Slashdot Mirror


Secret Service Allowed To Use Warrantless Cellphone Tracking (myway.com)

mi writes: A mere belief in there being a threat against the President or any other protected person is now sufficient for the U.S. Secret Service to use cell-site simulators (commonly known as "stingrays"). In certain "exceptional circumstances," the stingrays can be used without a judge-signed warrant and even without probable cause. When asked whether this essentially granted a blanket exception for the Secret Service, Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Seth Stodder said the exemption would not be used in routine criminal probes, such as a counterfeiting investigation. I suppose, the personal verbal assurance of an executive-branch government employee should put all fears of the citizenry to rest.

104 comments

  1. stinge-ays? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Nice work, Slashdot editors.

    the stingeays can be used without a judge-signed warrant and ...

  2. Well now by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 0

    What's left to say that hasn't already been said?

    --
    #DeleteChrome
    1. Re:Well now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Life makes me wonder: just what DOES a gun barrel taste like, anyway? Can't be that bad, and it definitely will be brief.

    2. Re:Well now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's left to say that hasn't already been said?

      Maybe it's time for us to stop reading the news and live in blissful ignorance?

      I know. I can't do it either.

    3. Re:Well now by rastos1 · · Score: 1

      What's left to say that hasn't already been said?

      I never heard the officials explaining why getting a warrant is a problem. Would that prevent them from protecting the POTUS or investigating a crime?

    4. Re:Well now by phantomfive · · Score: 0

      The officials have explained (in the article, if you had cared to read it) that it would only be in certain situations, where the president would be killed if they didn't use it. Something like if this happened, you wouldn't really worry about warrants. The real question is whether they've ever actually used that power or not.

      They used the other exception in a hostage/kidnapping situation, apparently because there wasn't time to get a warrant.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    5. Re:Well now by rastos1 · · Score: 2

      As if having one judge standby per state was not worth upholding the Constitution.

    6. Re:Well now by gweihir · · Score: 1

      One thing: If nothing decisive is being done very soon, things will get a _lot_ worse.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    7. Re:Well now by Holi · · Score: 2

      And the exceptional circumstance clause in the Constitution says what? I mean I have been back and forth through it and I just can't find that part that says they can disregard if they really really want to.

      --
      Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
    8. Re:Well now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We all have good times and bad times, and if a person who wishes to kill themself had done so ten years earlier, then those good times that had experienced would be lost.

      For people from about age 12 to about age 25, their frontal cortex is running like crazy with emotion, but it's mostly illusion. It's normal and people grow out of it.

      For me, life is an adventure. Sometimes the adventures are good and sometimes they are bad, but no matter what happens, twenty years from now you will still have that story to tell.

      After 1000 years, I will have experienced all that life has to offer here on this world, and by then the human race should be on other worlds and I could start the adventure all over again. Finally after I live to be 10,000 years old, it will still not be enough.

    9. Re:Well now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately, the interpretation of whether the government has authority under the Constitution to do something has gone from "Does the Constitution explicitly state that we can?" to "Can we twist what the Constitution says so that, by some stretch of the imagination, it says that we can?", then to "Does the Constitution explicitly prohibit us from doing this?", and finally to "Can we twist an explicit prohibition on doing this in the Constitution to create an obscure edge condition where the explicit prohibition could be argued to not apply, thereby allowing us to do it?". This is the reason that the Bill of Rights was needed in order to get enough people at the Constitutional Convention to support it... no matter how much waste paper it is now.

    10. Re:Well now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem here is that we are putting faith in a scrap of 200 year old hemp with words written on it. When you're the person in charge of "interpreting" the words, it doesn't matter what they are, as long as you interpret them in a way that benefits you and your ilk.

    11. Re:Well now by kwbauer · · Score: 1

      Which is why "original intent" should be the standard. We have all kinds of documents written that show what the original intended meaning of the document was. But no, the left convinced people that original intent was wrong-headed because it did not allow them to GPs path.

      The problem is not that we are putting our faith in 200 year old words. The problem is that we decided to ignore them for so long that any attempt to now follow them is basically useless.

  3. the type of situation by phantomfive · · Score: 1, Insightful

    It's only (reportedly) used in situations where the president is likely to be in danger.
    At some point, you are willing to ruin your court case in exchange for protecting your president.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    1. Re:the type of situation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everything that can be abused, will.

