Sei sulla pagina 1di 841

jump to content

MY SUBREDDITS
FRONT-ALL-RANDOM | PHOTOSHOPBATTLES-HISTORY-GIFS-FOOD-PHILOSOPHY-TELEVISION-WORL
DNEWS-SHOWERTHOUGHTS-LIFEPROTIPS-ART-SPACE-NOTTHEONION-DOCUMENTARIES-NOSLEEP-GAM
ING-GADGETS-EARTHPORN-ASKREDDIT-FUNNY-MOVIES-DIY-FUTUROLOGY-FITNESS-BOOKS-LISTEN
TOTHIS-INTERNETISBEAUTIFUL-MUSIC-EXPLAINLIKEIMFIVE-UPLIFTINGNEWS-SPORTS-PICS-TOD
AYILEARNED-PERSONALFINANCE-DATAISBEAUTIFUL-IAMA-OLDSCHOOLCOOL-EUROPE-CREEPY-TWOX
CHROMOSOMES-AWW-NEWS-WRITINGPROMPTS-GETMOTIVATED-VIDEOS-TIFU-ASKSCIENCE-JOKES-MI
LDLYINTERESTING-SCIENCE
MORE
news newscommentsrelatedother discussions (15)
want to join? sign in or create an account in seconds|English
this post was submitted on 05 Jan 2015
3,152 points (95% upvoted)
shortlink:
remember mereset passwordlogin
news
unsubscribe4,562,294 readers
2,631 users here now
/r/inthenews
/r/worldnews
new submissions
new comments
Post analysis/opinion articles to /r/inthenews
Want to talk?
Chat with us on IRC
Follow @rslashnews on Twitter
See a post that violates the rules below? Had your post stuck in the spam filter
? Have a question about policy? Just want to give feedback? Send the mod team a
message.
Please post news items only, with the exception of meta posts about /r/news itse
lf. Self-posts aggregating news data and "independent reporting" each count as n
ews, but are not an excuse to editorialize.
Your post will likely be removed if it:
is not news (or a meta post).
is an opinion/analysis or advocacy piece.
primarily concerns politics.
has a title not taken from the article.
has a pay wall or steals content.
covers an already-submitted story.
violates reddit's site-wide rules, especially regarding personal info.
Your comment will likely be removed if it:
is racist, sexist, vitriolic, or overly crude.
is unnecessarily rude or provocative.
is a cheap and distracting joke or meme.
is responding to spam.
violates reddit's site-wide rules.
Extreme or repeat offenders will be banned.
Expanded Rules
If your post doesn't fit, consider finding an appropriate news article on that s
tory to submit instead, or submitting yours to lower moderation subreddits:
/r/inthenews - all news-related content
/r/AnythingGoesNews - unrestricted news
/r/truereddit - insightful articles
/r/self - any self-post
/r/misc, /r/redditdotcom - anything
or other news subreddits:
/r/worldnews - from outside the USA only
/r/SyrianCivilWar - about the conflict in Syria

/r/MidEastRegionalWar - on MidEast conflict /r/UpliftingNews - uplifting


/r/mediaquotes - the things they say
or subreddits for other topics:
/r/FoodForThought - discussion-worthy long form articles about interesting subje
cts
/r/politics - for shouting about politics
/r/moderatepolitics - less shouting
/r/politicaldiscussion - even less shouting
/r/geopolitics - intl. politics and geography
/r/entertainment - Justin Bieber updates, etc.
/r/europe - news from Europe
or check out the 200 most active subreddits, categorized by content and the full
list of subreddits by subscribers.
Recommendations:
/r/redactedcharts
/r/patriots
/r/personalfinance
/r/restorethefourth
reddit is fun for Android and its subreddit /r/redditisfun
submit analysis/opinion article
submit news article
submit something else
submit analysis/opinion article
a community for 6 years
message the moderators
moderators
douglasmacarthur
KyldeThe Janitor
AyeMatey
CandyManCan
Elderthedog
LuckyBdx4
NickWasHere09
ani625
pomosexuality
IKingJeremy
...and 1 more
3152
FBI says search warrants not needed to use stingrays in public places (arstechnica
.com)
submitted 13 hours ago by doctorshady
731 commentsshare
top 500 comments
sorted by: best
[ ]peaceshark 654 points 11 hours ago
If only there were some branch of government that would keep the FBI in check, o
ne that judged people and organizations supremely...
permalink
[ ]misogichan 641 points 8 hours ago
Unfortunately the Catholic church has its hands full dealing with its own intern
al reforms and recasting its vision and mission.
permalinkparent
[ ]wutshappening 93 points 7 hours ago
And looking at cat photos that's why they're Cat-holic. Alco-holics are addicted
to alcohol and catholics well you get the idea.
permalinkparent
[ ]TuffLuffJimmy 142 points 6 hours ago
Omg dad you're embarrassing me in front of my friends
permalinkparent
[ ]okmkz 27 points 4 hours ago

We ain't your friends, bruh


permalinkparent
[ ]Corruptionss 4 points 2 hours ago
We ain't your bruh, friends
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
load more comments (2 replies)
[ ]ROLLINGtemple 9 points 5 hours ago
What's their Dogma?
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
load more comments (9 replies)
[ ]hershmire 73 points 7 hours ago
The courts gave up about ten years ago.
permalinkparent
[ ]endprism 50 points 7 hours ago
The courts are pwned by the surveillance state.
permalinkparent
[ ]sushisection 41 points 6 hours ago
This is what I'm afraid of. Nsa is collecting data from all citizens including p
oliticians and supreme court judges.
permalinkparent
[ ]dutchguilder2 19 points 5 hours ago
Whistleblower confirms: http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=d6m1XbWOfVk
permalinkparent
[ ]TwitchTV_Subbort 1 point 3 hours ago
D.C. is Hollywood for ugly people. best line ever!!
permalinkparent
[ ]sklite 1 point 1 hour ago
Charles Augustus Magnussen approves
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]CriticalThink 1 point 6 hours ago
Skeletons in the closet are easy to find with intelligence infrastructure.
permalinkparent
[ ]HurricaneSandyHook 1 point 5 hours ago
The 10th circuit a few days ago sided with the government saying the cops use of
doppler radar to see if anyone was inside a house was legal. They did say it is
a troubling tactic that needs further review and just left it at that....
permalinkparent
[ ]-_--___-_--_--___--_ 27 points 6 hours ago
One major problem with judicial review is that there must be a case for the cour
t to review. I guess the other avenue would be to sue the government, but I'm no
t an attorney so I don't know how that would work.
permalinkparent
[ ]downvotesmakemehard 14 points 4 hours ago
I believe the current court has taken the stance that to take up a case someone
has to show they've been harmed in some way.
The police will never say that stingray is the source of the evidence. This woul
d open stingray to be scrutinized. They will use stingray to go after phone comp
any records which they will claim they requested on a hunch or some other bullsh
it excuse.
permalinkparent
[ ]great_gape [score hidden] 29 minutes ago
Anonymous tip.
permalinkparent
load more comments (2 replies)
[ ]dissonance07 8 points 6 hours ago
With is wide a latitude as the current SCOTUS seems to give to individual libert
y, this seems like the one kind of thing that they could actually usefully addre

ss, right?
permalinkparent
[ ]MrBojangles528 1 point 5 hours ago
Scalia and the rest of the SCOTUS is bought and sold just like the rest of our g
overnment. They answer first and foremost to the parties that nominated them as
well as the corporations that own them.
permalinkparent
[ ]psilontech 12 points 5 hours ago
See, I don't get that. You get into the Supreme Court and you're golden. Unless
you are actively breaking the law and can be impeached, you're untouchable. Why
not, you know, do what's best for your country instead of remaining beholden to
the parasites that leveraged you into that position?
permalinkparent
[ ]Ratbasher88 14 points 4 hours ago
Yep, Supreme Court justices have a well established history of turning out way d
ifferent than their supporters thought they'd be. For whatever reason this curre
nt batch of justices seems more comfortable with the security state than their p
redecessors, however that's true for most Americans in general so I suppose it s
houldn't be shocking.
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]MrBojangles528 2 points 4 hours ago
Good question, but you'd have to ask them about it.
permalinkparent
[ ]cynoclast 0 points 3 hours ago
Unless you are actively breaking the law and can be impeached, you're untouchabl
e.
But you can get richer. Or have your personal communications made public.
permalinkparent
[ ]tughdffvdlfhegl 1 point 3 hours ago
Honestly? Because they run in those social circles. They're friends with the peo
ple at the top. They don't actively associate with "regular folk" that much.
They've been ingratiated into the upper echelons of society long before ever rea
ching the supreme court through lifetimes spent at the forefront of the legal pr
ofession. This insulates them from others, and leaves them in an echo chamber of
their peers.
Now, when a case comes up that pits one of their friends, or friends' friends ag
ainst some random angry dude who's only making 50k a year, who do you think they
automatically side with, when the case isn't cut and dried? I'm not even saying
it's conscious, but prejudices come in all kinds and run deep. Tribalism happen
s all the time in subtle ways.
Plus there's Scalia taking paid for hunting trips with people who are directly a
ffected by cases in front of him, all of them getting invited to dinners and fun
ctions of the DC elite, etc.
permalinkparent
[ ]pion3435 1 point 3 hours ago
They do. It's possible to disagree with you without being corrupt.
permalinkparent
[ ]Jagoonder 1 point 2 hours ago
Not in an omnipotent surveillance state, however.
permalinkparent
[ ]DownFromYesBad 1 point 2 hours ago
Money, bribery.
permalinkparent
[ ]neotropic9 1 point 1 hour ago
Because they are selected to be the type of people who think whats "best for the
ir country" is serving the parasites, the corporate oligarchs, and the surveilla
nce state. They support the status quo, and the status quo supports them. It wou
ld be a miracle if someone with real principles was actually brought into the Su
preme Court, let alone enough of them to form a majority.

permalinkparent
[ ]isprobablyatwork 1 point 1 hour ago
This does happen, sometimes. Good examples would be Justices Warren and Stevens.
They played along with the GOP right up until they were put on the Court, then
immediately started voting their actual conscience (or if not their conscience,
then at least not as their political backers wanted).
permalinkparent
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[ ]cynoclast 2 points 3 hours ago
You mean the press?
permalinkparent
[ ]scrapinpeg 3 points 6 hours ago*
Obligatory link to illustrated law.
EDIT: fixed link
permalinkparent
[ ]ducttapejedi 3 points 6 hours ago*
error 404, check the link.
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[+][deleted] 13 hours ago (56 children)
[ ]sunbolts 701 points 12 hours ago
Glad to see the FBI is tearing up the constitution to increase their own powers
and authority. /s
permalink
[ ]dontbullshityourself 325 points 11 hours ago
Glad to see the FBI is tearing up the constitution to increase their own powers
and authority
I wish this was just the FBI. Pretty much everybody in the federal, state and lo
cals are doing this. Have been doing for this quite some time too.
permalinkparent
[ ]sunbolts 136 points 10 hours ago
Precisely, and that's what makes this very frightening. The whole club's in on i
t.
permalinkparent
[ ]radonthetyrant 75 points 7 hours ago
but why.. I realize that these "zomg the terrorists!!!11" is only a PR-lie. What
do they really accomplish with this? Industry espionage? Bribes from the indust
ries which create the espionage hardware? Feeling of total control? Control the
masses so it all stays as conservative and corrupt as possible?
Why would you amass such a criminal energy to break constitutional laws just to
be able to see through everyone's communication?
permalinkparent
[ ]BettyRubbleIsHot 151 points 7 hours ago
Total control.
That way when the state has it, they can really put the boot on our necks. Think
they treat us poorly now? Just wait until they have the infrastructure in place
where they feel confident there are absolutely zero threats to their power. Tha
t's when shit is going to get BAD.
permalinkparent
[ ]b-LE-z_it 106 points 6 hours ago
And that's why, despite being terrified of some gun owners, despite being terrif
ied of mass shootings, I don't think we should ban guns, even combat rifles. It
can happen here, and we should at least make it hurt if and when it happens.
permalinkparent
[ ]7V3N 47 points 6 hours ago
Welcome to the list.
permalinkparent

[ ]M00glemuffins 10 points 5 hours ago


Sign me up too. If they try to pull a fast one on the public I'm not standing fo
r their bullshit.
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]FadingEchoes11 26 points 6 hours ago
*rifle. No "combat" rifles are owned by citizens
permalinkparent
[ ]b-LE-z_it 39 points 6 hours ago
Did I mention I don't know anything about guns? I don't know anything about guns
.
Point is, force is not something only people in power should have.
permalinkparent
[ ]teefour 19 points 6 hours ago
You should go to a shooting range and take a class. You won't be so unnecessaril
y afraid of them after that.
permalinkparent
[ ]Pullo_T 27 points 6 hours ago
He's not afraid of guns. He's afraid of some gun owners. At least, as far as we
know.
permalinkparent
continue this thread
load more comments (3 replies)
[ ]Bootsncatsn4 5 points 5 hours ago
i understand where youre coming from, but what will a bunch of angry townsfolk d
o to a predator drone strike?
permalinkparent
[ ]Oeboues 18 points 4 hours ago
You should ask the angry townsfolk of Iraq and Afghanistan.
Once the US military is done slinking away in shame, I mean.
permalinkparent
continue this thread
[ ]nuesuh 1 point 1 hour ago
Remove them. Predator drones are being operated from the ground, and has to land
after a couple hours to refuel.
permalinkparent
[ ]joe_m107 4 points 6 hours ago
Maybe we should change that. Repeal the NFA.
permalinkparent
load more comments (2 replies)
[ ]4nco1j 0 points 2 hours ago
You don't know much about guns, do you now.
permalinkparent
load more comments (6 replies)
[ ]conquer69 15 points 4 hours ago
You can have all the guns you want. That won't stop them from labeling you a "su
spected school shooter, pedophile or terrorist".
A gun can't protect you from that. A gun can't teach your fellow countryman to t
hink by themselves or see through propaganda.
Good luck destroying a drone, plane or tank with a rifle. Not sure how useful a
gun is against your own trained military with even better guns and more.
People thinking they can start a revolution and win with a handgun don't realize
this isn't the 1700's anymore.
permalinkparent
[ ]JimmyBuffer 14 points 4 hours ago
Better tell the Middle East they haven't had a bout of revolutions then
permalinkparent
load more comments (2 replies)
[ ]b-LE-z_it 7 points 4 hours ago
Didn't say we would win, I said we could at least make it hurt. Assuming, of cou

rse, that the American people themselves aren't the ones willingly handing in th
eir freedoms, which would mean we're all fucked immediately.
permalinkparent
[ ]theothercoolfish 13 points 2 hours ago
Assuming, of course, that the American people themselves aren't the ones willing
ly handing in their freedoms, which would mean we're all fucked immediately.
Err, you guys gave up much of your freedoms long ago. And it isn't just the US politicians everywhere are taking as much as they can get, because it's simply
more power for them. More power, more money, more control. It's not a conspiracy
- this is just how an imperfect system with inadequate controls eventually goes
. We need to start re-examining our systems and look at alternatives that are no
w possible with the internet.
permalinkparent
[ ]vynusmagnus 3 points 2 hours ago
Tell that to the insurgents in Afghanistan. It seems to me that the US military
has been unable to defeat them in over a decade of war, despite its overwhelming
technological superiority. Tanks and fighter jets are nice, but they do little
against a small guerrilla force that can disappear into the woodwork.
permalinkparent
[ ]Qoix 3 points 3 hours ago
I think the main issue with that line of thinking is that the military would gun
down the civilians it pledges to protect. How many people in the armed forces d
o you know? Now, are any of them willing to murder innocent people? Probably not
.
permalinkparent
[ ]ihcn 6 points 2 hours ago
They're not innocent people, they're armed revolutionaries, suspected terrorists
permalinkparent
[ ]chance-- 4 points 3 hours ago
You say that as if there isn't insurmountable evidence to the contrary.
Military coups are thoroughly woven into the fabric of humanity's history.
permalinkparent
[ ]theothercoolfish 1 point 2 hours ago
gun down the civilians it pledges to protect.
Err, they don't pledge to protect civilians. They pledge to protect the constitu
tion. And if they are convinced that these people are attempting to "subvert" th
e constitution, then they are enemies. Nevermind that their leaders have shat al
l over the constitution - soldiers take their orders and follow 'em.
Now, are any of them willing to murder innocent people?
lol.
permalinkparent
load more comments (2 replies)
[ ]eloquentnemesis [score hidden] 33 minutes ago
Welcome to 4th generation warfare. You don't need a better gun, or the ability t
o kill a drone, or anything else like that. You just need A gun and more commitm
ent than the other side.
permalinkparent
[ ]homegrowncountryboy [score hidden] 16 minutes ago*
Good luck with those tanks, planes and drones when the American people stop supp
lying fuel and ammunition. My brother is in the Army and he will tell you about
75%, or more of the military will disband and fight to protect the American peop
le. All you have to do is look at New Orleans during Katrina, when they got the
order to start confiscating guns almost all of them refused, instead it was main
ly police stealing people's weapons.
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]Hermit_ 2 points 5 hours ago
Yeah but if it does happen all people would be doing is creating the chaos one o
f the armed and militarized militias needs to take power. For example, The KKK.
permalinkparent

[ ]b-LE-z_it 1 point 5 hours ago


Hopefully not the KKK.
permalinkparent
[ ]AussieArcher 1 point 3 hours ago
Fuck me there's always one of you. I'm starting to think the gun club spends mor
e time on reddit than anyone.
permalinkparent
[ ]astronautg117 1 point 1 hour ago
What's a combat rifle going to do against a drone?
permalinkparent
[ ]datbino 1 point 1 hour ago
i think thats where 2nd ammendment people miss the mark- you owning a rifle will
do nothing against the government.
you becoming an active participating member in that government can help fix it,
the goal is to make you a kony2012 fb sharer rather than a person who gets to wo
rk and fixes shit
permalinkparent
[ ]mpg1846 1 point 1 hour ago
You think 50 guys with hand guns are going to do anything to anyone? Gun laws ar
e a joke.
permalinkparent
[ ]Actionbuilding 1 point 1 hour ago
The founders of the United States of America WANTED the citizens to rise up and
overthrow the government if it approached the levels of corruption it is current
ly working toward.
permalinkparent
load more comments (11 replies)
[ ]nuesuh 1 point 1 hour ago
Ever seen "Das Leben der Anderen"? Imagine this, just with total corruption and
100 times better technology. This is what we are moving towards. Imagine this sy
stem getting in the hands of someone like Hitler or Stalin.. And it can happen.
Before Hitler came to power Germany was a modern, western, christian nation. We
need safety with this technology. And when i say safety, i don't mean surveillan
ce. I mean the opposite.
permalinkparent
[ ]know_comment [score hidden] 14 minutes ago
I agree, but I think the reason for the infrastructure development is because it
is going to get bad. As we are forced to compete more globally, quality of life
stagnates. Even the slightest hint of austerity is going to be very painful for
the lower classes in a society with a large income disparity.
That's why we see the race baiting and divisive rhetoric being used so much. Kee
p the poor and working classes quibbling at each other.
I want you to consider the daffodil. And while you're doing that, I'll be over h
ere, looking through your stuff.
permalinkparent
[ ]mzackler 19 points 7 hours ago
It takes a really complicated answer to truly understand but you often get into
the us vs them mentality in siloed areas of law enforcement. You also often get
frustrated with the levels of proof you need to put the bad guy in jail. Thus an
y method you can use you feel justified in using. Although I think there are a l
ot of issues with The Wire, it's a great starting off point for a discussion if
you want a serious answer.
permalinkparent
load more comments (2 replies)
[ ]hershmire 30 points 7 hours ago
Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts, absolutely.
permalinkparent
[ ]TheNewRavager 70 points 6 hours ago
"All governments suffer a recurring problem: Power attracts pathological persona
lities. It is not that power corrupts but that it is magnetic to the corruptible

. Such people have a tendency to become drunk on violence, a condition to which


they are quickly addicted."
permalinkparent
[ ]gee_iwonderwhy 22 points 6 hours ago
Oh shit, a Dune quote outside /r/dune not about spice.
permalinkparent
[ ]TheNumberMuncher 3 points 6 hours ago
This is pretty cool.
permalinkparent
[ ]YawnDogg 1 point 3 hours ago
Gene Hackman was so kinky in that movie.
permalinkparent
[ ]ThreeTimesUp 2 points 2 hours ago
From a Guardian article by Glenn Greenwald I came across recently:
Inside the mind of NSA chief Gen Keith Alexander
Any casual review of human history proves how deeply irrational it is to believe
that powerful factions can be trusted to exercise vast surveillance power with
little accountability or transparency.
But the more they proudly flaunt their warped imperial hubris, the more irration
al it becomes.
permalinkparent
[ ]Epsilox 3 points 2 hours ago
I'm going to take an unpopular stance here and argue that they get more effectiv
e investigations. Which isn't to say I have no reservations about this stuff, be
cause I do.
I've worked in a field tangential to law enforcement, and I've had the unpleasan
t experience of watching very bad people act with impunity because law enforceme
nt had to play by the rules and they didn't. Does that justify the modern trend
towards more invasive government? Maybe that's just the price we pay to live in
a free society. I don't know. I'm a fan of the H.L. Mencken quote:
"The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's ti
me defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are f
irst aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopp
ed at all."
On the other hand, it's very hard to watch members of organized crime and other
monsters literally get away with murder.
In part the difficulty the lies in the infrastructure of modern society. Communi
cations move at such speed and in such quantity that the sort of pinpoint accura
cy required for effective investigations and prosecutions becomes much more diff
icult.
None of which is to say that what we're doing is necessarily right. I've felt th
e fear of writing an opinion online and knowing that the NSA can see it and ever
ything else I've ever written if they so choose. I've had that feeling of always
being watched. I know exactly what is meant by the danger of chilling free spee
ch, because it's happened to me. But I do tend to trust (perhaps naively) that,
for the most part, most of the people making these decisions have good intention
s. I've worked with many of them, and I believe that it more than anything is th
e result of them trying to do their jobs well. Whether they are actually protect
ing the American people or simply paving the road to hell, only time will really
tell.
permalinkparent
[ ]eyeforgot 4 points 6 hours ago
Think of all the blackmail material they have for any future politicians. They w
ill firmly be in check by the powers that be.
permalinkparent
[ ]ademnus 3 points 7 hours ago
Total control.
permalinkparent
[ ]NotAnotherDecoy 4 points 7 hours ago
Total control?

permalinkparent
[ ]leamas666 2 points 5 hours ago
Why would you amass such a criminal energy to break constitutional laws just to
be able to see through everyone's communication?
It's the deep state attempting to preserve its own regime continuity in the even
t of violent revolution.
permalinkparent
[ ]sunbolts 3 points 6 hours ago
Because those in power try to keep it and in addition, there is always a lust fo
r more power. One who is wealthy seeks to increase his riches usually, right? Sa
me thing going on here. In terms of practicality, there's no reason for breaking
constitutional laws, but when you realize how human nature functions in regards
to ambitions and power, well, what we see going on explains itself.
permalinkparent
[ ]Martenz05 1 point 3 hours ago
So, in order to become a political leader who really does work for the benefit o
f the people, one would somehow have to lose every shred of their humanity so th
ey wouldn't have a human nature that could be corrupted by ambition and power?
That sounds ominous, when I put it like that
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]RuthlessDickTater 1 point 5 hours ago
but why.. I realize that these "zomg the terrorists!!!11" is only a PR-lie.
Well pretty soon they might have their terrorists, but they'll be the domestic k
ind.
permalinkparent
[ ]karadan100 1 point 4 hours ago
More money.
permalinkparent
[ ]cynoclast 1 point 3 hours ago
What do they really accomplish with this?
Get rich.
permalinkparent
load more comments (7 replies)
[ ]TGlucifer 50 points 10 hours ago
Criminals learned it's just way easier to do their lawbreaking with a government
salary.
permalinkparent
[ ]pete1729 22 points 9 hours ago
Well, the benefits package is far more attractive.
permalinkparent
[ ]__ghostpants 25 points 7 hours ago
and somehow snitches go to jail instead of the criminals
permalinkparent
[ ]iismitch55 1 point 3 hours ago
Snitches get stitches. Whistleblowers get their mouth sowed shut.
permalinkparent
[ ]HandsOffMyDitka 5 points 5 hours ago
Why break a law, when you can just change it.
permalinkparent
[ ]moresmarterthanyou 2 points 5 hours ago
except when they have to answer questions themselves...
permalinkparent
[ ]dontbullshityourself 1 point 5 hours ago
Well you know liberty is wasted on peasant swine 'eh?
permalinkparent
[ ]ButterflyAttack 1 point 4 hours ago
Sounds like the constitution doesn't mean much at this point. . .
permalinkparent
[ ]dontbullshityourself 1 point 3 hours ago

Sounds like the constitution doesn't mean much at this point. . .


All it means is that the scum who rule us have a legal contract that they say ba
cks up all their power. But their actions shit all over that document.
President Obama, a constitutional law professor ordered the deaths of two US cit
izens without trial in EXPRESS and DIRECT violation of the constitution.
permalinkparent
load more comments (4 replies)
[ ]Eurynom0s 68 points 9 hours ago
And on top of it, even if being in public was a justification for this, how the
fuck do you prevent the device from nabbing people who are inside their own hous
e or apartment as well?
Oh right, you can't, because that's not how radio waves work.
permalinkparent
[ ]Ioneos 18 points 8 hours ago
You can increase the noise gate to reduce range on purpose, but what good would
that do to keep the terrorists citizens under scrutiny.
permalinkparent
[ ]Eurynom0s 20 points 8 hours ago
Even if they were going to do that, I can't imagine that you could do it to a su
fficient degree in a place like NYC to not scoop up at least some people inside
of buildings.
permalinkparent
load more comments (5 replies)
[ ]Codoro 1 point 4 hours ago
I foresee turning your house into a Faraday Cage being the cop radar finder of t
omorrow.
permalinkparent
[ ]Kenny_Login 23 points 7 hours ago
Taxation without representation, an income far below what the productivity was v
alued at, government intrusion? The founding fathers (you know, those "heroes" o
f our nation) got much more pissed off for much less.
permalinkparent
[ ]Socialdem 8 points 5 hours ago
Can you really blame them? The Constitution was written when people were still r
iding on horses. There's no way the founding fathers could have anticipated the
advances in technology and the way people communicate. I think we're due for a f
irmware upgrade.
permalinkparent
[ ]upandrunning 11 points 3 hours ago
Yes, it's called 'replacing congress'. What we're seeing is a natural consequenc
e of career politicians. Most of the people in office have gotten so comfortable
with the idea that they'll get reelected that what they actually do during thei
r term is almost irrelevent.
permalinkparent
[ ]theothercoolfish 2 points 2 hours ago
Exactly. I think we should look at sortition - with an approval vote, and extrem
ely strict rules on what sort of laws can be passed (eg any law must apply equal
ly to everyone - protecting the minority), and a approval bonus for the randomly
selected representatives if the public approves. Fuck career politicians - they
've proven themselves wholly incapable, and the system that supports them is too
corruptible. I don't think campaign finance reform will 1) ever happen 2) adequ
ately deal with institutional corruption.
permalinkparent
[ ]NuclearWookiee 0 points 2 hours ago
All of this should be covered, in any reasonable interpretation, by the Fourth a
mendment. Rebooting who change anything if the limits on government are ignored.
permalinkparent
[ ]KalAl 1 point 1 hour ago
Do you update your firmware by smashing your bios chip with a hammer?
permalinkparent

[ ]FireFromTheWire 4 points 6 hours ago


You're just another Steve Irwin to them.
permalinkparent
[ ]iismitch55 2 points 3 hours ago
Too soon mate :'(
permalinkparent
[ ]Penguin_in_the_sand 1 point 1 hour ago*
I am curious to know what this comment means?... Oh! Steve Irwin was killed by a
stingray. I thought you may have been referring to some conspiracy relating the
Steve Irwin's death. He had an American wife and both were invited to Howard's
Bush BBQ. http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/10/27/1067233100397.html
permalinkparent
[ ]gloubenterder 2 points 1 hour ago
Steve Irwin was a wildlife documentary filmmaker who was well-known for getting
up close and personal with dangerous animals such as crocodiles and komodo drago
ns.
He was pierced through a heart by a stingray in 2006, while shooting footage for
a documentary called Ocean's Deadliest.
After his death, stingrays had a period of great infamy, and there were even rep
orts of people killing and mutilating stingrays as vengeance for Steve Irwin. ..
.which, of course, is the last thing Irwin would have wanted; he was a conservat
ionist, and whenever he was injured by an animal he was studying, he would alway
s clarify to the viewer that that was his own fault and a risk he was aware of.
permalinkparent
[ ]Agent-BurtMacklinFBI 1 point 5 hours ago
Don't worry I'm keeping a look out
permalinkparent
[ ]pion3435 1 point 3 hours ago
It's not a constitutional issue. It might be an FCC one, but they just do whatev
er they're told anyway.
permalinkparent
[ ]dntur 1 point 3 hours ago
theoretically, every cell tower is in a public place. Why not just attach a stin
gray to all of them? Think of the money mobile companies could make renting towe
r space! next comes google who wants to know who you are calling on your iphone
and windows phone for better directed advertising, followed by Bing. /s
permalinkparent
[ ]Brian3232 [score hidden] 46 minutes ago
Why are they wrong? You already can take pictures of people in public places wit
hout warrant
permalinkparent
[ ]GaltsGulchTouristInf [score hidden] 24 minutes ago
When the constitution, the supreme law of the land, the contract between the gov
ernment and the people, is violated, this violating it should be banned from 'pu
blic service' for life, should be personally liable to those whose rights they v
iolated, and should forfeit their government pension and benefits.
permalinkparent
[ ]wtfmuck [score hidden] 17 minutes ago
It's sad how they shirk doing what is right for what is easy.
permalinkparent
load more comments (8 replies)
[ ]quiteintriguing 127 points 12 hours ago
I think it's about time these fuckers provided some evidence that privacy invadi
ng is helping stop crime or terrorism. As far as I can see, there is an Islamic
army in the middle east right now filled with westerners that simply flew over a
nd caught a bus. Nice job government agencies, you sure showed us.
permalink
[ ]HappyAtavism 81 points 11 hours ago
I think it's about time these fuckers provided some evidence that privacy invadi
ng is helping stop crime or terrorism.

