US Judge Throws Out Cell Phone 'Stingray' Evidence For The First Time (reuters.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

US Judge Throws Out Cell Phone 'Stingray' Evidence For The First Time (reuters.com)

Posted by BeauHD on Wednesday July 13, 2016 @01:00AM from the first-of-its-kind dept.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Reuters: For the first time, a federal judge has suppressed evidence obtained without a warrant by U.S. law enforcement using a stingray, a surveillance device that can trick suspects' cell phones into revealing their locations. U.S. District Judge William Pauley in Manhattan on Tuesday ruled that defendant Raymond Lambis' rights were violated when the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration used such a device without a warrant to find his Washington Heights apartment. Stingrays, also known as "cell site simulators," mimic cell phone towers in order to force cell phones in the area to transmit "pings" back to the devices, enabling law enforcement to track a suspect's phone and pinpoint its location. The DEA had used a stingray to identify Lambis' apartment as the most likely location of a cell phone identified during a drug-trafficking probe. Pauley said doing so constituted an unreasonable search. The ruling marked the first time a federal judge had suppressed evidence obtained using a stingray, according to the American Civil Liberties Union, which like other privacy advocacy groups has criticized law enforcement's use of such devices. "Absent a search warrant, the government may not turn a citizen's cell phone into a tracking device," Pauley wrote. FBI Special Agent Daniel Alfin suggests in a report via Motherboard that decrypting encrypted data fundamentally alters it, therefore contaminating it as forensic evidence.

118 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

What? by phishybongwaters · 2016-07-13 01:03 · Score: 1

"decrypting encrypted data fundamentally alters it" What? If the decrypted data doesn't match the data that was encrypted, you failed to decrypt it properly. On a purely technical level I guess he's correct. Encrypted, the data is just a bunch of jazz and whirly bangs. Once decrypted it's actual data, so on a purely superficial level, with no understanding of encryption, I guess he's right. Damnit
1. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-13 01:13 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Well, he's right. With an arbitrary algorithm and arbitrary key, encrypted data can be decrypted to absolutely anything. In particular, data might have been arranged so that it can be decrypted in multiple intelligible ways, only one of which reflects a true plot, and the other of which are just made up shit to confuse anyone who tries to decrypt it. Hell, some encryption utilities allow people to create shadow partitions with no important data in it, so if you give the "wrong" key, it still likes you're giving up the goods - a cleverer alternative would be to have multiple shadows each of which contain bullshit, each of which can be decrypted with varying ease, where the bullshit is especially easy to decrypt. If LE finds one, declare precisely what you've done, and remark that all they've done is decrypt one of your red herrings.
2. Re:What? by cryptizard · 2016-07-13 01:17 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Read the linked article. He is saying that if the government presents ONLY the decrypted data as evidence in court it is not forensically valid because it breaks the chain of evidence. They need to also show the originally captured encrypted data so that it can verified that the decrypted version actually correlates to what they got and was not somehow tampered with.
3. Re:What? by Registered+Coward+v2 · 2016-07-13 01:21 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  "decrypting encrypted data fundamentally alters it" What? If the decrypted data doesn't match the data that was encrypted, you failed to decrypt it properly. On a purely technical level I guess he's correct. Encrypted, the data is just a bunch of jazz and whirly bangs. Once decrypted it's actual data, so on a purely superficial level, with no understanding of encryption, I guess he's right. Damnit
  This a typical /. summary that mistakes what was actually said to make it sound more interesting. The agent said decrypted data is different from what was taking by the warrant, and thus you are not turning using the actual information taken in the search (i.e. the encrypted data) but that it still is forensically sound; he never said that's "contaminating it as forensic evidence" just it may still be less forensically sound than the actual encrypted data. /. seems to imply somehow that makes the decrypted data not valid as evidence which clearly is BS.
  
  --
  I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
4. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-13 01:27 · Score: 1
  
  I think you're right. There's an additional problem though. Once a key is broken, how do you know the encrypted data isn't just the original + something and re-encrypted?
5. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-13 01:33 · Score: 0
  
  A valid point, but not really related specifically to encryption. Once evidence of any kind is gathered, how do you know the evidence is entirely original?
6. Re:What? by Minupla · 2016-07-13 01:41 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  A valid point, but not really related specifically to encryption. Once evidence of any kind is gathered, how do you know the evidence is entirely original?
  I expect you meant "how do we know the evidence is unaltered." Typically a hash of the data is collected at the point of collection and stored along with other details (filename, length, date/time stamp, collector information) with the collected forensics data. So the hash value can be recomputed and verify that whatever file you're looking at is the same as at the point of collection. Additionally, the standard 'chain of custody' checks can be done to verify that that hash never changed at any point in the history of custody after it was collected. If a key is available, the defense could do their own decryption to confirm that the plaintext presented is the same as the plaintext they produce from a file with the correct hash. Min
  
  --
  On the whole, I find that I prefer Slashdot posts to twitter ones because I don't get limited to 140 chars before
7. Re:What? by cryptizard · 2016-07-13 01:50 · Score: 1
  
  I think he means more in general, like at the end of the day if all the documents are signed and everything appears correct you just have to trust that the whole system isn't broken and the investigators tampered with the evidence and covered it up. A hash doesn't protect against that since they could simply calculate a new hash and pretend that was the right one the whole time.
8. Re:What? by bobbied · 2016-07-13 01:52 · Score: 1
  
  Do so and be found in contempt as soon as the Judge orders you to provide the correct decryption key.. Go to jail to stay you are..
  
  --
  "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
9. Re:What? by kelemvor4 · 2016-07-13 02:05 · Score: 1
  
  I think he means more in general, like at the end of the day if all the documents are signed and everything appears correct you just have to trust that the whole system isn't broken and the investigators tampered with the evidence and covered it up. A hash doesn't protect against that since they could simply calculate a new hash and pretend that was the right one the whole time.
  Why would you grant such trust at a time when we're reading stories about prosecutors and investigators simply making things up? There was even a story about a guy who had been exonerated in such a case yet still sits in prison for years afterward.
  
  Therefore, when court evidence is presented it should always be treated as suspect until the system can prove otherwise.
10. Re:What? by TangoMargarine · 2016-07-13 02:13 · Score: 1
  
  If the entire system is corrupted top-to-bottom it can "prove" anything it wants, was his point.
  
