If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Slate)   Stung: Citizen did you know the FBI has a clandestine cellphone tracking device known as the "Stingray", that's been deployed across the United States for almost two decades   (slate.com) divider line 29
    More: Interesting, FBI, United States, tracking system, cellphone tracking, stingray, Electronic Privacy Information Center, Southern District of Texas, Electronic Privacy  
•       •       •

13876 clicks; posted to Main » on 19 Feb 2013 at 2:24 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-02-19 01:09:38 PM
8 votes:

MrBallou: The whole "expectation of privacy" thing gets cloudy when you're using a BROADCAST DEVICE, but I'm not a lawyer.


I don't even get that far.  between the war on drugs and the war on terror, my baseline assumption is that my phones are tapped, my emails are tracked and my bank accounts are monitored by everyone from the DEA to the TSA and beyond.  I just kind of assume I don't have the 4th or 5th amendment to protect me anymore...if the fedgov wants to dig into my life, they'll do it and they'll use it against me.  I don't get to complain, I can't stop it and if I don't like it well...too bad.
2013-02-19 12:57:05 PM
8 votes:
I dunno, I kinda just assume that if the Feds wanted to violate my rights they'll do it whenever they want.  I don't get a say in any of it and if I biatch about it, I'll end up in jail.
Ehh
2013-02-19 02:30:25 PM
5 votes:

b2theory: As long as they get warrants they're all good. If they don't, good luck using that or any evidence derived from it in court.


You know how those fussy liberal judges in Law and Order toss out the warrant application because scruple, furrowing Jack McCoy's brow? Battlestar Galactica is more realistic.
2013-02-19 03:17:55 PM
4 votes:
Now if you think you do have rights, one last assignment for you. Next time you're at the computer, get on the Internet, go to Wikipedia. When you get to Wikipedia, in the search field for Wikipedia, I want you to type in "Japanese Americans 1942″ and you'll find out all about your precious farking rights, Okay? All right. You know about it. In 1942, there were 110,000 Japanese American citizens in good standing, law-abiding people who were thrown into internment camps simply because their parents were born in the wrong country. That's all they did wrong. They had no right to a lawyer, no right to a fair trial, no right to a jury of their peers no right to due process of any kind. The only right they had: "Right this way" into the internment camps! Just when these American citizens needed their rights the most, their government took them away! And rights aren't rights if someone can take them away. They're privileges. That's all we've ever had in this country, is a bill of temporary privileges. And if you read the news even badly, you know that every year the list gets shorter and shorter.

-Carlin
2013-02-19 02:40:21 PM
3 votes:
MrBallou:

I always assume somebody is watching, but I live in DC, so it's almost certainly true.

You're probably not that interesting, and there's a pretty high bar even for the people they *do* watch.

CS,B in point: in the mid-00's I used to be housemate with a guy who had high-level clearance at both State and DOD... He had a habit of picking up strippers who would then move in with us, and after a few weeks they'd get in a screaming argument and run off (usually after stealing something of mine, dammit!)

This cycle happened 3-4 times while I was there. There was never any problem until the day the stripper-du-jour ran off and left a message on his personal cell phone mentioning there was a warrant out for her in another state.

The very next day he was called into the security office and they played the message back to him. When it became clear that he hadn't known stripperella had a warrant on her they dropped the matter.

So yeah... They have *always* had the ability to watch whomever they want. They just don't *care* 99.999999% of the time.
2013-02-19 01:37:00 PM
3 votes:

b2theory: As long as they get warrants they're all good. If they don't, good luck using that or any evidence derived from it in court.


oh i'm sure they'll find a way to make it work.
2013-02-19 01:20:01 PM
3 votes:

Weaver95: MrBallou: The whole "expectation of privacy" thing gets cloudy when you're using a BROADCAST DEVICE, but I'm not a lawyer.

I don't even get that far.  between the war on drugs and the war on terror, my baseline assumption is that my phones are tapped, my emails are tracked and my bank accounts are monitored by everyone from the DEA to the TSA and beyond.  I just kind of assume I don't have the 4th or 5th amendment to protect me anymore...if the fedgov wants to dig into my life, they'll do it and they'll use it against me.  I don't get to complain, I can't stop it and if I don't like it well...too bad.