Even more importantly they should provide evidence that they're not violating th
e 4th Amendment. The Bill of Rights doesn't say it applies only when convenient.
P.S. I agree that repeated failures to demonstrate the effectiveness of these th
ings, or lies which get "corrected", is yet another reason why this stuff is BS,
but the Constitution is first and foremost. Don't like the 4th Amendment? Try t
o repeal it. Until then it's in force.
permalinkparent
[ ]7u5 3 points 5 hours ago
The "checks and balances" of the judiciary are a farce. They are free to "interp
ret" the Constitution as they see fit.
permalinkparent
load more comments (3 replies)
[ ]DiaperParty 9 points 3 hours ago
Fuck that. FUUUCK that. If this did stop terrorists, it would still not be worth
the violation of rights. We absolutely CANNOT start OKing this shit as long as
it "stops bad guys."
permalinkparent
[ ]quiteintriguing 1 point 3 hours ago
I think you misunderstood. I think they should have to back up their justificati
on, which they obviously can't.
permalinkparent
[ ]DiaperParty 4 points 3 hours ago
But if we ask them to, we lend legitimacy to that claim. We need to say from the
get go that no justification is needed because none will be sufficient.
permalinkparent
[ ]ebouwman 7 points 5 hours ago
In Canada we had the Ottawa shooting and that dude that ran over some soldiers.
Correct me if I'm wrong but both these guys had had their passports revoked.
I'm not a fan of letting them just go over and fight a dirty war but wtf.
permalinkparent
[ ]Ceejae 4 points 4 hours ago
But so what if it is? How successful the program is is irrelevant.
I'm sure if they set up a government camera in every home they'd stop plenty of
murders and rapes.
permalinkparent
load more comments (2 replies)
[ ]cassieloveseffie 5 points 2 hours ago
Well we all know that the FBI has followed people like John Lennon who believed
in radical peace, urged MLK to kill himself and was prepared to assassinate occu
py members. It is not about crime, it is about maintaining a status quo.
permalinkparent
[ ]monopixel 2 points 1 hour ago
was prepared to assassinate occupy members.
Interesting, where can I read up about this?
permalinkparent
[ ]wirepants 4 points 4 hours ago
Locking everyone in solitary could stop crime and terrorism too. That's not a go
od enough reason to violate our rights even if it was working.
permalinkparent
[ ]egodeath92 2 points 5 hours ago
Shh that's classified. This entire country would be a post-apocalyptic dirt-patc
h is not for the heroic NSA collecting dirt on most of the country.
permalinkparent
[ ]pion3435 1 point 3 hours ago
You had no privacy in the first place. That's not how cell phones work.
permalinkparent
load more comments (6 replies)
[ ]MashItMatt 143 points 13 hours ago
Obviously these are constitution free zones, citizen.
permalink

[ ]THANKS-FOR-THE-GOLD 22 points 7 hours ago


Embrace democracy or you will be eradicated
permalinkparent
[ ]jroddie4 14 points 5 hours ago
Citizen, pick up that can.
permalinkparent
[ ]douko 3 points 5 hours ago
This image won't even load (here's another one), but I still know what it is.
DEATH IS A PREFERABLE ALTERNATIVE TO COMMUNISM.
COMMUNISM IS THE VERY DEFINITION OF FAILURE!
permalinkparent
[ ]chewysquirrel 15 points 6 hours ago
Approximately 2/3 of Americans live in a "constitution free zone"
permalinkparent
[ ]newpolitics 50 points 10 hours ago
The Federal Bureau of Investigation is taking the position that court warrants a
re not required when deploying cell-site simulators in public places. Nicknamed
"stingrays," the devices are decoy cell towers that capture locations and identi
ties of mobile phone users and can intercept calls and texts.
So nobody has any expectation of privacy? Talking out of their asses. The implic
ation that a warrant shouldn't be needed to intercept someone's text messages, i
s outrageous.
permalink
[ ]acerplatanoides [score hidden] 16 minutes ago
The implication that a warrant shouldn't be needed to intercept someone's text m
essages, is outrageous.
The implication of intercepting a PRESS related text message, and thus also supp
ressing a free press.
I think many of these are used to stop uploading of images to social medial. You
ever tried that during a demonstration?
permalinkparent
[ ]dalasocatyemerc 67 points 9 hours ago
Hmm, I didn't realize the FBI had the authority to ignore the constitution of th
e United States of America.
Maybe this organization doesn't actually serve Americans. That's what I think
permalink
[ ]Jagoonder 17 points 2 hours ago
They don't. However, lets look at their 3rd criteria:
(3) cases in which the technology is used in public places or other locations at
which the FBI deems there is no reasonable expectation of privacy.
In public, noone has an expectation to privacy. SCOTUS has ruled on such. Theref
ore, it could be argued that phone conversations in public places forfeits at le
ast one party's rights to privacy.
There are a couple of problems with this. First, Stingray is indiscriminate. Sec
ond, the other party of the phone conversation may be in their own home thus hav
ing an expectation of privacy.
I don't know how law works in regards to phone tapping. But, I would assume that
any warrant to do so would provide the agency a waiver on a second party's priv
acy protections when conversing with the target of the warrant. Except in the ca
se of Stingray no warrant was ever obtained thus, no waiver, thus the second par
ty probably still has privacy protections.
So, I think it's bullshit. I'm no lawyer. I suspect the FBI also knows it's bull
shit. But, the more excuses they can come up with to bend the law around their w
ill the more time it takes to try to stop them since each instance requires anot
her court decision.
permalinkparent
[ ]punkrampant 13 points 1 hour ago
There's only "no expectation of privacy" in public in terms of video+camera surv
eillance. People still get disturbed if you look over their shoulder at their ph
one, or listen to a conversation.

Text messages, emails, phone calls, all of it, are the modern day written letter
s. What the FBI is trying to do is the equivalent of setting up a post office th
at opens everyone's envelopes and makes copies of all the contents.
permalinkparent
[ ]Jagoonder 5 points 1 hour ago
Text messages, emails, phone calls, all of it, are the modern day written letter
s. What the FBI is trying to do is the equivalent of setting up a post office th
at opens everyone's envelopes and makes copies of all the contents.
You're right. I was focusing on an actual phone conversation where one party cou
ld be overheard by others, thus no expectation to privacy.
permalinkparent
[ ]Cambodian_Drug_Mule 2 points 1 hour ago
Surely there are people with technical expertise that can just fuck their shit u
p. If I'm not mistaken the stingrays were detected with consumer grade electroni
cs. If everyone just looked out for them and pinned where they are at on a map,
couldn't some people with the technical know how take them offline?
permalinkparent
[ ]monopixel 1 point 1 hour ago
Hmm, I didn't realize the FBI had the authority to ignore the constitution of th
e United States of America.
The US government and its agencies has been doing it for ages.
permalinkparent
[ ]rtpg 40 points 6 hours ago
Surprised nobody's mentioned Kyllo v. United States yet.
This is fairly recent (2001) jurisprudence. The gov't used a thermal imager, and
saw that there were heat lamps inside of a house, and used that to get a search
warrant. The gov't argued that, well, the heat was outside, so pretty much publ
ic information.
The courts disagreed and ruled this an illegal search. Main reason being that no
t many people have thermal imagers, so there's a reasonable expectation of priva
cy. I think even less people have stingrays, so even from the "discovering that
someone has a cell phone" aspect, there's unreasonableness in the search.
Now to the wiretapping aspect... there's Katz v. United States. Here, somebody w
as in a phone booth, and the feds had set a microphone outside the phone booth w
ithout warrant (so not exactly a wiretap). Again, the courts ruled this an unrea
sonable search.
A part of the ruling:
Regardless of the location, a conversation is protected from unreasonable search
and seizure under the Fourth Amendment if it is made with a "reasonable expecta
tion of privacy".
Text messages definitely fall under this. I can't see this holding up for 2 seco
nds in court.
The article goes into it into detail, but few of the FBI's interpretations on pr
ivacy have been holding up in courts recently. The system is kind of working, an
d this interpretation will be shut down as well. Now, if only everyone had good
lawyers...
permalink
[ ]ryewheats 7 points 4 hours ago
But the biggest problem I see would be them not declaring how they gathered any
information they collected in the first place. It would be pretty easy to skirt
around the system and act like you caught the suspect red-handed (because you we
re tipped off by illegal searches). That is the really scary part.
permalinkparent
[ ]argv_minus_one 5 points 3 hours ago
This practice is known as "parallel construction".
permalinkparent
[ ]tughdffvdlfhegl 3 points 3 hours ago
Honestly, this is the biggest concern. The courts won't allow a challenge becaus
e no one will have standing, because the feds/police won't actively declare this
as evidence in a trial. Meanwhile, they'll continue to use it, having a chillin

g effect on the press and others (which the courts have not seen in recent histo
ry as sufficient to provide legal standing).
permalinkparent
[ ]JustaChimp 3 points 5 hours ago
With the Katz v US case, it took them 39 years to overturn the Olmstead v US rul
ing. Let's hope it takes a little less time for this medium.
The recent Romano v Steelcase Inc. court case could indicate how the courts will
rule in the short term with regards to "reasonable expectation of privacy" thou
gh this ruling was in the context of social media and not text messages. The ana
logy was made that much like a letter writer has no reasonable expectation of pr
ivacy once the recipient is in possession of the letter, neither does the post's
author. Same could be extended to text messages and would be equally as trouble
some.
permalinkparent
[ ]qdarius 1 point 3 hours ago
Damn, that doesn't seem right at all. If I send someone a letter I definitely ex
pect that only they will read it.
Could anyone expand on the logic that a letter writer has no reasonable expectat
ion of privacy?
permalinkparent
[ ]Boltaeg 1 point 3 hours ago
After that letter is given to the recipient, they can do whatever they want with
it without you knowing. They could copy it, show it to friends, frame it and pu
t it on their wall....etc. You have no control over that and must assume that an
ything you write in a letter can be disclosed in some manner, simply because you
have no control over that persons actions.
As to why that is the case, I have no idea. Especially considering it is illegal
to open someone elses mail, but perfectly legal to read someone else's letter o
nce they open it. At least that is my understanding of it.
permalinkparent
[ ]TheMightyBarbarian 1 point 3 hours ago
Its fairly simple, you sent a letter, until it is received by the intended recip
ient it has federal protections. Once the recipient receives it, they are free t
o do with it as they wish, even if you disagree with what they do, specifically
because the letter is now their property, even though you wrote it.
permalinkparent
[ ]qdarius 1 point 2 hours ago
I understand that. But if someone else intercepts my letter shouldn't that still
be illegal?
Maybe I'm misunderstanding how stingrays work but it seems like they're basicall
y designed to intercept hundreds of messages.
permalinkparent
[ ]TheMightyBarbarian 1 point 2 hours ago
Intercept isn't illegal, its sketchy but not illegal. As for reading it, it's a
grey area since texts are not encrypted and even if they were it would do shit i
f billions of devices can decrypt them. So unless you use something like a messe
nger system that can use basic encrypting. It won't stop the FBI from reading it
, but it does show you took steps to have a private conversation and that's what
matters to the court.
permalinkparent
[ ]coalbeeashi 1 point 3 hours ago
Re: Katz v. United States
Certain details, such as shutting the door on the telephone booth, help determin
e if a person intends for a conversation to be private. Thus, private conversati
ons can be made in public areas.
What steps is the average Joe taking to exhibit a reasonable expectation of priv
acy regarding his/her data usage? Honest question.
permalinkparent
[ ]TheMightyBarbarian 1 point 2 hours ago
Beyond using a VPN to mimic another location, not much really. Since there are m

any devices involved in the process of just looking up a website. Ex. You google
Microsoft. Here are all the parties involved: You, Your ISP, Google, Microsoft.
That's four parties involved and that's assuming you are not using a Phones Mob
ile Data plan and are using WiFi. Because then it can add a few more people invo
lved.
Sure you should have protection just the same, but currently the law doesn't rec
ognize that, because the people in charge dont understand how any of it works.
permalinkparent
[ ]rtpg [score hidden] 54 minutes ago
I would say that cultural norms kind of define that in that it is extremely rude
to look at another stranger's phone while they are using it to browse/look at t
heir emails/whatever. Not the most solid argument, I know.
permalinkparent
[ ]Sic_SemperTyrannis 1 point 2 hours ago
When the use of stingrays is challenged in court police have dropped the cases r
ather than explain their use of stingrays.
permalinkparent
[ ]cassieloveseffie 1 point 2 hours ago
I have seen a printed record of every one of someone's txt messages for 6 months
. Never assume txt messages are private.
permalinkparent
[ ]Ladderjack 29 points 12 hours ago
I'm sorry, have they gone ahead and combined the FBI and the Supreme Court of th
e United States of America? No? Well, we will see how long this lasts. . .
permalink
[ ]butitssnot 46 points 7 hours ago
Its ok. In 2016 we can vote for hope and change and transparency and fix all thi
s.
permalinkparent
[ ]CriticalThink 3 points 5 hours ago
yeah. I bet Hillary will fix this mess, right Reddit?
permalinkparent
[ ]TheMightyBarbarian 1 point 2 hours ago
We still got time before they can start promoting themselves for President, lega
lly actually, they can't start until a certain number of days from the election.
permalinkparent
[ ]looneybandito 5 points 6 hours ago
Haha. As if our votes matter.
permalinkparent
[ ]atomofconsumption 9 points 5 hours ago
thatsthejoke.jpg
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]dichroeyes 1 point 4 hours ago
You are right. I give up. Long live the hegemony.
permalinkparent
[ ]Pikaflu 1 point 3 hours ago
America is an irradiated wasteland. Within it lies a city. Outside the boundary
walls, a desert. A cursed earth. Inside the walls, a cursed city, stretching fro
m Boston to Washington D.C. An unbroken concrete landscape. 800 million people l
iving in the ruin of the old world and the mega structures of the new one. Mega
blocks. Mega highways. Mega City One. Convulsing. Choking. Breaking under its ow
n weight. Citizens in fear of the street. The gun. The gang. Only one thing figh
ting for order in the chaos: the men and women of the Hall of Justice. Juries. E
xecutioners. Judges.
permalinkparent
[ ]Ago_Solvo 36 points 9 hours ago
I'm sure that means that stingrays are also open for public hacking in that case
, because they're in a public place, and doing so can't be considered an intrusi
on on government properties or a violation of any Federal Law.

permalink
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]whysopositive 57 points 12 hours ago
Say whatever you want, you don't think big brother is going to find every way to
spy on you?
The thing is I bet every time we the people get upset about some "new" trespass
against our rights there's already something technologically beyond our knowledg
e being put to use to on us now.
permalink
[ ]I_SPLIT_INFINITIVES 16 points 7 hours ago
My dad always said, "If that's what they're telling us they have now, they proba
bly had it ten years ago. Just imagine what they really have."
permalinkparent
[ ]oOTHX1138Oo 28 points 9 hours ago
Thats why we need to add to the bill of rights, so that we continue to be protec
ted in the digital age.
permalinkparent
[ ]TheBlueWaffleHouse 18 points 8 hours ago
At this point in time the bill of rights only shrinks. It doesn't get bigger.
permalinkparent
[ ]tallerthanunicorngod 33 points 7 hours ago
Not with that attitude.
permalinkparent
[ ]mattacular2001 3 points 5 hours ago
Doesn't matter unless you're wealthy
permalinkparent
[ ]tallerthanunicorngod 1 point 2 hours ago
Wealthy people don't like to be spied on either. Honestly, they probably like it
even less.
permalinkparent
[ ]sockgorilla 1 point 5 hours ago
He's John Titor, he's watched it before.
permalinkparent
[ ]mastahslayah 1 point 4 hours ago
Well he isn't getting any of my Dr. Pepper.
permalinkparent
[ ]Poor__Yorick 1 point 2 hours ago
Wow that's a name I haven't heard in a while.
We've got a world war this year though.
3 billion dead by the end of it.
permalinkparent
load more comments (5 replies)
[ ]pion3435 1 point 3 hours ago
We already did. That's the point of laws like HIPAA. There's just no equivalent
for things like email or cell phones so it's legal to see whatever people are na
ively broadcasting.
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]ZomNomNomBeeZ 5 points 7 hours ago
This technology is not particularly new. The man-in-the-middle attack is a class
ic hacking technique. I remember reading an article after one of the security co
nventions detailing a small group of participants that used a remote control air
plane to do this exact thing to convention attendees. This was years ago.
permalinkparent
[ ]hershmire 4 points 7 hours ago
Which is why it's illegality could be successfully code into law.
permalinkparent
[ ]TheMightyBarbarian 1 point 3 hours ago
That's the problem, the people who make the laws don't understand how the techno
logy works, and the people making and using it are telling them its fine, so the

y don't feel like they need to make a law about.


And as such making a law about it would be bad, since the law would need specifi
c language to prevent certain technologies and usage of such. But the biggest is
sue is that some of the technology and uses are too general that it would never
work to stop anything. Since they can't just write a law preventing man in the m
iddle because they need to get a definitive wording on what that is exactly and
then word it so a slight variation doesn't just immediately skirt the new law.
Our technology grew faster than our laws did, but now it's grown faster than our
ability to properly define what it is we do. So controlling it is incredibly ha
rd and will take a long time, so for now we kinda have to suck it up and wait, b
ecause the worst possible thing is them putting out ineffective laws that do les
s than nothing to prevent stuff like that and hearing us complain and think we a
re whining when they just put out a law. I would rather wait a little longer to
make sure the law is proper and effective than to have a crap law screw everythi
ng up.
permalinkparent
[ ]ScorpionPool 1 point 6 hours ago
Serious question. What benefits does the government get from spying on us? Power
? Information for corporations? Shits and giggles? Some kind of profit?
permalinkparent
[ ]swingmemallet 2 points 5 hours ago
All of the above
permalinkparent
[ ]eyeforgot 1 point 5 hours ago*
What like complete access to what anyone posts/chats about on facebook/skype bei
ng dumped into a database? Anyone who work with cisco routers notice anything fu
nny like carefully crafted packets fucking w. the settings and not creating logs
. Maybe like there is a back door that someone has that doesn't require a passwo
rd.
permalinkparent
load more comments (3 replies)
[ ]philtech 26 points 10 hours ago
You can scan for stingray use.
Only works on rooted phones with Qualcomm chipset however. https://play.google.c
om/store/apps/details?id=de.srlabs.snoopsnitch&hl=en
permalink
[ ]vamper 2 points 6 hours ago
damn, no go for my nexus 5
permalinkparent
[ ]Ice_Pirate 1 point 5 hours ago
Should work on my 20 dollar ZTE's with dualies :). Overclocks to 1.8 like butta.
http://www.phonearena.com/phones/ZTE-N800_id8191
permalinkparent
[ ]willyboxc 1 point 2 hours ago
we need a version that will work without root :(
permalinkparent
[ ]networklackey 49 points 11 hours ago*
Bullshit... it's radio. They have no way of determining whether the person they
are monitoring is in public or not.
They shouldn't be able to use this without a warrant any more than they should b
e able to point a laser mic at your window.
The fact that they are in public is irrelevant... the subject they are monitorin
g has to be in public.
permalink
[ ]lll_1_lll 29 points 6 hours ago
Even if we are in public, what the fuck gives them the right to look through my
texts, phone calls, voicemails, emails, call history, etc?
permalinkparent
[ ]zoidbug 5 points 3 hours ago
It should be protected the level of paper mail. It is your private communication

s.
permalinkparent
[ ]networklackey 1 point 2 hours ago
Technically... because you are in public and are broadcasting. But I feel the sa
me way. None of this shit should be legal.
permalinkparent
load more comments (6 replies)
[ ]goatmagic 2 points 3 hours ago
laser mic
Well, TIL this exists :/
permalinkparent
[ ]networklackey 2 points 2 hours ago
They absolutely exist and they are freaking awesome. They should not however be
used by law enforcement without a warrant.
permalinkparent
[ ]makingupdumbnames 1 point 5 hours ago
I think it's that their airwaves cross public space. pls correct me if I'm wrong
, though
permalinkparent
[ ]networklackey 1 point 2 hours ago
That's certainly the argument they are making.
permalinkparent
[ ]wirepants 1 point 4 hours ago
Even assuming you are in public, who's to say the guy on the other side is too?
permalinkparent
[ ]networklackey 1 point 2 hours ago
Nothing but their log books but that doesn't really matter. It's your right to p
rivacy they are violating.
permalinkparent
[ ]Sarah_Connor 9 points 9 hours ago
We need a way to be able to identify, then jamm, stingrays.
permalink
[ ]cookie_nrk 8 points 7 hours ago
This Jammer made in sweden should do the trick. From what I have read it complet
ely blocks all signals, so using a phone wouldn't work at all, but if you were i
n a position to not want to be tracked during a certain time, you could use this
: http://www.jammer-store.com/monstro-10-all-frequencies-portable-jammer.html
permalinkparent
[ ]hershmire 10 points 7 hours ago
We're talking about blanket monitoring of civilians. It needs to be outlawed imm
ediately. Hoping each and every Joe Schmoe is going to buy an illegal cell phone
jammer to protect his identity is, well, ridiculous.
permalinkparent
[ ]davidverner 6 points 7 hours ago
Jammers are illegal in the US on the cellphone frequency. Good luck importing on
e.
permalinkparent
[ ]wicard 5 points 6 hours ago
had one from deal extreme i bought when i was younger to prank friends, was alot
of fun. But if you are worried about being tracked wouldn't just shutting your
phone off do the trick? If you are jamming your phone you arnt going to be talki
ng to anyone.
permalinkparent
[ ]RellenD 4 points 5 hours ago
You have to do more than just turn it off, unfortunately.
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]willyboxc 1 point 2 hours ago
we need the schematics so we can build one... also include 700 mhz jam for lte
permalinkparent

load more comments (1 reply)


[ ]ademnus 11 points 7 hours ago
That's nice but it's not up to the FBI if it is illegal or not.
permalink
[ ]MonitoredCitizen 21 points 7 hours ago
Come on Google and Apple, stop being so lame. Make the phones themselves defend
against this by always displaying the negotiated encryption level and allowing u
ser to configure the phone to refuse to connect if the GSM encryption level is A
5/0.
permalink
[ ]argv_minus_one 2 points 2 hours ago
If they do that, these same spooks will have some words with their CEOs. Otherwi
se, yeah, they likely would.
permalinkparent
[ ]vzzzbux 2 points 1 hour ago
Not sure on the technical specifics but my old Nokia from 10 years ago used to s
how a padlock if the call was "secure", which I guess meant it was encrypted in
some way.
Sounds like yet another way we've gone backwards with the rise of Google and App
le
permalinkparent
[ ]cryptovariable 180 points 12 hours ago
This seems icky, but anyone with a Raspberry Pi ($48.00), an RTL-SDR ($17.00), a
nd an ability to follow written step-by-step instructions on how to install and
configure some open source software ($0.00) can do this, albeit on a smaller sca
le.
That tutorial doesn't cover decrypting GSM traffic. This one does. You'll need s
omething faster than a Raspberry Pi, though. Maybe a $200 netbook.
And you can do it on the same scale as the police with a surplus commercial ante
nna and three or four friends.
I don't see how restricting the government's ability to do this would have any o
ther effect than to criminalize a private citizen's desire to experiment with GS
M.
permalink
[ ]HappyAtavism 113 points 11 hours ago
I don't see how restricting the government's ability to do this would have any o
ther effect than to criminalize a private citizen's desire to experiment with GS
M.
Experiment with GSM all you want, just don't eavesdrop or commit fraud by preten
ding to be part of a legitimate business.
I like to play with miniature cameras, microphones and transmitters. That's a fi
ne hobby as long as I don't use it to spy on my neighbors.
permalinkparent
load more comments (5 replies)
[ ]mr___ 50 points 12 hours ago
But theirs has a transmitter, and actively spoofs cell sites
permalinkparent
[ ]cryptovariable 55 points 12 hours ago
It you want to spoof rather than just eavesdrop all you have to do is buy any of
the SDR kits that are coming on to the market like a bladeRF or something and h
ave GNUradio (which hilariously autocorrects to FBI radio on my phone) pretend t
o be a tower, the credentials of which you sniffed with your Pi setup.
The reason the Feds spoof is so that they can target specific devices on a white
list and only have those connect. The size of the whitelist is unknown and up fo
r debate.
If you're capturing and decrypting all the GSM your antenna can receive you don'
t care if you're spoofing the tower unless you want to modify the traffic in som
e way. To quote Sir Patrick Stewart: "It's too late, I've seen everything."
If you just scoop up everything using cheap/free and publicly available tools yo
u don't really care about spoofing.

It should be noted that the Feds have a leg up with CDMA because of its smaller
global footprint and the scarcity of developers working on it, as well as UMTS (
3G) and LTE.
But people are poking at LTE every day: http://www.rtl-sdr.com/analyzing-td-ltertl-sdr/
permalinkparent
[ ]HappyAtavism 36 points 11 hours ago
The reason the Feds spoof is so that they can target specific devices on a white
list and only have those connect. The size of the whitelist is unknown and up fo
r debate.
We do know they don't have warrants. How many violations of the 4th Amendment do
es it take before it's considered a bad thing?
permalinkparent
load more comments (19 replies)
[ ]A530[??] 6 points 6 hours ago
I have to ask an honest question. Knowing what you know, do you live in a Farada
y cage or just eschew cell phones all together? I'm in InfoSec (I'm guessing you
are too) and with the shit I know, maintaining OPSec is just a never ending bat
tle. I can't imagine my paranoia if I went down the cellular rabbit hole (althou
gh I do know a lot about the shit happening with the carrier baseband MDM garbag
e).
Many thanks for the very informative post.
permalinkparent
[ ]tornadoRadar 1 point 1 hour ago
Gotta keep it segmented. Personal never mixes with biz
permalinkparent
[ ]the_nap_mutilator 1 point 5 hours ago
Spoofing the cell site also gives them access to the phone at something akin to
the hardware level... so unless you have rooted and or installed software to sec
ure the device, they can push new software onto your phone without your knowledg
e/consent in the same way that your carrier updates subscriber units say when th
ey make changes to the network or something. At that point your phone has been p
ermanently compromised.
permalinkparent
load more comments (13 replies)
[ ]mag17435 29 points 10 hours ago
I dont understand how people think the government can do things citizens can. Or
dering our government not to do something has no bearing on what citizens can do
.
permalinkparent
[ ]Golden-Fox 7 points 6 hours ago
Well when police are trying to visually collect evidence they can in general onl
y search from public areas. If a cop is looking for a certain car and they see i
t on the street, that's fine. If the car is parked in a closed garage and on pri
vate property, the cop wouldn't be able to see it without going onto private pro
perty and looking in a window. If the car is in the same garage and the garage d
oor is open, then anyone can see it, and the cop can legally use that informatio
n.
The FBI is trying to apply that same logic to these stingrays. Stingrays are a t
echnology that is available to the public. You could make your own and do exactl
y what the FBI does. The data being collected isn't encrypted, password protecte
d, or anything else. Everything is publicly available. You just have to have a c
ertain machine to be able to read it. The garage door has to be open.
permalinkparent
[ ]Wordygit 6 points 6 hours ago
The key word here is "public" whereas where there is the expectation of privacy,
I would think think that would carry some special considerations. That seems to
be some of what the courts are deciding about, where the expectation of privacy
holds sway over searches. Its already been determined that law enforcement cann
ot force you to unlock your phone. One such Supreme Court case, decided this pas

t summer, led to a sweeping victory for privacy rights advocates. In a rare unan
imous decision, the court found that police cannot search cellphones, and by ext
ension tablets and other digital communication devices, without first obtaining
a warrant. Smartphones, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote, hold the privacies of l
ife, and the fact that technology now allows an individual to carry such informati
on in his hand does not make the information any less worthy of the protection f
or which the Founders fought. I think, as well, that it has been established that
if there is encryption being used, that constitutes an acknowledgement that ste
ps have been taken to protect and maintain the sense of privacy, and so the expe
ctation carries onto the information being transmitted. Not sure if there is a l
egal precedent for that though.
permalinkparent
[ ]Golden-Fox 2 points 5 hours ago
Its already been determined that law enforcement cannot force you to unlock your
phone.
This is what I've heard, but to me it implies that police can access your phone
if you don't have it locked. Carrying that logic over to this argument, the poli
ce would be able to access your cell info as long as it isn't encrypted. It seem
s that you only have a "reasonable expectation to privacy" with your cell phone
if you've taken any steps to make your phone more private. If there were some wa
y to get your carrier to encrypt your data, then there'd be no question, but the
way cell providers are these days, that's not gonna happen.
permalinkparent
[ ]ThreeTimesUp 1 point 1 hour ago
Something that I have heard repeatedly (and I may yet have it wrong), is that if
your front door is closed, but unlocked, the police are free to enter without a
warrant.
This has always bothered me.
I could understand the mind-set of someone (i.e. a Justice of the Supreme court)
thinking that way if they grew up (or lived) in an area where they lived a life
always fearful of intruders and locking doors was a practical necessity.
But to me, a closed door means "Keep out, knock for admittance - no entry withou
t permission."
So, for naive, trusting, me, I would not expect the police (or anyone) to examin
e my phone (without a warrant) just to see what they could find.
permalinkparent
[ ]pion3435 1 point 3 hours ago
A technologically illiterate moron's expectation of privacy doesn't become a rea
sonable expectation of privacy just because the majority of the population is te
chnologically illiterate.
permalinkparent
[ ]F0sh 1 point 2 hours ago
This is totally wrong thinking. A private citizen can look for your car through
the garage window without legal repercussions, even though a police officer migh
t not be allowed. The police officer has to conduct his searches according to th
e expectation of privacy and you have every expectation that your private phone
conversations are private - even if you're sending your texts at the shopping ce
ntre.
This is a bullshit equivocation on the part of the FBI, who are claiming that si
nce any old person at the shops can see that you're also at the shops you have n
o expectation of privacy at all.
This logic, if extended, would also mean the FBI could clone your hard drive if
you took your laptop to a public place - after all, you have no expectation of p
rivacy there. No. Bullshit - just because you're in the park doesn't mean all yo
ur possessions and emails became public.
This has nothing to do with what an ordinary citizen is able to do in public or
in private.
permalinkparent
[ ]ThreeTimesUp 1 point 2 hours ago*
Well when police are trying to visually collect evidence they can in general onl

y search from public areas. If a cop is looking for a certain car and they see i
t on the street, that's fine.
To counterpoint this:
Infra-red light (heat) is just light that's at a lower frequency than humans can
detect.
Courts have ruled that the police using specialized equipment to detect heat sig
natures (Infra-red light) emanating from from houses for the purpose of snooping
for grow operations are an invasion of privacy.
The signals Stingray is picking up are just another frequency, even lower than I
nfra-red light, originating from inside your phone, that is your property, which
is in your possession.
Authorities are using all manner of logical distortions in an express attempt to
get around the ideals and principles expressed in the Constitution.
What law-abiding citizen would attempt such a thing?
What authority that the public has placed their trust in, would make continual a
ttempts to subvert the Constitution?
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
load more comments (2 replies)
[ ]kromem 2 points 3 hours ago
It is already criminal to capture and decrypt GSM traffic for citizens (Wiretap
Act), same as capturing and parsing WiFi data.
But I think I can point out the issue with your logic with a simple analogy:
Citizens can buy guns.
Law enforcement can be provided guns.
Citizens can practice shooting guns.
Law enforcement should do the same.
Citizens can't shoot other citizens with guns except in really specific exemptio
ns.
According to your logic, just because citizens can buy guns, and could possibly
go around shooting other people with them, law enforcement should not have any l
egal restrictions on their use of guns.
It is illegal for you to capture and decrypt anyone else's traffic, and it shoul
d be illegal for cops to do the same without a warrant. It's not that hard to ge
t a warrant when actually justified, creates a paper trail that can be examined
for abuses, and has been the case without serious issue for years now.
For what purpose does the law need to be changed to allow this? Because warrants
are inconvenient? Well then why not get rid of them for entering homes too? It'
s quite trivial to pick a lock, and even easier to smash a window and climb in.
Any citizen could do it. So why do we need to restrict the police from the same?
permalinkparent
[ ]dfioabnionjio 4 points 9 hours ago
I don't see how restricting the government's ability to do this would have any o
ther effect than to criminalize a private citizen's desire to experiment with GS
M.
Why not have it be illegal for government and legal for private citizens? Make i
t perfectly legal for private citizens to experiment with GSM, but don't let the
FBI do the same, like you can have a private citizen share something a defendan
t said in court while the police cannot do the same unless the suspect had been
told of their rights.
Of course, the problem here is not using GSM. It's tracking people who did not k
nowingly join your network. You could have it be legal to experiment with GSM an
d not legal to spoof a network, or make it so tracking someone on your network i
s illegal unless the person being tracked is aware they will be tracked and cons
ents to it.
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]confusiondiffusion 3 points 10 hours ago
Yeah, I really don't see the point in making laws against this, since they'll be
broken anyway. We need to fix the underlying technology. There is no excuse for

the sad state of cellphone security.