      If we simply reject the bullshit that politicians will say, what makes sense for us is clear. We must assume that anything and everything not-encrypted is being monitored all the time. Further, we must do everything in our power to keep encryption strong and legal. And we must use it.

      All else is hot air.

    2. Re:the type of situation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is expected, and probably no way around it. When there's potential real danger, you need all the tools available as quickly as possible.

      However, what is not OK, is lack of transparency and accountability. This practice should be OK as long as it's documented and defensible.

    3. Re: the type of situation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because murika , land of the free and the constitution . Usa #1 types don't give a. Fuck!

    4. Re:the type of situation by KGIII · · Score: 1

      This might be the first time the troll has been right?!? I suspect some of them still do.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    5. Re:the type of situation by Headrick · · Score: 1

      Yup, I'm totally convinced that is the only situation it will ever be used in.

    6. Re:the type of situation by kwbauer · · Score: 1

      And they claim that this President is in danger 24/7/365. That means they can always use it.

    7. Re:the type of situation by kwbauer · · Score: 1

      This is actually hilarious. Here we have a thread admitting that the Republican party is actually standing up for Constitutional Rights and the left is claiming that standing up for Constitutional Rights is a racist thing to be doing.

      There you have it, folks. Demanding that the law be followed and not being willing to have your rights trampled is now racism. Anything a politician or their appointees dream up is the correct thing.

      God help us all.

    8. Re:the type of situation by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Err, did you read my post or are you reading more into it than is in it? No, my expectation is that *some* of the right still wants him dead. I am not one of those people nor am I a Democrat. In fact, I don't really fit that neatly into checkboxes. However, I'm pretty sure some of the right still wants him dead - no matter what he does.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  4. Carte blanche by Chas · · Score: 1

    So, all people have to do is say "it's a threat" and they can do whatever the fuck they want now...

    Great!

    Can we just all gang up and export our politicians into space?

    What? No! Who said they'd need space suits?

    --


    Chas - The one, the only.
    THANK GOD!!!
    1. Re:Carte blanche by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What would they need space suits for? They already have plenty of (hot) air.

    2. Re:Carte blanche by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No different from anywhere else: We've gone from a objective productive knowledge based society to a subjective touchy feely reactionist society. Factless and feckless - the only thing you have to do to end up in the dumpster these days is annoy the wrong person.

      Funny thing is when cops start waving shotguns at protestors and threatening to kill them for fun or machismo-points...well...how is that non-threatening?

  5. Yup, by EthanDemurs · · Score: 1

    as their name implies.

  6. 4th amendment by NoKaOi · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized; unless the government doesn't feel like it.

    FTFY

    1. Re:4th amendment by kamapuaa · · Score: 1

      Is checking the location of a cell phone a search, or is it a seizure?

      --
      Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
    2. Re:4th amendment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is time to cut-off the head of the beast and restore the rights and freedoms of the people. Does anyone has a coconut and banana we can toss at the POTUS?

    3. Re:4th amendment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a search of your personal information (data)

    4. Re:4th amendment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is it even unreasonable? I don't understand how stingray usage could be seen as unreasonable.

    5. Re:4th amendment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Post your address please. I don't think it is unreasonable if I help my self in your fridge and sleep on your couch.

    6. Re:4th amendment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is checking the location of a cell phone a search, or is it a seizure?

      It's both. They are searching for your location, and then seizing any personal information they can scam from your phone.

    7. Re:4th amendment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is it even unreasonable? I don't understand how stingray usage could be seen as unreasonable.

      It's unreasonable because the government refuses to use the checks-and-balances required by our original form of government (i.e. a warrant issued by actual probable cause that a crime has occurred or likely to occur).

    8. Re:4th amendment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you don't mind if I get a IMSI-catcher and record all your phone conversations. You're ok with your intimate conversations with your SO, or the confidential call to your doctor about that little problem, or the one to your lawyer about that court date, or your bookie about the bet on the race to be published to YouTube. After all you have nothing to hide do you?

    9. Re:4th amendment by kwbauer · · Score: 1

      Doesn't really matter because both are forbidden.

