be denied it, than are not those who violate the integrity of harming society?
When prosecuting murders killing the person who was cheating with your spouse generally makes it a crime of passion and frequently is used to justify reducing the charges to second degree murder or even down to manslaughter. So obviously adultery poses a significant danger of triggering of provoking other serious crimes like battery and murder.
Its the frequent cause of dissolution of homes which negatively effects the development of children.
The list could go on. I think there is clear pattern of harm to society at large resulting from adultery. It SHOULD be a crime. If you are concerned about being and adulterer don't marry.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
Marriage should be a matter of contract law, not criminal law. Anything dictated on government terms is Big Government, which the Republicans allegedly eschew.
> Who you fuck is not a matter for the state to be prosecuting or otherwise interfering with.
Except for rape, child molestation, incest, trading sex for promotions, demanding sex for promotions, sex with infected partners who refuse to warn others, and shall i go on?
The "state" has always regulated sex, often though not always for compelling reason.
All the more reason that end-to-end encryption should be used for cell phones. Blackberry got this right on their [initial] messaging implementation. I'm guessing Uncle Sam would fight this to the death...
What surprises me most is that we haven't seen a comprehensive software solution for this yet. Sure, i've seen an implementation or two that only work on specific chipsets with Android, but where is the app that detects these stingrays, notifies all users in the area then triangulates the devices position and tracks it's movements using crowdsourced data? Maybe even an option to shutoff your phones radio or broadcast nonsense identification until it's gone.
It seems to me that if turning one of these on aways resulted in nearly instant identification of the vehicle carrying it, this nonsense would end pretty quick.
Lots of philosophical masturbation going on over this. Anyone bother to notice the election results? The people over there want this stuff and are more concerned about closing the border.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
"If people imagine that we’ve got the resources to do as much intrusion as they worry about, I would reassure them that it’s impossible.”
Basically this is dancing around actually answering "Is your department doing this?" and "Do you know who is setting these up?"
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Adultery is not a crime because the supreme court has long held that activities undertaken entirely within one's private home cannot be suitably regulated, as a violation of privacy would be necessary to enforce them. This is the reason given by the court for legalizing sodomy as well.
The Met Police would not have the legal authority to implement such a network. They are bound by the law and require warrants for interception. The only two potential sources are MI5 and GCHQ.
GCHQ would have better options than mere IMSI catchers, so that would leave MI5 as the source. Again, these guys are meant to be bound by UK on telecoms interception.
The network is clearly illegal under UK law, so I am somewhat surprised that the Met Police has not moved to prosecute. Technically, that would be aiding and abetting, perhaps even conspiracy charges.
Given this has hit the media, no doubt it will be taken further.
The MET might have bought them so that MI5 can say "We don't have that capability" and the MET lets MI5 use them so the MET can say "We're not even doing anything with these things!", then MI5 shares the intel with the MET. A bit like the way 5 eyes works but internal to the UK.
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
As far as I've heard, in the US Stingrays are used selectively in a given area from mobile platforms for brief periods. From the details in this story, it sounds like they're at fixed locations, which says to me that they're intended as a tool of constant and permanent surveillance. Since the legit tower IDs for an area are known, it should be a straightforward matter to build hardware (or maybe just run an app in a phone) that detects when a Stingray -- which will present an anomalous ID -- is operating and see exactly how much they're turned on. I'm guessing that something like this is how The Independent tracked down so many in such a short time. It also makes me wonder if a phone app could force the phone to use only a known-legit tower instead of allowing itself to be subverted by a Stingray.
On a related note, the British press is also pointing out how easily this equipment can make it onto the gray market and into the hands of criminal organizations. At least the Brits are being honest.
Frankly, some of what we need to do is intrusive, it is uncomfortable, and the important thing is we set that out openly and recognise there are difficult choices to be made.
But at least they get to debate those choices, rather than have law enforcement lie to the public and claim that they don't do these things. Trust us.
Have gnu, will travel.
Making it Contract Law, means that marriage is no longer a "civil right" as such. If it is a civil right, then it is in the realm of criminal law, and thus eligible for criminal penalties for those that violate those rights. Having an affair is a violation of the civil rights of the partner, as it is a direct cause of harm to that right. I would even suggest that having an affair is a crime, even if ALL parties are consenting to it, for the same reason one cannot consent to being a slave or being a human sacrifice, as those things we have deemed harmful to our society in general.
The problem here is that certain people want things, until it is inconvenient, and then they don't want those very things they petitioned for. We cannot simply say something is legal (or illegal) while it is convenient and then turn around and toss it aside when it becomes inconvenient.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Who you fuck is not a matter for the state to be prosecuting or otherwise interfering with. Because it's none of their damned business.