permalinkparent
[ ]HappyAtavism 18 points 10 hours ago
I really don't see the point in making laws against this
Then let's just flush the Constitution down the toilet. All laws get broken, the
question is what gets done about it.
since they'll be broken anyway
It's not very hard to break into my house either, but they're not supposed to do
it without a warrant.
permalinkparent
load more comments (4 replies)
[ ]HighMonster 1 point 7 hours ago
Wow that's intriguing
permalinkparent
[ ]lll_1_lll 1 point 6 hours ago
You act like this is realistically doable for the large majority of people and y
ou know that's BS.
permalinkparent
[+][deleted] 6 hours ago (1 child)
[ ]JabroniZamboni 1 point 5 hours ago
Are you suggesting that radar jammers should be legal? As well as cell phone or
wifi jammers? What if your neighbor wants to experiment with a jammer for the ne
xt 4 months? 6 years? I assume you wouldn't be too happy. There's experimentatio
n and then there's purposeful disruption and spying.
permalinkparent
[ ]egodeath92 1 point 5 hours ago
Yeah except "anyone with device X" can't prosecute people. It doesn't matter whe
n corporations do mass data collection because they are just trying to make mone
y/sell people shit. The government can create a database of people's private liv
es then prosecute them. You could even imagine a time where data collection is s
o widespread that this kind of info is used for political purposes rather then b
usting drug dealers/ other criminals which is what it's used for now.
permalinkparent
[ ]Kuusou 1 point 4 hours ago
What the people can do, and what the government can do, are no the same things,
nor should they.
permalinkparent
[ ]qdarius 1 point 4 hours ago
If a random person overhears my conversation I don't care. Even if they tell the
ir friends I'm still not too concerned.
If the government records my conversation and uses it to investigate or prosecut
e me that's clearly a different situation.
Just because someone can do something doesn't mean it should be legal. It defini
tely doesn't mean we should be okay with our government using it on us.
permalinkparent
load more comments (9 replies)
[ ]Sir_not_sir 52 points 13 hours ago
The main purpose of the stinger is to circumvent the need and time of acquiring
a warrant and getting the data from all the service providers.
Regardless of data retention plans, they should require a separate judicial warr
ant for each individual suspect in order to be deployed.
permalink
[ ]manoninternets 8 points 7 hours ago*
The time required to get a warrant is usually far less than what they make it ou
t to be, although cost is as factor. Phone companies make tons of money off poli
ce records requests.
To play devil's advocate (and I do think the STINGRAY arrangement is devilish):
once you request records from the phone companies, there's no guarantee that won
't get leaked to the people being investigated. The cartels have people everywhe

re.
permalinkparent
[ ]kevincreeperpants 6 points 6 hours ago
What if they are the cartels!?...dun dun dun
permalinkparent
[ ]tughdffvdlfhegl 1 point 3 hours ago
I don't think anyone here has a problem with STINGRAY being used, given that the
y have a warrant for the person's data they're monitoring. So in your situation,
that's easy to do.
permalinkparent
[ ]manoninternets 2 points 3 hours ago
Yeah it's the same concept as going through my private letters, or close enough
to it anyhow. (Even though letters are physically sealed and radio waves permeat
e the air freely, my intention is for my text messages to be as private as posta
l mail.)
Even a child could rip open an envelope with ease. That doesn't mean police don'
t need a warrant to do so.
permalinkparent
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[ ]turnthatfrown 9 points 7 hours ago
I think the FBI is conveniently forgetting that they are intercepting a communic
ation that is normally secured via encryption and carried privately by your wire
less provider then switched privately all the way to the party on the other end
who has similar expectations of the connection.
I mean, come on, the Stingrays themselves are impersonating the carrier that you
have a contract with and using techniques to avoid the strong encryption. The p
rove by their own design and implementation that the FBI's argument is bullshit.
permalink
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]dontbullshityourself 27 points 11 hours ago
I'm so sick of the ways these callous assholes use to crush our freedom.
What is the point of massive expensive law enforcement agencies if the law can't
protect our rights and freedoms? Hasn't the cart been put before the horse here
?
permalink
[ ]donottakethisserious 13 points 6 hours ago
If you are told you are free enough times, you start to believe it. You start at
a young age with a pledge every day and then when you grow up you attend sporti
ng events and stand for the national anthem and tear up at how free you are. Tha
t way nobody will ever question whether or not this is actually a free country.
permalinkparent
[ ]dontbullshityourself 10 points 5 hours ago
When I was a kid I started to sit during the pledge. Honestly I think I just wan
ted to test and see how free I was. I knew that saying the pledge etc wasn't in
the school handbook. I knew there was no rule saying I had to say it or stand or
anything. The powers that be at my school just used the herd instinct to keep t
his shit going.
So I started sitting down. This resulted in a lot of attention from gangs of bul
lies. My home room teacher didn't like it either and lectured/bitched about it e
very day. But she stopped short of anything more than shaming me unlike the bull
ies.
Anyway I just decided to drop out. Fuck it. Humans don't like new things that co
nfuse them and challenge them to think. How interesting that was to be the last
thing I learned in school. I found another kind of freedom. The freedom to leave
the assholes mired in their stupidity and find my own path in life.
permalinkparent
[ ]joshyfitzo90 4 points 5 hours ago
I like your style.
permalinkparent

[ ]Jack41096 3 points 4 hours ago


I applaud you. I stood but that's all I did. it was in our rulebook to stand but
fuck them if they thought I was gonna do more than that. I started a wave of pe
ople standing and doing nothing.
eventually my first period class was reduced to two people and the teacher actua
lly doing anything. they bitches about it but we all had our own reasons.
permalinkparent
[ ]dontbullshityourself 2 points 3 hours ago
eventually my first period class was reduced to two people and the teacher actua
lly doing anything. they bitches about it but we all had our own reasons.
There are lots of reasons to resist and only one reason to obey. Fear.
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]CriticalThink 3 points 5 hours ago
Government hasn't been interested in protecting our rights and freedoms in a lon
g time.
permalinkparent
[ ]jkeyser14 5 points 7 hours ago
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety
, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. - Benjamin Franklin
permalinkparent
[ ]dontbullshityourself 5 points 6 hours ago
We didn't give it up. They are taking it.
permalinkparent
[ ]jkeyser14 10 points 6 hours ago
Only because we aren't rioting. The first group of rioters to tar and feather a
politician again will bring about change very quickly.
permalinkparent
[ ]dontbullshityourself 4 points 5 hours ago
People are gonna have to get a lot more desperate. I reckon we'll get our riot s
oon enough.
permalinkparent
[ ]Jack41096 1 point 4 hours ago
take the food. that's the surefire way to cause a riot.
people will be content as long as they're fed. you take that away and suddenly t
hey have nothing to lose. they have to survive. that is the most primal response
we have. to fight tooth and nail for food. to eat no matter the cost.
permalinkparent
[ ]RamsNation 1 point 4 hours ago
America has a very stable food supply so I doubt that will happen.
permalinkparent
[ ]dontbullshityourself 1 point 3 hours ago
I don't think we have to take the food. I think that people today are a lot more
self entitled and will jump into a fit without their iphones. They can't even i
magine a world without abundant food.
permalinkparent
[ ]grungebucket 1 point 4 hours ago
bring about change very quickly. street executions very quickly.
there. Corrected that for you. After all. You wouldn't want to be mistaken for a
terrorist endorsing a terrorist act now, would you?
permalinkparent
[ ]pion3435 2 points 3 hours ago
You never had it. You're just now finding out.
permalinkparent
[ ]hershmire 7 points 7 hours ago
Ok, I get the FBI's argument. Technically, we are all choosing to carry a digita
l device around with us that uniquely identifies us via radio frequency. It's tr
ue that we could very well decide not to partake in the use of cell phones if we
're so worried about being tracked. And thus because we decide to carry these pa

rtially secure devices around with us, they FBI has every right to hack them and
track us.
But this argument is bogus. The FBI can't read our mail or tap our phones becaus
e legislators and judges at one time recognized that technology becomes indispen
sable, and therefore should be protected under privacy laws. Just because I choo
se to carry a cell phone around with me doesn't give the FBI to track my whereab
outs, or worse. That'd be like saying it's my fault for having my mail read by t
he FBI because I chose to write letters, or I chose to have my phones monitored
and recorded by the FBI because I chose to use telephones.
The FBI is part of the executive branch. They (supposedly) operate within the sc
ope of the law. If there's no specific law preventing their actions, they'll go
ahead and do it. So write your representatives and get shit like this regulated.
And use letters because they're obligated to at least open the envelope.
permalink
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]drakecherry 5 points 8 hours ago
we might as well get rid of warrants all together. they are gonna search if they
want to, and nothing will happen if they are wrong.
permalink
[ ]MeganNancySmith 6 points 6 hours ago
The FBI doesn't have the legal authority to make that determination.
It would be like if I said that murder is legal every other Sunday. I can say it
all I like, but it doesn't make it true.
permalink
[ ]Todda468 6 points 6 hours ago
Anything a private citizen can't do should require reasonable suspicion or a war
rent.
permalink
[ ]Sonotmethen 6 points 9 hours ago
Then signal jammers aren't either.
permalink
[ ]MrJDouble 4 points 9 hours ago
FBI tends to say a lot of things, doesn't mean it isn't a pile of horseshit.
permalink
[ ]blueiron0 4 points 6 hours ago
(3) cases in which the technology is used in public places or other locations at
which the FBI deems there is no reasonable expectation of privacy.
Love how the FBI gets to decide when it's ok for them to assume you shouldnt hav
e any expectation on privacy. "we saw a poop porn video on pornhub. you shouldnt
expect privacy when pooping then."
permalink
[ ]ragn4rok234 4 points 6 hours ago
Whoo! Now I don't need a warrant or sufficient reason to wire tap anyone and eve
ryone. Stalkers of the world rejoice! It's like Oprah is handing out privacy bre
aches in here
permalink
[ ]fourslaps 4 points 4 hours ago
This isn't what Steve Irwin would have wanted
permalink
[ ]knowyourbrain 7 points 8 hours ago
How sad is it that we have an R Senator trying to rein in a D president's FBI?
If Snowden et al have not been able to show the American people what a farce our
government is then I don't know how it can be demonstrated.
permalink
[ ]makingupdumbnames 1 point 5 hours ago
that's Chelsea to you, mister!
permalinkparent
[ ]StellarUsername 4 points 9 hours ago
Can someone ELI5 why my cell carrier lets this happen? Seems like it would be ea
sy enough for them to put a stop to it if they wanted.

permalink
[ ]giantgnat 13 points 8 hours ago
Because if you don't play nice with them, they don't play nice with you like wha
t happened to the CEO of quest after he refused to cooperate.
permalinkparent
[ ]lll_1_lll 6 points 6 hours ago
CEO of quest
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/09/30/a-ceo-who-resistednsa-spying-is-out-of-prison-and-he-feels-vindicated-by-snowden-leaks/
permalinkparent
[ ]WatchoutItsAllan 1 point 4 hours ago
Looks like the only way to be out of the eyes of the NSA is to go back to using
these http://imgur.com/JEFUt4h
permalinkparent
[ ]jkeyser14 4 points 7 hours ago
The cell and internet companies get paid millions by the government for direct a
ccess to their lines. This was one of the things Snowden blew the whistle on.
permalinkparent
[ ]MadPooter 2 points 7 hours ago
I believe that the technology behind our current cell phone towers needs to allo
w for widespread access to said cell phone towers from a wide array of technolog
ical devices.
The Stingray makes the cell phone tower believe that it's a cell phone--I don't
know that it's as easy as you might think to re-design all cell phone models to
differentiate themselves from what Stingrays currently are.
TL;DR: This might be a better issue for cell phone designers to solve rather the
n cell phone carriers.
permalinkparent
[ ]egalroc 2 points 6 hours ago
Maybe design a Falcon drone that homes in and locks on fake Stingray towers. Wou
ldn't the FBI just shit to see a couple sparrows zooming down on them?
permalinkparent
[ ]A530[??] 1 point 6 hours ago
Cell carriers couldn't care less. They're also packaging backdoors in their base
band software to do all kinds of functional crap, like over the air updates and
remote access.
permalinkparent
[ ]here4DaBacon 3 points 7 hours ago
So it's a honey pot for cell phones. This same method is used to intercept WiFi
internet traffic. The world is becoming a hackers paradise.
permalink
[ ]CapAnson 4 points 6 hours ago
I don't even think of the FBI's exceptions two and three are valid. And as for i
mminent danger to public safety I can't imagine when that safety hinges on inter
cepting a cell call right now this very second without a warrant
permalink
[ ]SquidwardSnowden1 3 points 6 hours ago
Let it be noted, I love big brother.
permalink
[ ]ryanknapper 3 points 6 hours ago
There was a comment asking what prevents private citizens from doing this. My re
ply was: Absolutely nothing. In fact, there are legal ways of doing exactly this
.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xKihq1fClQg
permalink
[ ]lll_1_lll 2 points 6 hours ago
inb4 this thread gets removed by the mods and/or shadowbanned
permalink
[ ]doctorshady[S] 3 points 6 hours ago
I was almost sure it was going to be removed when I submitted it.

permalinkparent
[ ]grtwatkins 1 point 3 hours ago
Wait, so mods = FBI?
permalinkparent
[ ]doctorshady[S] 2 points 2 hours ago
The mods here are quite restrictive about what is allowed to be submitted. Wheth
er or not they're under someone's influence is a question I can't answer (though
I'd honestly like to know), but you'll occasionally see high profile topics rem
oved, like the Snowden leaks back when PRISM was first pointed out.
permalinkparent
[ ]tomcat23 3 points 6 hours ago
If I had a hundred dollars for every time the FBI said it could do something une
thical or unconstitutional I'd be shooting rockets into space like Elon Musk rig
ht now.
permalink
[ ]leafygreenstuff 3 points 6 hours ago
Oh, well if they said....
permalink
[ ]wlxr 3 points 5 hours ago
Is this implying that they are going to repeatedly kill Steve Irwin?
permalink
[ ]Bulldog65 3 points 2 hours ago
Can I Use my Stingray in public places to intercept communications ?
If the answer is no, then the FBI needs a warrant.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effec
ts, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Wa
rrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, a
nd particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things t
o be seized.
This can only be changed by super majority votes in Congress and the States, not
treasonous opinions of mouthpiece lawyers in Department of Justice. This is why
prosecutions of torture memo writers is important. If they want to try and make
up laws they need to be held accountable under the law.
permalink
[ ]Do_Em_Till_They_Derp 13 points 12 hours ago
I don't think that is a good idea considering what happened to Steve Irwin.
permalink
[ ]Smgth 1 point 4 hours ago
I can't believe how far down I had to scroll to find this joke. I was worried I'
d have to make it myself. This thread is WAY too serious for my taste...
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]go1dfish 10 points 10 hours ago
This is what happens when you give a group of people authority over all else.
They use that authority to extort funds from you to pay for your own oppression.
But reddit still cheers it on. It seems to some; the concepts of roads or compas
sion cannot exist without specially anointed jack boot thugs.
permalink
[ ]Arael15th 3 points 6 hours ago
Do you see anyone in this post cheering this on? Moreover is this your first tim
e here?
permalinkparent
[ ]Flight_MH370 2 points 9 hours ago
Can the cell providers see every time this happens? If so, they could alert peop
le of fake towers or something. Alas, I'm pretty sure all the cell providers are
in bed with the feds already anyway.
permalink
[ ]leftnotracks 1 point 8 hours ago
This is why it s a good thing the FBI are not the people in charge of what is lega
l.

permalink
[ ]iluvmilfs420 3 points 7 hours ago
Ohh cool more of my taxes wasted on stupid shit...
permalink
[ ]fuzzycuffs 3 points 7 hours ago
Then I can do the same thing with wifi and not be charged with hacking, right?
permalink
[ ]endprism 2 points 7 hours ago
Use of Stringray in America: https://www.aclu.org/maps/stingray-tracking-devices
-whos-got-them
http://rt.com/usa/215735-sandiego-police-phone-tracking/
http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/First-Amendment-Coalition-Files-Lawsuit-Ab
out-Stingray-Surveillance--286092741.html
http://www.miaminewtimes.com/2012-02-16/news/cell-phone-tracking-miami-cops-know
-where-you-are/
http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/Fort-Worth-Cellphone-Tracking-Rings-Controversy
-140796693.html
http://www.wgrz.com/story/news/investigations/2014/02/13/are-local-police-spying
-on-your-cell-phone/5462273/
Tick tock...
permalink
[ ]johnnybiggs15 2 points 7 hours ago
didnt know they had that type of power
permalink
[ ]jwyche008 2 points 6 hours ago
They would fucking say that wouldn't they? The thing is it isn't supposed to be
their damn decision to make!
permalink
[ ]ICEClownfishWok 1 point 6 hours ago
Did the US government learn nothing from Nazi Germany? I honestly won't be surpr
ised if WWIII occurs when the rest of the world gets tired of our governments bu
llshit
permalink
[ ]frankenstilskin 3 points 6 hours ago
America, for the corporations by the corporations
permalink
[ ]Elephant_rhino_tiger 3 points 5 hours ago
It sounds like a 6 year old coming up with a superhero. "This is FBI man, and he
can fly and like punch through the earth, and he can y'know like intercept cell
traffic if he thinks it's important. But he is weak against himself though, so
like if he punched himself he would die."
permalink
[ ]Banana_blanket 2 points 4 hours ago
Hey who wants to just sit around and let it happen? Oh, everyone? Perfect. Ready
? Go.
permalink
[ ]poopinbutt2014 3 points 4 hours ago
Ah yes, the cops deciding what laws they are and aren't subject to.
permalink
[ ]burnerthrown 2 points 2 hours ago
Has anyone else notied a pattern of more and more laws that protect enforcement
operations from civilians, and fewer nd fewer laws protecting civilians from enf
orcement?
permalink
[ ]siquisiudices 2 points 2 hours ago
Increasingly I am astonished by the state of democracy in the developed western
countries. What has happened and how? I realise that there have always been infr
ingements of liberties by the state - always. But it seems to me that what has c
hanged is the blatent nature of the compromise of democratic norms. I'm not a hi
storian but my impression is that the origins of our current situation lie in tw

o iconic regimes in the UK and US - Reagan and Thatcher (and those that followed
) - and in the fall of the soviet regimes.
The economic philosophy that Reagan and Thatcher promoted reduced liberty to pro
perty rights while at the same time it condemned (rightly) the soviet regimes fo
r their lack of respect for democratic norms. The appeal of this economic ideolo
gy to capital, to the corporations, was obvious especially as during the 1970s t
here had been intermittent but recurring periods when profitability had fallen.
In the context of declining profitability, a roll back of the state and public e
xpenditure was a quick win.
For the rest of society, the implication that growth in personal, individual wea
lth was being held back by public spending and that the welfare state eroded ind
ividual responsibility also won the day. A key element in this process was the d
efeat and denigration of trade unionism: Thatcher going so far as to suggest tha
t trade unions (in the person of the National Union of Miners) were dangerous tr
aitors. People bought into the arguments for radical individualism ("there is no
such thing as society") because, in part, the concrete experience of collectivi
sm in trade unions declined in the face a massive anti-trade union assault.
The fall of the corrupt and totalitarian soviet regimes underpinned this all by
giving concrete expression to the notion that there is no alternative.
Economically the result has been massive widening of the discrepancy in wealth i
n many western countries and increased immiseration of labour across the world a
nd no force to counterbalance the power of the corporations and the state that t
hey (quite naturally) control. The state is the central committee of capital.
In all of this, the oft misnamed "libertarian" tendencies were accompanied by an
increasingly authoritarian and intrusive state apparatus which was promoted and
defended around quite classical nationalist ideas but recast often as the defen
se of western democracy against various external enemies.
And so, little by little, we have allowed our civil liberties to be chipped away
. Even the radical libertarians have been sidelined and fooled into irrelevant s
truggles around gun control in the US. Really, if an armed citizenry were the gu
arantee of liberty then one wold have hoped it would have done a better job. But
overall anti-welfare, anti-European and anti-immigrant rhetoric in the UK and,
for example, religious manipulation of public discourse in the US have allowed t
he authoritarian, pro-corporate state to gradually encroach on political and per
sonal freedoms. And here we are.
We can't say we didn't know - we were warned but the ruling class managed to def
ame the messengers and in other ways render us impotent.
One can only hope that we wake up in time and that our new disdain for collectiv
ism is overcome by the necessity of taking collective action.
permalink
[ ]DinglebellRock [score hidden] 49 minutes ago
You have a right to privacy according to the Constitution. Except for maybe your
cell phone calls. Or email. Or handwritten or typed letters. Or what you read f
rom the library and Amazon. Or maybe your colon and lower intestine if you are i
n New Mexico. What a fucked up nation this has become...
permalink
[ ]nstalker91 [score hidden] 38 minutes ago
Oh sure, when they do it, it's "protecting" and "morally right", but when I do i
t, it's a "federal crime" and "the FCC watches me"
permalink
[ ]The_Media_Collector 3 points 9 hours ago
This is why my phone has an app to continually report IMSI changes to me. I swit
ch one tower to another, I get a warning.
permalink
[ ]Redd575 1 point 7 hours ago
How is that helpful? Not being an ass, just curious. Seems if a Stingray can spo
of a tower then the app does little unless you are standing absolutely still.
permalinkparent
[ ]The_Media_Collector 3 points 7 hours ago
it's my understanding that Stingray "towers" do not encrypt traffic. anytime I a

m connected to an unencrypted "tower" the IMSI detector goes red and lets me kno
w.
permalinkparent
[ ]Redd575 1 point 6 hours ago
Wow. Whomever figured that out was clever.
permalinkparent
[ ]ExReverie93 1 point 7 hours ago
Which app? And would a normal person (not meaning you're not normal. You know wh
at I mean.) be able to use it?
permalinkparent
[ ]The_Media_Collector 1 point 7 hours ago
Requires Root. It's just caeld "Adnroid IMSI-Catchter"
permalinkparent
[ ]egalroc 1 point 6 hours ago
Makes a person want to be a criminal or spy just for the fun of it.
permalinkparent
[ ]Effo 3 points 7 hours ago
Goodbye America the Great, hello police state. :-[
permalink
[ ]Casemods 2 points 7 hours ago
Another reason why I don't have a cell phone.
permalink
[ ]GiveMe_TreeFiddy 3 points 7 hours ago
Things libertarians have been screaming about and offering solutions to for 500$
, Alex...
permalink
[ ]ilovesellinblow 1 point 9 hours ago
police and marshals have been running these for years.
permalink
[ ]bbelt16ag 1 point 8 hours ago
so FBI lets see what the Supreme court has to say to that. I am sure once they r
ule on this you will be going home with your tails between your legs.
permalink
[ ]Banana_blanket 1 point 4 hours ago
Do you people really have that much faith in our Supreme Court? Really?
permalinkparent
[ ]bbelt16ag 1 point 3 hours ago
gotta have some faith, other wise its just anarchy, or revolution. I am not read
y to give up quite yet.
permalinkparent
[ ]bonyponyride 1 point 8 hours ago
If digital communication in a public (and private) space is fair game, there's n
othing to stop an FBI tech specialist from stealing things like knowledge that w
ould be considered insider trading. There's an extreme potential for abuse.
permalink
[ ]jkeyser14 2 points 7 hours ago
If was fair game then hacking into wireless signals by private citizens wouldn't
be illegal.
permalinkparent
[ ]egalroc 1 point 6 hours ago
Just waiting for Anonymous to set up shop in a public park and hack into police
communications then dispatch them to bogus locations throughout the city. If any
thing goes wrong, they could always blame North Korea.
permalinkparent
[ ]coalbeeashi 1 point 3 hours ago
Aren't government agencies encrypting their digital communication - thus exhibit
ing an expectation of privacy?
I'm not sure what steps the "reasonable person" is taking to exhibit an expectat
ion of privacy over their data, tbh.
permalinkparent

[ ]hmmwhatsthisdo 1 point 8 hours ago


If you used RedPhone, Whisperpush/TextSecure, and a VPN, this wouldn't be of con
cern to you, right?
permalink
[ ]LucifersCounselNZ 1 point 7 hours ago
Wrong.
In other cases, the IMSI or equivalent identifier of a target is not known to th
e StingRay operator and the goal of the surveillance operation is to identify on
e or more cellular devices being used in a known area.[16] For example, if visua
l surveillance is being conducted on a group of protestors,[17] a StingRay can b
e used to download the IMSI or equivalent identifier from each phone within the
protest area. After identifying the phones, locating and tracking operations can
be conducted, and service providers can be forced to turn over account informat
ion identifying the phone users.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stingray_phone_tracker#Extracting_Data_From_Interna
l_Storage
Before any of that shit you're talking about comes into play, the IMSI number is
used when establishing the connection. It is uniquely identifying. With your IM
SI number and a court order (or cooperative telco) they will know who you are an
d who you were communicating with.
Then they can use that information to punish you for participating in legal prot
ests, associating with the wrong people, or simply because some Fed didn't like
the look of you.
permalinkparent
[ ]hmmwhatsthisdo 1 point 6 hours ago
So, the only way is to modify your IMEI (which is questionably legal) and use a
prepaid SIM?
permalinkparent
[ ]facepalmdude 1 point 5 hours ago
The IMSI part makes sense, but by using the mentioned tools authorities are very
unlikely to find out who you communicated with, or what the content was. All th
ey know is that you're the end point of an encrypted data connection.
permalinkparent
[ ]coalbeeashi 1 point 3 hours ago
I would assume that a court would view this as an individual exhibiting an expec
tation of privacy over their data.
permalinkparent
[ ]mambotangohandala 1 point 7 hours ago
Law?
We don't need no stinkin' law...
permalink
[ ]smilesbot 1 point 7 hours ago
You've just used a double negative! :P
permalinkparent
[ ]mambotangohandala 1 point 7 hours ago
no i did not, never would i do such a thing, nope, i don't think i ever did...
Ever see the movie 'blazing saddles'? Context kid, context
permalinkparent
[ ]smilesbot 1 point 7 hours ago
yup yup yup!
permalinkparent
[ ]mambotangohandala 1 point 7 hours ago
oh no a triple positive,what a stupendous faux pas!
permalinkparent
[ ]smilesbot 1 point 7 hours ago
yup yup yup!
permalinkparent
[ ]mambotangohandala 1 point 7 hours ago
Did mom give you too many sodas tonight?
permalinkparent

[ ]mambotangohandala 1 point 7 hours ago


Now where are those kiddy downers?
permalinkparent
[ ]mambotangohandala 1 point 7 hours ago
Remember tomorrow is a school day
permalinkparent
[ ]BigTex8900 1 point 7 hours ago
The Federal Bureau of Investigation is taking the position that court warrants a
re not required when deploying cell-site simulators in public places.
Wait so can I take the position that it's not actually illegal to suck dick for
money in public places?
permalink
[ ]AssOrca 1 point 6 hours ago
Well thank god there not doing it in my home!
permalinkparent
[ ]Drunken_Economist 1 point 7 hours ago
The FCC says they are needed, FWIW
permalink
[ ]FadingEchoes11 0 points 6 hours ago
100% true, power to the people
You should learn about and try to understand firearms more, they are just tools
after all.
permalink
[ ]winstrol 1 point 6 hours ago
Can i use a stingray? Al stick to my snoopsnitch.
permalink
[ ]fatscat84 2 points 6 hours ago
Big fucking surprise, 4th amendment=toilet paper anymore. The rights of the citi
zens arent even considered anymore since we dont have lobbyists. Maybe ill start
a kickstarter campaign to make a lobbyist group to give americans a voice in d.
c.
permalink
[ ]urbn 2 points 6 hours ago
The Obama Administration has repeatedly maintained that the public has no privac
y in public places.
And yet the excuse always used when someone records a police officer breaking th
e law and is arrested, detained and has his property stolen is that it violates
their privacy.
permalink
[ ]Vigilias 1 point 6 hours ago
If it's stealing signals being send from private residences it sure should fucki
ng be wtf.
permalink
[ ]2013palmtreepam 1 point 6 hours ago
Because stingrays automatically stop working at private property lines? Don't re
call the part of the 4th Amendment that exempts the requirement for probable cau
se and a search warrant when one happens to be in a public place.
permalink
[ ]makingupdumbnames 2 points 6 hours ago
I don't think it would be too hard to develop a stingray jammer, something that
just floods their equipment with a bunch of useless/fake cell phone numbers...I'
m in favor of a more strategic response to these types of infringements of our r
ights. We actually have a right and responsibility to fight tyranny...
permalink
[ ]ghotiaroma 1 point 3 hours ago
It's possible, but you wouldn't know where and when to use it. And it would be d
etectable you are using a jammer and anyone using one would find themselves fill
ed with SWAT bullets in no time.
permalinkparent
[ ]ononewheel 1 point 2 hours ago