  --
  Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
11. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-13 02:36 · Score: 0
  
  he never said that's "contaminating it as forensic evidence" just it may still be less forensically sound than the actual encrypted data. /. seems to imply somehow that makes the decrypted data not valid as evidence which clearly is BS.
  Unless the government wants to make it different.
  Tinfoil hat & all, but it's not like they've never framed people before.
12. Re:What? by AmiMoJo · 2016-07-13 03:54 · Score: 1
  
  How do you know that the data was collected correctly though? Maybe the packet capture software has been modified to insert illegal material on command, after which it calculates the hash.
  Unless they have someone independently capturing those packets I can't see how they can prove that they are genuine. I could rig up a quick demo in court of some software that proves the viability of this technique, and I guarantee that they won't be allowing the defence to examine the source code of the stingray.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
13. Re: What? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-13 04:39 · Score: 0
  
  best option: silence
14. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-13 04:53 · Score: 1
  
  Give them several keys, they cannot compel you to say which one is correct and cannot prove there are more keys. Think of it this way, you have a safe and inside is a collection of papers that have conflicting information. You can be forced to open the safe, but not to comment on which papers are true, nor to reveal that there are more papers hidden in the walls.
15. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-13 04:54 · Score: 0
  
  Do so and be found in contempt as soon as the Judge orders you to provide the correct decryption key.. Go to jail to stay you are..
  Haven't they already found you can't be lawfully ordered to hand over encryption keys?
16. Re: What? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-13 05:12 · Score: 0
  
  Actually it would be trivial to write a decryption algorithm to output whatever you wanted and frame someone. Chain of evidence should include the actual decryption algorithm used.
17. Re:What? by Ichijo · 2016-07-13 06:52 · Score: 1
  
  Give them several keys, they cannot compel you to say which one is correct and cannot prove there are more keys.
  
  Can I give them 2^x keys, where 'x' is the encryption key size?
  
  --
  Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
18. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-13 07:36 · Score: 0
  
  I think he means more in general, like at the end of the day if all the documents are signed and everything appears correct you just have to trust that the whole system isn't broken and the investigators tampered with the evidence and covered it up. A hash doesn't protect against that since they could simply calculate a new hash and pretend that was the right one the whole time.
  Yes, that is it. The evidence, plus the tools, plus the people = a potential fact to be weighed by the jury.
19. Re:What? by schweini · 2016-07-13 07:47 · Score: 1
  
  Wouldn't they have to release the process they used to decrypt the data, too?
  
  AFAIK, if the original data was well-encrypted, there should be no correlation between it and the plain-text data. Depending on the process used to decrypt it, you could literally come up with ANY output data you want?
20. Re:What? by superdave80 · 2016-07-14 05:27 · Score: 1
  
  This guy isn't right at all. Because if he is right, then all I have to do to keep my incriminating papers out of a court of law is to write everything in some obscure language that I know. Then, when they try to present it in court, it will be incomprehensible to the court and jury. They will then have to have it translated... which will fundamentally alter it. This guy is trying to be too clever, but his argument falls apart really quickly.
21. Re:What? by Minupla · 2016-07-14 09:16 · Score: 1
  
  Yep. If it's actually true that you live in a society where things have degraded to the point that you can't trust the system not to be systemically corrupt, you should probably leave and go somewhere else.
  There are checks in any good system, but if you can't have a reasonable expectation that two members of that system won't collude, there's not much that can be done. You have too many defectors, and the particular system you are playing in is headed a bad place and you should probably quit until it gets better.
  Min
  
  --
  On the whole, I find that I prefer Slashdot posts to twitter ones because I don't get limited to 140 chars before
Tomorrow's Headline: by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-13 01:05 · Score: 1

Body of New York judge found in river by Pokemon Go player.
1. Re:Tomorrow's Headline: by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-13 04:17 · Score: 0
  
  Federal Judges are much more powerful than the police/prosecutors and have much more powerful friends. He has nothing to worry about.
2. Re:Tomorrow's Headline: by RockDoctor · 2016-07-14 08:40 · Score: 1
  
  No, it'll be the headline for weeks. A different body part, in a different river. Same judge. And eventually the body parts will show evidence of having been cut from a corpse (ummm, capillary blood oxygenation levels, maybe) instead from a live judge.
  
  --
  Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
3. Re:Tomorrow's Headline: by Coren22 · 2016-07-15 08:11 · Score: 1
  
  Is that to say that the judge would beat down the people who came to kill him? Otherwise, how does his power somehow equate to not ending up in a river?
  
  --
  APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
100% backward by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-13 01:09 · Score: 0

ENcrypting alters the data.
DEcrypting puts the data back into it's original state.
1. Re:100% backward by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-13 01:55 · Score: 1
  
  Encrypting and decrypting are fundamentally the same operation, so whatever you say about one applies to the other as well.
2. Re:100% backward by kelemvor4 · 2016-07-13 02:02 · Score: 1
  
  ENcrypting alters the data.
  DEcrypting puts the data back into it's original state.
  "Puts it back" = alters.
  This seems like a data vs information discussion to me.
3. Re: 100% backward by AndrewMontana · 2016-07-13 03:53 · Score: 0
  
  Sounds more like a quantum state argument tbh. Is it or is it not? Etc.
4. Re:100% backward by Jimbob+The+Mighty · 2016-07-14 11:25 · Score: 1
  
  Encrypting and decrypting are fundamentally the same operation, so whatever you say about one applies to the other as well.
  Please stop using ROT13
5. Re:100% backward by Coren22 · 2016-07-15 08:08 · Score: 1
  
  I use ROT 25! It is way more secure.
  
  --
  APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
looking up pseudomen on alphabet.com by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-13 01:12 · Score: 0

no heart, spirit or conscience... cease fire stand down.. in the moms we trust.. truth+mercy=justice... spirit of creation undefeatable..
Throw them all out. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-13 01:13 · Score: 5, Insightful

Bernard Seidler, Lambis' lawyer, noted that occurred a week after his client was charged. He said it was unclear if the drug case against Lambis would now be dismissed.
This "War on Drugs" has proven to be a failure. Just regulate it like alcohol. And instead of sending these folks to jail, send them to rehab - an evidence based rehab like the Western Europeans do.
Prosecutors like to say that some addicts need that "Come to Jesus" moment of getting arrested to get clean - and they have zero evidence to back that claim up. But the truth is that rehabilitation in the USA is a joke. It's not evidence based and when it fails, the program doesn't get blamed but the addict; when the opposite should be the case. I don't have to work for an antibiotic to work. It works or it doesn't. If someone has to "want" to change then you don't have an evidence based treatment but a placebo.
Poor Lindsey Lohan has been in and out of rehab and her character is blamed when in fact the rehab places she's gone to are pretty much garbage.
So, until we as a country grow up and stop this moralizing and hypocrisy about drug use, we are going to be pissing billions of dollars a year away on things that don't work.
1. Re:Throw them all out. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-13 01:17 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  The war on drugs, like the war on terror, isn't fought with the intention to win.
2. Re:Throw them all out. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-13 01:24 · Score: 0
  
  Oh, *some* people are winning.
3. Re:Throw them all out. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-13 02:25 · Score: 0
  
  Just regulate it like alcohol.
  No!!
  Alcohol regulation is seriously fucked up, with the silly government-mandated distributor system. Talk to any professional brewer and they'll tell you how much it fucks them over. And it fucks the consumer over too, by limiting selection. Fucking over innocent victims is arguably ok when it serves the public interest, but all the distributor system does is create overhead and make money for middlemen at the consumer's expense.
  Also, alcohol is overly overtaxed.
  Marijuana needs to be less regulated than alcohol. People need to stop looking at it like some kind of cash grab. Yes, I know your government needs money, but putting silly-high taxes on marijuana (seriously, legal pot costs just as much as black market pot!) isn't any more fair than putting absurdly high taxes on electronics, wheat flour, or whatever.
4. Re: Throw them all out. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-13 02:41 · Score: 0
  
  No kidding I live in colorado, and most people I know still use the black market because the taxes basically double the price.... Only, the tourists go legal
5. Re:Throw them all out. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-13 03:26 · Score: 0
  
