Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

How Militarized Cops Are Zapping Rights With Stingray (alternet.org)

Posted by EditorDavid on from the un-"warranted"-accusations dept.

"Police nationwide are secretly exploiting intrusive technologies with the feds' complicity," argues a new article on Alternet -- calling out Stingray, which mimics a cellphone tower to identify every cellphone nearby. "It gathers information not only about a specific suspect, but any bystanders in the area as well... Some Stingrays are capable of collecting not only cell phone ID numbers but also numbers those phones have dialed and even phone conversations." The ACLU says requests for more information have been meeting heavy resistance from police departments since 2011, with many departments citing nondisclosure agreements with Stingray's manufacturer and with the FBI, and "often, the police get a judge's sign-off for surveillance without even bothering to mention that they will be using a Stingray...claiming that they simply can't violate those FBI nondisclosure agreements.

"More often than not, police use Stingrays without bothering to get a warrant, instead seeking a court order on a more permissive legal standard. This is part of the charm of a new technology for the authorities: nothing is settled on how to use it." Stingray is more than a 1960s TV series with puppets. Several state judges estimate there have been hundreds of instances where police have used the Stingray tool without a warrant or telling a judge.

Slashdot reader Presto Vivace writes:
This is why it matters who wins the mayor and city council races. Localities do not have to accept this technology.

58 of 105 comments (clear)

  1. Correct phrasing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    nothing is settled on how to use it

    This isn't a problem with new technology. This is a problem with powertripping fuckheads.

    The Fourth Amendment, in very simple and explicit language, settled the use of Stingray long before it was even imagined.

    1. Re:Correct phrasing. by sexconker · · Score: 2

      The Constitution explicitly applies to things that didn't exist at the time of its writing, and the language was expressly crafted to include future changes in society, technology, etc.

    2. Re:Correct phrasing. by Feyshtey · · Score: 4, Informative

      When opinion trumps the Constitution then the Constitution is no longer being upheld and protected by the government servants sworn to do precisely that.

      The Constitution was deliberately crafted to limit what the government may do to the people without due process. Your argument here, is that because those in government who have power think its ok to weild that power against the people, then it is inherently ok for those with power to weild it against the people. That is precisely the thing that the Constitution was built to protect against, and anyone unwilling to see that or to do the mental gymnastics necessary to dismiss it is intellectually lazy, intellectually dishonest or morally corrupt.

      The opinions of any individual bureaucrat isnt even relevant. What is relevant is the opinion of the judges in the courts. These days I dont have a hell of a lot of faith in them either, since so many are activist judges. However, they do get it right on occasion, and more than a couple have found Stingray to be a violation of the Fourth Amendment. (http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/crime/bs-md-ci-stingray-court-decision-20160331-story.html)

      --
      "But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi
    3. Re:Correct phrasing. by Feyshtey · · Score: 1

      Hate to tell you this, but when you send an email, connect to a website, make a cell call, you are handing an entity a message, saying "Please deliver this request to XYZ and bring the reply back to be at ZYX.". The only difference is the technology that is in use.

      Your argument is about as valid as if you were to say that none of the protections for freedom of movement across the US apply because you're using a car instead of a horse.

      --
      "But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi
    4. Re:Correct phrasing. by Agripa · · Score: 1

      Hate to tell you this, but when you send an email, connect to a website, make a cell call, you are handing an entity a message, saying "Please deliver this request to XYZ and bring the reply back to be at ZYX.". The only difference is the technology that is in use.

      Except the only thing which should be visible in transit is the IP address, size, and time.

      Law enforcement and various other agencies preferred the previous situation where everybody thought the law and Constitution were being followed; it allowed them to search and spy on content with impunity and parallel construction could prevent court and public review. They also worked to sabotage any standards which would make ubiquitous encryption easier.

      Now that the Snowden is out of the bag, they will apply pressure where it is most effective and that is the telecommunication companies. That will not help for third party applications and if they become a problem, there are always lawful and unlawful means to get them them as well.

    5. Re:Correct phrasing. by Agripa · · Score: 1

      Nothing about you BROADCASTING "YOUR POSITION is private. The 4th is very well written. Claiming this is different is just as bullshit as claiming "with a computer" as a new patent on a 17th century invention.

      I actually agree with you but not for the typical reason.