Cant you rent bot net time and do this?


permalinkparent
[ ]psilontech 1 point 5 hours ago
I think that's for the courts to decide, FBI.
permalink
[ ]coalbeeashi 1 point 4 hours ago
...the only way the courts could decide is if it were practiced and a lawsuit wa
s brought against those practices.
Of course the FBI is going to finagle ways to flirt with obscure, outdated laws
for the purpose of investigating, thus practice it. Of course some group or orga
nization is going to take issue with it, thus taking it to court.
permalinkparent
[ ]cynoclast 2 points 5 hours ago
And the 4th Amendment says the FBI is wrong. And to the idea that subsequent law
s or that prededence says otherwise, I say that lawyers who make those interpret
ations were paid to do so by people with a vested interest in saying otherwise.
The constitution and amendments were intended to be read and interpreted by ever
yone, not just lawyers and judges so it matters not at all what lawyers and judg
es say.
permalink
[ ]coalbeeashi 1 point 5 hours ago
The constitution and amendments were intended to be read and interpreted by ever
yone
Uhh...interpreted by everyone? Do you know how fucked up that would be? There's
a reason for the judicial branch.
permalinkparent
[ ]cynoclast 2 points 4 hours ago
More fucked up than corporations as people? The 4th Amendment being ignored by t
he DHS, Homeland Security, and the NSA? More fucked up than than all the ridicul
ous, unconstitutional restrictions on cosmetic features of firearms that all vio
late the 2nd amendment? More fucked up than justices appointed by war criminals
refusing to recuse themselves where they have a clear conflict of interest?
The judicial branch is staffed by people, just as fallible as the rest of us. Th
e judicial branch was nly ever an attempt to reign in the other two. It was alwa
ys intended that it was the right of the people to alter or abolish the governme
nt if it gets out of hand and it has.
permalinkparent
[ ]coalbeeashi 1 point 4 hours ago
I would still rather have the fate of laws be in the hands of individuals who sp
ecifically studied the very nature of their professional practice than leave it
up to a mass of people with little-to-no understanding of the law, outside of wh
at is force-fed to them by media (comparable to your assertion of less-than-idea
l practices by lawyer/judges)
I fully agree that laws should be written in ways that the public can understand
and interpret (however, you're never going to reach a consensus on laws written
200+ years ago). And I believe that, reading most supreme court decisions, the
justices advocate for specifics in laws and understand that outdated or vague la
ws is a main reason cases are brought before them. Laws aren't concrete or stati
c. It's a court of public opinion.
permalinkparent
[ ]cynoclast 1 point 4 hours ago
I would still rather have the fate of laws be in the hands of individuals who sp
ecifically studied the very nature of their professional practice than leave it
up to a mass of people with little-to-no understanding of the law, outside of wh
at is force-fed to them by media (comparable to your assertion of less-than-idea
l practices by lawyer/judges)
I think there's balance between the two. It's similar to the balance between IT
and the user. While the IT guy is more knowledgeable about the field than most o
f the users he's supposed to facilitate, he often forgets that his purpose is to
facilitate, not to rule, and what the users are doing is what keeps the lights

on. People in congress and the senate are mislabelled when called 'lawmakers' th
eir job is representative of their constituency. And lawyers face a conflict of
interest between simplifying the law and representing people fairly and seeing a
fter their own welfare and ensuring their own job security. Simple, clear, and u
nambiguous laws have little value to the professional attorney at law. But the p
eople at large have no interest, and in fact a reason to despise laws they don't
understand, especially ones decided by decades old case law they know nothing a
bout. But for too long the balance has been swinging in favor of the lawyer seek
ing payment for services from the rich instead of the poor seeking freedom from
those with the resources to hire teams of lawyers for years to drain them of res
ources. The day a rich man could sue an innocent poor man under false pretenses
and crush him is the day the justice department ceased to function as intended.
I fully agree that laws should be written in ways that the public can understand
and interpret (however, you're never going to reach a consensus on laws written
200+ years ago). And I believe that, reading most supreme court decisions, the
justices advocate for specifics in laws and understand that outdated or vague la
ws is a main reason cases are brought before them. Laws aren't concrete or stati
c. It's a court of public opinion.
Lawyers like to pretend that they are concrete or static. Just imagine the phras
e "settled case law" coming out of their mouths and you need go no further. It's
like they forget that eventually given the dynamic equilibrium of the poor vs.
the rich that sometimes words written on paper in a dusty library somewhere mean
absolutely nothing when the pitchforks and guillotines come out, the old laws t
hrown out, and new ones written even more strongly against tyrants. You're right
, sometimes, it's a court of public opinion. But sometimes the court is brutal,
but not unjustly so:
There were two Reigns of Terror, if we would but remember it and consider it; the
one wrought murder in hot passion, the other in heartless cold blood; the one la
sted mere months, the other had lasted a thousand years; the one inflicted death
upon ten thousand persons, the other upon a hundred millions; but our shudders
are all for the horrors of the minor Terror, the momentary Terror, so to speak; wh
ereas, what is the horror of swift death by the axe, compared with lifelong deat
h from hunger, cold, insult, cruelty, and heart-break? What is swift death by li
ghtning compared with death by slow fire at the stake? A city cemetery could con
tain the coffins filled by that brief Terror which we have all been so diligentl
y taught to shiver at and mourn over; but all France could hardly contain the co
ffins filled by that older and real Terror that unspeakably bitter and awful Terro
r which none of us has been taught to see in its vastness or pity as it deserves
.
permalinkparent
[ ]DongleNocker 2 points 5 hours ago
Don't you wish government organizations would get permission from congress prior
to assuming they have the authority?
permalink
[ ]Euracil 1 point 5 hours ago
Whoops! Someone just happened to spill wine all over the Bill of Rights! Well, a
t least the Second Amendment survived!
permalink
[ ]ripvannwinkler 1 point 5 hours ago
What is the practical operational radius of one of these things?
If my place of business or residence falls in this radius of an operating device
, is my phone subject to interception by the device?
If so, you require a warrant. Period. No equivocation.
permalink
[ ]bittopia 1 point 5 hours ago
What is going to be interesting is when systems and encryptions becomes so resil
ient and powerful that nothing can be spied on AT ALL. What will they do then?
permalink
[ ]johnnybullet 1 point 5 hours ago
I thought only God was listening to me... This changes everything!

permalink
[ ]TronicTonic 2 points 5 hours ago
Thank god the FBI is in charge of the judicial branch and gets to decide what is
right vs wrong.
permalink
[ ]Vinven 1 point 5 hours ago
They can say whatever they want, it doesn't make it legal.
permalink
[ ]coffeethulhu 2 points 5 hours ago
Under this theory anybody could buy one of these devices and use it in "public s
paces" without fear of falling foul of the law....Who wants to start a kickstart
er campaign to buy one?
permalink
[ ]redditezmode 1 point 5 hours ago
Based on what, exactly? Why would they think search warrants aren't necessary?
permalink
[ ]Fucksfuturefatchicks 1 point 4 hours ago
If it stops me from downloading porn, it's a dead giveaway. If it doesn't, thank
s for the government funded and sanctioned porn.
permalink
[ ]egalroc 1 point 4 hours ago
I wonder if the FBI can upload unsanctioned porn to your computer using a stingr
ay? Interesting thought isn't it?
permalinkparent
[ ]winsomecowboy 1 point 4 hours ago
So my clandestine FBI staff list shouldn't be an issue.
permalink
[ ]Heisenpurrrrg 1 point 4 hours ago
Those guys can fuck right off, eh?
permalink
[ ]cerealcable 1 point 4 hours ago
Every time an invasion of our rights & privacy especially related to our establi
shed forms of communications happens it just terrifies me. Not because our gover
nment is throwing wind to established laws but because of what the future could
bring.
The reason why most of us are upset today over this is because we have an expect
ation of privacy when we pick up our cell phones. We expect our text messages, p
hone calls and data to be private thus protected by law requiring a warrant to "
tap" it only for Law Enforcement. Telecoms (wired, wireless, voip) will only com
ply to requests when required by law, but when it comes to the public air waves
using technology to just listen in we're starting a terrible precedent.
Essentially what I'm concerned about is that eventually it'll be so commonly acc
epted that these communications are not private (after all the government can sn
oop in on those conversations, and everyone already expects it) and thus we no l
onger have the expectation of privacy and thus no warrant is actually acquired.
The terrifying process is how it all started, with the government over stepping
their legal abilities with little to no repercussions.
Now that I'm reading that paragraph again, I honestly wouldn't be surprised if t
hat exact argument is/was/will be used in a secret court of which none of us wil
l be able to hold accountable.
It's scary to see what the future will hold for privacy related to technology. O
ur government is doing anything and everything they want and if people aren't sc
ared they need to get some tinfoil and make some hats because they're going to n
eed them.
Obligatory point: As the government snoops more and more, technology will just e
ncrypt more and more making it nearly pointless for the snooping, but it won't c
hange the expectation of privacy after say a decade of common knowledge that the
se communications are not private. Then Law Enforcement Agencies will just subpo
ena records instead of following due process of getting a warrant.
tl;dr It's a very slippery slope and I'm just watching us slowly sliding further

and further into the trap. :-(


permalink
[ ]coalbeeashi 1 point 4 hours ago
Honest question - in the eyes of laws, is our view on "expectation of privacy" i
gnorant or misguided? When I send a text - even though I don't think about it I gave permission to Apple, AT&T, my friend, their carrier, their phone, and pro
bably countless others that I don't even realize. When I download an app I give
them all sorts of permissions to access my information.
Also, what's stopping the government from creating an app, let's say some crazed
game like Trivia Crack, hide a bunch of permissions that no one looks at and do
it that way. They could have access to my photos, access to my microphone, acce
ss to my location, etc. (obviously I understand that you can retract most of tho
se permissions, but I doubt many people do)
So, I guess my question is, using multiple third parties, do I really have the r
ight to expect complete privacy?
permalinkparent
[ ]Rockerofboats 2 points 4 hours ago
I do what I wants to.
permalink
[ ]Gymshortsboner55 2 points 4 hours ago
I'm not trying to sound like the uncle that's always bitchin' at family reunions
but man is this country going down the shitter. I'm almost ashamed to live here
anymore.
permalink
[ ]kazuri85 2 points 4 hours ago
The government has no right to make your property do something you do not want i
t to do.
permalink
[ ]SpacemanLurker 2 points 3 hours ago
Crikey! Australian accent
Too soon?
permalink
[ ]Undisclosed-dopeness 1 point 3 hours ago
Really wish this was about actual stingrays
permalink
[ ]k-h 1 point 3 hours ago
Is that the "stingrays" that don't exist?
Of course they don't need a warrant on equipment that doesn't exist.
permalink
[ ]PhorTwenny 2 points 3 hours ago
if it picks up all cells text/call/info how do they know your not inside a house
or anyother private area? Either way this is disgusting!
permalink
[ ]MarxIzalias 2 points 3 hours ago
The more of these that get posted, the harder I laugh at America's freedoms.
You pretty much have the same as everybody else.
It seems as though the constitution is like bog roll to your law enforcement. Co
vered in meaningless shit that doesn't even stick to them.
What a joke.
The FBI stating that 'stingrays' don't apply to privacy laws because you're in a
public place makes no sense, otherwise you could walk around butt naked and arg
ue that "According to the FBI, personal privacy is not required in public".
Of course, they could say, what any deceitful peice of trash could say. "If you
weren't doing anything illegal then you have nothing to worry about."
Unless you were talking to you solicitor about a patent. In which case it would
be worthless the moment a third party heard about the invention.
Talking to your doctor about a condition that could prejudice a group against yo
u.
Talking to a solicitor about the details of a case.
Talking to fellow jurors over the phone about a details of a case, that's always

good to be spied on.


Talk about family history and possible ties you might have to foreign nations, w
hich could put you on a watch list.
Give personal details to bankers about foreign business accounts which have diff
erent protection laws.
Discuss plans you may have that they could interfere with.
Or just miscellaneous emails to and from your employer that could be damaging to
the companies reputation if published and could be used against them as leverag
e with a false flag operation LOOKING AT YOU SONY!
This isn't even a comprehensive list of things that you could do, but hey, it's
America, the land where freedom is a lie and the constitution is apparently wort
h less and less with each new government. XFD
permalink
[ ]NightOfTheLivingHam 1 point 3 hours ago
while we're declaring bullshit, I declare I'm owed a million dollars.
permalink
[ ]ZedOud 1 point 3 hours ago
Most warrant-less law enforcement surveillance techniques are legal because they
can be performed by members of the public, in public. (ex. tailing)
So can we also legally operate a stingray?
Yes we can!
permalink
[ ]Wulfgar_RIP 1 point 3 hours ago
FBI protecting freedoms and constitution from terrorists
permalink
[ ]CantHugEveryCat 2 points 3 hours ago
I'm surprised the FBI still feel they have to justify their actions.
permalink
[ ]bazingabrain 0 points 3 hours ago
Here I am thinking the FBI is going to be throwing real stingrays around without
a search warrant. Can't have that
permalink
[ ]tobsn 1 point 3 hours ago
and whoever said that should be immediately terminated.
permalink
[ ]joshladd 1 point 3 hours ago
Didn't the supreme court just say that searching cell phones requires a warrant?
Is this different than searching cell phones? I might be uninformed but it seem
s like a blatant disregard for court rulings.
permalink
[ ]birdington1 1 point 3 hours ago
Can anybody explain what a 'stingray' is?
permalink
[ ]one_love_silvia 1 point 2 hours ago
the article explains it in literally the first paragraph.
permalinkparent
[ ]IllegalOperator 0 points 2 hours ago
Yeah right, dropping the case rather than reveal their methods says otherwise. I
f there weren't doing anything wrong they would have nothing to hide.
permalink
[ ]HauntedBeepers 1 point 2 hours ago
FBI says FBI can do what it wants
permalink
[ ]Fig1024 1 point 2 hours ago
does that mean I, as private citizen, can also use them? After all, there are no
laws against it
permalink
[ ]Monkeibusiness 1 point 2 hours ago
"FBI - out if control since 2001" -Simpsons
permalink

[ ]skztr 1 point 2 hours ago


good test for whether or not you need a warrant:
If any random person off the street did it, would that be legal? If not, you nee
d a fucking warrant.
permalink
[ ]Rusky82 1 point 2 hours ago
Land of the free eh......
permalink
[ ]WECGEWHYAAIORTNU 1 point 2 hours ago
So in some states its "wiretapping" to record with a microphone a conversation b
etween two people happening at a table, but pretending to be a cell tower is a-o
k?
permalink
[ ]Amanoo 1 point 2 hours ago
"concerned about whether the FBI and other law enforcement agencies have adequat
ely considered the privacy interests" of Americans
Privacy interests of Americans? Is that supposed to still be a thing? I thought
that privacy interests were considered something for terrorists in the US, by no
w.
permalink
[ ]raviddadford 1 point 2 hours ago
Stingray got Steve Irwin
permalink
[ ]Homarus_Americanus 1 point 2 hours ago
It's all good 'cause I can by me all guns I want.
permalink
[ ]anshu1234 0 points 2 hours ago
This is non-news if you are not a drug-peddler. Next please.
permalink
[ ]bubbafat1155 1 point 2 hours ago
It's over. "They" have won. The only hope now is for individuals, society is los
t. Get off the grid, or join the sheep. http://imgur.com/W7CdURh
permalink
[ ]Targun 1 point 2 hours ago
And how are they going to filter out cellphones of all the people who live next
to public places where stingray is located?
permalink
[ ]riderer 1 point 2 hours ago
So can i do the same in public place? just stingray everyone?
permalink
[ ]Neker 1 point 1 hour ago
There are blueprints and tutorials out there that put "stingrays" within reach o
f an hobbyist. Law-breaking hobbyist, that is, but still : mobile phones essenti
aly broadcast your conversations.
permalink
[ ]mindwandering 1 point 1 hour ago
The flying DRT box.
permalink
[ ]SilenceGivesConsent [score hidden] 48 minutes ago
In other words, FBI says it does not need search warrants to warrant a search.
permalink
[ ]Formally_Nightman [score hidden] 46 minutes ago
FBI: "Senator we have been monitoring your calls and your exact geographical loc
ation for years ... You shouldn't find that unconstitutional or the public and y
our wife will learn how unconstitutional you've been"
permalink
[ ]ActuallyNotSparticus [score hidden] 40 minutes ago
Fuck this shit. Stingrays killed the crocodile hunter. Are we ready for the gove
rnment to use these stingrays?
permalink

[ ]Rayhueston [score hidden] 38 minutes ago


The article says the Obama administration consistently maintains that people hav
e no privacy in public. Is that true or is that hyperbole?
If I'm walking down the street, do I have the right to keep the contents of my w
allet private? My blood type? My thoughts?
If I have no privacy with regard to these and many other sensitive things, who d
oes have the right to them?
permalink
[ ]swollennode [score hidden] 37 minutes ago
People don't have privacy in public places..hmmm, I think that people are entitl
ed to privacy if something private belongs to them. Sure, people's faces aren't
private when they're in public places. But people's phone calls and texts should
be.
permalink
[ ]pomod [score hidden] 18 minutes ago
Well if the FBI says they are not needed...
Seriously, this should be a court decision not a cop one. Cops, even a fancy cop
s like the FBI, should not make the laws just enforce them.
permalink
[ ]CJ59 [score hidden] 18 minutes ago
In other news, the FBI says, "You know what, screw it. There are no more laws. W
e'll do whatever the hell we want. Not like you're going to do anything about it
."
permalink
[ ]gkiltz [score hidden] 15 minutes ago
Just because the FBI says it, that does not mean it's true!
I don't envy the poor schmuck who has to stan in front of the Supreme Court and
argue that!!
permalink
load more comments (48 replies)
about
blog
about
team
source code
advertise
jobs
help
wiki
FAQ
reddiquette
rules
contact us
tools
mobile
firefox extension
chrome extension
buttons
widget
<3
reddit gold
store
redditgifts
reddit AMA app
reddit.tv
radio reddit
Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy
. 2015 reddit inc. All rights reserved.
REDDIT and the ALIEN Logo are registered trademarks of reddit inc.

p jump to content
MY SUBREDDITS
FRONT-ALL-RANDOM | PHOTOSHOPBATTLES-HISTORY-GIFS-FOOD-PHILOSOPHY-TELEVISION-WORL
DNEWS-SHOWERTHOUGHTS-LIFEPROTIPS-ART-SPACE-NOTTHEONION-DOCUMENTARIES-NOSLEEP-GAM
ING-GADGETS-EARTHPORN-ASKREDDIT-FUNNY-MOVIES-DIY-FUTUROLOGY-FITNESS-BOOKS-LISTEN
TOTHIS-INTERNETISBEAUTIFUL-MUSIC-EXPLAINLIKEIMFIVE-UPLIFTINGNEWS-SPORTS-PICS-TOD
AYILEARNED-PERSONALFINANCE-DATAISBEAUTIFUL-IAMA-OLDSCHOOLCOOL-EUROPE-CREEPY-TWOX
CHROMOSOMES-AWW-NEWS-WRITINGPROMPTS-GETMOTIVATED-VIDEOS-TIFU-ASKSCIENCE-JOKES-MI
LDLYINTERESTING-SCIENCE
MORE
news newscommentsrelatedother discussions (15)
want to join? sign in or create an account in seconds|English
this post was submitted on 05 Jan 2015
3,152 points (95% upvoted)
shortlink:
remember mereset passwordlogin
news
unsubscribe4,562,294 readers
2,631 users here now
/r/inthenews
/r/worldnews
new submissions
new comments
Post analysis/opinion articles to /r/inthenews
Want to talk?
Chat with us on IRC
Follow @rslashnews on Twitter
See a post that violates the rules below? Had your post stuck in the spam filter
? Have a question about policy? Just want to give feedback? Send the mod team a
message.
Please post news items only, with the exception of meta posts about /r/news itse
lf. Self-posts aggregating news data and "independent reporting" each count as n
ews, but are not an excuse to editorialize.
Your post will likely be removed if it:
is not news (or a meta post).
is an opinion/analysis or advocacy piece.
primarily concerns politics.
has a title not taken from the article.
has a pay wall or steals content.
covers an already-submitted story.
violates reddit's site-wide rules, especially regarding personal info.
Your comment will likely be removed if it:
is racist, sexist, vitriolic, or overly crude.
is unnecessarily rude or provocative.
is a cheap and distracting joke or meme.
is responding to spam.
violates reddit's site-wide rules.
Extreme or repeat offenders will be banned.
Expanded Rules
If your post doesn't fit, consider finding an appropriate news article on that s
tory to submit instead, or submitting yours to lower moderation subreddits:
/r/inthenews - all news-related content
/r/AnythingGoesNews - unrestricted news
/r/truereddit - insightful articles
/r/self - any self-post
/r/misc, /r/redditdotcom - anything
or other news subreddits:
/r/worldnews - from outside the USA only
/r/SyrianCivilWar - about the conflict in Syria

/r/MidEastRegionalWar - on MidEast conflict /r/UpliftingNews - uplifting


/r/mediaquotes - the things they say
or subreddits for other topics:
/r/FoodForThought - discussion-worthy long form articles about interesting subje
cts
/r/politics - for shouting about politics
/r/moderatepolitics - less shouting
/r/politicaldiscussion - even less shouting
/r/geopolitics - intl. politics and geography
/r/entertainment - Justin Bieber updates, etc.
/r/europe - news from Europe
or check out the 200 most active subreddits, categorized by content and the full
list of subreddits by subscribers.
Recommendations:
/r/redactedcharts
/r/patriots
/r/personalfinance
/r/restorethefourth
reddit is fun for Android and its subreddit /r/redditisfun
submit analysis/opinion article
submit news article
submit something else
submit analysis/opinion article
a community for 6 years
message the moderators
moderators
douglasmacarthur
KyldeThe Janitor
AyeMatey
CandyManCan
Elderthedog
LuckyBdx4
NickWasHere09
ani625
pomosexuality
IKingJeremy
...and 1 more
3152
FBI says search warrants not needed to use stingrays in public places (arstechnica
.com)
submitted 13 hours ago by doctorshady
731 commentsshare
top 500 comments
sorted by: best
[ ]peaceshark 654 points 11 hours ago
If only there were some branch of government that would keep the FBI in check, o
ne that judged people and organizations supremely...
permalink
[ ]misogichan 641 points 8 hours ago
Unfortunately the Catholic church has its hands full dealing with its own intern
al reforms and recasting its vision and mission.
permalinkparent
[ ]wutshappening 93 points 7 hours ago
And looking at cat photos that's why they're Cat-holic. Alco-holics are addicted
to alcohol and catholics well you get the idea.
permalinkparent
[ ]TuffLuffJimmy 142 points 6 hours ago
Omg dad you're embarrassing me in front of my friends
permalinkparent
[ ]okmkz 27 points 4 hours ago

We ain't your friends, bruh


permalinkparent
[ ]Corruptionss 4 points 2 hours ago
We ain't your bruh, friends
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
load more comments (2 replies)
[ ]ROLLINGtemple 9 points 5 hours ago
What's their Dogma?
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
load more comments (9 replies)
[ ]hershmire 73 points 7 hours ago
The courts gave up about ten years ago.
permalinkparent
[ ]endprism 50 points 7 hours ago
The courts are pwned by the surveillance state.
permalinkparent
[ ]sushisection 41 points 6 hours ago
This is what I'm afraid of. Nsa is collecting data from all citizens including p
oliticians and supreme court judges.
permalinkparent
[ ]dutchguilder2 19 points 5 hours ago
Whistleblower confirms: http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=d6m1XbWOfVk
permalinkparent
[ ]TwitchTV_Subbort 1 point 3 hours ago
D.C. is Hollywood for ugly people. best line ever!!
permalinkparent
[ ]sklite 1 point 1 hour ago
Charles Augustus Magnussen approves
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]CriticalThink 1 point 6 hours ago
Skeletons in the closet are easy to find with intelligence infrastructure.
permalinkparent
[ ]HurricaneSandyHook 1 point 5 hours ago
The 10th circuit a few days ago sided with the government saying the cops use of
doppler radar to see if anyone was inside a house was legal. They did say it is
a troubling tactic that needs further review and just left it at that....
permalinkparent
[ ]-_--___-_--_--___--_ 27 points 6 hours ago
One major problem with judicial review is that there must be a case for the cour
t to review. I guess the other avenue would be to sue the government, but I'm no
t an attorney so I don't know how that would work.
permalinkparent
[ ]downvotesmakemehard 14 points 4 hours ago
I believe the current court has taken the stance that to take up a case someone
has to show they've been harmed in some way.
The police will never say that stingray is the source of the evidence. This woul
d open stingray to be scrutinized. They will use stingray to go after phone comp
any records which they will claim they requested on a hunch or some other bullsh
it excuse.
permalinkparent
[ ]great_gape [score hidden] 29 minutes ago
Anonymous tip.
permalinkparent
load more comments (2 replies)
[ ]dissonance07 8 points 6 hours ago
With is wide a latitude as the current SCOTUS seems to give to individual libert
y, this seems like the one kind of thing that they could actually usefully addre

ss, right?
permalinkparent
[ ]MrBojangles528 1 point 5 hours ago
Scalia and the rest of the SCOTUS is bought and sold just like the rest of our g
overnment. They answer first and foremost to the parties that nominated them as
well as the corporations that own them.
permalinkparent
[ ]psilontech 12 points 5 hours ago
See, I don't get that. You get into the Supreme Court and you're golden. Unless
you are actively breaking the law and can be impeached, you're untouchable. Why
not, you know, do what's best for your country instead of remaining beholden to
the parasites that leveraged you into that position?
permalinkparent
[ ]Ratbasher88 14 points 4 hours ago
Yep, Supreme Court justices have a well established history of turning out way d
ifferent than their supporters thought they'd be. For whatever reason this curre
nt batch of justices seems more comfortable with the security state than their p
redecessors, however that's true for most Americans in general so I suppose it s
houldn't be shocking.
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]MrBojangles528 2 points 4 hours ago
Good question, but you'd have to ask them about it.
permalinkparent
[ ]cynoclast 0 points 3 hours ago
Unless you are actively breaking the law and can be impeached, you're untouchabl
e.
But you can get richer. Or have your personal communications made public.
permalinkparent
[ ]tughdffvdlfhegl 1 point 3 hours ago
Honestly? Because they run in those social circles. They're friends with the peo
ple at the top. They don't actively associate with "regular folk" that much.
They've been ingratiated into the upper echelons of society long before ever rea
ching the supreme court through lifetimes spent at the forefront of the legal pr
ofession. This insulates them from others, and leaves them in an echo chamber of
their peers.
Now, when a case comes up that pits one of their friends, or friends' friends ag
ainst some random angry dude who's only making 50k a year, who do you think they
automatically side with, when the case isn't cut and dried? I'm not even saying
it's conscious, but prejudices come in all kinds and run deep. Tribalism happen
s all the time in subtle ways.
Plus there's Scalia taking paid for hunting trips with people who are directly a
ffected by cases in front of him, all of them getting invited to dinners and fun
ctions of the DC elite, etc.
permalinkparent
[ ]pion3435 1 point 3 hours ago
They do. It's possible to disagree with you without being corrupt.
permalinkparent
[ ]Jagoonder 1 point 2 hours ago
Not in an omnipotent surveillance state, however.
permalinkparent
[ ]DownFromYesBad 1 point 2 hours ago
Money, bribery.
permalinkparent
[ ]neotropic9 1 point 1 hour ago
Because they are selected to be the type of people who think whats "best for the
ir country" is serving the parasites, the corporate oligarchs, and the surveilla
nce state. They support the status quo, and the status quo supports them. It wou
ld be a miracle if someone with real principles was actually brought into the Su
preme Court, let alone enough of them to form a majority.

permalinkparent
[ ]isprobablyatwork 1 point 1 hour ago
This does happen, sometimes. Good examples would be Justices Warren and Stevens.
They played along with the GOP right up until they were put on the Court, then
immediately started voting their actual conscience (or if not their conscience,
then at least not as their political backers wanted).
permalinkparent
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[ ]cynoclast 2 points 3 hours ago
You mean the press?
permalinkparent
[ ]scrapinpeg 3 points 6 hours ago*
Obligatory link to illustrated law.
EDIT: fixed link
permalinkparent
[ ]ducttapejedi 3 points 6 hours ago*
error 404, check the link.
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[+][deleted] 13 hours ago (56 children)
[ ]sunbolts 701 points 12 hours ago
Glad to see the FBI is tearing up the constitution to increase their own powers
and authority. /s
permalink
[ ]dontbullshityourself 325 points 11 hours ago
Glad to see the FBI is tearing up the constitution to increase their own powers
and authority
I wish this was just the FBI. Pretty much everybody in the federal, state and lo
cals are doing this. Have been doing for this quite some time too.
permalinkparent
[ ]sunbolts 136 points 10 hours ago
Precisely, and that's what makes this very frightening. The whole club's in on i
t.
permalinkparent
[ ]radonthetyrant 75 points 7 hours ago
but why.. I realize that these "zomg the terrorists!!!11" is only a PR-lie. What
do they really accomplish with this? Industry espionage? Bribes from the indust
ries which create the espionage hardware? Feeling of total control? Control the
masses so it all stays as conservative and corrupt as possible?
Why would you amass such a criminal energy to break constitutional laws just to
be able to see through everyone's communication?
permalinkparent
[ ]BettyRubbleIsHot 151 points 7 hours ago
Total control.
That way when the state has it, they can really put the boot on our necks. Think
they treat us poorly now? Just wait until they have the infrastructure in place
where they feel confident there are absolutely zero threats to their power. Tha
t's when shit is going to get BAD.
permalinkparent
[ ]b-LE-z_it 106 points 6 hours ago
And that's why, despite being terrified of some gun owners, despite being terrif
ied of mass shootings, I don't think we should ban guns, even combat rifles. It
can happen here, and we should at least make it hurt if and when it happens.
permalinkparent
[ ]7V3N 47 points 6 hours ago
Welcome to the list.
permalinkparent