  Prosecutors like to say that some addicts need that "Come to Jesus" moment of getting arrested to get clean - and they have zero evidence to back that claim up.
  Well maybe they /do/ need that shock to clean up--but then you have to/should send them to an institution that will actually help do that (like the Portuguese do). It's no good give to give them the 'shock', and then throw them in the proverbial hole.
6. Re: Throw them all out. by HornWumpus · 2016-07-13 03:52 · Score: 1
  
  Colorado fucked up legalisation badly. Overregulated, every plant tracked from seed to bud etc etc.
  California has it right. Wild west, rules set by county. Many of which have pot as their number 1 cash crop and the core of their economies. Not just Humboldt and Trinity either.
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
7. Re:Throw them all out. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-13 05:07 · Score: 0
  
  Are you referring to successful druggies, terrorists, or law enforcement officials? Or just vaguely bitching because you're jealous of some rando's out there in a world of over 6 billion?
8. Re:Throw them all out. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-13 05:07 · Score: 0
  
  let me know how you feel when a drug dealer or drug addict murders one of your family members.
9. Re:Throw them all out. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-13 05:16 · Score: 0
  
  Wow, hyperbolic much?
  If that were to happen, one's opinion would be highly compromised at such a time, so those are probably not the people to ask for advice on legislation - ever heard of the word "reactionary?"
10. Re:Throw them all out. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-13 11:25 · Score: 0
  
  ... the program doesn't get blamed but the addict ...
  
  While addiction has a genetic/physiological component, it is mostly a mental illness, frequently caused by mental trauma. The primary treatment for mental illness, if offered, because some countries like USA and Japan avoid mental health services, is telling the sufferer to "Snap out it. Stop being sick". Until healthcare services are geared towards low-effect, untreatable, permanent illnesses, the quality of life will decline for more and more people.
  Many users or addicts aren't living in the gutter, which really upsets the 'tough on crime' mantra some countries use to justify throwing all users in jail. This means feeding stable citizens through the criminal justice system of those countries is a racket for the few people who benefit from such a 'war'. Except it's not working; arresting so many people is starting to overwhelm the justice system of many cities. It's why there is a global fascination with civil forfeiture laws.
11. Re:Throw them all out. by Baki · 2016-07-14 08:50 · Score: 1
  
  Agree, but please don't assume that all "drugs" users require rehab. Most have their use under control, in fact alcohol gets more people addicted than most illegal drugs do.
Stingray by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-13 01:21 · Score: 0

Kinda like a dog whistle to find out where the dogs are....
However, no warrant means no warrant. kinda like 'NO' means 'NO'.
A high-tech toy for police, useful for drug investigations, but has it EVER been used to try to locate an abductee?
Any positive use for this thing?
Or is it strictly for doing things that I cannot legally do?
1. Re:Stingray by bobbied · 2016-07-13 02:09 · Score: 2
  
  Oh these things are useful and the evidence they generate is valid for criminal prosecution, Just get a warrant before you use it... Case closed..
  
  --
  "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
You would think. . . by Salgak1 · 2016-07-13 01:21 · Score: 1

. . . .that the fact that technological deception (i.e. the Stingray claiming to be a cell tower) all by itself would taint the evidence, under the long-established "Fruit of the Poison Tree" doctrine. . . it's only been the law of the land for 96 years.
Then again, IANAL, there may be some legal subtleties I fail to grasp.
1. Re:You would think. . . by cryptizard · 2016-07-13 01:34 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  That is exactly what the judge ruled. The main reason this isn't happening all over the place is that people don't understand how the devices work, and the police/prosecutors are not exactly volunteering the information. There is a good article about it here. Basically, the police hide the fact that they used stingray devices to track suspects by either making up some other reason that they happened to find themselves at the suspect's location or hiding something very vague on page 200 of the report like, "used electronic surveillance," which most defense attorneys do not know to challenge. In rare situations where the evidence has been challenged, the prosecution just drops the case so that precedent isn't set.
2. Re:You would think. . . by bobbied · 2016-07-13 02:23 · Score: 2
  
  In a way, I'm not sure this is really an issue. Apparently the device will now require that a search warrant be granted before it is used to collect evidence, at least in that jurisdiction.
  However, I wonder if this will be overturned on appeal (not that it matters to the perp as the evidence collected has now been tossed) because the police are free to lie to you when questioning you. How's that different from a device claiming to be a valid cell tower? Or, how's that different than using a directional antenna to find a specific RF transmitter device which happens to be carried by a suspect? Where I understand the stinger works a bit differently, but in principle it's not that much different from totally acceptable surveillance methods we've used for centuries that don't require warrants. As a investigator, I can follow you around in your public travels, observe what I can from public spaces at any time without a warrant. How can the RF emitted by your cell phone, observed from a public space not be legally obtained evidence? Because it's encrypted? How's that relevant?
  
  --
  "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
3. Re:You would think. . . by bobbied · 2016-07-13 02:33 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not sure how this device is a problem. It operates in public spaces and impersonates a cell tower in order to obtain location information. It does not collect the content (audio) of any calls, just the meta-data and signaling information between the tower and the phone.
  How's this different from what investigators are free to do when gathering information about a suspect? They can follow you around in public, observe you in your back yard (as long as they and their equipment stay in public spaces). They can intercept any RF emitted from your devices and use that to track your location. They can even listen to your conversations in public places using electronic devices in most jurisdictions...
  Where I see we are on a slippery slope here, how's the stinger all that much different that what they can legally do w/o a warrant now?
  
  --
  "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
4. Re:You would think. . . by JaiWing · 2016-07-13 02:45 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  ... How can the RF emitted by your cell phone, observed from a public space not be legally obtained evidence? ...
  it is a little different with a general radio-frequency emission. in the case where you are emitting RF voluntarily, locating and tracking that emission requires no special permissions. you are effectively yelling in a place, and they are following the sound.
  in the case of the stingray, it is giving false information to your phone, and your phone is identifying itself to a 'stranger'. in this case you are still emitting RF, and they could still locate and track that emission, but without the stingray, they would not be able to identify the owner of the RF emission until they located and identified they source..
5. Re:You would think. . . by cryptizard · 2016-07-13 03:14 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  , just the meta-data and signaling information between the tower and the phone.
  That is actually not true. Stingray devices are capable of "active" attacks where they act as a man-in-the-middle between cell phones and legitimate towers, thereby decrypting and recording calls. As far as the metadata is concerned, there is a legal history of requiring warrants to get that information from phone companies. The fact that technologically it is possible to directly get it by snooping with a stingray doesn't make it clear cut that it is actually legal for the police to do so, as was demonstrated here. As an analogy, if the FBI developed a technology that allowed them to read minute EM leakage off phone wires from 100ft away, it wouldn't suddenly become legal for them to tap your land line with that.
6. Re:You would think. . . by ADRA · 2016-07-13 03:20 · Score: 2
  
  The Stingray becomes a man in the middle. There's nothing passive about it. Imagine the real case of a plugging in a twisted pair tap on a phone line and you'll have a relatively accurate analogy.
  Why the heck aren't there apps that warn you when a new cell tower pops up in an area? It seams like a relatively simple system to beat, or does it act entirely like an existing tower ID's and all?
  