      Since none of the three branches of government can protect and enforce the 4th amendment as far as communications, it might as well be treated null and void. Technological measures can protect it at the cost to law enforcement and the courts of the ability to serve lawful warrants but that is too bad; they should have considered the risk of not enforcing the 4th amendment.

    6. Re:Correct phrasing. by Feyshtey · · Score: 1

      Except the only thing which should be visible in transit is the IP address, size, and time.

      How is that unlike what is written on an envelope and dropped in a mailbox? Why would the Constitution be upheld in the use of one but not the other? Aside from the obvious answer that it's because government wants to take advantage of the laziness and ignorance of the citizens, that is.

      --
      "But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi
    7. Re:Correct phrasing. by Agripa · · Score: 1

      It is exactly like the protections afford to post office mail and completely unlike the protections offered to data. The Constitution is *not* upheld for data by any branch of government leaving only technological methods.

    8. Re:Correct phrasing. by Feyshtey · · Score: 1

      Sweet. So they legalized identity theft?

      --
      "But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi
    9. Re:Correct phrasing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The opinions of any individual bureaucrat isnt even relevant. What is relevant is the opinion of the judges in the courts.

      Not quite. In US law, we require all law enforcement officers, and all lawyers, so swear oaths upholding the law. The highest law in the land is the Bill of Rights, an open-ended document with unspecified rights "retained by the people" (9th Amendment) and "reserved to the people" (10th Amendment).

      The open-ended nature of the Bill of Rights was so extremely important, it actually ended up in two different amendments!

      As such, we ARE expecting police officers (and all government bureaucrats) to make their own judgement regarding rights the people might choose to assert. They are NOT allowed to defer to their hierarchical superiors: that's the nature of oaths, which are individual. If other words, if their superiors tell them it's ok to do something or that they should do something (via warrant or court order or executive order), the police and the bureaucrats are supposed to have enough education, common sense, and good judgement to know whether or not that's a reasonable thing to do.

      Ironically, US law effectively embodies the Nuremberg Precedent, dating back more than century before the events at Nuremberg actually happened!

      If the law and related precedent is so complex that non-lawyers in the government can't exercise reasonable judgement, then that represents a failure of legal ethics: the legal profession in creating, maintaining, and implementing the law is violating the 9th Amendment right to ethical practice of law. As such, the law (or the authority of the court, or the executive, in the event of a judicial or executive order - whichever is applicable to any given situation) becomes invalid. The non-lawyers in government are obligated to recognize this and refuse to carry out any actions required by the law, irregardless of what the lawyers tell them.

      As such, it is NOT the case that the opinion of the judges is the only thing that is relevant. The police and other government officials do not get to extend the authority of government, but they most certainly are expected to exercise good judgement with respect to NOT exercising authority.

      Government authority only exists when it doesn't violate rights the people are likely to assert as being retained by them: legislative groups get to write the laws and vote on the laws, but irregardless of the vote, those laws are only valid if they don't violate the highest law in the land.

      A big part of the current problems the USA has with it's law (which actually have a long history, going back to the founding: the outward symptoms of the disease has changed, but not the underlying illness) comes from the fact that a lot of government officials don't understand the individual nature of their responsibility. They assume that following the orders of their superiors is a substitute for good judgement, the same mistake made by so many people who ended up being imprisoned or executed as war criminals.

      To make matters worse, it's pretty clear that the lawyers would prefer that everybody else defer to them (creating business for their profession) and have taken steps to try to cause this to happen (a violation of the oaths sworn by the lawyers).

    10. Re:Correct phrasing. by Feyshtey · · Score: 1

      When deciding in hindsight if a particular act under a particular set of circumstances was appropriate, and if it will be allowed as an on-going policy position, then the judges are where we must turn.

      It's all well and good that the Obama administration's lawyers and appointed officials, and law enforcement at a more local level (guided by the FBI) believe that they have the authority to do a thing to the people without due process. It's another for the courts to uphold it.

      While I understand what you're getting at, for the conversation at hand we are talking about whether this process will continue to be allowed. Yes, the FBI should have known it wasnt ok. Yes, they likely knew that they were treading a fine line and chose to pursue it anyway. Yes, local law enforcement should have known better. Yes, the judges giving warrants should have asked for more clarity on where the evidence supporting a warrant came from. Every individual should have applied more diligence. But they didnt, and now we must rely on the courts and not the same bureaucrats to set things straight.