[ ]M00glemuffins 10 points 5 hours ago


Sign me up too. If they try to pull a fast one on the public I'm not standing fo
r their bullshit.
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]FadingEchoes11 26 points 6 hours ago
*rifle. No "combat" rifles are owned by citizens
permalinkparent
[ ]b-LE-z_it 39 points 6 hours ago
Did I mention I don't know anything about guns? I don't know anything about guns
.
Point is, force is not something only people in power should have.
permalinkparent
[ ]teefour 19 points 6 hours ago
You should go to a shooting range and take a class. You won't be so unnecessaril
y afraid of them after that.
permalinkparent
[ ]Pullo_T 27 points 6 hours ago
He's not afraid of guns. He's afraid of some gun owners. At least, as far as we
know.
permalinkparent
continue this thread
load more comments (3 replies)
[ ]Bootsncatsn4 5 points 5 hours ago
i understand where youre coming from, but what will a bunch of angry townsfolk d
o to a predator drone strike?
permalinkparent
[ ]Oeboues 18 points 4 hours ago
You should ask the angry townsfolk of Iraq and Afghanistan.
Once the US military is done slinking away in shame, I mean.
permalinkparent
continue this thread
[ ]nuesuh 1 point 1 hour ago
Remove them. Predator drones are being operated from the ground, and has to land
after a couple hours to refuel.
permalinkparent
[ ]joe_m107 4 points 6 hours ago
Maybe we should change that. Repeal the NFA.
permalinkparent
load more comments (2 replies)
[ ]4nco1j 0 points 2 hours ago
You don't know much about guns, do you now.
permalinkparent
load more comments (6 replies)
[ ]conquer69 15 points 4 hours ago
You can have all the guns you want. That won't stop them from labeling you a "su
spected school shooter, pedophile or terrorist".
A gun can't protect you from that. A gun can't teach your fellow countryman to t
hink by themselves or see through propaganda.
Good luck destroying a drone, plane or tank with a rifle. Not sure how useful a
gun is against your own trained military with even better guns and more.
People thinking they can start a revolution and win with a handgun don't realize
this isn't the 1700's anymore.
permalinkparent
[ ]JimmyBuffer 14 points 4 hours ago
Better tell the Middle East they haven't had a bout of revolutions then
permalinkparent
load more comments (2 replies)
[ ]b-LE-z_it 7 points 4 hours ago
Didn't say we would win, I said we could at least make it hurt. Assuming, of cou

rse, that the American people themselves aren't the ones willingly handing in th
eir freedoms, which would mean we're all fucked immediately.
permalinkparent
[ ]theothercoolfish 13 points 2 hours ago
Assuming, of course, that the American people themselves aren't the ones willing
ly handing in their freedoms, which would mean we're all fucked immediately.
Err, you guys gave up much of your freedoms long ago. And it isn't just the US politicians everywhere are taking as much as they can get, because it's simply
more power for them. More power, more money, more control. It's not a conspiracy
- this is just how an imperfect system with inadequate controls eventually goes
. We need to start re-examining our systems and look at alternatives that are no
w possible with the internet.
permalinkparent
[ ]vynusmagnus 3 points 2 hours ago
Tell that to the insurgents in Afghanistan. It seems to me that the US military
has been unable to defeat them in over a decade of war, despite its overwhelming
technological superiority. Tanks and fighter jets are nice, but they do little
against a small guerrilla force that can disappear into the woodwork.
permalinkparent
[ ]Qoix 3 points 3 hours ago
I think the main issue with that line of thinking is that the military would gun
down the civilians it pledges to protect. How many people in the armed forces d
o you know? Now, are any of them willing to murder innocent people? Probably not
.
permalinkparent
[ ]ihcn 6 points 2 hours ago
They're not innocent people, they're armed revolutionaries, suspected terrorists
permalinkparent
[ ]chance-- 4 points 3 hours ago
You say that as if there isn't insurmountable evidence to the contrary.
Military coups are thoroughly woven into the fabric of humanity's history.
permalinkparent
[ ]theothercoolfish 1 point 2 hours ago
gun down the civilians it pledges to protect.
Err, they don't pledge to protect civilians. They pledge to protect the constitu
tion. And if they are convinced that these people are attempting to "subvert" th
e constitution, then they are enemies. Nevermind that their leaders have shat al
l over the constitution - soldiers take their orders and follow 'em.
Now, are any of them willing to murder innocent people?
lol.
permalinkparent
load more comments (2 replies)
[ ]eloquentnemesis [score hidden] 33 minutes ago
Welcome to 4th generation warfare. You don't need a better gun, or the ability t
o kill a drone, or anything else like that. You just need A gun and more commitm
ent than the other side.
permalinkparent
[ ]homegrowncountryboy [score hidden] 16 minutes ago*
Good luck with those tanks, planes and drones when the American people stop supp
lying fuel and ammunition. My brother is in the Army and he will tell you about
75%, or more of the military will disband and fight to protect the American peop
le. All you have to do is look at New Orleans during Katrina, when they got the
order to start confiscating guns almost all of them refused, instead it was main
ly police stealing people's weapons.
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]Hermit_ 2 points 5 hours ago
Yeah but if it does happen all people would be doing is creating the chaos one o
f the armed and militarized militias needs to take power. For example, The KKK.
permalinkparent

[ ]b-LE-z_it 1 point 5 hours ago


Hopefully not the KKK.
permalinkparent
[ ]AussieArcher 1 point 3 hours ago
Fuck me there's always one of you. I'm starting to think the gun club spends mor
e time on reddit than anyone.
permalinkparent
[ ]astronautg117 1 point 1 hour ago
What's a combat rifle going to do against a drone?
permalinkparent
[ ]datbino 1 point 1 hour ago
i think thats where 2nd ammendment people miss the mark- you owning a rifle will
do nothing against the government.
you becoming an active participating member in that government can help fix it,
the goal is to make you a kony2012 fb sharer rather than a person who gets to wo
rk and fixes shit
permalinkparent
[ ]mpg1846 1 point 1 hour ago
You think 50 guys with hand guns are going to do anything to anyone? Gun laws ar
e a joke.
permalinkparent
[ ]Actionbuilding 1 point 1 hour ago
The founders of the United States of America WANTED the citizens to rise up and
overthrow the government if it approached the levels of corruption it is current
ly working toward.
permalinkparent
load more comments (11 replies)
[ ]nuesuh 1 point 1 hour ago
Ever seen "Das Leben der Anderen"? Imagine this, just with total corruption and
100 times better technology. This is what we are moving towards. Imagine this sy
stem getting in the hands of someone like Hitler or Stalin.. And it can happen.
Before Hitler came to power Germany was a modern, western, christian nation. We
need safety with this technology. And when i say safety, i don't mean surveillan
ce. I mean the opposite.
permalinkparent
[ ]know_comment [score hidden] 14 minutes ago
I agree, but I think the reason for the infrastructure development is because it
is going to get bad. As we are forced to compete more globally, quality of life
stagnates. Even the slightest hint of austerity is going to be very painful for
the lower classes in a society with a large income disparity.
That's why we see the race baiting and divisive rhetoric being used so much. Kee
p the poor and working classes quibbling at each other.
I want you to consider the daffodil. And while you're doing that, I'll be over h
ere, looking through your stuff.
permalinkparent
[ ]mzackler 19 points 7 hours ago
It takes a really complicated answer to truly understand but you often get into
the us vs them mentality in siloed areas of law enforcement. You also often get
frustrated with the levels of proof you need to put the bad guy in jail. Thus an
y method you can use you feel justified in using. Although I think there are a l
ot of issues with The Wire, it's a great starting off point for a discussion if
you want a serious answer.
permalinkparent
load more comments (2 replies)
[ ]hershmire 30 points 7 hours ago
Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts, absolutely.
permalinkparent
[ ]TheNewRavager 70 points 6 hours ago
"All governments suffer a recurring problem: Power attracts pathological persona
lities. It is not that power corrupts but that it is magnetic to the corruptible

. Such people have a tendency to become drunk on violence, a condition to which


they are quickly addicted."
permalinkparent
[ ]gee_iwonderwhy 22 points 6 hours ago
Oh shit, a Dune quote outside /r/dune not about spice.
permalinkparent
[ ]TheNumberMuncher 3 points 6 hours ago
This is pretty cool.
permalinkparent
[ ]YawnDogg 1 point 3 hours ago
Gene Hackman was so kinky in that movie.
permalinkparent
[ ]ThreeTimesUp 2 points 2 hours ago
From a Guardian article by Glenn Greenwald I came across recently:
Inside the mind of NSA chief Gen Keith Alexander
Any casual review of human history proves how deeply irrational it is to believe
that powerful factions can be trusted to exercise vast surveillance power with
little accountability or transparency.
But the more they proudly flaunt their warped imperial hubris, the more irration
al it becomes.
permalinkparent
[ ]Epsilox 3 points 2 hours ago
I'm going to take an unpopular stance here and argue that they get more effectiv
e investigations. Which isn't to say I have no reservations about this stuff, be
cause I do.
I've worked in a field tangential to law enforcement, and I've had the unpleasan
t experience of watching very bad people act with impunity because law enforceme
nt had to play by the rules and they didn't. Does that justify the modern trend
towards more invasive government? Maybe that's just the price we pay to live in
a free society. I don't know. I'm a fan of the H.L. Mencken quote:
"The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's ti
me defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are f
irst aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopp
ed at all."
On the other hand, it's very hard to watch members of organized crime and other
monsters literally get away with murder.
In part the difficulty the lies in the infrastructure of modern society. Communi
cations move at such speed and in such quantity that the sort of pinpoint accura
cy required for effective investigations and prosecutions becomes much more diff
icult.
None of which is to say that what we're doing is necessarily right. I've felt th
e fear of writing an opinion online and knowing that the NSA can see it and ever
ything else I've ever written if they so choose. I've had that feeling of always
being watched. I know exactly what is meant by the danger of chilling free spee
ch, because it's happened to me. But I do tend to trust (perhaps naively) that,
for the most part, most of the people making these decisions have good intention
s. I've worked with many of them, and I believe that it more than anything is th
e result of them trying to do their jobs well. Whether they are actually protect
ing the American people or simply paving the road to hell, only time will really
tell.
permalinkparent
[ ]eyeforgot 4 points 6 hours ago
Think of all the blackmail material they have for any future politicians. They w
ill firmly be in check by the powers that be.
permalinkparent
[ ]ademnus 3 points 7 hours ago
Total control.
permalinkparent
[ ]NotAnotherDecoy 4 points 7 hours ago
Total control?

permalinkparent
[ ]leamas666 2 points 5 hours ago
Why would you amass such a criminal energy to break constitutional laws just to
be able to see through everyone's communication?
It's the deep state attempting to preserve its own regime continuity in the even
t of violent revolution.
permalinkparent
[ ]sunbolts 3 points 6 hours ago
Because those in power try to keep it and in addition, there is always a lust fo
r more power. One who is wealthy seeks to increase his riches usually, right? Sa
me thing going on here. In terms of practicality, there's no reason for breaking
constitutional laws, but when you realize how human nature functions in regards
to ambitions and power, well, what we see going on explains itself.
permalinkparent
[ ]Martenz05 1 point 3 hours ago
So, in order to become a political leader who really does work for the benefit o
f the people, one would somehow have to lose every shred of their humanity so th
ey wouldn't have a human nature that could be corrupted by ambition and power?
That sounds ominous, when I put it like that
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]RuthlessDickTater 1 point 5 hours ago
but why.. I realize that these "zomg the terrorists!!!11" is only a PR-lie.
Well pretty soon they might have their terrorists, but they'll be the domestic k
ind.
permalinkparent
[ ]karadan100 1 point 4 hours ago
More money.
permalinkparent
[ ]cynoclast 1 point 3 hours ago
What do they really accomplish with this?
Get rich.
permalinkparent
load more comments (7 replies)
[ ]TGlucifer 50 points 10 hours ago
Criminals learned it's just way easier to do their lawbreaking with a government
salary.
permalinkparent
[ ]pete1729 22 points 9 hours ago
Well, the benefits package is far more attractive.
permalinkparent
[ ]__ghostpants 25 points 7 hours ago
and somehow snitches go to jail instead of the criminals
permalinkparent
[ ]iismitch55 1 point 3 hours ago
Snitches get stitches. Whistleblowers get their mouth sowed shut.
permalinkparent
[ ]HandsOffMyDitka 5 points 5 hours ago
Why break a law, when you can just change it.
permalinkparent
[ ]moresmarterthanyou 2 points 5 hours ago
except when they have to answer questions themselves...
permalinkparent
[ ]dontbullshityourself 1 point 5 hours ago
Well you know liberty is wasted on peasant swine 'eh?
permalinkparent
[ ]ButterflyAttack 1 point 4 hours ago
Sounds like the constitution doesn't mean much at this point. . .
permalinkparent
[ ]dontbullshityourself 1 point 3 hours ago

Sounds like the constitution doesn't mean much at this point. . .


All it means is that the scum who rule us have a legal contract that they say ba
cks up all their power. But their actions shit all over that document.
President Obama, a constitutional law professor ordered the deaths of two US cit
izens without trial in EXPRESS and DIRECT violation of the constitution.
permalinkparent
load more comments (4 replies)
[ ]Eurynom0s 68 points 9 hours ago
And on top of it, even if being in public was a justification for this, how the
fuck do you prevent the device from nabbing people who are inside their own hous
e or apartment as well?
Oh right, you can't, because that's not how radio waves work.
permalinkparent
[ ]Ioneos 18 points 8 hours ago
You can increase the noise gate to reduce range on purpose, but what good would
that do to keep the terrorists citizens under scrutiny.
permalinkparent
[ ]Eurynom0s 20 points 8 hours ago
Even if they were going to do that, I can't imagine that you could do it to a su
fficient degree in a place like NYC to not scoop up at least some people inside
of buildings.
permalinkparent
load more comments (5 replies)
[ ]Codoro 1 point 4 hours ago
I foresee turning your house into a Faraday Cage being the cop radar finder of t
omorrow.
permalinkparent
[ ]Kenny_Login 23 points 7 hours ago
Taxation without representation, an income far below what the productivity was v
alued at, government intrusion? The founding fathers (you know, those "heroes" o
f our nation) got much more pissed off for much less.
permalinkparent
[ ]Socialdem 8 points 5 hours ago
Can you really blame them? The Constitution was written when people were still r
iding on horses. There's no way the founding fathers could have anticipated the
advances in technology and the way people communicate. I think we're due for a f
irmware upgrade.
permalinkparent
[ ]upandrunning 11 points 3 hours ago
Yes, it's called 'replacing congress'. What we're seeing is a natural consequenc
e of career politicians. Most of the people in office have gotten so comfortable
with the idea that they'll get reelected that what they actually do during thei
r term is almost irrelevent.
permalinkparent
[ ]theothercoolfish 2 points 2 hours ago
Exactly. I think we should look at sortition - with an approval vote, and extrem
ely strict rules on what sort of laws can be passed (eg any law must apply equal
ly to everyone - protecting the minority), and a approval bonus for the randomly
selected representatives if the public approves. Fuck career politicians - they
've proven themselves wholly incapable, and the system that supports them is too
corruptible. I don't think campaign finance reform will 1) ever happen 2) adequ
ately deal with institutional corruption.
permalinkparent
[ ]NuclearWookiee 0 points 2 hours ago
All of this should be covered, in any reasonable interpretation, by the Fourth a
mendment. Rebooting who change anything if the limits on government are ignored.
permalinkparent
[ ]KalAl 1 point 1 hour ago
Do you update your firmware by smashing your bios chip with a hammer?
permalinkparent

[ ]FireFromTheWire 4 points 6 hours ago


You're just another Steve Irwin to them.
permalinkparent
[ ]iismitch55 2 points 3 hours ago
Too soon mate :'(
permalinkparent
[ ]Penguin_in_the_sand 1 point 1 hour ago*
I am curious to know what this comment means?... Oh! Steve Irwin was killed by a
stingray. I thought you may have been referring to some conspiracy relating the
Steve Irwin's death. He had an American wife and both were invited to Howard's
Bush BBQ. http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/10/27/1067233100397.html
permalinkparent
[ ]gloubenterder 2 points 1 hour ago
Steve Irwin was a wildlife documentary filmmaker who was well-known for getting
up close and personal with dangerous animals such as crocodiles and komodo drago
ns.
He was pierced through a heart by a stingray in 2006, while shooting footage for
a documentary called Ocean's Deadliest.
After his death, stingrays had a period of great infamy, and there were even rep
orts of people killing and mutilating stingrays as vengeance for Steve Irwin. ..
.which, of course, is the last thing Irwin would have wanted; he was a conservat
ionist, and whenever he was injured by an animal he was studying, he would alway
s clarify to the viewer that that was his own fault and a risk he was aware of.
permalinkparent
[ ]Agent-BurtMacklinFBI 1 point 5 hours ago
Don't worry I'm keeping a look out
permalinkparent
[ ]pion3435 1 point 3 hours ago
It's not a constitutional issue. It might be an FCC one, but they just do whatev
er they're told anyway.
permalinkparent
[ ]dntur 1 point 3 hours ago
theoretically, every cell tower is in a public place. Why not just attach a stin
gray to all of them? Think of the money mobile companies could make renting towe
r space! next comes google who wants to know who you are calling on your iphone
and windows phone for better directed advertising, followed by Bing. /s
permalinkparent
[ ]Brian3232 [score hidden] 46 minutes ago
Why are they wrong? You already can take pictures of people in public places wit
hout warrant
permalinkparent
[ ]GaltsGulchTouristInf [score hidden] 24 minutes ago
When the constitution, the supreme law of the land, the contract between the gov
ernment and the people, is violated, this violating it should be banned from 'pu
blic service' for life, should be personally liable to those whose rights they v
iolated, and should forfeit their government pension and benefits.
permalinkparent
[ ]wtfmuck [score hidden] 17 minutes ago
It's sad how they shirk doing what is right for what is easy.
permalinkparent
load more comments (8 replies)
[ ]quiteintriguing 127 points 12 hours ago
I think it's about time these fuckers provided some evidence that privacy invadi
ng is helping stop crime or terrorism. As far as I can see, there is an Islamic
army in the middle east right now filled with westerners that simply flew over a
nd caught a bus. Nice job government agencies, you sure showed us.
permalink
[ ]HappyAtavism 81 points 11 hours ago
I think it's about time these fuckers provided some evidence that privacy invadi
ng is helping stop crime or terrorism.

Even more importantly they should provide evidence that they're not violating th
e 4th Amendment. The Bill of Rights doesn't say it applies only when convenient.
P.S. I agree that repeated failures to demonstrate the effectiveness of these th
ings, or lies which get "corrected", is yet another reason why this stuff is BS,
but the Constitution is first and foremost. Don't like the 4th Amendment? Try t
o repeal it. Until then it's in force.
permalinkparent
[ ]7u5 3 points 5 hours ago
The "checks and balances" of the judiciary are a farce. They are free to "interp
ret" the Constitution as they see fit.
permalinkparent
load more comments (3 replies)
[ ]DiaperParty 9 points 3 hours ago
Fuck that. FUUUCK that. If this did stop terrorists, it would still not be worth
the violation of rights. We absolutely CANNOT start OKing this shit as long as
it "stops bad guys."
permalinkparent
[ ]quiteintriguing 1 point 3 hours ago
I think you misunderstood. I think they should have to back up their justificati
on, which they obviously can't.
permalinkparent
[ ]DiaperParty 4 points 3 hours ago
But if we ask them to, we lend legitimacy to that claim. We need to say from the
get go that no justification is needed because none will be sufficient.
permalinkparent
[ ]ebouwman 7 points 5 hours ago
In Canada we had the Ottawa shooting and that dude that ran over some soldiers.
Correct me if I'm wrong but both these guys had had their passports revoked.
I'm not a fan of letting them just go over and fight a dirty war but wtf.
permalinkparent
[ ]Ceejae 4 points 4 hours ago
But so what if it is? How successful the program is is irrelevant.
I'm sure if they set up a government camera in every home they'd stop plenty of
murders and rapes.
permalinkparent
load more comments (2 replies)
[ ]cassieloveseffie 5 points 2 hours ago
Well we all know that the FBI has followed people like John Lennon who believed
in radical peace, urged MLK to kill himself and was prepared to assassinate occu
py members. It is not about crime, it is about maintaining a status quo.
permalinkparent
[ ]monopixel 2 points 1 hour ago
was prepared to assassinate occupy members.
Interesting, where can I read up about this?
permalinkparent
[ ]wirepants 4 points 4 hours ago
Locking everyone in solitary could stop crime and terrorism too. That's not a go
od enough reason to violate our rights even if it was working.
permalinkparent
[ ]egodeath92 2 points 5 hours ago
Shh that's classified. This entire country would be a post-apocalyptic dirt-patc
h is not for the heroic NSA collecting dirt on most of the country.
permalinkparent
[ ]pion3435 1 point 3 hours ago
You had no privacy in the first place. That's not how cell phones work.
permalinkparent
load more comments (6 replies)
[ ]MashItMatt 143 points 13 hours ago
Obviously these are constitution free zones, citizen.
permalink

[ ]THANKS-FOR-THE-GOLD 22 points 7 hours ago


Embrace democracy or you will be eradicated
permalinkparent
[ ]jroddie4 14 points 5 hours ago
Citizen, pick up that can.
permalinkparent
[ ]douko 3 points 5 hours ago
This image won't even load (here's another one), but I still know what it is.
DEATH IS A PREFERABLE ALTERNATIVE TO COMMUNISM.
COMMUNISM IS THE VERY DEFINITION OF FAILURE!
permalinkparent
[ ]chewysquirrel 15 points 6 hours ago
Approximately 2/3 of Americans live in a "constitution free zone"
permalinkparent
[ ]newpolitics 50 points 10 hours ago
The Federal Bureau of Investigation is taking the position that court warrants a
re not required when deploying cell-site simulators in public places. Nicknamed
"stingrays," the devices are decoy cell towers that capture locations and identi
ties of mobile phone users and can intercept calls and texts.
So nobody has any expectation of privacy? Talking out of their asses. The implic
ation that a warrant shouldn't be needed to intercept someone's text messages, i
s outrageous.
permalink
[ ]acerplatanoides [score hidden] 16 minutes ago
The implication that a warrant shouldn't be needed to intercept someone's text m
essages, is outrageous.
The implication of intercepting a PRESS related text message, and thus also supp
ressing a free press.
I think many of these are used to stop uploading of images to social medial. You
ever tried that during a demonstration?
permalinkparent
[ ]dalasocatyemerc 67 points 9 hours ago
Hmm, I didn't realize the FBI had the authority to ignore the constitution of th
e United States of America.
Maybe this organization doesn't actually serve Americans. That's what I think
permalink
[ ]Jagoonder 17 points 2 hours ago
They don't. However, lets look at their 3rd criteria:
(3) cases in which the technology is used in public places or other locations at
which the FBI deems there is no reasonable expectation of privacy.
In public, noone has an expectation to privacy. SCOTUS has ruled on such. Theref
ore, it could be argued that phone conversations in public places forfeits at le
ast one party's rights to privacy.
There are a couple of problems with this. First, Stingray is indiscriminate. Sec
ond, the other party of the phone conversation may be in their own home thus hav
ing an expectation of privacy.
I don't know how law works in regards to phone tapping. But, I would assume that
any warrant to do so would provide the agency a waiver on a second party's priv
acy protections when conversing with the target of the warrant. Except in the ca
se of Stingray no warrant was ever obtained thus, no waiver, thus the second par
ty probably still has privacy protections.
So, I think it's bullshit. I'm no lawyer. I suspect the FBI also knows it's bull
shit. But, the more excuses they can come up with to bend the law around their w
ill the more time it takes to try to stop them since each instance requires anot
her court decision.
permalinkparent
[ ]punkrampant 13 points 1 hour ago
There's only "no expectation of privacy" in public in terms of video+camera surv
eillance. People still get disturbed if you look over their shoulder at their ph
one, or listen to a conversation.

Text messages, emails, phone calls, all of it, are the modern day written letter
s. What the FBI is trying to do is the equivalent of setting up a post office th
at opens everyone's envelopes and makes copies of all the contents.
permalinkparent
[ ]Jagoonder 5 points 1 hour ago
Text messages, emails, phone calls, all of it, are the modern day written letter
s. What the FBI is trying to do is the equivalent of setting up a post office th
at opens everyone's envelopes and makes copies of all the contents.
You're right. I was focusing on an actual phone conversation where one party cou
ld be overheard by others, thus no expectation to privacy.
permalinkparent
[ ]Cambodian_Drug_Mule 2 points 1 hour ago
Surely there are people with technical expertise that can just fuck their shit u
p. If I'm not mistaken the stingrays were detected with consumer grade electroni
cs. If everyone just looked out for them and pinned where they are at on a map,
couldn't some people with the technical know how take them offline?
permalinkparent
[ ]monopixel 1 point 1 hour ago
Hmm, I didn't realize the FBI had the authority to ignore the constitution of th
e United States of America.
The US government and its agencies has been doing it for ages.
permalinkparent
[ ]rtpg 40 points 6 hours ago
Surprised nobody's mentioned Kyllo v. United States yet.
This is fairly recent (2001) jurisprudence. The gov't used a thermal imager, and
saw that there were heat lamps inside of a house, and used that to get a search
warrant. The gov't argued that, well, the heat was outside, so pretty much publ
ic information.
The courts disagreed and ruled this an illegal search. Main reason being that no
t many people have thermal imagers, so there's a reasonable expectation of priva
cy. I think even less people have stingrays, so even from the "discovering that
someone has a cell phone" aspect, there's unreasonableness in the search.
Now to the wiretapping aspect... there's Katz v. United States. Here, somebody w
as in a phone booth, and the feds had set a microphone outside the phone booth w
ithout warrant (so not exactly a wiretap). Again, the courts ruled this an unrea
sonable search.
A part of the ruling:
Regardless of the location, a conversation is protected from unreasonable search
and seizure under the Fourth Amendment if it is made with a "reasonable expecta
tion of privacy".
Text messages definitely fall under this. I can't see this holding up for 2 seco
nds in court.
The article goes into it into detail, but few of the FBI's interpretations on pr
ivacy have been holding up in courts recently. The system is kind of working, an
d this interpretation will be shut down as well. Now, if only everyone had good
lawyers...
permalink
[ ]ryewheats 7 points 4 hours ago
But the biggest problem I see would be them not declaring how they gathered any
information they collected in the first place. It would be pretty easy to skirt
around the system and act like you caught the suspect red-handed (because you we
re tipped off by illegal searches). That is the really scary part.
permalinkparent
[ ]argv_minus_one 5 points 3 hours ago
This practice is known as "parallel construction".
permalinkparent
[ ]tughdffvdlfhegl 3 points 3 hours ago
Honestly, this is the biggest concern. The courts won't allow a challenge becaus
e no one will have standing, because the feds/police won't actively declare this
as evidence in a trial. Meanwhile, they'll continue to use it, having a chillin

g effect on the press and others (which the courts have not seen in recent histo
ry as sufficient to provide legal standing).
permalinkparent
[ ]JustaChimp 3 points 5 hours ago
With the Katz v US case, it took them 39 years to overturn the Olmstead v US rul
ing. Let's hope it takes a little less time for this medium.
The recent Romano v Steelcase Inc. court case could indicate how the courts will
rule in the short term with regards to "reasonable expectation of privacy" thou
gh this ruling was in the context of social media and not text messages. The ana
logy was made that much like a letter writer has no reasonable expectation of pr
ivacy once the recipient is in possession of the letter, neither does the post's
author. Same could be extended to text messages and would be equally as trouble
some.
permalinkparent
[ ]qdarius 1 point 3 hours ago
Damn, that doesn't seem right at all. If I send someone a letter I definitely ex
pect that only they will read it.
Could anyone expand on the logic that a letter writer has no reasonable expectat
ion of privacy?
permalinkparent
[ ]Boltaeg 1 point 3 hours ago
After that letter is given to the recipient, they can do whatever they want with
it without you knowing. They could copy it, show it to friends, frame it and pu
t it on their wall....etc. You have no control over that and must assume that an
ything you write in a letter can be disclosed in some manner, simply because you
have no control over that persons actions.
As to why that is the case, I have no idea. Especially considering it is illegal
to open someone elses mail, but perfectly legal to read someone else's letter o
nce they open it. At least that is my understanding of it.
permalinkparent
[ ]TheMightyBarbarian 1 point 3 hours ago
Its fairly simple, you sent a letter, until it is received by the intended recip
ient it has federal protections. Once the recipient receives it, they are free t
o do with it as they wish, even if you disagree with what they do, specifically
because the letter is now their property, even though you wrote it.
permalinkparent
[ ]qdarius 1 point 2 hours ago
I understand that. But if someone else intercepts my letter shouldn't that still
be illegal?
Maybe I'm misunderstanding how stingrays work but it seems like they're basicall
y designed to intercept hundreds of messages.
permalinkparent
[ ]TheMightyBarbarian 1 point 2 hours ago
Intercept isn't illegal, its sketchy but not illegal. As for reading it, it's a
grey area since texts are not encrypted and even if they were it would do shit i
f billions of devices can decrypt them. So unless you use something like a messe
nger system that can use basic encrypting. It won't stop the FBI from reading it
, but it does show you took steps to have a private conversation and that's what
matters to the court.
permalinkparent
[ ]coalbeeashi 1 point 3 hours ago
Re: Katz v. United States
Certain details, such as shutting the door on the telephone booth, help determin
e if a person intends for a conversation to be private. Thus, private conversati
ons can be made in public areas.
What steps is the average Joe taking to exhibit a reasonable expectation of priv
acy regarding his/her data usage? Honest question.
permalinkparent
[ ]TheMightyBarbarian 1 point 2 hours ago
Beyond using a VPN to mimic another location, not much really. Since there are m

any devices involved in the process of just looking up a website. Ex. You google
Microsoft. Here are all the parties involved: You, Your ISP, Google, Microsoft.
That's four parties involved and that's assuming you are not using a Phones Mob
ile Data plan and are using WiFi. Because then it can add a few more people invo
lved.
Sure you should have protection just the same, but currently the law doesn't rec
ognize that, because the people in charge dont understand how any of it works.
permalinkparent
[ ]rtpg [score hidden] 54 minutes ago
I would say that cultural norms kind of define that in that it is extremely rude
to look at another stranger's phone while they are using it to browse/look at t
heir emails/whatever. Not the most solid argument, I know.
permalinkparent
[ ]Sic_SemperTyrannis 1 point 2 hours ago
When the use of stingrays is challenged in court police have dropped the cases r
ather than explain their use of stingrays.
permalinkparent
[ ]cassieloveseffie 1 point 2 hours ago
I have seen a printed record of every one of someone's txt messages for 6 months
. Never assume txt messages are private.
permalinkparent
[ ]Ladderjack 29 points 12 hours ago
I'm sorry, have they gone ahead and combined the FBI and the Supreme Court of th
e United States of America? No? Well, we will see how long this lasts. . .
permalink
[ ]butitssnot 46 points 7 hours ago
Its ok. In 2016 we can vote for hope and change and transparency and fix all thi
s.
permalinkparent
[ ]CriticalThink 3 points 5 hours ago
yeah. I bet Hillary will fix this mess, right Reddit?
permalinkparent
[ ]TheMightyBarbarian 1 point 2 hours ago
We still got time before they can start promoting themselves for President, lega
lly actually, they can't start until a certain number of days from the election.
permalinkparent
[ ]looneybandito 5 points 6 hours ago
Haha. As if our votes matter.
permalinkparent
[ ]atomofconsumption 9 points 5 hours ago
thatsthejoke.jpg
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]dichroeyes 1 point 4 hours ago
You are right. I give up. Long live the hegemony.
permalinkparent
[ ]Pikaflu 1 point 3 hours ago
America is an irradiated wasteland. Within it lies a city. Outside the boundary
walls, a desert. A cursed earth. Inside the walls, a cursed city, stretching fro
m Boston to Washington D.C. An unbroken concrete landscape. 800 million people l
iving in the ruin of the old world and the mega structures of the new one. Mega
blocks. Mega highways. Mega City One. Convulsing. Choking. Breaking under its ow
n weight. Citizens in fear of the street. The gun. The gang. Only one thing figh
ting for order in the chaos: the men and women of the Hall of Justice. Juries. E
xecutioners. Judges.
permalinkparent
[ ]Ago_Solvo 36 points 9 hours ago
I'm sure that means that stingrays are also open for public hacking in that case
, because they're in a public place, and doing so can't be considered an intrusi
on on government properties or a violation of any Federal Law.

permalink
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]whysopositive 57 points 12 hours ago
Say whatever you want, you don't think big brother is going to find every way to
spy on you?
The thing is I bet every time we the people get upset about some "new" trespass
against our rights there's already something technologically beyond our knowledg
e being put to use to on us now.
permalink
[ ]I_SPLIT_INFINITIVES 16 points 7 hours ago
My dad always said, "If that's what they're telling us they have now, they proba
bly had it ten years ago. Just imagine what they really have."
permalinkparent
[ ]oOTHX1138Oo 28 points 9 hours ago
Thats why we need to add to the bill of rights, so that we continue to be protec
ted in the digital age.
permalinkparent
[ ]TheBlueWaffleHouse 18 points 8 hours ago
At this point in time the bill of rights only shrinks. It doesn't get bigger.
permalinkparent
[ ]tallerthanunicorngod 33 points 7 hours ago
Not with that attitude.
permalinkparent
[ ]mattacular2001 3 points 5 hours ago
Doesn't matter unless you're wealthy
permalinkparent
[ ]tallerthanunicorngod 1 point 2 hours ago
Wealthy people don't like to be spied on either. Honestly, they probably like it
even less.
permalinkparent
[ ]sockgorilla 1 point 5 hours ago
He's John Titor, he's watched it before.
permalinkparent
[ ]mastahslayah 1 point 4 hours ago
Well he isn't getting any of my Dr. Pepper.
permalinkparent
[ ]Poor__Yorick 1 point 2 hours ago
Wow that's a name I haven't heard in a while.
We've got a world war this year though.
3 billion dead by the end of it.
permalinkparent
load more comments (5 replies)
[ ]pion3435 1 point 3 hours ago
We already did. That's the point of laws like HIPAA. There's just no equivalent
for things like email or cell phones so it's legal to see whatever people are na
ively broadcasting.
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]ZomNomNomBeeZ 5 points 7 hours ago
This technology is not particularly new. The man-in-the-middle attack is a class
ic hacking technique. I remember reading an article after one of the security co
nventions detailing a small group of participants that used a remote control air
plane to do this exact thing to convention attendees. This was years ago.
permalinkparent
[ ]hershmire 4 points 7 hours ago
Which is why it's illegality could be successfully code into law.
permalinkparent
[ ]TheMightyBarbarian 1 point 3 hours ago
That's the problem, the people who make the laws don't understand how the techno
logy works, and the people making and using it are telling them its fine, so the

y don't feel like they need to make a law about.