  --
  Bye!
7. Re:You would think. . . by bobbied · 2016-07-13 03:30 · Score: 1
  
  Yes and no. This "man in the middle" doesn't collect voice, just meta-data. So tell me how this is all that much different than observing you having a conversation with someone on the public street, or keeping a log of who enters your front door during the day?
  
  --
  "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
8. Re:You would think. . . by cryptizard · 2016-07-13 03:35 · Score: 1
  
  No, it definitely can intercept voice https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
9. Re:You would think. . . by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-13 03:41 · Score: 1
  
  To be a little more clear, the Stingray 'forces' the phone to respond - that is more than just listening.
10. Re:You would think. . . by gurps_npc · 2016-07-13 03:51 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Your base assumption is false, the police do not have blanket powers to lie to you. There are very specific rules about how and when police can lie. They can not for example lie and tell you that they are your lawyer. Nor can they, If your lawyer is present and they make an offer, claim "we were lying when we offered you immunity in exchange for testimony".
  They are also not allowed to disable your internet, knock on your door and say "I am from your ISP, here to fix your internet" unless they have a warrant.
  That situation seems to me to be the most direct comparison of a sting ray. They are preventing your phone from interacting with the network and instead pretending to be that network.
  That is radically different from passively listening.
  
  --
  excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
11. Re:You would think. . . by gurps_npc · 2016-07-13 03:56 · Score: 1
  
  The police are not allowed to impersonate anyone they want. They can not impersonate your lawyer, and nor can they impersonate your phone company or ISP in order to gain access to your tech.
  They can impersonate a generic criminal, but they are not for example allowed to impersonate you and ask a bank teller to tell them about all of your recent transactions.
  To do those things requires a warrant (well, except impersonating your lawyer, that is always illegal, you can't get a warrant to do it.)
  
  --
  excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
12. Re:You would think. . . by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-13 04:19 · Score: 0
  
  To tap a wired line, you have to physically connect to the wires which is a no-no without a warrant.
  Wireless is different technology which doesn't have wires because it's, well, wireless.
  The legal system is still grappling with this because radio waves are a bit more public,
  but the wireless protocols that Stingray is breaking are intended to make the service as private as wires or perhaps more so.
  A Stingray is basically a wiretap for wireless.
  It breaks into a supposedly private, encrypted conversation between the tower and device.
  The technological hurdles required to do this are much higher than a classic physical wire tap.
  Perhaps if anything, the expectation of privacy should be higher for this form of wireless.
  It seems logical that the same rules that apply to actual physical wired taps should apply to it.
  This ruling seems a small step in a good direction.
13. Re:You would think. . . by whoever57 · 2016-07-13 05:16 · Score: 1
  
  So tell me how this is all that much different than observing you having a conversation with someone on the public street, or keeping a log of who enters your front door during the day?
  It's not passive. The stingray device has to broadcast a signal that is equivalent to "I am the best cell tower around here". In other words, it tricks your device into talking to it, instead of the real cell tower.
  Imagine that you employ a cleaner for your house and a policeman delays the real cleaner and impersonates the cleaner in order to get access to your house and search it. Do you think that this would be valid search?
  
  --
  The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
14. Re:You would think. . . by david_thornley · 2016-07-13 05:36 · Score: 1
  
  Inserting a listening device into the phone system has traditionally been called wiretapping, and it has been illegal without a warrant for a long time. The police are apparently trying to use a technological device to tap phones without a warrant, and that's illegal. I don't see that telephone conversations should be legally different now that we're using different technology.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
15. Re:You would think. . . by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-13 07:39 · Score: 0
  
  That is radically different from passively listening.
  But a *good* lawyer could say they are in an active sort of way passively listening.
16. Re:You would think. . . by ShaunC · 2016-07-13 07:56 · Score: 2
  
  Why the heck aren't there apps that warn you when a new cell tower pops up in an area?
  There's AIMSICD, although I'm not sure how accurate it is. I played with it a bit last year and got a few yellow warnings, so the app detects something, but it's possible those were due to legitimate roaming or tower-sharing mechanisms. When protests were ongoing in Baltimore last year, multiple people with the app reported seeing orange warnings, which mean there's definitely some fuckery going on nearby, and red warnings, which mean the user's specific phone is being targeted.
  My big problems with AIMSICD last year were that it chewed through battery, the cell tower map never worked right, the upload function for OpenCellID.org was hit or miss, and there was little or no proper documentation about what the app actually does or what its different indicators mean. I think English was a second language for (most of) the developers as well as many of the users; this made the wiki and issue tracker difficult to parse. As neither an Android developer nor a subject matter expert, there wasn't much I could do to understand what was happening under the hood.
  That aside, the trouble with any stingray detector app is that it runs at the consumer OS level and can only know the "facts" that OS chooses to expose. It seems likely to me that most of the unconstitutional warrantless wiretapping functionality would operate at the baseband level, below and perhaps invisible to Android/iOS/etc and any apps running there.
  
  --
  Thanks to the War on Drugs, it's easier to buy meth than it is to buy cold medicine!
17. Re:You would think. . . by ShaunC · 2016-07-13 08:09 · Score: 1
  
  One of the problems is that due to the nature of how cellphones work, and how the stingray works, people who are not suspects or legitimate surveillance targets are going to have their data intercepted too. Even supposing the police do get a warrant to intercept Joe's cellphone traffic, the stingray will, by design, also vacuum up the cellphone traffic of anyone else in the vicinity. That is not legal. Compare to a scenario where the police get a warrant to tap Joe's landline. They have permission to tap Joe's landline and only Joe's landline; they don't get to tap the entire exchange and promise (wink, wink) that they'll only listen to Joe's phone calls.
  
  --
  Thanks to the War on Drugs, it's easier to buy meth than it is to buy cold medicine!
18. Re:You would think. . . by Solandri · 2016-07-13 08:24 · Score: 1
  
  Just to back this up, that's what the Supreme Court decided in Kyllo v. United States. That just because new technology allows the government to peer into your home without physical access in ways which we couldn't have imagined before, that doesn't mean they're suddenly allowed to use these technologies to look inside your home without a warrant.
  