      --
      "But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi
  2. parallel evidence by ebonum · · Score: 4, Funny

    Hard to see what the problem. The police gather information illegally with a stingray. Then they know who/what/where to look for. Then they create a secondary story to explain how they made the bust. In the drive through a McDonald's noticed suspect leave motel and get in his car. Suspect stumbled and appeared to be inebriated. When suspect was pulled over, suspect seemed nervous which justified the search which lead to the happy fortuitous discovery of drugs...
    No cops where jailed during the crime, so all good.

    1. Re:parallel evidence by ebonum · · Score: 1

      Irony! Oh, no, no, we don't get that here. We haven't had any irony here since about, uh, '83, when I was the only practitioner of it. And I stopped because I was tired of being stared at.

      - C.D.

    2. Re:parallel evidence by Agripa · · Score: 2

      Law enforcement is very careful not to record the number of drug searches which turn up nothing just like they are very careful not to record the number of false drug dog indications. If they did that, it would reveal the magnitude of their deceit.

  3. A simple solution to part of the problem by jenningsthecat · · Score: 5, Interesting

    FTS: "often, the police get a judge's sign-off for surveillance without even bothering to mention that they will be using a Stingray...claiming that they simply can't violate those FBI nondisclosure agreements"

    So judges should just get into the habit of asking specific questions about Stingray, and anything similarly illegal, EVERY TIME law enforcement asks for a warrant. Force the cops to make a choice between lying to a judge and violating an NDA with the FBI. It would be entertaining to be a fly on the wall and watch the FBI get thrown under the bus a few (dozen) times in front of a variety of judges.

    --
    'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
    1. Re:A simple solution to part of the problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      In general, the practice in america is to throw the accused in jail for a few months until they confess, citing high (99.9+%) conviction rates and the fact that the judge WILL throw the book at anyone who dares to take a case to a trial in the first place, in order to set an example. By the time a new inmate has sampled the delights of sleeping on a concrete floor with three square feet of personal space, and sharing a toilet with twelve other men for a month or two, most of them will admit to almost anything if it means they get time served.

      Particularly in california, the legal system is very predatory.

    2. Re:A simple solution to part of the problem by AK+Marc · · Score: 2

      Torture was invented in the inquisition to extract confessions. The truth was never required. The same holds true today. The torture isn't explicit damage, but threat of it. Confess or you'll be raped every day for the rest of your life. That's explicit torture.

      --
      Learn to love Alaska
    3. Re:A simple solution to part of the problem by khchung · · Score: 2

      So judges should just get into the habit of asking specific questions about Stingray, and anything similarly illegal, EVERY TIME law enforcement asks for a warrant. Force the cops to make a choice between lying to a judge and violating an NDA with the FBI.

      Remind me again, why would any judge want to make cops' life difficult?

      If a judge signed a warrant which subsequently led to the illegal use of Stingray, would there be any penalty for the judge? The answer is most likely no, and therein lies the root of the problem.

      --
      Oliver.
    4. Re: A simple solution to part of the problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      What do you call people working for government who very obviously display criminal behavior in their everyday jobs, like the FBI? Not criminals, because they won't get arrested. What then? Is there a better word that still retains the contempt society should hold for these people?

    5. Re:A simple solution to part of the problem by JRV31 · · Score: 2

      The cops simply make up a fake chain of evidence.

    6. Re: A simple solution to part of the problem by JRV31 · · Score: 1

      Pigs?

    7. Re:A simple solution to part of the problem by alcmena · · Score: 1

      Sad... but true. Most people will view torture as "effective". Why? Because it works on 24.

    8. Re:A simple solution to part of the problem by Agripa · · Score: 1

      So judges should just get into the habit of asking specific questions about Stingray, and anything similarly illegal, EVERY TIME law enforcement asks for a warrant. Force the cops to make a choice between lying to a judge and violating an NDA with the FBI. It would be entertaining to be a fly on the wall and watch the FBI get thrown under the bus a few (dozen) times in front of a variety of judges.

      Why would the judges do that? It is in their interest not to know.

    9. Re:A simple solution to part of the problem by alcmena · · Score: 3, Interesting

      This. I'm a relatively well off white male, and I have encountered exactly this happening. Twice...