And as such making a law about it would be bad, since the law would need specifi
c language to prevent certain technologies and usage of such. But the biggest is
sue is that some of the technology and uses are too general that it would never
work to stop anything. Since they can't just write a law preventing man in the m
iddle because they need to get a definitive wording on what that is exactly and
then word it so a slight variation doesn't just immediately skirt the new law.
Our technology grew faster than our laws did, but now it's grown faster than our
ability to properly define what it is we do. So controlling it is incredibly ha
rd and will take a long time, so for now we kinda have to suck it up and wait, b
ecause the worst possible thing is them putting out ineffective laws that do les
s than nothing to prevent stuff like that and hearing us complain and think we a
re whining when they just put out a law. I would rather wait a little longer to
make sure the law is proper and effective than to have a crap law screw everythi
ng up.
permalinkparent
[ ]ScorpionPool 1 point 6 hours ago
Serious question. What benefits does the government get from spying on us? Power
? Information for corporations? Shits and giggles? Some kind of profit?
permalinkparent
[ ]swingmemallet 2 points 5 hours ago
All of the above
permalinkparent
[ ]eyeforgot 1 point 5 hours ago*
What like complete access to what anyone posts/chats about on facebook/skype bei
ng dumped into a database? Anyone who work with cisco routers notice anything fu
nny like carefully crafted packets fucking w. the settings and not creating logs
. Maybe like there is a back door that someone has that doesn't require a passwo
rd.
permalinkparent
load more comments (3 replies)
[ ]philtech 26 points 10 hours ago
You can scan for stingray use.
Only works on rooted phones with Qualcomm chipset however. https://play.google.c
om/store/apps/details?id=de.srlabs.snoopsnitch&hl=en
permalink
[ ]vamper 2 points 6 hours ago
damn, no go for my nexus 5
permalinkparent
[ ]Ice_Pirate 1 point 5 hours ago
Should work on my 20 dollar ZTE's with dualies :). Overclocks to 1.8 like butta.
http://www.phonearena.com/phones/ZTE-N800_id8191
permalinkparent
[ ]willyboxc 1 point 2 hours ago
we need a version that will work without root :(
permalinkparent
[ ]networklackey 49 points 11 hours ago*
Bullshit... it's radio. They have no way of determining whether the person they
are monitoring is in public or not.
They shouldn't be able to use this without a warrant any more than they should b
e able to point a laser mic at your window.
The fact that they are in public is irrelevant... the subject they are monitorin
g has to be in public.
permalink
[ ]lll_1_lll 29 points 6 hours ago
Even if we are in public, what the fuck gives them the right to look through my
texts, phone calls, voicemails, emails, call history, etc?
permalinkparent
[ ]zoidbug 5 points 3 hours ago
It should be protected the level of paper mail. It is your private communication

s.
permalinkparent
[ ]networklackey 1 point 2 hours ago
Technically... because you are in public and are broadcasting. But I feel the sa
me way. None of this shit should be legal.
permalinkparent
load more comments (6 replies)
[ ]goatmagic 2 points 3 hours ago
laser mic
Well, TIL this exists :/
permalinkparent
[ ]networklackey 2 points 2 hours ago
They absolutely exist and they are freaking awesome. They should not however be
used by law enforcement without a warrant.
permalinkparent
[ ]makingupdumbnames 1 point 5 hours ago
I think it's that their airwaves cross public space. pls correct me if I'm wrong
, though
permalinkparent
[ ]networklackey 1 point 2 hours ago
That's certainly the argument they are making.
permalinkparent
[ ]wirepants 1 point 4 hours ago
Even assuming you are in public, who's to say the guy on the other side is too?
permalinkparent
[ ]networklackey 1 point 2 hours ago
Nothing but their log books but that doesn't really matter. It's your right to p
rivacy they are violating.
permalinkparent
[ ]Sarah_Connor 9 points 9 hours ago
We need a way to be able to identify, then jamm, stingrays.
permalink
[ ]cookie_nrk 8 points 7 hours ago
This Jammer made in sweden should do the trick. From what I have read it complet
ely blocks all signals, so using a phone wouldn't work at all, but if you were i
n a position to not want to be tracked during a certain time, you could use this
: http://www.jammer-store.com/monstro-10-all-frequencies-portable-jammer.html
permalinkparent
[ ]hershmire 10 points 7 hours ago
We're talking about blanket monitoring of civilians. It needs to be outlawed imm
ediately. Hoping each and every Joe Schmoe is going to buy an illegal cell phone
jammer to protect his identity is, well, ridiculous.
permalinkparent
[ ]davidverner 6 points 7 hours ago
Jammers are illegal in the US on the cellphone frequency. Good luck importing on
e.
permalinkparent
[ ]wicard 5 points 6 hours ago
had one from deal extreme i bought when i was younger to prank friends, was alot
of fun. But if you are worried about being tracked wouldn't just shutting your
phone off do the trick? If you are jamming your phone you arnt going to be talki
ng to anyone.
permalinkparent
[ ]RellenD 4 points 5 hours ago
You have to do more than just turn it off, unfortunately.
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]willyboxc 1 point 2 hours ago
we need the schematics so we can build one... also include 700 mhz jam for lte
permalinkparent

load more comments (1 reply)


[ ]ademnus 11 points 7 hours ago
That's nice but it's not up to the FBI if it is illegal or not.
permalink
[ ]MonitoredCitizen 21 points 7 hours ago
Come on Google and Apple, stop being so lame. Make the phones themselves defend
against this by always displaying the negotiated encryption level and allowing u
ser to configure the phone to refuse to connect if the GSM encryption level is A
5/0.
permalink
[ ]argv_minus_one 2 points 2 hours ago
If they do that, these same spooks will have some words with their CEOs. Otherwi
se, yeah, they likely would.
permalinkparent
[ ]vzzzbux 2 points 1 hour ago
Not sure on the technical specifics but my old Nokia from 10 years ago used to s
how a padlock if the call was "secure", which I guess meant it was encrypted in
some way.
Sounds like yet another way we've gone backwards with the rise of Google and App
le
permalinkparent
[ ]cryptovariable 180 points 12 hours ago
This seems icky, but anyone with a Raspberry Pi ($48.00), an RTL-SDR ($17.00), a
nd an ability to follow written step-by-step instructions on how to install and
configure some open source software ($0.00) can do this, albeit on a smaller sca
le.
That tutorial doesn't cover decrypting GSM traffic. This one does. You'll need s
omething faster than a Raspberry Pi, though. Maybe a $200 netbook.
And you can do it on the same scale as the police with a surplus commercial ante
nna and three or four friends.
I don't see how restricting the government's ability to do this would have any o
ther effect than to criminalize a private citizen's desire to experiment with GS
M.
permalink
[ ]HappyAtavism 113 points 11 hours ago
I don't see how restricting the government's ability to do this would have any o
ther effect than to criminalize a private citizen's desire to experiment with GS
M.
Experiment with GSM all you want, just don't eavesdrop or commit fraud by preten
ding to be part of a legitimate business.
I like to play with miniature cameras, microphones and transmitters. That's a fi
ne hobby as long as I don't use it to spy on my neighbors.
permalinkparent
load more comments (5 replies)
[ ]mr___ 50 points 12 hours ago
But theirs has a transmitter, and actively spoofs cell sites
permalinkparent
[ ]cryptovariable 55 points 12 hours ago
It you want to spoof rather than just eavesdrop all you have to do is buy any of
the SDR kits that are coming on to the market like a bladeRF or something and h
ave GNUradio (which hilariously autocorrects to FBI radio on my phone) pretend t
o be a tower, the credentials of which you sniffed with your Pi setup.
The reason the Feds spoof is so that they can target specific devices on a white
list and only have those connect. The size of the whitelist is unknown and up fo
r debate.
If you're capturing and decrypting all the GSM your antenna can receive you don'
t care if you're spoofing the tower unless you want to modify the traffic in som
e way. To quote Sir Patrick Stewart: "It's too late, I've seen everything."
If you just scoop up everything using cheap/free and publicly available tools yo
u don't really care about spoofing.

It should be noted that the Feds have a leg up with CDMA because of its smaller
global footprint and the scarcity of developers working on it, as well as UMTS (
3G) and LTE.
But people are poking at LTE every day: http://www.rtl-sdr.com/analyzing-td-ltertl-sdr/
permalinkparent
[ ]HappyAtavism 36 points 11 hours ago
The reason the Feds spoof is so that they can target specific devices on a white
list and only have those connect. The size of the whitelist is unknown and up fo
r debate.
We do know they don't have warrants. How many violations of the 4th Amendment do
es it take before it's considered a bad thing?
permalinkparent
load more comments (19 replies)
[ ]A530[??] 6 points 6 hours ago
I have to ask an honest question. Knowing what you know, do you live in a Farada
y cage or just eschew cell phones all together? I'm in InfoSec (I'm guessing you
are too) and with the shit I know, maintaining OPSec is just a never ending bat
tle. I can't imagine my paranoia if I went down the cellular rabbit hole (althou
gh I do know a lot about the shit happening with the carrier baseband MDM garbag
e).
Many thanks for the very informative post.
permalinkparent
[ ]tornadoRadar 1 point 1 hour ago
Gotta keep it segmented. Personal never mixes with biz
permalinkparent
[ ]the_nap_mutilator 1 point 5 hours ago
Spoofing the cell site also gives them access to the phone at something akin to
the hardware level... so unless you have rooted and or installed software to sec
ure the device, they can push new software onto your phone without your knowledg
e/consent in the same way that your carrier updates subscriber units say when th
ey make changes to the network or something. At that point your phone has been p
ermanently compromised.
permalinkparent
load more comments (13 replies)
[ ]mag17435 29 points 10 hours ago
I dont understand how people think the government can do things citizens can. Or
dering our government not to do something has no bearing on what citizens can do
.
permalinkparent
[ ]Golden-Fox 7 points 6 hours ago
Well when police are trying to visually collect evidence they can in general onl
y search from public areas. If a cop is looking for a certain car and they see i
t on the street, that's fine. If the car is parked in a closed garage and on pri
vate property, the cop wouldn't be able to see it without going onto private pro
perty and looking in a window. If the car is in the same garage and the garage d
oor is open, then anyone can see it, and the cop can legally use that informatio
n.
The FBI is trying to apply that same logic to these stingrays. Stingrays are a t
echnology that is available to the public. You could make your own and do exactl
y what the FBI does. The data being collected isn't encrypted, password protecte
d, or anything else. Everything is publicly available. You just have to have a c
ertain machine to be able to read it. The garage door has to be open.
permalinkparent
[ ]Wordygit 6 points 6 hours ago
The key word here is "public" whereas where there is the expectation of privacy,
I would think think that would carry some special considerations. That seems to
be some of what the courts are deciding about, where the expectation of privacy
holds sway over searches. Its already been determined that law enforcement cann
ot force you to unlock your phone. One such Supreme Court case, decided this pas

t summer, led to a sweeping victory for privacy rights advocates. In a rare unan
imous decision, the court found that police cannot search cellphones, and by ext
ension tablets and other digital communication devices, without first obtaining
a warrant. Smartphones, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote, hold the privacies of l
ife, and the fact that technology now allows an individual to carry such informati
on in his hand does not make the information any less worthy of the protection f
or which the Founders fought. I think, as well, that it has been established that
if there is encryption being used, that constitutes an acknowledgement that ste
ps have been taken to protect and maintain the sense of privacy, and so the expe
ctation carries onto the information being transmitted. Not sure if there is a l
egal precedent for that though.
permalinkparent
[ ]Golden-Fox 2 points 5 hours ago
Its already been determined that law enforcement cannot force you to unlock your
phone.
This is what I've heard, but to me it implies that police can access your phone
if you don't have it locked. Carrying that logic over to this argument, the poli
ce would be able to access your cell info as long as it isn't encrypted. It seem
s that you only have a "reasonable expectation to privacy" with your cell phone
if you've taken any steps to make your phone more private. If there were some wa
y to get your carrier to encrypt your data, then there'd be no question, but the
way cell providers are these days, that's not gonna happen.
permalinkparent
[ ]ThreeTimesUp 1 point 1 hour ago
Something that I have heard repeatedly (and I may yet have it wrong), is that if
your front door is closed, but unlocked, the police are free to enter without a
warrant.
This has always bothered me.
I could understand the mind-set of someone (i.e. a Justice of the Supreme court)
thinking that way if they grew up (or lived) in an area where they lived a life
always fearful of intruders and locking doors was a practical necessity.
But to me, a closed door means "Keep out, knock for admittance - no entry withou
t permission."
So, for naive, trusting, me, I would not expect the police (or anyone) to examin
e my phone (without a warrant) just to see what they could find.
permalinkparent
[ ]pion3435 1 point 3 hours ago
A technologically illiterate moron's expectation of privacy doesn't become a rea
sonable expectation of privacy just because the majority of the population is te
chnologically illiterate.
permalinkparent
[ ]F0sh 1 point 2 hours ago
This is totally wrong thinking. A private citizen can look for your car through
the garage window without legal repercussions, even though a police officer migh
t not be allowed. The police officer has to conduct his searches according to th
e expectation of privacy and you have every expectation that your private phone
conversations are private - even if you're sending your texts at the shopping ce
ntre.
This is a bullshit equivocation on the part of the FBI, who are claiming that si
nce any old person at the shops can see that you're also at the shops you have n
o expectation of privacy at all.
This logic, if extended, would also mean the FBI could clone your hard drive if
you took your laptop to a public place - after all, you have no expectation of p
rivacy there. No. Bullshit - just because you're in the park doesn't mean all yo
ur possessions and emails became public.
This has nothing to do with what an ordinary citizen is able to do in public or
in private.
permalinkparent
[ ]ThreeTimesUp 1 point 2 hours ago*
Well when police are trying to visually collect evidence they can in general onl

y search from public areas. If a cop is looking for a certain car and they see i
t on the street, that's fine.
To counterpoint this:
Infra-red light (heat) is just light that's at a lower frequency than humans can
detect.
Courts have ruled that the police using specialized equipment to detect heat sig
natures (Infra-red light) emanating from from houses for the purpose of snooping
for grow operations are an invasion of privacy.
The signals Stingray is picking up are just another frequency, even lower than I
nfra-red light, originating from inside your phone, that is your property, which
is in your possession.
Authorities are using all manner of logical distortions in an express attempt to
get around the ideals and principles expressed in the Constitution.
What law-abiding citizen would attempt such a thing?
What authority that the public has placed their trust in, would make continual a
ttempts to subvert the Constitution?
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
load more comments (2 replies)
[ ]kromem 2 points 3 hours ago
It is already criminal to capture and decrypt GSM traffic for citizens (Wiretap
Act), same as capturing and parsing WiFi data.
But I think I can point out the issue with your logic with a simple analogy:
Citizens can buy guns.
Law enforcement can be provided guns.
Citizens can practice shooting guns.
Law enforcement should do the same.
Citizens can't shoot other citizens with guns except in really specific exemptio
ns.
According to your logic, just because citizens can buy guns, and could possibly
go around shooting other people with them, law enforcement should not have any l
egal restrictions on their use of guns.
It is illegal for you to capture and decrypt anyone else's traffic, and it shoul
d be illegal for cops to do the same without a warrant. It's not that hard to ge
t a warrant when actually justified, creates a paper trail that can be examined
for abuses, and has been the case without serious issue for years now.
For what purpose does the law need to be changed to allow this? Because warrants
are inconvenient? Well then why not get rid of them for entering homes too? It'
s quite trivial to pick a lock, and even easier to smash a window and climb in.
Any citizen could do it. So why do we need to restrict the police from the same?
permalinkparent
[ ]dfioabnionjio 4 points 9 hours ago
I don't see how restricting the government's ability to do this would have any o
ther effect than to criminalize a private citizen's desire to experiment with GS
M.
Why not have it be illegal for government and legal for private citizens? Make i
t perfectly legal for private citizens to experiment with GSM, but don't let the
FBI do the same, like you can have a private citizen share something a defendan
t said in court while the police cannot do the same unless the suspect had been
told of their rights.
Of course, the problem here is not using GSM. It's tracking people who did not k
nowingly join your network. You could have it be legal to experiment with GSM an
d not legal to spoof a network, or make it so tracking someone on your network i
s illegal unless the person being tracked is aware they will be tracked and cons
ents to it.
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]confusiondiffusion 3 points 10 hours ago
Yeah, I really don't see the point in making laws against this, since they'll be
broken anyway. We need to fix the underlying technology. There is no excuse for

the sad state of cellphone security.


permalinkparent
[ ]HappyAtavism 18 points 10 hours ago
I really don't see the point in making laws against this
Then let's just flush the Constitution down the toilet. All laws get broken, the
question is what gets done about it.
since they'll be broken anyway
It's not very hard to break into my house either, but they're not supposed to do
it without a warrant.
permalinkparent
load more comments (4 replies)
[ ]HighMonster 1 point 7 hours ago
Wow that's intriguing
permalinkparent
[ ]lll_1_lll 1 point 6 hours ago
You act like this is realistically doable for the large majority of people and y
ou know that's BS.
permalinkparent
[+][deleted] 6 hours ago (1 child)
[ ]JabroniZamboni 1 point 5 hours ago
Are you suggesting that radar jammers should be legal? As well as cell phone or
wifi jammers? What if your neighbor wants to experiment with a jammer for the ne
xt 4 months? 6 years? I assume you wouldn't be too happy. There's experimentatio
n and then there's purposeful disruption and spying.
permalinkparent
[ ]egodeath92 1 point 5 hours ago
Yeah except "anyone with device X" can't prosecute people. It doesn't matter whe
n corporations do mass data collection because they are just trying to make mone
y/sell people shit. The government can create a database of people's private liv
es then prosecute them. You could even imagine a time where data collection is s
o widespread that this kind of info is used for political purposes rather then b
usting drug dealers/ other criminals which is what it's used for now.
permalinkparent
[ ]Kuusou 1 point 4 hours ago
What the people can do, and what the government can do, are no the same things,
nor should they.
permalinkparent
[ ]qdarius 1 point 4 hours ago
If a random person overhears my conversation I don't care. Even if they tell the
ir friends I'm still not too concerned.
If the government records my conversation and uses it to investigate or prosecut
e me that's clearly a different situation.
Just because someone can do something doesn't mean it should be legal. It defini
tely doesn't mean we should be okay with our government using it on us.
permalinkparent
load more comments (9 replies)
[ ]Sir_not_sir 52 points 13 hours ago
The main purpose of the stinger is to circumvent the need and time of acquiring
a warrant and getting the data from all the service providers.
Regardless of data retention plans, they should require a separate judicial warr
ant for each individual suspect in order to be deployed.
permalink
[ ]manoninternets 8 points 7 hours ago*
The time required to get a warrant is usually far less than what they make it ou
t to be, although cost is as factor. Phone companies make tons of money off poli
ce records requests.
To play devil's advocate (and I do think the STINGRAY arrangement is devilish):
once you request records from the phone companies, there's no guarantee that won
't get leaked to the people being investigated. The cartels have people everywhe

re.
permalinkparent
[ ]kevincreeperpants 6 points 6 hours ago
What if they are the cartels!?...dun dun dun
permalinkparent
[ ]tughdffvdlfhegl 1 point 3 hours ago
I don't think anyone here has a problem with STINGRAY being used, given that the
y have a warrant for the person's data they're monitoring. So in your situation,
that's easy to do.
permalinkparent
[ ]manoninternets 2 points 3 hours ago
Yeah it's the same concept as going through my private letters, or close enough
to it anyhow. (Even though letters are physically sealed and radio waves permeat
e the air freely, my intention is for my text messages to be as private as posta
l mail.)
Even a child could rip open an envelope with ease. That doesn't mean police don'
t need a warrant to do so.
permalinkparent
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[ ]turnthatfrown 9 points 7 hours ago
I think the FBI is conveniently forgetting that they are intercepting a communic
ation that is normally secured via encryption and carried privately by your wire
less provider then switched privately all the way to the party on the other end
who has similar expectations of the connection.
I mean, come on, the Stingrays themselves are impersonating the carrier that you
have a contract with and using techniques to avoid the strong encryption. The p
rove by their own design and implementation that the FBI's argument is bullshit.
permalink
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]dontbullshityourself 27 points 11 hours ago
I'm so sick of the ways these callous assholes use to crush our freedom.
What is the point of massive expensive law enforcement agencies if the law can't
protect our rights and freedoms? Hasn't the cart been put before the horse here
?
permalink
[ ]donottakethisserious 13 points 6 hours ago
If you are told you are free enough times, you start to believe it. You start at
a young age with a pledge every day and then when you grow up you attend sporti
ng events and stand for the national anthem and tear up at how free you are. Tha
t way nobody will ever question whether or not this is actually a free country.
permalinkparent
[ ]dontbullshityourself 10 points 5 hours ago
When I was a kid I started to sit during the pledge. Honestly I think I just wan
ted to test and see how free I was. I knew that saying the pledge etc wasn't in
the school handbook. I knew there was no rule saying I had to say it or stand or
anything. The powers that be at my school just used the herd instinct to keep t
his shit going.
So I started sitting down. This resulted in a lot of attention from gangs of bul
lies. My home room teacher didn't like it either and lectured/bitched about it e
very day. But she stopped short of anything more than shaming me unlike the bull
ies.
Anyway I just decided to drop out. Fuck it. Humans don't like new things that co
nfuse them and challenge them to think. How interesting that was to be the last
thing I learned in school. I found another kind of freedom. The freedom to leave
the assholes mired in their stupidity and find my own path in life.
permalinkparent
[ ]joshyfitzo90 4 points 5 hours ago
I like your style.
permalinkparent

[ ]Jack41096 3 points 4 hours ago


I applaud you. I stood but that's all I did. it was in our rulebook to stand but
fuck them if they thought I was gonna do more than that. I started a wave of pe
ople standing and doing nothing.
eventually my first period class was reduced to two people and the teacher actua
lly doing anything. they bitches about it but we all had our own reasons.
permalinkparent
[ ]dontbullshityourself 2 points 3 hours ago
eventually my first period class was reduced to two people and the teacher actua
lly doing anything. they bitches about it but we all had our own reasons.
There are lots of reasons to resist and only one reason to obey. Fear.
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]CriticalThink 3 points 5 hours ago
Government hasn't been interested in protecting our rights and freedoms in a lon
g time.
permalinkparent
[ ]jkeyser14 5 points 7 hours ago
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety
, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. - Benjamin Franklin
permalinkparent
[ ]dontbullshityourself 5 points 6 hours ago
We didn't give it up. They are taking it.
permalinkparent
[ ]jkeyser14 10 points 6 hours ago
Only because we aren't rioting. The first group of rioters to tar and feather a
politician again will bring about change very quickly.
permalinkparent
[ ]dontbullshityourself 4 points 5 hours ago
People are gonna have to get a lot more desperate. I reckon we'll get our riot s
oon enough.
permalinkparent
[ ]Jack41096 1 point 4 hours ago
take the food. that's the surefire way to cause a riot.
people will be content as long as they're fed. you take that away and suddenly t
hey have nothing to lose. they have to survive. that is the most primal response
we have. to fight tooth and nail for food. to eat no matter the cost.
permalinkparent
[ ]RamsNation 1 point 4 hours ago
America has a very stable food supply so I doubt that will happen.
permalinkparent
[ ]dontbullshityourself 1 point 3 hours ago
I don't think we have to take the food. I think that people today are a lot more
self entitled and will jump into a fit without their iphones. They can't even i
magine a world without abundant food.
permalinkparent
[ ]grungebucket 1 point 4 hours ago
bring about change very quickly. street executions very quickly.
there. Corrected that for you. After all. You wouldn't want to be mistaken for a
terrorist endorsing a terrorist act now, would you?
permalinkparent
[ ]pion3435 2 points 3 hours ago
You never had it. You're just now finding out.
permalinkparent
[ ]hershmire 7 points 7 hours ago
Ok, I get the FBI's argument. Technically, we are all choosing to carry a digita
l device around with us that uniquely identifies us via radio frequency. It's tr
ue that we could very well decide not to partake in the use of cell phones if we
're so worried about being tracked. And thus because we decide to carry these pa

rtially secure devices around with us, they FBI has every right to hack them and
track us.
But this argument is bogus. The FBI can't read our mail or tap our phones becaus
e legislators and judges at one time recognized that technology becomes indispen
sable, and therefore should be protected under privacy laws. Just because I choo
se to carry a cell phone around with me doesn't give the FBI to track my whereab
outs, or worse. That'd be like saying it's my fault for having my mail read by t
he FBI because I chose to write letters, or I chose to have my phones monitored
and recorded by the FBI because I chose to use telephones.
The FBI is part of the executive branch. They (supposedly) operate within the sc
ope of the law. If there's no specific law preventing their actions, they'll go
ahead and do it. So write your representatives and get shit like this regulated.
And use letters because they're obligated to at least open the envelope.
permalink
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]drakecherry 5 points 8 hours ago
we might as well get rid of warrants all together. they are gonna search if they
want to, and nothing will happen if they are wrong.
permalink
[ ]MeganNancySmith 6 points 6 hours ago
The FBI doesn't have the legal authority to make that determination.
It would be like if I said that murder is legal every other Sunday. I can say it
all I like, but it doesn't make it true.
permalink
[ ]Todda468 6 points 6 hours ago
Anything a private citizen can't do should require reasonable suspicion or a war
rent.
permalink
[ ]Sonotmethen 6 points 9 hours ago
Then signal jammers aren't either.
permalink
[ ]MrJDouble 4 points 9 hours ago
FBI tends to say a lot of things, doesn't mean it isn't a pile of horseshit.
permalink
[ ]blueiron0 4 points 6 hours ago
(3) cases in which the technology is used in public places or other locations at
which the FBI deems there is no reasonable expectation of privacy.
Love how the FBI gets to decide when it's ok for them to assume you shouldnt hav
e any expectation on privacy. "we saw a poop porn video on pornhub. you shouldnt
expect privacy when pooping then."
permalink
[ ]ragn4rok234 4 points 6 hours ago
Whoo! Now I don't need a warrant or sufficient reason to wire tap anyone and eve
ryone. Stalkers of the world rejoice! It's like Oprah is handing out privacy bre
aches in here
permalink
[ ]fourslaps 4 points 4 hours ago
This isn't what Steve Irwin would have wanted
permalink
[ ]knowyourbrain 7 points 8 hours ago
How sad is it that we have an R Senator trying to rein in a D president's FBI?
If Snowden et al have not been able to show the American people what a farce our
government is then I don't know how it can be demonstrated.
permalink
[ ]makingupdumbnames 1 point 5 hours ago
that's Chelsea to you, mister!
permalinkparent
[ ]StellarUsername 4 points 9 hours ago
Can someone ELI5 why my cell carrier lets this happen? Seems like it would be ea
sy enough for them to put a stop to it if they wanted.