  It's also worth pointing out that that decision didn't split along liberal / conservative lines. It split along liberterian / statist lines. I suspect if the same case were brought up today, it would go the other way. Not that I think the American people have shifted, but that a lot of the new justices are "strong government" types.
19. Re:You would think. . . by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-13 08:26 · Score: 0
  
  You are INNOCENT and just LIVING YOUR LIFE NICE QUIET FAMILY and your Government is SPYING on you trying to TAKE and CONTROL over you.
  Throw them out.
  And I don't mean just the Stingrays.
20. Re:You would think. . . by BlueStrat · 2016-07-13 08:50 · Score: 1
  
  I don't see that telephone conversations should be legally different now that we're using different technology.
  Somehow they are along with a host of other rights and constitutional prtections, see: NSA, FISA, PATRIOT Act I & II, NDAA for a start along with incremental encroachments that stretch back decades.
  Why?
  Same reasons they've used to frighten people out of their privacy and civil rights and expand the scope and power of government going that's been the drum-beat for decades, now.
  "Terrists, pedos, and mass-shooters, Oh My! Shut up and give Us more Power or you'll Die!"
  You have to consider that, with so many of the recent attackers already having been known to US intelligence like the Tsarnaev brothers, there is the distinct possibility that they are being intentionally allowed to happen in order to generate the necessary public fear to allow them to grab more power and control. Looking at the "Fast and Furious" debacle criminal attempt to create pressure to limit/infringe US 2nd Amendment rights, it would not seem out of character for those currently in power in both parties.
  Strat
  
  --
  Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
21. Re:You would think. . . by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · 2016-07-13 09:00 · Score: 1
  
  If you like this kind of ruling by the Supreme Court (which also includes police cannot take drug sniffing dogs onto your porch without a warrant, police cannot use an IR device or future tech to see through your walls without a warrant, or, in applicable to this case, police cannot attach a tracker to your car without a warrant -- turning your cell into a body tracker without a warrant is even worse) be sad Scalia died. He was instrumental in these cases and wrote some of the opinions.
  Like most judges, you win some, you lose some.
  
  --
  (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
22. Re:You would think. . . by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · 2016-07-13 09:01 · Score: 2
  
  The Stingray becomes a man in the middle. There's nothing passive about it. Imagine the real case of a plugging in a twisted pair tap on a phone line and you'll have a relatively accurate analogy.
  Why the heck aren't there apps that warn you when a new cell tower pops up in an area? It seams like a relatively simple system to beat, or does it act entirely like an existing tower ID's and all?
  For that matter, arent tower locations known? If a new one appears across the street, or is driving down the street, something is up.
  
  --
  (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
23. Re:You would think. . . by bobbied · 2016-07-13 11:42 · Score: 1
  
  So.... What's the difference between that and taking your photo in a public place and capturing the images of bystanders? I don't see your argument as valid based on the surveillance happening to collect non-targeted individuals' information as a result.
  A phone tap DOES collect from non-targeted individuals who happen to call that phone line as well... Are their constitutional rights violated with the warranted wire tap? Nope.. But you are discussing stuff that is covered under a warrant...
  
  --
  "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
24. Re:You would think. . . by bobbied · 2016-07-15 01:36 · Score: 1
  
  I didn't say they have blanket powers to lie, but they can tell you things which are false. Things like "Your partner is telling us everything about this, you need to come clean to protect yourself." Or, they can call you and say you won free tickets to something, just show up at a specified place and time to collect them, then arrest you when you do.
  You are correct to point out that there ARE some things they simply cannot do or lie about. But apart from a very narrow range of constitutional issues, it's pretty much a free for all.
  
  --
  "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Why rehabilitate the unwilling? by zerofoo · 2016-07-13 01:30 · Score: 2

If you are truly a free human being - it is your right to consume any substances you like. If someone wants to be an addict and they hurt no one else in the process, what right does anyone have to force that person into rehab or treatment?
It's a slippery slope - first we force addicts to become clean - next we force fat people to go to the gym.
It is far better to leave people, who are not harming others, alone.
1. Re:Why rehabilitate the unwilling? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-13 01:37 · Score: 1
  
  It is far better to leave people, who are not harming others, alone.
  The problem with this approach is we are, in general, too compassionate to walk by as someone writhes in agony from a cheetos-and-lard induced heart attack. We expect society to help them. So total disregard for one's health DOES have a cost to others. But it's tough to know where to draw the line
2. Re:Why rehabilitate the unwilling? by Curunir_wolf · 2016-07-13 01:57 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  It is far better to leave people, who are not harming others, alone.
  The problem with this approach is we are, in general, too compassionate to walk by as someone writhes in agony from a cheetos-and-lard induced heart attack. We expect society to help them. So total disregard for one's health DOES have a cost to others. But it's tough to know where to draw the line
  You just did. As a society, we show compassion. But interfering with property rights is not okay. Just as someone that owns a book has every right to burn it, each person owns their own body and has every right to destroy that, too, without interference. In fact, owning YOURSELF is the first step is recognizing any human rights at all. Sure, we go out of our way to warn people about what they are doing "Hey if you keep eating cheetos and sitting all the time you will die sooner" - but they still have the final say in the matter. So there's the line.
  Also, be sure that you distinguish between "society" and "government", because they are not the same. There's a quote from, I think, Thomas Paine that spells it out pretty well... ah - here it is:
  
  "SOME writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness POSITIVELY by uniting our affections, the latter NEGATIVELY by restraining our vices. ... Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one: for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer." - Thomas Paine
  
  --
  "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
  --- Jerry Garcia
3. Re:Why rehabilitate the unwilling? by bobbied · 2016-07-13 02:07 · Score: 2
  
  That's just it, drugs generally do really bad things to people and those around them and many are helpless to break the cycle of dependency.
  Would you have us stand back and watch while people self destruct, killing themselves a little bit at a time? Where I get there is a limit to what government can do in a free society, but this question does not have a binary answer in the case of illicit drug use. Just taking the controls off and "making it legal" condemns a lot of people to needless lives of torment and early death, just as strict drug laws and enforcement with zero tolerance and total commitment to eradication of illegal substance use consumes vast resources, full jails and lives beset by a different kind of torment.
  The correct answer is somewhere in between the binary extremes I believe. The only problem is that it is very hard to define exactly where along the continuum you get the best outcome for the most people. (Which, by the way, *should* be our goal...) So I disagree with the legalization argument, based on the fact it will be really bad for a lot of people to fall into drug dependency.
  
  --
  "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
4. Re:Why rehabilitate the unwilling? by jimbolauski · 2016-07-13 02:08 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  That's the problem you can't have unlimited freedom if you protect the people from the consequences of their decisions. If society has to bare the burden of supporting an addict then society should be able outlaw those decisions that lead to that outcome.
  
  --
  Knowledge = Power
  P= W/t
  t=Money
  Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make
5. Re:Why rehabilitate the unwilling? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-13 02:38 · Score: 0
  
  Maybe we should separate everyone by their issues.
  Diabetes over there, fatties right here, cancer up there, druggies in this pen because they can't stop wandering off.
6. Re:Why rehabilitate the unwilling? by whoever57 · 2016-07-13 02:40 · Score: 1
  
  That's just it, drugs generally do really bad things to people and those around them and many are helpless to break the cycle of dependency.
  
  And how many of those "bad things" result from the fact that drugs are illegal?
  The question is not "are drugs bad", rather, it should be "is there more harm to society from making drugs legal/illegal?"
  
  --
  The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
7. Re:Why rehabilitate the unwilling? by spacepimp · 2016-07-13 03:07 · Score: 2
  
  People who can't afford to care for their children properly, shouldn't be able to breed as their offspring become a burden on society. The only answer is controlled breeding, Your logic is the same as those who justified eugenics.
8. Re:Why rehabilitate the unwilling? by ADRA · 2016-07-13 03:14 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, and if I want to douse myself in gasoline and light the match in front of my workplace should be legal too. Fuck it if I'm mentally incapable of distinguising fact from fantasty. Its my body, I can do with it any way I please!
  