      The first time, I was riding in my car with friends. Had we been drinking? Absolutely. But the driver didn't. He was a heart surgeon at OSU Hospital who was on call. He offered to drive the group because of the fact that he could not possibly drink anything. This was back in 2002. Why is that important? Oh, I don't know. Maybe because a few people crashed some planes in a some buildings, and the entire US turned against anyone who wasn't white. See, my friend, who was a well known heart surgeon, happened to look middle eastern. He was sober. Hadn't drank so much as a drop of alcohol... and he was forced to pull over to a parking lot.

      In said parking lot, we were surrounded by 6 police cars and 3 paddy wagons. I was in the back seat, behind a window tinted so you couldn't see me. I had 5 other friends with me. An asian, the middle eastern who drove, an african american, and two other white friends. Every... single... minority was put in handcuffs in the backs of the cop cars. Not one of the whites were. I was mildly drunk, which means I was stupid enough to have no fear of what was happening. I yelled at the cops because of how they treated my friends. I scolded them for how my minority friends were treated differently than we were. I was given "fantastic" answers like, "would you like us to handcuff you too?!?!" to which I "smartly" replied, "yes, and lets explain to the courts why."

      It turns out an asshole neighbor of mine saw a bunch of minorities getting into a car (my car!!!!), and reported it being stolen. Having nothing better to do, the entire Columbus, OH police department responded to the theft of a 1984 Chevy Suburban that had more rust than metal. They pulled my friends out, at gunpoint, by their necks and handcuffed them in the back of police cars.

      Had things gone slightly different, I might be attending a friend's funeral. It frightens me both in how close I was to having a friend murdered by the police, and looking back and seeing how easily they would have justified it. Only because my friends did not assert their rights are they alive, and ironically, only because as a white male who did assert my rights were they freed.

      There are bad people out there. There are great cops out there. The problem is, the police unions are so "pro cop" that any / all attempts to remove the bad cops from the force is null and void. They will protect a "bad cop" at the expense of 1,000,000 "good citizens" and won't think twice about it. I did file a report about what happened to my friends and I, and received a response that the police pulling my friends out at gunpoint was 100% justified because random citizen X reported my car as being stolen.

      That was the first time... The second time... was even more "unfortunate". I'll simply say, I understand why poor people do not trust the police. I'm fairly well off, and have personally seen the abuses they are willing to do. The only difference is that I'm well off enough to be able to retaliate via the courts, and my friends often are not.

    10. Re:A simple solution to part of the problem by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Causing pain for pleasure is sadism, not torture. Pain (or threat thereof) for a confession (true or false) is torture, and was invented in the inquisition. Not all inflicted pain is torture, and not all torture requires inflicted pain.

      --
      Learn to love Alaska
    11. Re:A simple solution to part of the problem by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      Remind me again, why would any judge want to make cops' life difficult?

      If they didn't, then why wouldn't the warrants be trivial to get? Why would the improperly collected evidence be inadmissable? Why would the appeals court not allow it the admissability to stand?

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
  4. Is That Warm Feeling by zenlessyank · · Score: 1

    Cell radiation or is it from the safety I feel?

    1. Re:Is That Warm Feeling by zenlessyank · · Score: 1

      Never mind. It was just a giant pile of horse crap.

  5. Re:airplane mode by pete6677 · · Score: 2

    Why not just keep your phone in a Faraday Cage at all times?

  6. Re:airplane mode by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Why not just keep your phone in a Faraday Cage at all times?

    Wouldn't that drain the battery?

  7. Re:Geoffrey Stone speaks! by Quzak · · Score: 2

    Great idea! Lets keep people from thinking for themselves and trying to understand and thus provide public discourse to an issue that is getting way out of hand. We wouldnt want the sheep to get all uppity and using their critical thinking skills. Consume, work, sleep. Eat shit and die.

    --
    Support your local school shooter, give them your firearms.
  8. The Police State by surfdaddy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The Police State is progressing successfully, all while we continue to ensure that the masses believe they are free and have a full bill of rights that is followed legally.

  9. Local elections do not matter by axewolf · · Score: 1

    This is why it matters who wins the mayor and city council races. Localities do not have to accept this technology.

    No. The reality is that there is a chain of command and that the most spineless lightweights occupy lower offices. They will do whatever they are pressured to do from the next level up, and so on.

    Stop living under the delusion that there is democracy in the world.
    The only way you could argue that there is democracy is if 95+% of humans don't count as people. Which is pretty much the argument the top of the hierarchy makes.