permalink
[ ]giantgnat 13 points 8 hours ago
Because if you don't play nice with them, they don't play nice with you like wha
t happened to the CEO of quest after he refused to cooperate.
permalinkparent
[ ]lll_1_lll 6 points 6 hours ago
CEO of quest
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/09/30/a-ceo-who-resistednsa-spying-is-out-of-prison-and-he-feels-vindicated-by-snowden-leaks/
permalinkparent
[ ]WatchoutItsAllan 1 point 4 hours ago
Looks like the only way to be out of the eyes of the NSA is to go back to using
these http://imgur.com/JEFUt4h
permalinkparent
[ ]jkeyser14 4 points 7 hours ago
The cell and internet companies get paid millions by the government for direct a
ccess to their lines. This was one of the things Snowden blew the whistle on.
permalinkparent
[ ]MadPooter 2 points 7 hours ago
I believe that the technology behind our current cell phone towers needs to allo
w for widespread access to said cell phone towers from a wide array of technolog
ical devices.
The Stingray makes the cell phone tower believe that it's a cell phone--I don't
know that it's as easy as you might think to re-design all cell phone models to
differentiate themselves from what Stingrays currently are.
TL;DR: This might be a better issue for cell phone designers to solve rather the
n cell phone carriers.
permalinkparent
[ ]egalroc 2 points 6 hours ago
Maybe design a Falcon drone that homes in and locks on fake Stingray towers. Wou
ldn't the FBI just shit to see a couple sparrows zooming down on them?
permalinkparent
[ ]A530[??] 1 point 6 hours ago
Cell carriers couldn't care less. They're also packaging backdoors in their base
band software to do all kinds of functional crap, like over the air updates and
remote access.
permalinkparent
[ ]here4DaBacon 3 points 7 hours ago
So it's a honey pot for cell phones. This same method is used to intercept WiFi
internet traffic. The world is becoming a hackers paradise.
permalink
[ ]CapAnson 4 points 6 hours ago
I don't even think of the FBI's exceptions two and three are valid. And as for i
mminent danger to public safety I can't imagine when that safety hinges on inter
cepting a cell call right now this very second without a warrant
permalink
[ ]SquidwardSnowden1 3 points 6 hours ago
Let it be noted, I love big brother.
permalink
[ ]ryanknapper 3 points 6 hours ago
There was a comment asking what prevents private citizens from doing this. My re
ply was: Absolutely nothing. In fact, there are legal ways of doing exactly this
.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xKihq1fClQg
permalink
[ ]lll_1_lll 2 points 6 hours ago
inb4 this thread gets removed by the mods and/or shadowbanned
permalink
[ ]doctorshady[S] 3 points 6 hours ago
I was almost sure it was going to be removed when I submitted it.

permalinkparent
[ ]grtwatkins 1 point 3 hours ago
Wait, so mods = FBI?
permalinkparent
[ ]doctorshady[S] 2 points 2 hours ago
The mods here are quite restrictive about what is allowed to be submitted. Wheth
er or not they're under someone's influence is a question I can't answer (though
I'd honestly like to know), but you'll occasionally see high profile topics rem
oved, like the Snowden leaks back when PRISM was first pointed out.
permalinkparent
[ ]tomcat23 3 points 6 hours ago
If I had a hundred dollars for every time the FBI said it could do something une
thical or unconstitutional I'd be shooting rockets into space like Elon Musk rig
ht now.
permalink
[ ]leafygreenstuff 3 points 6 hours ago
Oh, well if they said....
permalink
[ ]wlxr 3 points 5 hours ago
Is this implying that they are going to repeatedly kill Steve Irwin?
permalink
[ ]Bulldog65 3 points 2 hours ago
Can I Use my Stingray in public places to intercept communications ?
If the answer is no, then the FBI needs a warrant.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effec
ts, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Wa
rrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, a
nd particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things t
o be seized.
This can only be changed by super majority votes in Congress and the States, not
treasonous opinions of mouthpiece lawyers in Department of Justice. This is why
prosecutions of torture memo writers is important. If they want to try and make
up laws they need to be held accountable under the law.
permalink
[ ]Do_Em_Till_They_Derp 13 points 12 hours ago
I don't think that is a good idea considering what happened to Steve Irwin.
permalink
[ ]Smgth 1 point 4 hours ago
I can't believe how far down I had to scroll to find this joke. I was worried I'
d have to make it myself. This thread is WAY too serious for my taste...
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]go1dfish 10 points 10 hours ago
This is what happens when you give a group of people authority over all else.
They use that authority to extort funds from you to pay for your own oppression.
But reddit still cheers it on. It seems to some; the concepts of roads or compas
sion cannot exist without specially anointed jack boot thugs.
permalink
[ ]Arael15th 3 points 6 hours ago
Do you see anyone in this post cheering this on? Moreover is this your first tim
e here?
permalinkparent
[ ]Flight_MH370 2 points 9 hours ago
Can the cell providers see every time this happens? If so, they could alert peop
le of fake towers or something. Alas, I'm pretty sure all the cell providers are
in bed with the feds already anyway.
permalink
[ ]leftnotracks 1 point 8 hours ago
This is why it s a good thing the FBI are not the people in charge of what is lega
l.

permalink
[ ]iluvmilfs420 3 points 7 hours ago
Ohh cool more of my taxes wasted on stupid shit...
permalink
[ ]fuzzycuffs 3 points 7 hours ago
Then I can do the same thing with wifi and not be charged with hacking, right?
permalink
[ ]endprism 2 points 7 hours ago
Use of Stringray in America: https://www.aclu.org/maps/stingray-tracking-devices
-whos-got-them
http://rt.com/usa/215735-sandiego-police-phone-tracking/
http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/First-Amendment-Coalition-Files-Lawsuit-Ab
out-Stingray-Surveillance--286092741.html
http://www.miaminewtimes.com/2012-02-16/news/cell-phone-tracking-miami-cops-know
-where-you-are/
http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/Fort-Worth-Cellphone-Tracking-Rings-Controversy
-140796693.html
http://www.wgrz.com/story/news/investigations/2014/02/13/are-local-police-spying
-on-your-cell-phone/5462273/
Tick tock...
permalink
[ ]johnnybiggs15 2 points 7 hours ago
didnt know they had that type of power
permalink
[ ]jwyche008 2 points 6 hours ago
They would fucking say that wouldn't they? The thing is it isn't supposed to be
their damn decision to make!
permalink
[ ]ICEClownfishWok 1 point 6 hours ago
Did the US government learn nothing from Nazi Germany? I honestly won't be surpr
ised if WWIII occurs when the rest of the world gets tired of our governments bu
llshit
permalink
[ ]frankenstilskin 3 points 6 hours ago
America, for the corporations by the corporations
permalink
[ ]Elephant_rhino_tiger 3 points 5 hours ago
It sounds like a 6 year old coming up with a superhero. "This is FBI man, and he
can fly and like punch through the earth, and he can y'know like intercept cell
traffic if he thinks it's important. But he is weak against himself though, so
like if he punched himself he would die."
permalink
[ ]Banana_blanket 2 points 4 hours ago
Hey who wants to just sit around and let it happen? Oh, everyone? Perfect. Ready
? Go.
permalink
[ ]poopinbutt2014 3 points 4 hours ago
Ah yes, the cops deciding what laws they are and aren't subject to.
permalink
[ ]burnerthrown 2 points 2 hours ago
Has anyone else notied a pattern of more and more laws that protect enforcement
operations from civilians, and fewer nd fewer laws protecting civilians from enf
orcement?
permalink
[ ]siquisiudices 2 points 2 hours ago
Increasingly I am astonished by the state of democracy in the developed western
countries. What has happened and how? I realise that there have always been infr
ingements of liberties by the state - always. But it seems to me that what has c
hanged is the blatent nature of the compromise of democratic norms. I'm not a hi
storian but my impression is that the origins of our current situation lie in tw

o iconic regimes in the UK and US - Reagan and Thatcher (and those that followed
) - and in the fall of the soviet regimes.
The economic philosophy that Reagan and Thatcher promoted reduced liberty to pro
perty rights while at the same time it condemned (rightly) the soviet regimes fo
r their lack of respect for democratic norms. The appeal of this economic ideolo
gy to capital, to the corporations, was obvious especially as during the 1970s t
here had been intermittent but recurring periods when profitability had fallen.
In the context of declining profitability, a roll back of the state and public e
xpenditure was a quick win.
For the rest of society, the implication that growth in personal, individual wea
lth was being held back by public spending and that the welfare state eroded ind
ividual responsibility also won the day. A key element in this process was the d
efeat and denigration of trade unionism: Thatcher going so far as to suggest tha
t trade unions (in the person of the National Union of Miners) were dangerous tr
aitors. People bought into the arguments for radical individualism ("there is no
such thing as society") because, in part, the concrete experience of collectivi
sm in trade unions declined in the face a massive anti-trade union assault.
The fall of the corrupt and totalitarian soviet regimes underpinned this all by
giving concrete expression to the notion that there is no alternative.
Economically the result has been massive widening of the discrepancy in wealth i
n many western countries and increased immiseration of labour across the world a
nd no force to counterbalance the power of the corporations and the state that t
hey (quite naturally) control. The state is the central committee of capital.
In all of this, the oft misnamed "libertarian" tendencies were accompanied by an
increasingly authoritarian and intrusive state apparatus which was promoted and
defended around quite classical nationalist ideas but recast often as the defen
se of western democracy against various external enemies.
And so, little by little, we have allowed our civil liberties to be chipped away
. Even the radical libertarians have been sidelined and fooled into irrelevant s
truggles around gun control in the US. Really, if an armed citizenry were the gu
arantee of liberty then one wold have hoped it would have done a better job. But
overall anti-welfare, anti-European and anti-immigrant rhetoric in the UK and,
for example, religious manipulation of public discourse in the US have allowed t
he authoritarian, pro-corporate state to gradually encroach on political and per
sonal freedoms. And here we are.
We can't say we didn't know - we were warned but the ruling class managed to def
ame the messengers and in other ways render us impotent.
One can only hope that we wake up in time and that our new disdain for collectiv
ism is overcome by the necessity of taking collective action.
permalink
[ ]DinglebellRock [score hidden] 49 minutes ago
You have a right to privacy according to the Constitution. Except for maybe your
cell phone calls. Or email. Or handwritten or typed letters. Or what you read f
rom the library and Amazon. Or maybe your colon and lower intestine if you are i
n New Mexico. What a fucked up nation this has become...
permalink
[ ]nstalker91 [score hidden] 38 minutes ago
Oh sure, when they do it, it's "protecting" and "morally right", but when I do i
t, it's a "federal crime" and "the FCC watches me"
permalink
[ ]The_Media_Collector 3 points 9 hours ago
This is why my phone has an app to continually report IMSI changes to me. I swit
ch one tower to another, I get a warning.
permalink
[ ]Redd575 1 point 7 hours ago
How is that helpful? Not being an ass, just curious. Seems if a Stingray can spo
of a tower then the app does little unless you are standing absolutely still.
permalinkparent
[ ]The_Media_Collector 3 points 7 hours ago
it's my understanding that Stingray "towers" do not encrypt traffic. anytime I a

m connected to an unencrypted "tower" the IMSI detector goes red and lets me kno
w.
permalinkparent
[ ]Redd575 1 point 6 hours ago
Wow. Whomever figured that out was clever.
permalinkparent
[ ]ExReverie93 1 point 7 hours ago
Which app? And would a normal person (not meaning you're not normal. You know wh
at I mean.) be able to use it?
permalinkparent
[ ]The_Media_Collector 1 point 7 hours ago
Requires Root. It's just caeld "Adnroid IMSI-Catchter"
permalinkparent
[ ]egalroc 1 point 6 hours ago
Makes a person want to be a criminal or spy just for the fun of it.
permalinkparent
[ ]Effo 3 points 7 hours ago
Goodbye America the Great, hello police state. :-[
permalink
[ ]Casemods 2 points 7 hours ago
Another reason why I don't have a cell phone.
permalink
[ ]GiveMe_TreeFiddy 3 points 7 hours ago
Things libertarians have been screaming about and offering solutions to for 500$
, Alex...
permalink
[ ]ilovesellinblow 1 point 9 hours ago
police and marshals have been running these for years.
permalink
[ ]bbelt16ag 1 point 8 hours ago
so FBI lets see what the Supreme court has to say to that. I am sure once they r
ule on this you will be going home with your tails between your legs.
permalink
[ ]Banana_blanket 1 point 4 hours ago
Do you people really have that much faith in our Supreme Court? Really?
permalinkparent
[ ]bbelt16ag 1 point 3 hours ago
gotta have some faith, other wise its just anarchy, or revolution. I am not read
y to give up quite yet.
permalinkparent
[ ]bonyponyride 1 point 8 hours ago
If digital communication in a public (and private) space is fair game, there's n
othing to stop an FBI tech specialist from stealing things like knowledge that w
ould be considered insider trading. There's an extreme potential for abuse.
permalink
[ ]jkeyser14 2 points 7 hours ago
If was fair game then hacking into wireless signals by private citizens wouldn't
be illegal.
permalinkparent
[ ]egalroc 1 point 6 hours ago
Just waiting for Anonymous to set up shop in a public park and hack into police
communications then dispatch them to bogus locations throughout the city. If any
thing goes wrong, they could always blame North Korea.
permalinkparent
[ ]coalbeeashi 1 point 3 hours ago
Aren't government agencies encrypting their digital communication - thus exhibit
ing an expectation of privacy?
I'm not sure what steps the "reasonable person" is taking to exhibit an expectat
ion of privacy over their data, tbh.
permalinkparent

[ ]hmmwhatsthisdo 1 point 8 hours ago


If you used RedPhone, Whisperpush/TextSecure, and a VPN, this wouldn't be of con
cern to you, right?
permalink
[ ]LucifersCounselNZ 1 point 7 hours ago
Wrong.
In other cases, the IMSI or equivalent identifier of a target is not known to th
e StingRay operator and the goal of the surveillance operation is to identify on
e or more cellular devices being used in a known area.[16] For example, if visua
l surveillance is being conducted on a group of protestors,[17] a StingRay can b
e used to download the IMSI or equivalent identifier from each phone within the
protest area. After identifying the phones, locating and tracking operations can
be conducted, and service providers can be forced to turn over account informat
ion identifying the phone users.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stingray_phone_tracker#Extracting_Data_From_Interna
l_Storage
Before any of that shit you're talking about comes into play, the IMSI number is
used when establishing the connection. It is uniquely identifying. With your IM
SI number and a court order (or cooperative telco) they will know who you are an
d who you were communicating with.
Then they can use that information to punish you for participating in legal prot
ests, associating with the wrong people, or simply because some Fed didn't like
the look of you.
permalinkparent
[ ]hmmwhatsthisdo 1 point 6 hours ago
So, the only way is to modify your IMEI (which is questionably legal) and use a
prepaid SIM?
permalinkparent
[ ]facepalmdude 1 point 5 hours ago
The IMSI part makes sense, but by using the mentioned tools authorities are very
unlikely to find out who you communicated with, or what the content was. All th
ey know is that you're the end point of an encrypted data connection.
permalinkparent
[ ]coalbeeashi 1 point 3 hours ago
I would assume that a court would view this as an individual exhibiting an expec
tation of privacy over their data.
permalinkparent
[ ]mambotangohandala 1 point 7 hours ago
Law?
We don't need no stinkin' law...
permalink
[ ]smilesbot 1 point 7 hours ago
You've just used a double negative! :P
permalinkparent
[ ]mambotangohandala 1 point 7 hours ago
no i did not, never would i do such a thing, nope, i don't think i ever did...
Ever see the movie 'blazing saddles'? Context kid, context
permalinkparent
[ ]smilesbot 1 point 7 hours ago
yup yup yup!
permalinkparent
[ ]mambotangohandala 1 point 7 hours ago
oh no a triple positive,what a stupendous faux pas!
permalinkparent
[ ]smilesbot 1 point 7 hours ago
yup yup yup!
permalinkparent
[ ]mambotangohandala 1 point 7 hours ago
Did mom give you too many sodas tonight?
permalinkparent

[ ]mambotangohandala 1 point 7 hours ago


Now where are those kiddy downers?
permalinkparent
[ ]mambotangohandala 1 point 7 hours ago
Remember tomorrow is a school day
permalinkparent
[ ]BigTex8900 1 point 7 hours ago
The Federal Bureau of Investigation is taking the position that court warrants a
re not required when deploying cell-site simulators in public places.
Wait so can I take the position that it's not actually illegal to suck dick for
money in public places?
permalink
[ ]AssOrca 1 point 6 hours ago
Well thank god there not doing it in my home!
permalinkparent
[ ]Drunken_Economist 1 point 7 hours ago
The FCC says they are needed, FWIW
permalink
[ ]FadingEchoes11 0 points 6 hours ago
100% true, power to the people
You should learn about and try to understand firearms more, they are just tools
after all.
permalink
[ ]winstrol 1 point 6 hours ago
Can i use a stingray? Al stick to my snoopsnitch.
permalink
[ ]fatscat84 2 points 6 hours ago
Big fucking surprise, 4th amendment=toilet paper anymore. The rights of the citi
zens arent even considered anymore since we dont have lobbyists. Maybe ill start
a kickstarter campaign to make a lobbyist group to give americans a voice in d.
c.
permalink
[ ]urbn 2 points 6 hours ago
The Obama Administration has repeatedly maintained that the public has no privac
y in public places.
And yet the excuse always used when someone records a police officer breaking th
e law and is arrested, detained and has his property stolen is that it violates
their privacy.
permalink
[ ]Vigilias 1 point 6 hours ago
If it's stealing signals being send from private residences it sure should fucki
ng be wtf.
permalink
[ ]2013palmtreepam 1 point 6 hours ago
Because stingrays automatically stop working at private property lines? Don't re
call the part of the 4th Amendment that exempts the requirement for probable cau
se and a search warrant when one happens to be in a public place.
permalink
[ ]makingupdumbnames 2 points 6 hours ago
I don't think it would be too hard to develop a stingray jammer, something that
just floods their equipment with a bunch of useless/fake cell phone numbers...I'
m in favor of a more strategic response to these types of infringements of our r
ights. We actually have a right and responsibility to fight tyranny...
permalink
[ ]ghotiaroma 1 point 3 hours ago
It's possible, but you wouldn't know where and when to use it. And it would be d
etectable you are using a jammer and anyone using one would find themselves fill
ed with SWAT bullets in no time.
permalinkparent
[ ]ononewheel 1 point 2 hours ago

Cant you rent bot net time and do this?


permalinkparent
[ ]psilontech 1 point 5 hours ago
I think that's for the courts to decide, FBI.
permalink
[ ]coalbeeashi 1 point 4 hours ago
...the only way the courts could decide is if it were practiced and a lawsuit wa
s brought against those practices.
Of course the FBI is going to finagle ways to flirt with obscure, outdated laws
for the purpose of investigating, thus practice it. Of course some group or orga
nization is going to take issue with it, thus taking it to court.
permalinkparent
[ ]cynoclast 2 points 5 hours ago
And the 4th Amendment says the FBI is wrong. And to the idea that subsequent law
s or that prededence says otherwise, I say that lawyers who make those interpret
ations were paid to do so by people with a vested interest in saying otherwise.
The constitution and amendments were intended to be read and interpreted by ever
yone, not just lawyers and judges so it matters not at all what lawyers and judg
es say.
permalink
[ ]coalbeeashi 1 point 5 hours ago
The constitution and amendments were intended to be read and interpreted by ever
yone
Uhh...interpreted by everyone? Do you know how fucked up that would be? There's
a reason for the judicial branch.
permalinkparent
[ ]cynoclast 2 points 4 hours ago
More fucked up than corporations as people? The 4th Amendment being ignored by t
he DHS, Homeland Security, and the NSA? More fucked up than than all the ridicul
ous, unconstitutional restrictions on cosmetic features of firearms that all vio
late the 2nd amendment? More fucked up than justices appointed by war criminals
refusing to recuse themselves where they have a clear conflict of interest?
The judicial branch is staffed by people, just as fallible as the rest of us. Th
e judicial branch was nly ever an attempt to reign in the other two. It was alwa
ys intended that it was the right of the people to alter or abolish the governme
nt if it gets out of hand and it has.
permalinkparent
[ ]coalbeeashi 1 point 4 hours ago
I would still rather have the fate of laws be in the hands of individuals who sp
ecifically studied the very nature of their professional practice than leave it
up to a mass of people with little-to-no understanding of the law, outside of wh
at is force-fed to them by media (comparable to your assertion of less-than-idea
l practices by lawyer/judges)
I fully agree that laws should be written in ways that the public can understand
and interpret (however, you're never going to reach a consensus on laws written
200+ years ago). And I believe that, reading most supreme court decisions, the
justices advocate for specifics in laws and understand that outdated or vague la
ws is a main reason cases are brought before them. Laws aren't concrete or stati
c. It's a court of public opinion.
permalinkparent
[ ]cynoclast 1 point 4 hours ago
I would still rather have the fate of laws be in the hands of individuals who sp
ecifically studied the very nature of their professional practice than leave it
up to a mass of people with little-to-no understanding of the law, outside of wh
at is force-fed to them by media (comparable to your assertion of less-than-idea
l practices by lawyer/judges)
I think there's balance between the two. It's similar to the balance between IT
and the user. While the IT guy is more knowledgeable about the field than most o
f the users he's supposed to facilitate, he often forgets that his purpose is to
facilitate, not to rule, and what the users are doing is what keeps the lights

on. People in congress and the senate are mislabelled when called 'lawmakers' th
eir job is representative of their constituency. And lawyers face a conflict of
interest between simplifying the law and representing people fairly and seeing a
fter their own welfare and ensuring their own job security. Simple, clear, and u
nambiguous laws have little value to the professional attorney at law. But the p
eople at large have no interest, and in fact a reason to despise laws they don't
understand, especially ones decided by decades old case law they know nothing a
bout. But for too long the balance has been swinging in favor of the lawyer seek
ing payment for services from the rich instead of the poor seeking freedom from
those with the resources to hire teams of lawyers for years to drain them of res
ources. The day a rich man could sue an innocent poor man under false pretenses
and crush him is the day the justice department ceased to function as intended.
I fully agree that laws should be written in ways that the public can understand
and interpret (however, you're never going to reach a consensus on laws written
200+ years ago). And I believe that, reading most supreme court decisions, the
justices advocate for specifics in laws and understand that outdated or vague la
ws is a main reason cases are brought before them. Laws aren't concrete or stati
c. It's a court of public opinion.
Lawyers like to pretend that they are concrete or static. Just imagine the phras
e "settled case law" coming out of their mouths and you need go no further. It's
like they forget that eventually given the dynamic equilibrium of the poor vs.
the rich that sometimes words written on paper in a dusty library somewhere mean
absolutely nothing when the pitchforks and guillotines come out, the old laws t
hrown out, and new ones written even more strongly against tyrants. You're right
, sometimes, it's a court of public opinion. But sometimes the court is brutal,
but not unjustly so:
There were two Reigns of Terror, if we would but remember it and consider it; the
one wrought murder in hot passion, the other in heartless cold blood; the one la
sted mere months, the other had lasted a thousand years; the one inflicted death
upon ten thousand persons, the other upon a hundred millions; but our shudders
are all for the horrors of the minor Terror, the momentary Terror, so to speak; wh
ereas, what is the horror of swift death by the axe, compared with lifelong deat
h from hunger, cold, insult, cruelty, and heart-break? What is swift death by li
ghtning compared with death by slow fire at the stake? A city cemetery could con
tain the coffins filled by that brief Terror which we have all been so diligentl
y taught to shiver at and mourn over; but all France could hardly contain the co
ffins filled by that older and real Terror that unspeakably bitter and awful Terro
r which none of us has been taught to see in its vastness or pity as it deserves
.
permalinkparent
[ ]DongleNocker 2 points 5 hours ago
Don't you wish government organizations would get permission from congress prior
to assuming they have the authority?
permalink
[ ]Euracil 1 point 5 hours ago
Whoops! Someone just happened to spill wine all over the Bill of Rights! Well, a
t least the Second Amendment survived!
permalink
[ ]ripvannwinkler 1 point 5 hours ago
What is the practical operational radius of one of these things?
If my place of business or residence falls in this radius of an operating device
, is my phone subject to interception by the device?
If so, you require a warrant. Period. No equivocation.
permalink
[ ]bittopia 1 point 5 hours ago
What is going to be interesting is when systems and encryptions becomes so resil
ient and powerful that nothing can be spied on AT ALL. What will they do then?
permalink
[ ]johnnybullet 1 point 5 hours ago
I thought only God was listening to me... This changes everything!

permalink
[ ]TronicTonic 2 points 5 hours ago
Thank god the FBI is in charge of the judicial branch and gets to decide what is
right vs wrong.
permalink
[ ]Vinven 1 point 5 hours ago
They can say whatever they want, it doesn't make it legal.
permalink
[ ]coffeethulhu 2 points 5 hours ago
Under this theory anybody could buy one of these devices and use it in "public s
paces" without fear of falling foul of the law....Who wants to start a kickstart
er campaign to buy one?
permalink
[ ]redditezmode 1 point 5 hours ago
Based on what, exactly? Why would they think search warrants aren't necessary?
permalink
[ ]Fucksfuturefatchicks 1 point 4 hours ago
If it stops me from downloading porn, it's a dead giveaway. If it doesn't, thank
s for the government funded and sanctioned porn.
permalink
[ ]egalroc 1 point 4 hours ago
I wonder if the FBI can upload unsanctioned porn to your computer using a stingr
ay? Interesting thought isn't it?
permalinkparent
[ ]winsomecowboy 1 point 4 hours ago
So my clandestine FBI staff list shouldn't be an issue.
permalink
[ ]Heisenpurrrrg 1 point 4 hours ago
Those guys can fuck right off, eh?
permalink
[ ]cerealcable 1 point 4 hours ago
Every time an invasion of our rights & privacy especially related to our establi
shed forms of communications happens it just terrifies me. Not because our gover
nment is throwing wind to established laws but because of what the future could
bring.
The reason why most of us are upset today over this is because we have an expect
ation of privacy when we pick up our cell phones. We expect our text messages, p
hone calls and data to be private thus protected by law requiring a warrant to "
tap" it only for Law Enforcement. Telecoms (wired, wireless, voip) will only com
ply to requests when required by law, but when it comes to the public air waves
using technology to just listen in we're starting a terrible precedent.
Essentially what I'm concerned about is that eventually it'll be so commonly acc
epted that these communications are not private (after all the government can sn
oop in on those conversations, and everyone already expects it) and thus we no l
onger have the expectation of privacy and thus no warrant is actually acquired.
The terrifying process is how it all started, with the government over stepping
their legal abilities with little to no repercussions.
Now that I'm reading that paragraph again, I honestly wouldn't be surprised if t
hat exact argument is/was/will be used in a secret court of which none of us wil
l be able to hold accountable.
It's scary to see what the future will hold for privacy related to technology. O
ur government is doing anything and everything they want and if people aren't sc
ared they need to get some tinfoil and make some hats because they're going to n
eed them.
Obligatory point: As the government snoops more and more, technology will just e
ncrypt more and more making it nearly pointless for the snooping, but it won't c
hange the expectation of privacy after say a decade of common knowledge that the
se communications are not private. Then Law Enforcement Agencies will just subpo
ena records instead of following due process of getting a warrant.
tl;dr It's a very slippery slope and I'm just watching us slowly sliding further

and further into the trap. :-(


permalink
[ ]coalbeeashi 1 point 4 hours ago
Honest question - in the eyes of laws, is our view on "expectation of privacy" i
gnorant or misguided? When I send a text - even though I don't think about it I gave permission to Apple, AT&T, my friend, their carrier, their phone, and pro
bably countless others that I don't even realize. When I download an app I give
them all sorts of permissions to access my information.
Also, what's stopping the government from creating an app, let's say some crazed
game like Trivia Crack, hide a bunch of permissions that no one looks at and do
it that way. They could have access to my photos, access to my microphone, acce
ss to my location, etc. (obviously I understand that you can retract most of tho
se permissions, but I doubt many people do)
So, I guess my question is, using multiple third parties, do I really have the r
ight to expect complete privacy?
permalinkparent
[ ]Rockerofboats 2 points 4 hours ago
I do what I wants to.
permalink
[ ]Gymshortsboner55 2 points 4 hours ago
I'm not trying to sound like the uncle that's always bitchin' at family reunions
but man is this country going down the shitter. I'm almost ashamed to live here
anymore.
permalink
[ ]kazuri85 2 points 4 hours ago
The government has no right to make your property do something you do not want i
t to do.
permalink
[ ]SpacemanLurker 2 points 3 hours ago
Crikey! Australian accent
Too soon?
permalink
[ ]Undisclosed-dopeness 1 point 3 hours ago
Really wish this was about actual stingrays
permalink
[ ]k-h 1 point 3 hours ago
Is that the "stingrays" that don't exist?
Of course they don't need a warrant on equipment that doesn't exist.
permalink
[ ]PhorTwenny 2 points 3 hours ago
if it picks up all cells text/call/info how do they know your not inside a house
or anyother private area? Either way this is disgusting!
permalink
[ ]MarxIzalias 2 points 3 hours ago
The more of these that get posted, the harder I laugh at America's freedoms.
You pretty much have the same as everybody else.
It seems as though the constitution is like bog roll to your law enforcement. Co
vered in meaningless shit that doesn't even stick to them.
What a joke.
The FBI stating that 'stingrays' don't apply to privacy laws because you're in a
public place makes no sense, otherwise you could walk around butt naked and arg
ue that "According to the FBI, personal privacy is not required in public".
Of course, they could say, what any deceitful peice of trash could say. "If you
weren't doing anything illegal then you have nothing to worry about."
Unless you were talking to you solicitor about a patent. In which case it would
be worthless the moment a third party heard about the invention.
Talking to your doctor about a condition that could prejudice a group against yo
u.
Talking to a solicitor about the details of a case.
Talking to fellow jurors over the phone about a details of a case, that's always

good to be spied on.