  7. Glad to see that it's only exceptional by Diddlbiker · · Score: 2

    Exceptional circumstances, like "Today's a day ending in a 'y'"

    1. Re: Glad to see that it's only exceptional by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The example given was "a cryptic email" which is basically anything [carrier lost]

    2. Re:Glad to see that it's only exceptional by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where the fuck is this supposed exceptional circumstance clause?

  8. In other news,Secret Service is allowed to use gun by cupnoodleboy · · Score: 0

    In other news, it is reported that Secret Service is allowed to use guns and rifles. The fact that one does not see agents firing their guns everyday is simply because unless in "exceptional circumstances" there is no need, not because they are not allowed to.

  9. And what if they said otherwise? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They say they won't use stingrays without warrants for routine investigations. But some people don't trust them, and complain about this statement. So let's say instead they promised they wouldn't use them without warrants at all. What difference does it make? The same people responsible for making sure they don't use them without warrants are the ones who will be responsible for making sure they don't use them without warrants for routine investigations. If you don't trust them (which is perfectly reasonable), why does it matter what they promise? What would be improved if they promised not to use them without warrants at all? Why do you care what promises someone you don't trust makes?

    1. Re:And what if they said otherwise? by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 2

      There is no check up on this, just as there isn't for all that NSA stuff. A check box, "did you get a warrant?" with no alarms going off if you didn't, and no tracking of what you looked at in any case, is a recipe for corruption to spy on politic enemies.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  10. Oh that's nice by epyT-R · · Score: 0

    Dear Leader must be protected after all. There are many terrible secrets of space..

  11. So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Google tracks cell phones without a warrant and they don't need a belief in anything to do it. When corporations track and commoditize you like an animal, what do you care about your privacy?

    1. Re:So? by tompaulco · · Score: 3, Informative

      Google tracks cell phones without a warrant and they don't need a belief in anything to do it. When corporations track and commoditize you like an animal, what do you care about your privacy?

      The constitution doesn't limit what Google can do, it limits what the government can do. It would take new laws being written to say that Google can't do track you, which would be shortly followed by Google going out of business. On the other hand, this is big news that the SS can do this, because constitutionally, no they can't.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    2. Re:So? by fred911 · · Score: 1

      You grant Google tracking permissions and can opt out. You've been able to do this since like 2008, but it's just been recently that they've screwed up the interface.

      Nothing new..

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B - D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    3. Re:So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You grant Google tracking permissions and can opt out.

      Nope. You're given the illusion of opting out. To quote that article, "Turning voice Activity off doesn’t stop Google storing your recordings".

  12. not guaranteed, could be paralyzed like my friend by raymorris · · Score: 3, Informative

    > Can't be that bad, and it definitely will be brief.

    A friend of mine stuck a gun in his mouth. Splattered across the wall was the part of his brain that controls muscle function. Now he's a prisoner of paralysis.

    To anyone seriously thinking along these lines, that's a very permanent solution to a temporary problem. Remember in high school it was the end of the world when that girl or guy you liked went to the prom with someone else or whatever? Now, it doesn't seem to matter at all. Whatever today's problem is, whatever is the end of the world today, will seem almost as unimportant after a while.

  13. And nobody cared. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Very few people are worried about government surveillance, they're much more concerned that Muslims are 'taking over America' and that 'SJWs' are ruining their freedom. Why fight a powerful enemy when you can scapegoat women and minorities? What was it Hitler said? How fortunate for those in power that the people are so stupid.

    1. Re:And nobody cared. by chilenexus · · Score: 1

      That could explain why my freedom tasted a bit funny this morning....

  14. Re:not guaranteed, could be paralyzed like my frie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    so ideally have a professional cop dispatch you ? nice thinking. bravo. just shoot up a school.
    thats how we get school shootings dumbass. let the nice AC shoot himself in the head.

  15. Really? by Greyfox · · Score: 1

    Hmm. I must have missed that bit in the constitution. You know, that document we rely on to limit the power of the government so they don't abuse the population and get all tyrannical? Reckon I'll just have to put on my constitution-reading glasses and have another look. Bup bup bup shall not be infringed yadda yadda due process blah blah blah, nope, don't see that in there! Maybe I have one of those abridged constitutions. Maybe they cut the boring shit out to save space, or something.