    1. Re:Local elections do not matter by ultranova · · Score: 1

      No. The reality is that there is a chain of command and that the most spineless lightweights occupy lower offices. They will do whatever they are pressured to do from the next level up, and so on.

      No. The reality is that your public officials are doing exactly what people demand from them: being tough on crime. Sure, they end up trampling all over everyone's rights, killing or jailing innocent people, and going way too far with the guilty, but that's what you keep voting for.

      Stop living under the delusion that there is democracy in the world.

      There's democracy in the world. The problem is that Joe Average is every bit as much of a nasty asshole as King George was.

      America isn't the Land of the Free, it's the land of people who want freedom for themselves and everyone who isn't exactly like them to be put in their place like the dirty hippies they are, while those on top loot everyone else's pockets since such divisions make it impossible to band together and stop them. And then comes the salesman Trump who knows just how to use all this carefully cultivated resentment to take power for himself. So I guess he'll be the president US wants and deserves.

      The only way you could argue that there is democracy is if 95+% of humans don't count as people. Which is pretty much the argument the top of the hierarchy makes.

      95+% of humans don't count as people in most people's opinion. The only disagreement is over who's the 5-% who do.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    2. Re:Local elections do not matter by axewolf · · Score: 1

      I'm afraid your ideas of the proportions of the population in terms of various designations of fervor about crime are askew.

      Voting does not matter. The system has been broken. It's been figured out. The only candidates supplied are those that will follow the chain of command, or the only people voting are those that will follow the chain of command.

      The only people who vote in local elections are, honestly, complete freaks. The do not vote out of honest concern, they vote to fit in. They vote to brag about what they vote for. They vote for revenge against innocents that they lump in with those who have given them so much as a small slight.

      There is no democracy because there is no free will exercised in societal interaction. People have given up their faculties in order to fit in to a system that does not benefit them in any way. Survival is useless when it requires a stripped-down life. Giving up your freedom for pleasure ensures that your instincts will be useless to you and you will not achieve you potential in any way. It ensures that you have no discipline to apply your will to what is critical to your life. People save what tiny amount of free will they have left for their own petty concerns. Everything else is irrational conformity; triggered behavior from classical conditioning.

      There is no such thing as "freedom for yourself". You rely on the competition caused by those that are also free. A world of slaves will quickly fail.

  10. If you build it, they will come by Required+Snark · · Score: 2

    If the Feds gave local police military helicopters with Hellfire missiles they would routinely be used on jaywalkers and drivers who didn't use turn signals. If it was nukes they would be used on speeders. One of the perks of being a cop is the right to use unjustifiable force any time you can get away with it.

    --
    Why is Snark Required?
    1. Re:If you build it, they will come by misanthropic.mofo · · Score: 1

      If the Feds gave local police military helicopters with Hellfire missiles they would routinely be used on jaywalkers and drivers who didn't use turn signals

      They should be used on drivers that don't use their turn signals.

      --
      --There are two kinds of people in this world. I don't like either of them.
  11. Re:Stonewalling? Nothing to fear? by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

    "requests for more information have been meeting heavy resistance from police departments since 2011"

    What is it they tell us again about how okay it is to use the stingray?

    "If you have nothing to hide..."?

    Nah, it's:

    "Pick up that can!"

    Strat

    --
    Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
  12. Everytime they've been faces with violating an NDA by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    or disclosing the extent of what they're going to do they've dropped the request. If they feel threatened they just go to ground.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  13. Civil Contracts vs. The Constitution by Maxwell'sSilverLART · · Score: 2

    ...with many departments citing nondisclosure agreements with Stingray's manufacturer and with the FBI, and "often, the police get a judge's sign-off for surveillance without even bothering to mention that they will be using a Stingray...claiming that they simply can't violate those FBI nondisclosure agreements.

    So their position, then, is that they've contracted away our constitutional rights? Is that the long and the short of it?

    --
    Moderate drunk! It's more fun that way!
    1. Re:Civil Contracts vs. The Constitution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yea, it is pretty much the same as the contract between the five eyes.

      The CIA is not supposed to spy on US-nationals in the U.S.A, so they let MI5 spy inside the U.S.A. and share the information with the CIA. Not exactly in the spirit of the law, is it.