  --
  Bye!
9. Re:Why rehabilitate the unwilling? by bobbied · 2016-07-13 03:26 · Score: 1
  
  Illicit drug use has historically shown to be a public health and welfare problem. Opium is the prime example, but other recreational drugs have similar negative affects upon users.
  Don't be blind, there are valid arguments to NOT just legalize everything here and let the chips fall where they may and just blindly advocating for such legalization w/o at least acknowledging the issues being raised with your idea is plain stupid.
  
  --
  "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
10. Re:Why rehabilitate the unwilling? by Kjella · 2016-07-13 03:28 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  That's just it, drugs generally do really bad things to people and those around them and many are helpless to break the cycle of dependency. Would you have us stand back and watch while people self destruct, killing themselves a little bit at a time?
  I'd be more inclined to agree with you if it was treated more like an illness and less like a crime. Criminalization might be good for those who choose to stay away from drugs because it is against the law, but it does nothing for the people actually using drugs. In fact, it makes everything worse. Don't tell me the effects of smoking a little pot is worse than the effects of being arrested for smoking pot, because it's just not true. Sure, it takes a lot of courage to go to an AA meeting and say you have an alcohol problem but I think it takes even more to say you have a drug problem. Same goes for clean, consistent quality - that street drugs may have all sorts of bad shit in them might scare some away, but it only makes it more dangerous for the actual users.
  By far most people who are really fucked up on drugs and get real destructive to those around them have some really bad shit in their past they want to get away from, this "gateway drug" theory is only looking at the steps not why people really take them. I read this story recently about a girl (17) who was now in rehab, started smoking pot at 12 and shot heroin at 14. Sure A followed B but if you listened even a little bit to her life's story you'd know she was ready to jump on any high to get away from the past. The vast, vast majority without psychological trauma will puff a little joint and get a buzz and that was it. Then there's a few with addictive personalities who can get addicted to anything from work and sex to gambling and drugs, but fuck it we're adults. I want to life my life even though you can't control yours.
  
  --
  Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
11. Re:Why rehabilitate the unwilling? by The+Grim+Reefer · 2016-07-13 03:35 · Score: 2
  
  That's just it, drugs generally do really bad things to people and those around them and many are helpless to break the cycle of dependency.
  Would you have us stand back and watch while people self destruct, killing themselves a little bit at a time? Where I get there is a limit to what government can do in a free society, but this question does not have a binary answer in the case of illicit drug use. Just taking the controls off and "making it legal" condemns a lot of people to needless lives of torment and early death, just as strict drug laws and enforcement with zero tolerance and total commitment to eradication of illegal substance use consumes vast resources, full jails and lives beset by a different kind of torment.
  I don't think there's a simple answer, but what we have now is a complete failure. Where I live there is a 24 year old girl who sold heroin to a guy who overdosed and died. While she was out on bail awaiting trial she sold heroin to another guy who also overdosed and died. After both trials I think she got a total of 40 years. Where I live we don't have parole or early release in my state. So her useful life is essentially over. Granted, it wasn't a smart move on her part, but most of us can look back on stupid things we did in our youth that we were lucky about the outcome. Many people who overdose also don't get help as those that are with them are fearful of calling for help.
  Alcohol is legal and destroys a lot of people's lives, as does smoking. Perhaps we should focus more on education and doing more to improve the quality of life. And I don't mean handing more cash to people. But actually helping them to have a purpose and contributing to society while having a satisfying career. It would not be cheap, but neither are the current war on drugs, prison and welfare systems, police forces, etc. It seems that what we've done so far has failed. Perhaps it's time to try something completely different.
12. Re:Why rehabilitate the unwilling? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-13 03:39 · Score: 0
  
  And yet the most abused drug is legal.
13. Re:Why rehabilitate the unwilling? by HornWumpus · 2016-07-13 03:47 · Score: 2
  
  The front of your work place is public property. You could hurt, annoy or damage the property of someone that matters.
  If you want to burn yourself, do it where you won't bother anyone.
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
14. Re:Why rehabilitate the unwilling? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-13 04:11 · Score: 0
  
  People who can't afford to care for their children properly, shouldn't be able to breed as their offspring become a burden on society. The only answer is controlled breeding, Your logic is the same as those who justified eugenics.
  The ability to procreate is inherent to the nature of a human being, just like thinking and communicating, and so to deny them having children is to deny them something essential to their human nature. A natural human right.
  There is nothing inherent to human nature that necessitates getting high.
  The freedom to get shit-faced is not the same as the right to have children.
15. Re:Why rehabilitate the unwilling? by CrimsonAvenger · 2016-07-13 04:50 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, you should. Suicide isn't a crime (attempted suicide IS), and shouldn't be (neither should making the attempt and failing).
  Suicidal urges shouldn't make you liable for prison (doesn't usually happen, but it is a crime punishable by prison in many places), though a therapist might ought to be mandatory....
  
  --
  
  "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
16. Re:Why rehabilitate the unwilling? by Plus1Entropy · 2016-07-13 04:54 · Score: 2
  
  Would you have us stand back and watch while people self destruct, killing themselves a little bit at a time?
  We do that all the time with lot's of things, including drugs which are already legal, like alcohol, tobacco, and pharmaceuticals. Some of these pharmaceuticals, by the way, are identical to illegal drugs, but in a more pure and profitable form. For example, people under extreme pain may be prescribed or given diamorphine as a pain killer. You might know it by its more common name, heroin.
  
  I disagree with the legalization argument, based on the fact it will be really bad for a lot of people to fall into drug dependency.
  You hold the more common viewpoint of how addiction actually works, i.e. that you take the drug too much and then you are unable to stop, all else being equal. Up until recently, in spite of being pro-legalization, so did I. However, it's apparently not as cut-and-dry as that. Kurzgesagt made a pretty good video outlining why this model of addiction is harmful and the evidence against it.
  
  --
  Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
17. Re:Why rehabilitate the unwilling? by whoever57 · 2016-07-13 05:05 · Score: 2
  
  Illicit drug use has historically shown to be a public health and welfare problem. Opium is the prime example, but other recreational drugs have similar negative affects upon users.
  
  You failed, once again, to get the point. The question is not whether drugs have negative consequences.
  The issue is not that illicit drugs are bad (although, I don't accept that this is fully true: what about marijuana?), the issue is that making drugs illegal may cause more problems for society than legalizing them.
  You do know that countries that have legalized some drugs have shown an overall benefit to society from legalization, don't you?
  Making drugs illegal does not prevent people from obtaining them. However, the illicit nature of drugs drives the illegal drug trade, which is responsible for many, many deaths.
  