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    1. Re:Really? by gstoddart · · Score: 2

      Well, in case you're only just joking ... the governments have been ignoring the Constitution at an accelerating rate for quite some time.

      They're fully into "don't give a fuck" by now.

      All those people who have taken an oath to "defend and uphold the Constitution"? That means "except where inconvenient".

      Are you still laboring under the belief you live in a free and just society? You should get over that.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    2. Re:Really? by pipedwho · · Score: 1

      The bits you're looking for must be under all the brown stains that have developed over the years whenever the Whitehouse ran out of toilet paper.

  16. Re:not guaranteed, could be paralyzed like my frie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The way the years are melting away the older I get, I see no need for suicide. Life will be over soon anyway.

    While you're here, try to see the beauty in the things that you take for granted. Know that all things are impermanent, including who you are.

  17. Logging. by jondeanmack · · Score: 1

    Logging is a very useful tool for me. The less I say about that the better for you.

  18. Re:Well now - Obama is a maoist police state trait by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

    LEO - what does Low Earth Orbiter have to do with this?

    --
    Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  19. Voteobama? by mi · · Score: 5, Insightful

    In 2008, when this very site discussed John McCain's opinion on warrantless wiretapping, his views were sufficiently unpopular for TFA to be tagged voteobama...

    The first post requested a link on Obama's view on the subject — and got a +1 Interesting upvote. The reply — with a level-5 moderation — quoted a promise by the then junior Senator from Illinois thus:

    Obama: No warrantless wiretaps if you elect me

    All of you, fellow Slashdotters, who voted for the post-racial Nobel Peace Prize winner based on that (or similar) promise, should ask for your money back. Public self-flagellation is optional.

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    1. Re:Voteobama? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... based on that (or similar) promise ...

      While Obama has broken many promises including this one, I'll remind everyone something that's been said before; getting meta-data isn't wiretapping. So much of what's happening now would still happen if Obama was dutiful. Just like his promise to close Guantanamo prison didn't mean the end or torture or the exercise of due process.

    2. Re:Voteobama? by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      Mod way up.

    3. Re:Voteobama? by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      While Obama has broken many promises including this one, I'll remind everyone something that's been said before; getting meta-data isn't wiretapping. So much of what's happening now would still happen if Obama was dutiful. Just like his promise to close Guantanamo prison didn't mean the end or torture or the exercise of due process.

      And that still doesn't excuse any of it, or let any of them off for their dereliction of duty, and (at least temporary) damage to the Constitution.

      Also, meta-data doesn't have to be "wiretapping" to be violation of constitutional privacy rights, as the Supreme Court has ruled on more than one occasion.

      (Clarification: while "privacy" is not stated explicitly in the Constitution, SCOTUS has many times ruled that any rational interpretation of the Bill of Rights must include privacy.)

    4. Re:Voteobama? by quintessencesluglord · · Score: 1

      Oh, I'd go even further.

      When the left were patting themselves on the back at how wonderful they were at ushering a new era of peace and hope, even when poo-pooing anyone bringing up Obama's vote on the Telecom Immunity bill and his then stance on gay marriage (and let's not forget some of the most meaningful advances on this have come from... gasp! the right), they were demonizing everyone else (Ron Paul especially) with a better record on civil rights, casting doom and gloom upon the nation if anyone else got elected.

      Yeah, well, that worked out smashingly well.

    5. Re:Voteobama? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I like this new definition of meta-data. When I do SQL meta-data is the column definitions, when you do illegal wiretapping meta-data is everything in the table, all the data, except 1 column with the voice recording. Not sure why you believe they are just not looking at that 1 last column (the voice recording of the call) when they are looking at everything else.

      I guess you are more prone to believe proven liars, that even you admit lied, than I am.

    6. Re:Voteobama? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obama not keeping promises is why Snowden leaked, because he hoped things might be different with this president.

      "He began to consider becoming a whistle-blower, but with Obama about to be elected, he held off. âoeI think even Obamaâ(TM)s critics were impressed and optimistic about the values that he represented,â he says. âoeHe said that weâ(TM)re not going to sacrifice our rights. Weâ(TM)re not going to change who we are just to catch some small percentage more terrorists.â But Snowden grew disappointed as, in his view, Obama didnâ(TM)t follow through on his lofty rhetoric. âoeNot only did they not fulfill those promises, but they entirely repudiated them,â he says. âoeThey went in the other direction. What does that mean for a society, for a democracy, when the people that you elect on the basis of promises can basically suborn the will of the electorate?â" source: http://www.wired.com/2014/08/e...