Agreed. The panic after 9/11 greased the slippery slope, but we've been on it a long time. I always assume somebody is watching, but I live in DC, so it's almost certainly true.

F*ck Hoover, yes, go ahead.
2013-02-19 01:02:26 PM
3 votes:
The whole "expectation of privacy" thing gets cloudy when you're using a BROADCAST DEVICE, but I'm not a lawyer.
2013-02-19 03:09:52 PM
2 votes:
The federal government can kill you with a drone whenever it wants... you think THIS is a big deal?
2013-02-19 02:42:16 PM
2 votes:

b2theory: As long as they get warrants they're all good. If they don't, good luck using that or any evidence derived from it in court.


The federal government doesn't need warrants anymore.
2013-02-19 02:40:01 PM
2 votes:
Had someone at work who'd read an article on some fringe website that the US was going to start "chipping" people in the very near future, for tracking, amongst other purposes.

I replied: "Why would the gov't spend billions of dollars and risk being seen as an authoritarian overlord when someone behind a desk at the CIA or FBI can locate you to within a few feet of your current location at any time with a few keystrokes, read your email, see who you've been calling, and checking how much cash you've got in the bank while they do it?"
2013-02-19 02:31:49 PM
2 votes:

Weaver95: b2theory: As long as they get warrants they're all good. If they don't, good luck using that or any evidence derived from it in court.

oh i'm sure they'll find a way to make it work.


we're talking about the same Administration that is gone through legal hurdles to make targeted drone attacks against US civilians legal
2013-02-19 02:31:10 PM
2 votes:

Weaver95: b2theory: As long as they get warrants they're all good. If they don't, good luck using that or any evidence derived from it in court.

oh i'm sure they'll find a way to make it work.


Back dating? It's really not that hard.
2013-02-19 09:02:31 PM
1 votes:
The ADSL equipment in many phone exchanges is now in a room that used to be called "the tape room" or "the recording room" depending on when the exchange was built if it was built during the cold war.  While I don't think it was ever done, they had enough room for tape recorders to record 10% of all active calls at any given time.
2013-02-19 04:26:03 PM
1 votes:
Yawn, and before Stingray there was Triggerfish.  Most cellphone users don't realize that anyone -- not just law enforcement -- can set up a GSM cell site and use it to monitor nearby conversations by posing as part of the network.  This costs a couple thousand bucks at most.

Personally, I miss the days when the network was all analog and TVs went up to channel 83...
2013-02-19 04:12:29 PM
1 votes:

Man On Fire: b2theory: As long as they get warrants they're all good. If they don't, good luck using that or any evidence derived from it in court.

They can get them rubberstamped en masse by tame judges. "They didn't have a warrant" is no longer a thing.


It isn't so much that they usually don't have warrants so much as it is what they find is often beyond the scope of a warrant.  For example, a warrant to search a house does not cover their employer's location, other houses, girlfriend's handbag in the trunk of their car in their locked garage.  They have to be pretty specific as to what they're looking for and where.  It can come down to certain rooms.  Also if the defense can go back and ascertain that there was no cause for the initial warrant to be issued, it can be invalidated.  Like if I were an officer and got some stupid judge to give me a warrant to search your house, me and you are both farked when the defense shows up and asks for concrete evidence as to why the warrant was pursued and signed.  It isn't like 'probable cause' where you can just flip open your nightstick and start hitting because you 'smelled marijuana.'

What we need is some way in which judges can be punished for issuing warrants with insufficient evidence, and some way cops can be punished for pursuing warrants with no evidence.  Think about a warrant almost as a mini-trial.  The judge is supposed to look over the evidence and consider risk versus reward.  A suspect selling drugs out of their house which was caught on camera would likely get a warrant issued to search their house, but someone that smelled like marijuana at the mall shouldn't have a warrant issued to search their house even if they turn out to have marijuana on them and get arrested for it.
2013-02-19 04:04:21 PM
1 votes:

J. Frank Parnell: Like someone already referenced, you have no expectation of privacy for any transmissions you send out through the air.


You know, even trivial encryption makes something illegal to break without a warrant.
2013-02-19 03:26:28 PM
1 votes:

Ex-Texan: It's for Federal use, not some local huckster P.D. So unless you're going to do something big, fuggedaboutit. All of you conspiracy theorists, know because they can, doesn't mean anyone cares about you little life. Just sayin' if you stay under the radar, there's no issue. Otherwise...