  --
  The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
18. Re:Why rehabilitate the unwilling? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-13 05:13 · Score: 0
  
  I sincerely hope you are being facetious.
  Because if not, as someone saying this, you are definitely not somebody who matters.
  Natural selection will be around shortly to fix the issue. We'll take it from there.
19. Re:Why rehabilitate the unwilling? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-13 05:14 · Score: 0
  
  There is also nothing inherent to human nature that necessitates learning to read and write, or getting any formal education at all.
  Your logic is the same as those who justified laws against teaching slaves literacy.
20. Re: Why rehabilitate the unwilling? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-13 05:14 · Score: 0
  
  If the line isn't drawn at total privacy in what I do to my body, then fuck abortion rights because you are killing babies.
21. Re: Why rehabilitate the unwilling? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-13 05:18 · Score: 0
  
  If suicidal thoughts are temporary and the result of some temporary medical condition then I can see a temporary delay to try and save a person from self harm while they detox or are treated, but if the person doesn't change their mind after a period of time then they should have a right to kill themselves and access to the means to do so as peacefully as possible.
22. Re:Why rehabilitate the unwilling? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-13 05:20 · Score: 0
  
  Suppose you willingly engage in risky behavior (eating Cheetos) and end up almost but not quite dying (you have a heart attack and are comatose). Suppose you are incapable of expressing the fact that you arrived in this condition on purpose, and do not want any help from society or the government. Do you have a will or do-not-resuscitate order in place to make sure that society and/or the government are aware that you do not want any help? Have you taken steps to ensure that society and/or the wicked government will not have to clean up the mess you leave behind. For example, paying off or absorbing your debts, caring for your progeny, etc.?
23. Re:Why rehabilitate the unwilling? by david_thornley · 2016-07-13 05:28 · Score: 2
  
  And we run into the issue that there are medical problems that make the victim irrational, and therefore unwilling to seek help. If we could count on people making rational decisions from their point of view, that would be great. If you've decided that your desire to sit around and eat Cheetos all the time is greater than your desire to be healthy, I can respect that decision while thinking it's stupid. If you are sitting around eating Cheetos because you're suffering from clinical depression, and won't seek treatment because of your illness, that's different.
  This isn't clearcut. We don't want police detaining people without trial because they might be mentally ill, or make up mental illnesses because it's politically convenient. However, letting people's depression go untreated until they become homeless is very much like leaving someone to have a heart attack on the sidewalk. The use of some drugs can cause similar artificial irrationality.
  For that matter, what do you do if you find someone unconscious on the sidewalk? Pull out your phone and call 911 (number may very depending on country)? That's going to result in responders doing things to the unconscious person without his or her consent. Mental illness can make the person unable to rationally consent more subtly.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
24. Re:Why rehabilitate the unwilling? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-13 05:51 · Score: 0
  
  And fuck you. A psychologist once convinced me to stop my "drug" of choice. It was easier than deciding to never eat cheesecake again. I didn't notice it until a few years later, but without that evil, nasty, filthy drug I had fully lapsed back into depression and alcoholism.
  So call me a fucking addict if you want. I don't know why the fuck I should think being an addict is bad. I do know that I like having my depression controlled and that I don't even particularly like being drunk apart from how it numbs me.
  Until you can reliably give me amnesia of the first 20 years of my life, fuck you. I'll just keep on being an addict and the self-righteous fuckers like you can stay out of my life. I don't need your fucking "help" when my savings account is growing and I'm paying off all my debts being a filthy no-good addict.
  Fuck you, fuck you, fuck you, fuck you. It's my life, and I am never fucking it up ever again to please moralizing holier-than-thou assholes like you and your cargo cult science.
25. Re:Why rehabilitate the unwilling? by Curunir_wolf · 2016-07-13 07:11 · Score: 1
  
  That's the problem with a free society. It expects and requires a certain level of personal responsibility from competent adults. In your example, making sure you're not leaving behind debt or dependents and keeping your affairs in order. And the problem with empowering a government to treat everyone like they can't be trusted to responsible, and you end up with some group of bureaucrats or other deciding where you should go to school, what you're allowed to eat (or not), where you will live, what you can have, who you can marry, etc., etc.
  At some point you're adding so many restrictions (in the name of protecting the irresponsible) that you find yourself no longer free. And there are places where we have gone too for in the US - such as the "war on drugs" policies that started this discussion. The harm caused by the policy is actually worse at this point than the harm caused by the use of the drugs, and that's beyond simply the limitations of liberty it has caused. We are about to embark on the same course with tobacco, based on the FDA's recent "deeming rule" that will essentially end the nascent e-cigarette / vaping industry and turn the premium cigar market into a sterile wasteland. And they've started pushing the envelope with soda.
  And this is because we've lost track of a basic principle of a free society - that each person has absolute authority over their own person or body, and no other person or entity is entitled to interfere with those choices. As far as dealing with those persons incapacitated mentally or physically - it just requires a little common sense and I actually think we do a pretty good job today of handling that.
  
  --
  "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
  --- Jerry Garcia
26. Re: Why rehabilitate the unwilling? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-13 10:34 · Score: 0
  
  I'm a fast diabetic cancer survivor, where do you want me?
27. Re: Why rehabilitate the unwilling? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-13 10:36 · Score: 0
  
  Dammit, not "fast", "FAT"
28. Re:Why rehabilitate the unwilling? by bobbied · 2016-07-13 11:36 · Score: 1
  
  It may seem I'm missing your point, but I don't think that's true. I may not be answering your objections directly, but that's because you've not addressed my point. I think though that you are trying to dodge the point I'm trying to make that at least SOME drugs need to be prohibited for the good of all with your legalization of marijuana mantra..
  So... Let's get into *specific* details....
  Apart from weed... What drugs are you saying should be legalized? I get the impression that you want to take an arguably benign controlled substance like marijuana as your example and justify the legalization of such drugs as Meth, Cocaine, Opium and the like. If that's what you are advocating, then I'm guessing you've either already addicted to something and think making it legal will make your habit easier to service or you've never really seen the devastation of drug abuse up close and personal and don't fully understand how all this works.
  There are some street drugs which are too dangerous to even consider making legal.... Arguing otherwise is just plain stupid.. Until we come to agreement on the question of if we need drug laws to start with, what's the point of debating individual kinds of drugs?
  
  --
  "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
29. Re:Why rehabilitate the unwilling? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-13 11:36 · Score: 0
  
  Fuck off, you fascist.
  YOU don't matter, just like your opinions.
30. Re:Why rehabilitate the unwilling? by bobbied · 2016-07-13 11:52 · Score: 1
  
  I think it's a bit short sighted to say what we've done has failed... It may not have produced the results we where told it would, but I don't think it's fair to say it's a failure and needs to be scrapped. Especially given the alternative that total legalization would thrust upon us. You simply cannot legalize everything, I don't care how bad you think our current enforcement efforts have messed things up, there are illicit drugs out there which are exceedingly addictive and damaging to the person and society in general, they must remain illegal.
  Decriminalization is not a panacea. I think you'd be trading one set of problems, for another set that is much worse. In this case, I think you would just buy yourself more problems, while the existing ones won't go away.
  
  --
  "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
31. Re:Why rehabilitate the unwilling? by whoever57 · 2016-07-13 12:19 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, I have never taken any illegal drugs. Not even marijuana.
  Since you made a (wrong) guess about me, I am going to take a guess about you: someone you know has had their lives ruined by illegal drugs.
  I am not arguing that drugs don't devastate people's lives. I am quite sure they do. So do alcohol and gambling. I am arguing that making them illegal makes the devastation worse and spreads the damage to people who might not be damaged by drugs. How many people die from taking adulterated drugs or overdosing because strengths vary? A legal source could be made responsible for ensuring the quality of drugs.
  If making drugs illegal actually stopped people from taking them, then you might have a point, but it doesn't and it is the cause of lots of misery in Mexico and further south.
  