    7. Re:Voteobama? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll take you up on the challenge of showing me how the christian extremist GOP has done anything positive for LGBT community.

    8. Re:Voteobama? by quintessencesluglord · · Score: 1

      Well, to begin with, Christian extremist isn't exactly synonymous with the right.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      Highlights-

      Founding member of the Federalist Society.

      Assistant Attorney General (Office of Legal Counsel) in the Reagan administration.

      In September 2007 Olson was considered by the Bush administration for the post of Attorney General to succeed Alberto Gonzales. The Democrats, however, were so vehemently opposed that Bush nominated Michael Mukasey instead.

      And most importantly-

      Olson, over time, came to believe that there is a constitutional right for same-sex marriage.[8] In 2009 he joined with David Boies, his opposing counsel in Bush v. Gore, to bring a federal lawsuit, Perry v. Schwarzenegger, challenging Proposition 8, a California state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.[9] His work on the lawsuit earned him a place among the Time 100's greatest thinkers.[10] In 2011 Olson and David Boies were awarded the ABA Medal, the highest award of the American Bar Association.

      I challenge you to name an equivalent serving member on the left that has done more to advance gay civil rights.

    9. Re:Voteobama? by kwbauer · · Score: 1

      Hell, we can't even get people to rationally interpret what is written in black and white (ink and parchment). Most people can't even understand how to interpret "people" and "not" or the part about if the document does not explicitly state that the government can do it, then the government cannot do it.

    10. Re:Voteobama? by Agripa · · Score: 1

      The meta-data is what was given to the service provider to route the message like the telephone number, right? That is a pair of IP addresses and nothing else. Since IP encryption does not involve them, what are they complaining about if the encryption only affects data they should need a warrant to seize and search anyway?

  20. Nothing left to say, should known by now. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ssh: :cracked in realtime
    openvpn 256aes :cracked in realtime
    ssl :cracked in realtime
    ssh/openvpn 256aes :cracked in realtime

  21. Re: Well now - Obama is a maoist police state trai by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I heard that Obama is actually the one buying all the illegal fetal tissue samples from Planned Parenthood so he can rub them all over his body at night. Then he eats them. He said he really prefers whole babies with a heartbeat because, and I quote, "They taste the best".

  22. Re:In other news,Secret Service is allowed to use by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Gun are mostly used to intimidate the public and bullies them into giving up basic human right and decency. Only in exceptional circumstance they need to put down the unruly peasant. e.g.: 9 time out of 10, the peasant submit every time.

  23. Re:Well now - Obama is a maoist police state trait by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

    Do you feel better now?

    Need a hug?

    *hugs you*

  24. If you believe in the lies ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... When asked whether this essentially granted a blanket exception for the Secret Service, Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Seth Stodder said the exemption would not be used in routine criminal probes ...

    If you still believe Mr. Stodder means what he said, I have couple of bridges to sell ya!

  25. Re:not guaranteed, could be paralyzed like my frie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > Can't be that bad, and it definitely will be brief.

    A friend of mine stuck a gun in his mouth. Splattered across the wall was the part of his brain that controls muscle function. Now he's a prisoner of paralysis.

    To anyone seriously thinking along these lines, that's a very permanent solution to a temporary problem. Remember in high school it was the end of the world when that girl or guy you liked went to the prom with someone else or whatever? Now, it doesn't seem to matter at all. Whatever today's problem is, whatever is the end of the world today, will seem almost as unimportant after a while.

    You really would feel like a numb-nuts, if you couldn't even do that right...

  26. So is everybody else. by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1, Troll

    In other news, it is reported that Secret Service is allowed to use guns and rifles. The fact that one does not see agents firing their guns everyday is simply because unless in "exceptional circumstances" there is no need, not because they are not allowed to.

    So is every body else.

    At least to the extent this civil right is not "infringed", in violation of the constitution. or lost, along with other civil rights, as part of the penalty for conviction of a {constitutionally valid} crime.

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  27. Are you saying we're nobodies? by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

    Very few people are worried about government surveillance ...