Except that it is, by the very fact that the state sanctions such contracts and as established it as a right. This isn't Schrodinger's cat, which is both a Right and Not a Right until you look at it.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Murder in your own home falls under the same reasoning? Criminal activities suddenly do not become legal when done within a home. I would challenge the Supreme Court's interpretation, and have it reconsidered.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
> Why should adultery not be a crime
Because every time people try to legislate morality, it turns out bad, Perhaps if everyone had the exact same religion and same sexual preferences that might work out, but we live in the real world. Some people have mutually consensual open marriages - what would making adultery mean for them? If there is anything that would drive a number of nails into the coffin of the institution of marriage, it would be outlawing adultery. When there's a choice between criminal adultery or worry-free premarital sex, why open yourself up to the liability? On top of the problems with losing half your stuff in a divorce, there wouldn't be enough benefits left to convince all that many people to go for it.
I drove/rode around the country at complete random (as much as is humanly possible, at any rate) the vast majority of the time. We would cross a state line and get off the nearest exit. Our spartan itinerary meant that we could do what we wanted for however long we wanted with regards to our lack of destination. Sometimes we would camp in a hotel for days and just explore an area that looked interesting. (For instance, Florida is a bit like a car wreck - you have to stare.) Anyhow, the appropriate site is http://www.dumblaws.com/ and you should always try to break at least one of those laws in every state that you go through.
My local favorite is that men of a certain age, in Maine, must carry a shotgun to church on Sunday in case the Native Americans attack. There was a blue law (which is what many of these laws are) that was in Portland, ME; If you saw two or more Native Americans on horseback then you could shoot them. I figured I would go down to the Memorial Day parade and bring a shotgun. However, it was a post-9/11 world and I figured that my bringing a shotgun would almost certainly result in my being shot - I am a little brown so it seemed doubly likely. The law no longer appears on the Dumb Laws site (linked above) so I surmise that it has been removed.
PA has a State law that is easy enough to break - I never witnessed anybody comply with the law in Amish or Mennonite areas. This is a quote from the site, I have not read the law, itself, to check the verbiage:
Any motorist who sights a team of horses coming toward him must pull well off the road, cover his car with a blanket or canvas that blends with the countryside, and let the horses pass.
So, even aside from legitimate laws like the PATRIOT ACT, there are plenty of stupid ideas. The important thing to remember, or one of the important things to remember - I suppose, is that these laws were often created retroactively because someone was being that stupid which is why there are laws that do things like disallow alligators being leashed to fire hydrants.
Finally, NY has some interesting laws. Anonymous (the so-called hactivist group) demonstrations might be illegal as congregating with folks wearing masks is illegal. The text and reasoning is here: http://www.dumblaws.com/law/19... The remainder of NY's listed dumb laws are here: http://www.dumblaws.com/laws/u... - If you have not visited the site before then you may find it a bit of a time-waster. I consider breaking many of these laws to be patriotic. I strongly recommend reviewing these laws before (or during) any road trips.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Have you considered the possibility that this could be a private network for law enforcement(people who think of the children and care about us, those) to use for riot control/panics(situations when other towers are DoSed because of the sheer number of people connecting to them)?
I mean, In some countries, they have their own roads, their own phone models, their own whatever...
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion. -- Spazmania (174582)
They told you to piss off it's non of your damn business, not where the data is going or how it's being used. If you believe anything that you are told by a Government which has a proven track record of lying to the public (and not giving a shit) you are a fool.
Your speculation that it's perfectly innocent because police are busy is worth the same amount as the conspiracy speculation of the next guy. You don't know what they are doing the the data, nor do you know who the collection point is sharing data with. It could be corporations buying information for profit, MI6 and Police attempting to find criminals, it could be MI5/MI6 digging up dirt on people they dislike, or it could be a mixture of all 3.
Most of us "hope" that the intentions are good, but until the Government proves otherwise you have to expect the worst scenario as well. The overwhelming majority of people in power did not get into power because they are nice and care about rules and morality. If you had not already figured that out without me telling you, I suggest stop believing everything you are told and use your eyes and head a bit.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
I'll admin my initial post was does somewhat to act as a provocateur (though not a troll because I am genuinely interested in discussing the subject).
Its my personal view that government should get out of the marriage business. We should simply pass a low recognizing all existing marriage licenses as "Civil union licenses" and convert all marriage rights next of kin, child custody, 5th amendment testimony protections etc, to civil partner rights. Than any two people regardless of sex or gender can enter a civil union. If they are married or not is between them, their clergy, god(s), friends, and the guy who operates their car wash etc.
I find it interesting that various arguements about how having two parent house holds is good for children but the gender of parents does not have so much impact are used to justify arguments in favor of allowing homosexuals to marry. Making marriage a right implies that adultery and act that frequently makes impossible for the partner to remain in the marriage; implies that partners rights are being infringed.