  14. In other news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    mdsolar zapping my rights to cheap efficient electricity with his anti-nuclear agenda. For more information, go back 4 articles.

  15. Mobile phones by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

    Mobile phones aren't secure anyway. You are being tracked by one or more entities when you carry one. All your data is monitored as well as your calls and location by the various corporations. Yet everyone seems to have one. Just accept that any networked communication system is not secure by definition. All nodes need to be able to talk to other nodes in the system. That is the design.

  16. Re:Your Govts Worldwide.... by JRV31 · · Score: 1

    We need to rein in the gangs of armed thugs that are terrorizing out cities.

  17. New legal strategy? by Midnight+Thunder · · Score: 1

    Maybe all defence lawyers should ask the opening question whether any surveillance device was used without a court order, during the investigation? Get the illegal data tossed out frequently enough, that maybe the cops will consider use of a court order?

    --
    Jumpstart the tartan drive.
  18. Moral of the story.... by Lumpy · · Score: 2

    never Ever trust the police. They are no different than the Crips or Bloods except they are better financed.

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  19. Re:Your Govts Worldwide.... by Feyshtey · · Score: 1

    Quit electing them.

    --
    "But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi
  20. Cases dropped by Archfeld · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The 6th amendment right to confront your accuser has caused many cases brought about by so called stingray devices to be dropped for fear of violating the NDA's signed by the department utilizing the devices, FBI included. I'm not saying they aren't out there or that many departments aren't over-stepping their bounds but any decent lawyer will challenge the source of transcripts and many cases have magically faded away for the lack of evidence unless they are major cases that can invoke secret warrants or such as national security issues.

    http://arstechnica.com/tech-po...

    http://forums.theregister.co.u...

    https://www.techdirt.com/artic...

    --
    errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
  21. Re:Domestic Mercs by onepoint · · Score: 1

    So how do you detect this device. is it mounted on a dish???

    --
    if you see me, smile and say hello.
  22. Better Cannon meet improved Wall by Pepebuho · · Score: 2

    I believe this whole outcry is quite stupid. It has quite a "simple" technical solution.
    1. Crowdsource the position and coordinates of "legal" cell tower antennas. It's not hard, they are visible . If it is possible to have "OpenStreetMap" I do not see why it cannot have a layer called "OpenCellSites". Just like Waze
    2. Write an App, or include it in the firmware that keeps the cellphone from answering siren calls from any antenna not in the list.
    Stingray is not a problem if you simply do not answer its call.

    I know #2 maybe difficult if it is in the firmware inside radio module. If that is the case then I foresee an industry of open source radio modules with a "veto" signal that tells the cellphone when it is hearing a "better" antenna and asks for permission to change. It it does not receive permission, it is forbidden to switch.

    Just My Idea.

    1. Re:Better Cannon meet improved Wall by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

      This has already been done.

      "Filter error: You can type more than that for your comment"

      Slashcode error: makes people type in worthless padding. Good job. Not.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    2. Re:Better Cannon meet improved Wall by Agripa · · Score: 1

      I know #2 maybe difficult if it is in the firmware inside radio module. If that is the case then I foresee an industry of open source radio modules with a "veto" signal that tells the cellphone when it is hearing a "better" antenna and asks for permission to change. It it does not receive permission, it is forbidden to switch.

      Which will not be approved by the FCC.

  23. Re:Domestic Mercs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    https://github.com/CellularPrivacy/Android-IMSI-Catcher-Detector/wiki

  24. Determining if cell tower is a stingray by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

    Get "Network Signal Info Pro", by kaibits software. Then use it.

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
  25. Re:Your Govts Worldwide.... by Feyshtey · · Score: 2

    The people who protect the police, empower the police, arm the police, militarize the police, set the policies of the police, and cede authority to federal police, are.

    --
    "But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi
  26. How about Mystery Diner ? by slincolne · · Score: 1
    I saw an episode of Mystery Diner where the guy in charge mentioned that he used a Stingray to intercept SMS messages between two staff who were suspected of stealing from their employer.

    They showed the messages as captured - so either this was faked or private citizens can purchase and use Stingray's for spying on people.

    And you are worried about Law Enforcement using them ?

  27. Re:airplane mode by delt0r · · Score: 3, Funny

    I just watch soo much porn, if they view my history they will go blind.

    --
    If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
  28. The police and their supporters by ToddInSF · · Score: 1

    are a criminal class.