Federal use only?

Aren't you adorable.
2013-02-19 03:26:04 PM
1 votes:

Weaver95: so boring that I actually feel sorry for the poor dumb sonofabiatch who gets to sit down and comb through my cell phone records, text messages and emails


It's all automated. Feel sorry for the people who had to do it manually in the early days of Project Echelon. None of this is a new development, it's just much more efficient now.
2013-02-19 03:15:51 PM
1 votes:
This text is now purple:


grinding_journalist: I replied: "Why would the gov't spend billions of dollars and risk being seen as an authoritarian overlord when someone behind a desk at the CIA or FBI can locate you to within a few feet of your current location at any time with a few keystrokes,

It occurs to me that, as I currently have two phones (work, personal), of which I usually, but not always, carry both -- I could totally screw with that system by randomly changing up which phone I leave behind. I'm like a man with two clocks.


I'm pretty sure they can associate two phones with one person of interest and tell if one has moved lately.
Even easier, they just ask Google for your latest location. If you use any of the features of an Android phone and haven't locked it down tight, Google knows where you are all the time. I'm sure Apple is the same way.

And if *THAT* isn't enough, there's the fact that a lot of carriers run CarrierIQ on their phones, which records and uploads what apps you run., what cells you're in, and details on the calls you make.

So all this information has been available in various ways for the asking. Telecoms in particular don't seem to have a problem handing over info to the feds.
2013-02-19 03:14:59 PM
1 votes:

citizenj: neversubmit: citizenj: Thus my nick.

Hey Josh, how's it going, you still play battlefield?

Nope. Too busy studying for EMC IE and ISMv2.

My brain is leaking luns...


No more DJ stuff? Anyway my point is that nicks don't provide the safety they once might have btw do you still have that phone number that ends with 2830?
2013-02-19 03:06:23 PM
1 votes:

b2theory: As long as they get warrants they're all good. If they don't, good luck using that or any evidence derived from it in court.


Like someone already referenced, you have no expectation of privacy for any transmissions you send out through the air. They'd only need a warrant if they wanted to physically claim your phone, but that's really not necessary since everything can be monitored without possessing it.

The way the handle these sorts of things is to not act on every little thing they hear about, because that would make it obvious to the public, and they'd stop sending private information through those means. They only move on the big things, and tell the media it was an anonymous tip or something, keeping the public oblivious.
2013-02-19 02:50:44 PM
1 votes:

MrBallou: when you're using a BROADCAST DEVICE



Not that it matters to the FBI but it's not a broadcast device.
2013-02-19 02:46:42 PM
1 votes:
It's for Federal use, not some local huckster P.D. So unless you're going to do something big, fuggedaboutit. All of you conspiracy theorists, know because they can, doesn't mean anyone cares about you little life. Just sayin' if you stay under the radar, there's no issue. Otherwise...
2013-02-19 02:39:40 PM
1 votes:
FBI HQ:
4.bp.blogspot.com
2013-02-19 02:39:09 PM
1 votes:
I knew about it subby. Some of us listened to Art Bell back in the 90's.
2013-02-19 02:38:12 PM
1 votes:

duffblue: Weaver95: b2theory: As long as they get warrants they're all good. If they don't, good luck using that or any evidence derived from it in court.

oh i'm sure they'll find a way to make it work.

we're talking about the same Administration that is gone through legal hurdles to make targeted drone attacks against US civilians legal


Two decades. We're talking about several administrations. Try to keep up.
2013-02-19 02:33:50 PM
1 votes:
The government has been listening in on our telephone conversations, you say?  For decades, you say? Please hold the line wilst I adorn myself in my constipated fictional British detective attire.
2013-02-19 02:33:50 PM
1 votes:
My "smart" phone cost me $9.88 at Wal-Mart and I paid in cash. The card was $22.04, so I was out the door for $30 and change.

These new phones have a 2--year contract at $1700 MINIMUM, and there are service charges on top of that.

They also want an automatic suction pump on your credit card, they get paid whether they deliver service or not.

Screw them.
 
Displayed 29 of 29 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report