Additionally the state does have pretty clear interest in promoting monogamous sexual relationships issues of morality and gender again set aside there is a clear advantage in the prevention of the spread of disease. Again since we are all "responsible" for each others healthcare costs now it seems perfectly reasonable (within that context) the state should favor policy that prefers monogamy, independent of what you call it; marriage, union, cohabitation contract.... The state has a pretty clear reason to want to encourage the formation of partnerships for raising children.
As other have pointed out we don't allow people to enter into contract of indentured servitude etc. Again I would come down on an the side of an individuals absolute right to make a contract but society has broadly chosen otherwise. A societal harm is the final underlying justification for most criminal law. Adultery is clearly harmful in the majority of cases. Its hard to escape the conclusion that if marriage is sacred enough to be considered a right that an act which harms its integrity should not be considered a crime.
I don't think your assertion that re-criminalizing adultery would negate the value proposition of marriage, union. There are lots of advantages to having a state recognized relationship (of some name). Child custody, the right to inherit property, tax filing advantages, social security, just to name a few.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
ignore the AC - he's obviously a dullard who wouldn't understand the difference between negative rights and positive privileges if they hit him upside the head.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Marriage is not a civil right. I am not attempting to argue with you, really, but I am expanding on your statement(s) for some clarity and to opine on the subject. I actually agree with you but am a bit concerned that my reply may be misunderstood and the assumption made that I am taking an opposing view. This is not true. I may be taking an alternate view but it is not one that is in opposition to your statements. The topic is complex (to some) but I will attempt brevity, though I fear a novella... You have been warned. :-)
On civil rights; There have been numerous cases where marriage has been prohibited due to the mental disabilities on the part of one or both of the involved parties. I, personally, believe that the easiest way to get around the whole marriage debate is to simply prohibit government involvement with marriages. From the time such a law (civil unions) is enacted all further relationships of a permanent status will be contractually based. Currently marriage is not a civil right and I do not think that it has to be, specifically, if we want to achieve civil rights and equality status for all.
Concerning efficacy; I think that such unions can even involve needing active steps to continue after a certain time has passed, account for multiple partners, and include any other lawful stipulations. Those who wish to have a religious ceremony can have that ceremony performed at a willing church, or by the person(s), they feel most comfortable with. Churches would not be obligated to perform any such ceremonies nor would they be prohibited from engaging in such theatrical events. Any ceremony, or certificates/papers, from such a place would have no legal basis beyond the spoken word types of legal protections already creating binding contracts. Additionally, for legal protection, those engaging in matrimonial theater would likely be in a limbo state (and get no/little benefit) without having an actual legally binding civil union. We could go so far as to define those ceremonies as theater and disallow any further court action based on it. We can not even do 'for better or worse' and 'until death do us part' is almost laughable today.
Marriages from before the enacting of such legislation should be grandfathered and treated as contract law in the eyes of the court or for awarding any extra (if any) liberties. My thinking is that this would absolve the government from having any impact on the religious practice and that the removal of marriage, an antiquated idea - at best, would take away any (il)logical arguments against same-sex-marriages from the fundamentalists. They, the people they oppose, are not getting 'married,' but are signing legal contracts that have nothing to do with religion. Those wishing to engage in the marriage for ceremonial purposes are free to do so however they choose (lawful actions only, obviously) and nobody is forced to perform any ceremony that they do not wish to perform.
I am sure that there will still be some vocal, read: loud, complaints but they would have no legal justification to prevent or change anything. This would be an application of the law that actually provided for equal civil liberties. (The government can only take away freedoms, it can not give them. The government provides a mechanism to exchange liberties. Liberties and freedoms are very different things.) As I see it, the biggest problems with providing equality in marriage is the complaints of religious fundamentalists and the politicians who enable or encourage such.
A sort-of-TL;DR closure:
My only real complaint is the seeming implication (and that is my impression - I could EASILY be mistaken) that it is a civil right, the rest is just expanding on idea that this should be a civil right. As it is not currently enforced civilly (applying to all equally) it is not currently a civil right. We can argue that it *should* be but to state that it is (something you did not do), currently, would incorrect and this is not a mere technicality b
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Many laws do, in fact, legislate morality. Laws such as theft, murder, rape, etc... Those laws may ring a bell.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
The reason it isn't illegal is that making it so would only make things worse for everyone involved and society in general. Many marriages can recover from affairs, and sometimes people separate but don't get divorced for various reasons (often children) while beginning romantic relationships with others. If adultery was a crime a lot of people who might otherwise have been able to repair their marriage or who were in an all but legally dissolved relationship would be punished, and that doesn't seem to be in the interests of anyone.
Imagine a situation where one partner becomes a full time parent, and then discovers that the other had an affair. The working partner then goes to jail, or at least loses their job due to their criminal record. The situation might have been salvageable, but now everyone involved is screwed.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
I got a feeling that there are some pretty simple work-arounds for Stingrays. It would explain all the secrecy about it's operation.
When was the last time, if ever, that someone was cited or arrested for any of these?