    The very fact that we're having this conversation proves that statement wrong. There are plenty of people who care. Some of them are in high places. Some of them are doing their best to stop it.

    But the press gets its power mainly by creating illusions for the legislators about how much, and which way, the voters care about various issues.

    "Nobody cares" really means that Sumner Redstone (CBS), GE and Vivendi (NBC), The Walt Disney Company (ABC), Rupert Murdoch (Fox News, Newscorp, WSJ), Mitt Romney (now via his cronies) (Clear Channel), and Garry Pruit (the CEO) and a "bunch of rich guys" who bought the rest of the newspapers from the conglomerates (AP), all want the government to snoop.

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  28. And the PC mod it down! by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 0

    Parent post got a down-mod within 45 minutes. I wonder if any meta-moderators believe that's an abuse?

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  29. Re:Well now - Obama is a maoist police state trait by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is help available for people like you. Mostly their advice will amount to STFU, before you hurt yourself.

  30. Joe Biden 2016! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Joe Biden is a square shooter. Joe Biden 2016!

    1. Re:Joe Biden 2016! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Joe Biden, who when asked what he thought of Obama responded with the remarkably racist "He's clean and well dressed"? Or Joe Biden (D-MBNA) who's been a bank puppet longer than most slashtards have been alive.

    2. Re:Joe Biden 2016! by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      No, he means the Joe Biden who isn't running for president.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  31. Re:not guaranteed, could be paralyzed like my frie by KGIII · · Score: 1

    I don't have any ethical qualms about suicide but, yes, much the same. I've made it this far and new and interesting things keep happening to me. Why quit now? Age will claim me soon enough. I hope... I really don't want to live forever - nor do I want to be mentally incapacitated and need to rely on a someone to take care of me.

    --
    "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  32. Re:Well now - Obama is a maoist police state trait by KGIII · · Score: 1

    That's where the aliens are with their brain waves. Duh. ;-)

    --
    "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  33. This makes you more worried? by NoBrakes58 · · Score: 1

    As I understand it, if the Secret Service wanted to go and start stingraying everybody, there's nothing really historically stopping them other than "anything they picked up wouldn't necessarily be admissible in court," and all that's changed is that a few more situations would make any collected evidence admissible. This goes for any method of evidence collection. There was some discussion a few days ago in another thread about police needing a warrant to use FLIR to look at possible growhouses, and it's the same situation: they can still do it, but the evidence would be inadmissible and if they'd have some legal problems if they hit the house.

    All that's changed here is that they can go straight to the stingray if (1) there's a threat to the president, (2) they have probable cause, and (3) there's demonstrably no time to get a warrant. If they wanted to start collecting your cell phone data without any practical use for it, it's already being done. The technology cat is out of the proverbial bag, and if you really don't want to be tracked by phone then you might just have to stop carrying one everywhere.

    Basically: why are you any more worried now than you were when the technology was invented?

  34. Re: not guaranteed, could be paralyzed like my fri by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seems like a pot and kettle exchange...

  35. This points out why not to use insecure software by Thing+1 · · Score: 1

    Had the network been properly hardened, with a list of valid towers, then a user's cell phone would never erroneously connect to a Stingray tower.

    Now, certainly, law enforcement might work with cell providers to put their spy devices on the list of valid towers. But that would require effort. As it is, dumb devices connect blindly to spy devices and divulge secrets, all with no extra effort from the criminals in charge.

    --
    I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
  36. WRONG by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Separation of powers. No agency (especially in the Executive branch) has dictorial powers. Only Congress can grant additional powers, and even then it is limited, as it must fit the framework of the U.S. Constitution. You and I have RIGHTS, and those can't be just swept aside because somebody wants to.

    If the courts allow this on any level, then those courts are just as criminal and the judge should be removed, even if that requires military force.

  37. I do have a problem with this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The problem is that this (and the Secret Service in general) makes everyone, especially the ruling class, believe that the ruling class is actually important to this country (the USA). I've always believed that if we really want to fight "evil-doers," examples come from leadership.

    There was a threat to the US Capital Building and all of the Senators and Representatives left the city out of fear, sorry, for their own safety. I would really have admired them if one simply said something along the lines "if you kill me, there are 319 million other people ready to take my place." I don't expect them to die for the job, but I would like to see a little gumption.