  --
  The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
32. Re:Why rehabilitate the unwilling? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-13 12:36 · Score: 0
  
  People who do drugs fall into one of two categories:
  1) Very intelligent - It is a proven fact that people with high intelligence use drugs more than those poor bastards with average or lower intelligence. Incidentally, this is not an addiction rich group.
  2) Very fucked up mentally - Want to make a drug addict? Its easy as pie. Just take a 2 year old child of either sex, any income level, race, and nationality and rape and beat the shit out of them. Repeatedly. The worse the better, really. Do the most horrible things you can imagine to them, torture level shit that makes waterboarding look like a Disney vacation, but don't let them die or kill themselves. Now keep it up for quite a while, years at the very least. It helps if the parents are the ones that start the raping and beating by the way, but strangers, authority figures (police, doctors, teachers, etc.), and other family members can and do pick up the slack quite often. Bonus points if the kid does time in juvenile detention where they will be raped and/or beaten by their peers and possibly their jailers. BINGO! You just created a drug addict.
  See, the secret is that drugs aren't addictive, behaviors are. Or better yet, patterns of behavior become reflexive with the right reinforcement. For most addicts its not the drug that they are addicted to, it's the release from how incredibly painful their life is. Anything that can stop the memories from showing up, that can hold off the nightmare they live in, that anesthetizes their soul and stops their past and future from encroaching on them with hopelessness, will create an addictive pattern.
  So yes, I would love for everyone to sit back and watch people self destruct. It is infinitely better for them than incarceration with violent criminals in a place where they will be victimized over and over again, just like when daddy had his way with them as a small child. Only this time its done with the consent of society ("Send them to PMITA prison!") and the government, and we lie and tell them its in their best interests to go to prison and get victimized all over again. Can you understand what hell we have created for these people? Can you understand that the only difference between a hardened addict in prison and you is that your mother and father didn't put cigarettes out on your face and rape or abuse you when you were a child? Nurture wins this battle just about every time, and our collective response is to further demonize, ostracize, and torture these victims with the consent of law and "good moral sense."
  It's bad enough that your rationale for keeping drugs illegal is completely wrong. "Would you have us stand back and watch while people self destruct, killing themselves a little bit at a time?" By keeping them illegal that is exactly what you are doing! It's easier for a 10 year old to get pot than cigarettes. It's easier for a 16 year old to get ecstasy (in some places) than alcohol. You think prohibition is a deterrent? You need to get out more and see what is really going on. The numbers are in anyways. Legalization decreases use by under age users.
  The answer to the drug problem is easy, but people like you are the real problem. You see there is something wrong but won't do anything about it. You are content to see people victimized by drug dealers, police, and the justice system alike, in serial and parallel. You are OK with throwing lives in the trashcan that is our non-rehabilitative penal system. You are OK with our politicians creating crimes on paper that have no victim, selling the created "criminals" into for profit prisons, and making money off the back of the freedoms stolen from non-violent "offenders." You are OK with prison systems that increase recidivism. You are OK with permanently disenfranchising citizens that get caught with something in their pocket. You are OK with destroying all future employment prospects of the same. You are OK with lying about what drugs do. You are OK with putting your head in the sand about how
33. Re:Why rehabilitate the unwilling? by bobbied · 2016-07-14 02:12 · Score: 1
  
  Well you are wrong about me, I've not had anybody close to me suffer from addiction. As close as I've come is an uncle who I saw about three times in my life and the conversations I've had with my grandmother who was an RN who worked at a methadone clinic...You are also wrong about your facts...
  You are crazy to even try to make the claim that making drugs illegal hasn't kept anybody from taking them. Of course it has, that much is obvious despite your claims otherwise. Has it been 100% effective? Obviously not, but it clearly has made the street prices higher and availability lower because you don't just walk into the 5 and 10 on the corner and order up a dose of Meth (at least in most neighborhoods you don't). That alone has kept the drug out of the hands of at least *some* people.
  Like it or not, the efforts to combat Meth in this country have been pretty effective in reducing it's manufacture and use. So there is one provable example where drug laws and enforcement HAS been at least partially effective. So there goes your premise... Laws and enforcement CAN be helpful.
  
  --
  "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
34. Re:Why rehabilitate the unwilling? by jknapka · 2016-07-14 06:34 · Score: 1
  
  What is this "public property" you speak of? Also, how can I tell who matters?
35. Re:Why rehabilitate the unwilling? by jimbolauski · 2016-07-15 07:08 · Score: 1
  
  Your strawman is a little weak, smoking crack != having more welfare children.
  
  --
  Knowledge = Power
  P= W/t
  t=Money
  Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make
Broken Windows by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-13 02:10 · Score: 1

Since NYC is really big on Broken Windows policing, what's the penalty for an illegal wiretap?
Not impersonating by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-13 02:52 · Score: 0

It doesn't impersonate a cell tower, it is a cell tower. It's no different then collecting information from a wifi router. I'm sure my router has all kinds of transactions with stray phones that have wifi turned on, especially since there is a Pokemon Go gym on my block.
Hey BeauHD by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-13 03:18 · Score: 0

Please stop referring to completely unrelated stories that are often still on the front page. It's extremely annoying.

FBI Special Agent Daniel Alfin suggests in a report via Motherboard that decrypting encrypted data fundamentally alters it, therefore contaminating it as forensic evidence.
Case law supporting my claim by gurps_npc · 2016-07-13 05:29 · Score: 2

Here is an arstechnica article reporting on a judge ruling that the "cut the internet, then claim to fix it" lie is illegal:
Arstechnica story
and here is a link to the official ruling:
arstechnica hosted court ruling.

--
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
Parallel Construction by JeffOwl · 2016-07-13 05:36 · Score: 1

That is the wave of the future.
So does Mitnick get his record expunged? by Ungrounded+Lightning · 2016-07-13 06:44 · Score: 1

"Absent a search warrant, the government may not turn a citizen's cell phone into a tracking device," Pauley wrote.
So does that mean Kevin Mitnick can successfully petition to have his record expunged and civil rights restored?
As I recall he was hunted down by passive tracking of his analog cellphone.

--
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
1. Re:So does Mitnick get his record expunged? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-13 15:02 · Score: 0
  
  No voter ever said hey elected officials please use our devices to track us. They took it upon themselves. How much tracking? Everything they can, with the ability to cross-reference at will in data centers taxpayers paid for.
  Obama knows yet he breathes. (cough)(cough)
Taxpayers paid for: by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-13 10:29 · Score: 0

The spies
The Judge
The equipment
Don't be confused, this is not the first time they used one. Just the first time they announced that the threw out "evidence" from it.
They use the whole fucking Internet and your stores and your phones and your cars and all apps and videos and every single thing they can think of to peep on you.
All of your finances too. And they ripped off the Americans trillions upon trillions of dollars as of right now. How long are you going to stare at Obama's lies?
Fruit of the poison tree by jenningsthecat · 2016-07-13 14:05 · Score: 1

A time honoured legal concept, (it's almost a century old now), that the judiciary should loudly, enthusiastically, and explicitly embrace again. It's been conspicuous mostly by its absence for far too long now, and it's good to see Judge Pauley doing his part to restore its currency.

--
'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.