    Instead we go though airports taking off shoes and belts and now have wireless wire tapping to keep our "leaders" safe. What has become of the USA.

  38. Just lol. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sort of like saying trust me, after they lied about all the bulk surveillance going on from snowden. And what happened with that anyway? Has anyone been fired or gone to prison for that yet??

    WTF is a person to believe anymore....

  39. Work around? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So if you're going to make questionable phone calls, do it from a spot you know has lousy cell coverage. That way when the coverage dramatically improves you'll know to temper your free speech.

  40. Re: not guaranteed, could be paralyzed like my fri by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He had something good to say, but you just had to call him a fucking loser prick. Boy, you are a dumbass. I hope some big guy named...

  41. Re:Well now - Obama is a maoist police state trait by truck_soccer · · Score: 1

    That was really articulate and intelligent.

  42. Re:not guaranteed, could be paralyzed like my frie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'd like to have The End on my terms and under my control.

  43. Theater. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is literally nothing stopping the government from doing whatever the fuck they want to. You think a piece of paper with words written on it will stop a willing criminal? Gun free zone signs work? They own you and your physical property. The last bastion of freedom resides in your thoughts, for now. Our government is far too big for any one to do shit about it. This shit car was set in motion at a time when people thought bloodletting was viable medicine. Relying on documents written by cavemen is bad practice.

  44. Re:not guaranteed, could be paralyzed like my frie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not in the mouth. under the chin against the throat pointed at ~ a 30 deg angle to take out the brain stem. Just point to where the back of your head joins the neck. No brainstem, no autonomous nervous activity, no heartbeat or respiration.

  45. Re:not guaranteed, could be paralyzed like my frie by KGIII · · Score: 1

    To be honest, I kind of expect to tire of it all, eventually, and not want to deal with mental degradation and physical ailments any longer. At that point, I'd not be surprised to see me go out in a heady, warm blanket, opiate overdose while nodding out and enjoying the last few minutes of awareness. I always thought that would be a pleasing way to go if, you know, you have to pick. My other option includes words like, 'sudden,' unexpected,' 'painless,' 'gory,' and 'chunks.' I haven't quite figured out how to do that without causing severe trauma to others. PAS, physician assisted suicide, should be a thing - a more common and easily acquired thing.

    --
    "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  46. Re:not guaranteed, could be paralyzed like my frie by davester666 · · Score: 1

    Just get caught for speeding, then try to accelerate away when the cop touches your car.
    Or even just run away from the car after stopping. As a bonus, you get a free gun.

    Unfortunately, if you are white, you may have to do this in blackface.

    --
    Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
  47. Re:not guaranteed, could be paralyzed like my frie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're the one suggesting suicide by cop. Worse still you're pointing out that a very effective way of doing this would be to "just shoot up a school."

    I've had suicidal thoughts before and there are people I have hated in my life, but I've never considered taking anyone else along with me. I suppose just showing up at a school with a couple guns and firing into the ceiling would probably assure that no kids got hurt. Maybe blanks? That way after you're dead they'd realize you didn't actually want to hurt the kids.

    I don't recall the statistic but quite a few people manage to survive attempted suicides with guns. If they do survive they're going to almost certainly suffer the effects for the rest of their lives.

    I'm very pro 2nd amendment but knowing what I can get like especially when I'm drunk is why I don't own a gun personally. (Well, that and I don't feel I need one for protection and although target shooting or hunting might be fun I've got more than enough stuff to keep me busy).

    And no matter how close I have come to suicide, I'm glad I never did because as many problems as I have with my life, I've actually got it pretty good and more often than not I enjoy my life.

  48. And I'm sure it will improve their work no end... by TaleSpinner · · Score: 1
  49. Of course by rickb928 · · Score: 1

    "Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Seth Stodder said the exemption would not be used in routine criminal probes, such as a counterfeiting investigation."

    Yup, no fear.

    They think we are this naive. Well, most of us are.

    --
    deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
  50. The Solution is Obvious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The "solution" to the government "problem" is then obvious.

    Deputize all law enforcement, all Three Letter Agency employees, hell deputize all government employees, as members of the Secret Service.

    That way everyone the government wants to have illegal, warrantless spying, can now do so! Problem solved, I'll send you my bill later.