Talk about family history and possible ties you might have to foreign nations, w
hich could put you on a watch list.
Give personal details to bankers about foreign business accounts which have diff
erent protection laws.
Discuss plans you may have that they could interfere with.
Or just miscellaneous emails to and from your employer that could be damaging to
the companies reputation if published and could be used against them as leverag
e with a false flag operation LOOKING AT YOU SONY!
This isn't even a comprehensive list of things that you could do, but hey, it's
America, the land where freedom is a lie and the constitution is apparently wort
h less and less with each new government. XFD
permalink
[ ]NightOfTheLivingHam 1 point 3 hours ago
while we're declaring bullshit, I declare I'm owed a million dollars.
permalink
[ ]ZedOud 1 point 3 hours ago
Most warrant-less law enforcement surveillance techniques are legal because they
can be performed by members of the public, in public. (ex. tailing)
So can we also legally operate a stingray?
Yes we can!
permalink
[ ]Wulfgar_RIP 1 point 3 hours ago
FBI protecting freedoms and constitution from terrorists
permalink
[ ]CantHugEveryCat 2 points 3 hours ago
I'm surprised the FBI still feel they have to justify their actions.
permalink
[ ]bazingabrain 0 points 3 hours ago
Here I am thinking the FBI is going to be throwing real stingrays around without
a search warrant. Can't have that
permalink
[ ]tobsn 1 point 3 hours ago
and whoever said that should be immediately terminated.
permalink
[ ]joshladd 1 point 3 hours ago
Didn't the supreme court just say that searching cell phones requires a warrant?
Is this different than searching cell phones? I might be uninformed but it seem
s like a blatant disregard for court rulings.
permalink
[ ]birdington1 1 point 3 hours ago
Can anybody explain what a 'stingray' is?
permalink
[ ]one_love_silvia 1 point 2 hours ago
the article explains it in literally the first paragraph.
permalinkparent
[ ]IllegalOperator 0 points 2 hours ago
Yeah right, dropping the case rather than reveal their methods says otherwise. I
f there weren't doing anything wrong they would have nothing to hide.
permalink
[ ]HauntedBeepers 1 point 2 hours ago
FBI says FBI can do what it wants
permalink
[ ]Fig1024 1 point 2 hours ago
does that mean I, as private citizen, can also use them? After all, there are no
laws against it
permalink
[ ]Monkeibusiness 1 point 2 hours ago
"FBI - out if control since 2001" -Simpsons
permalink

[ ]skztr 1 point 2 hours ago


good test for whether or not you need a warrant:
If any random person off the street did it, would that be legal? If not, you nee
d a fucking warrant.
permalink
[ ]Rusky82 1 point 2 hours ago
Land of the free eh......
permalink
[ ]WECGEWHYAAIORTNU 1 point 2 hours ago
So in some states its "wiretapping" to record with a microphone a conversation b
etween two people happening at a table, but pretending to be a cell tower is a-o
k?
permalink
[ ]Amanoo 1 point 2 hours ago
"concerned about whether the FBI and other law enforcement agencies have adequat
ely considered the privacy interests" of Americans
Privacy interests of Americans? Is that supposed to still be a thing? I thought
that privacy interests were considered something for terrorists in the US, by no
w.
permalink
[ ]raviddadford 1 point 2 hours ago
Stingray got Steve Irwin
permalink
[ ]Homarus_Americanus 1 point 2 hours ago
It's all good 'cause I can by me all guns I want.
permalink
[ ]anshu1234 0 points 2 hours ago
This is non-news if you are not a drug-peddler. Next please.
permalink
[ ]bubbafat1155 1 point 2 hours ago
It's over. "They" have won. The only hope now is for individuals, society is los
t. Get off the grid, or join the sheep. http://imgur.com/W7CdURh
permalink
[ ]Targun 1 point 2 hours ago
And how are they going to filter out cellphones of all the people who live next
to public places where stingray is located?
permalink
[ ]riderer 1 point 2 hours ago
So can i do the same in public place? just stingray everyone?
permalink
[ ]Neker 1 point 1 hour ago
There are blueprints and tutorials out there that put "stingrays" within reach o
f an hobbyist. Law-breaking hobbyist, that is, but still : mobile phones essenti
aly broadcast your conversations.
permalink
[ ]mindwandering 1 point 1 hour ago
The flying DRT box.
permalink
[ ]SilenceGivesConsent [score hidden] 48 minutes ago
In other words, FBI says it does not need search warrants to warrant a search.
permalink
[ ]Formally_Nightman [score hidden] 46 minutes ago
FBI: "Senator we have been monitoring your calls and your exact geographical loc
ation for years ... You shouldn't find that unconstitutional or the public and y
our wife will learn how unconstitutional you've been"
permalink
[ ]ActuallyNotSparticus [score hidden] 40 minutes ago
Fuck this shit. Stingrays killed the crocodile hunter. Are we ready for the gove
rnment to use these stingrays?
permalink

[ ]Rayhueston [score hidden] 38 minutes ago


The article says the Obama administration consistently maintains that people hav
e no privacy in public. Is that true or is that hyperbole?
If I'm walking down the street, do I have the right to keep the contents of my w
allet private? My blood type? My thoughts?
If I have no privacy with regard to these and many other sensitive things, who d
oes have the right to them?
permalink
[ ]swollennode [score hidden] 37 minutes ago
People don't have privacy in public places..hmmm, I think that people are entitl
ed to privacy if something private belongs to them. Sure, people's faces aren't
private when they're in public places. But people's phone calls and texts should
be.
permalink
[ ]pomod [score hidden] 18 minutes ago
Well if the FBI says they are not needed...
Seriously, this should be a court decision not a cop one. Cops, even a fancy cop
s like the FBI, should not make the laws just enforce them.
permalink
[ ]CJ59 [score hidden] 18 minutes ago
In other news, the FBI says, "You know what, screw it. There are no more laws. W
e'll do whatever the hell we want. Not like you're going to do anything about it
."
permalink
[ ]gkiltz [score hidden] 15 minutes ago
Just because the FBI says it, that does not mean it's true!
I don't envy the poor schmuck who has to stan in front of the Supreme Court and
argue that!!
permalink
load more comments (48 replies)
about
blog
about
team
source code
advertise
jobs
help
wiki
FAQ
reddiquette
rules
contact us
tools
mobile
firefox extension
chrome extension
buttons
widget
<3
reddit gold
store
redditgifts
reddit AMA app
reddit.tv
radio reddit
Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy
. 2015 reddit inc. All rights reserved.
REDDIT and the ALIEN Logo are registered trademarks of reddit inc.

p jump to content
MY SUBREDDITS
FRONT-ALL-RANDOM | PHOTOSHOPBATTLES-HISTORY-GIFS-FOOD-PHILOSOPHY-TELEVISION-WORL
DNEWS-SHOWERTHOUGHTS-LIFEPROTIPS-ART-SPACE-NOTTHEONION-DOCUMENTARIES-NOSLEEP-GAM
ING-GADGETS-EARTHPORN-ASKREDDIT-FUNNY-MOVIES-DIY-FUTUROLOGY-FITNESS-BOOKS-LISTEN
TOTHIS-INTERNETISBEAUTIFUL-MUSIC-EXPLAINLIKEIMFIVE-UPLIFTINGNEWS-SPORTS-PICS-TOD
AYILEARNED-PERSONALFINANCE-DATAISBEAUTIFUL-IAMA-OLDSCHOOLCOOL-EUROPE-CREEPY-TWOX
CHROMOSOMES-AWW-NEWS-WRITINGPROMPTS-GETMOTIVATED-VIDEOS-TIFU-ASKSCIENCE-JOKES-MI
LDLYINTERESTING-SCIENCE
MORE
news newscommentsrelatedother discussions (15)
want to join? sign in or create an account in seconds|English
this post was submitted on 05 Jan 2015
3,152 points (95% upvoted)
shortlink:
remember mereset passwordlogin
news
unsubscribe4,562,294 readers
2,631 users here now
/r/inthenews
/r/worldnews
new submissions
new comments
Post analysis/opinion articles to /r/inthenews
Want to talk?
Chat with us on IRC
Follow @rslashnews on Twitter
See a post that violates the rules below? Had your post stuck in the spam filter
? Have a question about policy? Just want to give feedback? Send the mod team a
message.
Please post news items only, with the exception of meta posts about /r/news itse
lf. Self-posts aggregating news data and "independent reporting" each count as n
ews, but are not an excuse to editorialize.
Your post will likely be removed if it:
is not news (or a meta post).
is an opinion/analysis or advocacy piece.
primarily concerns politics.
has a title not taken from the article.
has a pay wall or steals content.
covers an already-submitted story.
violates reddit's site-wide rules, especially regarding personal info.
Your comment will likely be removed if it:
is racist, sexist, vitriolic, or overly crude.
is unnecessarily rude or provocative.
is a cheap and distracting joke or meme.
is responding to spam.
violates reddit's site-wide rules.
Extreme or repeat offenders will be banned.
Expanded Rules
If your post doesn't fit, consider finding an appropriate news article on that s
tory to submit instead, or submitting yours to lower moderation subreddits:
/r/inthenews - all news-related content
/r/AnythingGoesNews - unrestricted news
/r/truereddit - insightful articles
/r/self - any self-post
/r/misc, /r/redditdotcom - anything
or other news subreddits:
/r/worldnews - from outside the USA only
/r/SyrianCivilWar - about the conflict in Syria

/r/MidEastRegionalWar - on MidEast conflict /r/UpliftingNews - uplifting


/r/mediaquotes - the things they say
or subreddits for other topics:
/r/FoodForThought - discussion-worthy long form articles about interesting subje
cts
/r/politics - for shouting about politics
/r/moderatepolitics - less shouting
/r/politicaldiscussion - even less shouting
/r/geopolitics - intl. politics and geography
/r/entertainment - Justin Bieber updates, etc.
/r/europe - news from Europe
or check out the 200 most active subreddits, categorized by content and the full
list of subreddits by subscribers.
Recommendations:
/r/redactedcharts
/r/patriots
/r/personalfinance
/r/restorethefourth
reddit is fun for Android and its subreddit /r/redditisfun
submit analysis/opinion article
submit news article
submit something else
submit analysis/opinion article
a community for 6 years
message the moderators
moderators
douglasmacarthur
KyldeThe Janitor
AyeMatey
CandyManCan
Elderthedog
LuckyBdx4
NickWasHere09
ani625
pomosexuality
IKingJeremy
...and 1 more
3152
FBI says search warrants not needed to use stingrays in public places (arstechnica
.com)
submitted 13 hours ago by doctorshady
731 commentsshare
top 500 comments
sorted by: best
[ ]peaceshark 654 points 11 hours ago
If only there were some branch of government that would keep the FBI in check, o
ne that judged people and organizations supremely...
permalink
[ ]misogichan 641 points 8 hours ago
Unfortunately the Catholic church has its hands full dealing with its own intern
al reforms and recasting its vision and mission.
permalinkparent
[ ]wutshappening 93 points 7 hours ago
And looking at cat photos that's why they're Cat-holic. Alco-holics are addicted
to alcohol and catholics well you get the idea.
permalinkparent
[ ]TuffLuffJimmy 142 points 6 hours ago
Omg dad you're embarrassing me in front of my friends
permalinkparent
[ ]okmkz 27 points 4 hours ago

We ain't your friends, bruh


permalinkparent
[ ]Corruptionss 4 points 2 hours ago
We ain't your bruh, friends
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
load more comments (2 replies)
[ ]ROLLINGtemple 9 points 5 hours ago
What's their Dogma?
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
load more comments (9 replies)
[ ]hershmire 73 points 7 hours ago
The courts gave up about ten years ago.
permalinkparent
[ ]endprism 50 points 7 hours ago
The courts are pwned by the surveillance state.
permalinkparent
[ ]sushisection 41 points 6 hours ago
This is what I'm afraid of. Nsa is collecting data from all citizens including p
oliticians and supreme court judges.
permalinkparent
[ ]dutchguilder2 19 points 5 hours ago
Whistleblower confirms: http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=d6m1XbWOfVk
permalinkparent
[ ]TwitchTV_Subbort 1 point 3 hours ago
D.C. is Hollywood for ugly people. best line ever!!
permalinkparent
[ ]sklite 1 point 1 hour ago
Charles Augustus Magnussen approves
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]CriticalThink 1 point 6 hours ago
Skeletons in the closet are easy to find with intelligence infrastructure.
permalinkparent
[ ]HurricaneSandyHook 1 point 5 hours ago
The 10th circuit a few days ago sided with the government saying the cops use of
doppler radar to see if anyone was inside a house was legal. They did say it is
a troubling tactic that needs further review and just left it at that....
permalinkparent
[ ]-_--___-_--_--___--_ 27 points 6 hours ago
One major problem with judicial review is that there must be a case for the cour
t to review. I guess the other avenue would be to sue the government, but I'm no
t an attorney so I don't know how that would work.
permalinkparent
[ ]downvotesmakemehard 14 points 4 hours ago
I believe the current court has taken the stance that to take up a case someone
has to show they've been harmed in some way.
The police will never say that stingray is the source of the evidence. This woul
d open stingray to be scrutinized. They will use stingray to go after phone comp
any records which they will claim they requested on a hunch or some other bullsh
it excuse.
permalinkparent
[ ]great_gape [score hidden] 29 minutes ago
Anonymous tip.
permalinkparent
load more comments (2 replies)
[ ]dissonance07 8 points 6 hours ago
With is wide a latitude as the current SCOTUS seems to give to individual libert
y, this seems like the one kind of thing that they could actually usefully addre

ss, right?
permalinkparent
[ ]MrBojangles528 1 point 5 hours ago
Scalia and the rest of the SCOTUS is bought and sold just like the rest of our g
overnment. They answer first and foremost to the parties that nominated them as
well as the corporations that own them.
permalinkparent
[ ]psilontech 12 points 5 hours ago
See, I don't get that. You get into the Supreme Court and you're golden. Unless
you are actively breaking the law and can be impeached, you're untouchable. Why
not, you know, do what's best for your country instead of remaining beholden to
the parasites that leveraged you into that position?
permalinkparent
[ ]Ratbasher88 14 points 4 hours ago
Yep, Supreme Court justices have a well established history of turning out way d
ifferent than their supporters thought they'd be. For whatever reason this curre
nt batch of justices seems more comfortable with the security state than their p
redecessors, however that's true for most Americans in general so I suppose it s
houldn't be shocking.
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]MrBojangles528 2 points 4 hours ago
Good question, but you'd have to ask them about it.
permalinkparent
[ ]cynoclast 0 points 3 hours ago
Unless you are actively breaking the law and can be impeached, you're untouchabl
e.
But you can get richer. Or have your personal communications made public.
permalinkparent
[ ]tughdffvdlfhegl 1 point 3 hours ago
Honestly? Because they run in those social circles. They're friends with the peo
ple at the top. They don't actively associate with "regular folk" that much.
They've been ingratiated into the upper echelons of society long before ever rea
ching the supreme court through lifetimes spent at the forefront of the legal pr
ofession. This insulates them from others, and leaves them in an echo chamber of
their peers.
Now, when a case comes up that pits one of their friends, or friends' friends ag
ainst some random angry dude who's only making 50k a year, who do you think they
automatically side with, when the case isn't cut and dried? I'm not even saying
it's conscious, but prejudices come in all kinds and run deep. Tribalism happen
s all the time in subtle ways.
Plus there's Scalia taking paid for hunting trips with people who are directly a
ffected by cases in front of him, all of them getting invited to dinners and fun
ctions of the DC elite, etc.
permalinkparent
[ ]pion3435 1 point 3 hours ago
They do. It's possible to disagree with you without being corrupt.
permalinkparent
[ ]Jagoonder 1 point 2 hours ago
Not in an omnipotent surveillance state, however.
permalinkparent
[ ]DownFromYesBad 1 point 2 hours ago
Money, bribery.
permalinkparent
[ ]neotropic9 1 point 1 hour ago
Because they are selected to be the type of people who think whats "best for the
ir country" is serving the parasites, the corporate oligarchs, and the surveilla
nce state. They support the status quo, and the status quo supports them. It wou
ld be a miracle if someone with real principles was actually brought into the Su
preme Court, let alone enough of them to form a majority.

permalinkparent
[ ]isprobablyatwork 1 point 1 hour ago
This does happen, sometimes. Good examples would be Justices Warren and Stevens.
They played along with the GOP right up until they were put on the Court, then
immediately started voting their actual conscience (or if not their conscience,
then at least not as their political backers wanted).
permalinkparent
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[ ]cynoclast 2 points 3 hours ago
You mean the press?
permalinkparent
[ ]scrapinpeg 3 points 6 hours ago*
Obligatory link to illustrated law.
EDIT: fixed link
permalinkparent
[ ]ducttapejedi 3 points 6 hours ago*
error 404, check the link.
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[+][deleted] 13 hours ago (56 children)
[ ]sunbolts 701 points 12 hours ago
Glad to see the FBI is tearing up the constitution to increase their own powers
and authority. /s
permalink
[ ]dontbullshityourself 325 points 11 hours ago
Glad to see the FBI is tearing up the constitution to increase their own powers
and authority
I wish this was just the FBI. Pretty much everybody in the federal, state and lo
cals are doing this. Have been doing for this quite some time too.
permalinkparent
[ ]sunbolts 136 points 10 hours ago
Precisely, and that's what makes this very frightening. The whole club's in on i
t.
permalinkparent
[ ]radonthetyrant 75 points 7 hours ago
but why.. I realize that these "zomg the terrorists!!!11" is only a PR-lie. What
do they really accomplish with this? Industry espionage? Bribes from the indust
ries which create the espionage hardware? Feeling of total control? Control the
masses so it all stays as conservative and corrupt as possible?
Why would you amass such a criminal energy to break constitutional laws just to
be able to see through everyone's communication?
permalinkparent
[ ]BettyRubbleIsHot 151 points 7 hours ago
Total control.
That way when the state has it, they can really put the boot on our necks. Think
they treat us poorly now? Just wait until they have the infrastructure in place
where they feel confident there are absolutely zero threats to their power. Tha
t's when shit is going to get BAD.
permalinkparent
[ ]b-LE-z_it 106 points 6 hours ago
And that's why, despite being terrified of some gun owners, despite being terrif
ied of mass shootings, I don't think we should ban guns, even combat rifles. It
can happen here, and we should at least make it hurt if and when it happens.
permalinkparent
[ ]7V3N 47 points 6 hours ago
Welcome to the list.
permalinkparent

[ ]M00glemuffins 10 points 5 hours ago


Sign me up too. If they try to pull a fast one on the public I'm not standing fo
r their bullshit.
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]FadingEchoes11 26 points 6 hours ago
*rifle. No "combat" rifles are owned by citizens
permalinkparent
[ ]b-LE-z_it 39 points 6 hours ago
Did I mention I don't know anything about guns? I don't know anything about guns
.
Point is, force is not something only people in power should have.
permalinkparent
[ ]teefour 19 points 6 hours ago
You should go to a shooting range and take a class. You won't be so unnecessaril
y afraid of them after that.
permalinkparent
[ ]Pullo_T 27 points 6 hours ago
He's not afraid of guns. He's afraid of some gun owners. At least, as far as we
know.
permalinkparent
continue this thread
load more comments (3 replies)
[ ]Bootsncatsn4 5 points 5 hours ago
i understand where youre coming from, but what will a bunch of angry townsfolk d
o to a predator drone strike?
permalinkparent
[ ]Oeboues 18 points 4 hours ago
You should ask the angry townsfolk of Iraq and Afghanistan.
Once the US military is done slinking away in shame, I mean.
permalinkparent
continue this thread
[ ]nuesuh 1 point 1 hour ago
Remove them. Predator drones are being operated from the ground, and has to land
after a couple hours to refuel.
permalinkparent
[ ]joe_m107 4 points 6 hours ago
Maybe we should change that. Repeal the NFA.
permalinkparent
load more comments (2 replies)
[ ]4nco1j 0 points 2 hours ago
You don't know much about guns, do you now.
permalinkparent
load more comments (6 replies)
[ ]conquer69 15 points 4 hours ago
You can have all the guns you want. That won't stop them from labeling you a "su
spected school shooter, pedophile or terrorist".
A gun can't protect you from that. A gun can't teach your fellow countryman to t
hink by themselves or see through propaganda.
Good luck destroying a drone, plane or tank with a rifle. Not sure how useful a
gun is against your own trained military with even better guns and more.
People thinking they can start a revolution and win with a handgun don't realize
this isn't the 1700's anymore.
permalinkparent
[ ]JimmyBuffer 14 points 4 hours ago
Better tell the Middle East they haven't had a bout of revolutions then
permalinkparent
load more comments (2 replies)
[ ]b-LE-z_it 7 points 4 hours ago
Didn't say we would win, I said we could at least make it hurt. Assuming, of cou

rse, that the American people themselves aren't the ones willingly handing in th
eir freedoms, which would mean we're all fucked immediately.
permalinkparent
[ ]theothercoolfish 13 points 2 hours ago
Assuming, of course, that the American people themselves aren't the ones willing
ly handing in their freedoms, which would mean we're all fucked immediately.
Err, you guys gave up much of your freedoms long ago. And it isn't just the US politicians everywhere are taking as much as they can get, because it's simply
more power for them. More power, more money, more control. It's not a conspiracy
- this is just how an imperfect system with inadequate controls eventually goes
. We need to start re-examining our systems and look at alternatives that are no
w possible with the internet.
permalinkparent
[ ]vynusmagnus 3 points 2 hours ago
Tell that to the insurgents in Afghanistan. It seems to me that the US military
has been unable to defeat them in over a decade of war, despite its overwhelming
technological superiority. Tanks and fighter jets are nice, but they do little
against a small guerrilla force that can disappear into the woodwork.
permalinkparent
[ ]Qoix 3 points 3 hours ago
I think the main issue with that line of thinking is that the military would gun
down the civilians it pledges to protect. How many people in the armed forces d
o you know? Now, are any of them willing to murder innocent people? Probably not
.
permalinkparent
[ ]ihcn 6 points 2 hours ago
They're not innocent people, they're armed revolutionaries, suspected terrorists
permalinkparent
[ ]chance-- 4 points 3 hours ago
You say that as if there isn't insurmountable evidence to the contrary.
Military coups are thoroughly woven into the fabric of humanity's history.
permalinkparent
[ ]theothercoolfish 1 point 2 hours ago
gun down the civilians it pledges to protect.
Err, they don't pledge to protect civilians. They pledge to protect the constitu
tion. And if they are convinced that these people are attempting to "subvert" th
e constitution, then they are enemies. Nevermind that their leaders have shat al
l over the constitution - soldiers take their orders and follow 'em.
Now, are any of them willing to murder innocent people?
lol.
permalinkparent
load more comments (2 replies)
[ ]eloquentnemesis [score hidden] 33 minutes ago
Welcome to 4th generation warfare. You don't need a better gun, or the ability t
o kill a drone, or anything else like that. You just need A gun and more commitm
ent than the other side.
permalinkparent
[ ]homegrowncountryboy [score hidden] 16 minutes ago*
Good luck with those tanks, planes and drones when the American people stop supp
lying fuel and ammunition. My brother is in the Army and he will tell you about
75%, or more of the military will disband and fight to protect the American peop
le. All you have to do is look at New Orleans during Katrina, when they got the
order to start confiscating guns almost all of them refused, instead it was main
ly police stealing people's weapons.
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]Hermit_ 2 points 5 hours ago
Yeah but if it does happen all people would be doing is creating the chaos one o
f the armed and militarized militias needs to take power. For example, The KKK.
permalinkparent

[ ]b-LE-z_it 1 point 5 hours ago


Hopefully not the KKK.
permalinkparent
[ ]AussieArcher 1 point 3 hours ago
Fuck me there's always one of you. I'm starting to think the gun club spends mor
e time on reddit than anyone.
permalinkparent
[ ]astronautg117 1 point 1 hour ago
What's a combat rifle going to do against a drone?
permalinkparent
[ ]datbino 1 point 1 hour ago
i think thats where 2nd ammendment people miss the mark- you owning a rifle will
do nothing against the government.
you becoming an active participating member in that government can help fix it,
the goal is to make you a kony2012 fb sharer rather than a person who gets to wo
rk and fixes shit
permalinkparent
[ ]mpg1846 1 point 1 hour ago
You think 50 guys with hand guns are going to do anything to anyone? Gun laws ar
e a joke.
permalinkparent
[ ]Actionbuilding 1 point 1 hour ago
The founders of the United States of America WANTED the citizens to rise up and
overthrow the government if it approached the levels of corruption it is current
ly working toward.
permalinkparent
load more comments (11 replies)
[ ]nuesuh 1 point 1 hour ago
Ever seen "Das Leben der Anderen"? Imagine this, just with total corruption and
100 times better technology. This is what we are moving towards. Imagine this sy
stem getting in the hands of someone like Hitler or Stalin.. And it can happen.
Before Hitler came to power Germany was a modern, western, christian nation. We
need safety with this technology. And when i say safety, i don't mean surveillan
ce. I mean the opposite.
permalinkparent
[ ]know_comment [score hidden] 14 minutes ago
I agree, but I think the reason for the infrastructure development is because it
is going to get bad. As we are forced to compete more globally, quality of life
stagnates. Even the slightest hint of austerity is going to be very painful for
the lower classes in a society with a large income disparity.
That's why we see the race baiting and divisive rhetoric being used so much. Kee
p the poor and working classes quibbling at each other.
I want you to consider the daffodil. And while you're doing that, I'll be over h
ere, looking through your stuff.
permalinkparent
[ ]mzackler 19 points 7 hours ago
It takes a really complicated answer to truly understand but you often get into
the us vs them mentality in siloed areas of law enforcement. You also often get
frustrated with the levels of proof you need to put the bad guy in jail. Thus an
y method you can use you feel justified in using. Although I think there are a l
ot of issues with The Wire, it's a great starting off point for a discussion if
you want a serious answer.
permalinkparent
load more comments (2 replies)
[ ]hershmire 30 points 7 hours ago
Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts, absolutely.
permalinkparent
[ ]TheNewRavager 70 points 6 hours ago
"All governments suffer a recurring problem: Power attracts pathological persona
lities. It is not that power corrupts but that it is magnetic to the corruptible

. Such people have a tendency to become drunk on violence, a condition to which


they are quickly addicted."
permalinkparent
[ ]gee_iwonderwhy 22 points 6 hours ago
Oh shit, a Dune quote outside /r/dune not about spice.
permalinkparent
[ ]TheNumberMuncher 3 points 6 hours ago
This is pretty cool.
permalinkparent
[ ]YawnDogg 1 point 3 hours ago
Gene Hackman was so kinky in that movie.
permalinkparent
[ ]ThreeTimesUp 2 points 2 hours ago
From a Guardian article by Glenn Greenwald I came across recently:
Inside the mind of NSA chief Gen Keith Alexander
Any casual review of human history proves how deeply irrational it is to believe
that powerful factions can be trusted to exercise vast surveillance power with
little accountability or transparency.
But the more they proudly flaunt their warped imperial hubris, the more irration
al it becomes.
permalinkparent
[ ]Epsilox 3 points 2 hours ago
I'm going to take an unpopular stance here and argue that they get more effectiv
e investigations. Which isn't to say I have no reservations about this stuff, be
cause I do.
I've worked in a field tangential to law enforcement, and I've had the unpleasan
t experience of watching very bad people act with impunity because law enforceme
nt had to play by the rules and they didn't. Does that justify the modern trend
towards more invasive government? Maybe that's just the price we pay to live in
a free society. I don't know. I'm a fan of the H.L. Mencken quote:
"The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's ti
me defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are f
irst aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopp
ed at all."
On the other hand, it's very hard to watch members of organized crime and other
monsters literally get away with murder.
In part the difficulty the lies in the infrastructure of modern society. Communi
cations move at such speed and in such quantity that the sort of pinpoint accura
cy required for effective investigations and prosecutions becomes much more diff
icult.
None of which is to say that what we're doing is necessarily right. I've felt th
e fear of writing an opinion online and knowing that the NSA can see it and ever
ything else I've ever written if they so choose. I've had that feeling of always
being watched. I know exactly what is meant by the danger of chilling free spee
ch, because it's happened to me. But I do tend to trust (perhaps naively) that,
for the most part, most of the people making these decisions have good intention
s. I've worked with many of them, and I believe that it more than anything is th
e result of them trying to do their jobs well. Whether they are actually protect
ing the American people or simply paving the road to hell, only time will really
tell.
permalinkparent
[ ]eyeforgot 4 points 6 hours ago
Think of all the blackmail material they have for any future politicians. They w
ill firmly be in check by the powers that be.
permalinkparent
[ ]ademnus 3 points 7 hours ago
Total control.
permalinkparent
[ ]NotAnotherDecoy 4 points 7 hours ago
Total control?

permalinkparent
[ ]leamas666 2 points 5 hours ago
Why would you amass such a criminal energy to break constitutional laws just to
be able to see through everyone's communication?
It's the deep state attempting to preserve its own regime continuity in the even
t of violent revolution.
permalinkparent
[ ]sunbolts 3 points 6 hours ago
Because those in power try to keep it and in addition, there is always a lust fo
r more power. One who is wealthy seeks to increase his riches usually, right? Sa
me thing going on here. In terms of practicality, there's no reason for breaking
constitutional laws, but when you realize how human nature functions in regards
to ambitions and power, well, what we see going on explains itself.
permalinkparent
[ ]Martenz05 1 point 3 hours ago
So, in order to become a political leader who really does work for the benefit o
f the people, one would somehow have to lose every shred of their humanity so th
ey wouldn't have a human nature that could be corrupted by ambition and power?
That sounds ominous, when I put it like that
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]RuthlessDickTater 1 point 5 hours ago
but why.. I realize that these "zomg the terrorists!!!11" is only a PR-lie.
Well pretty soon they might have their terrorists, but they'll be the domestic k
ind.
permalinkparent
[ ]karadan100 1 point 4 hours ago
More money.
permalinkparent
[ ]cynoclast 1 point 3 hours ago
What do they really accomplish with this?
Get rich.
permalinkparent
load more comments (7 replies)
[ ]TGlucifer 50 points 10 hours ago
Criminals learned it's just way easier to do their lawbreaking with a government
salary.
permalinkparent
[ ]pete1729 22 points 9 hours ago
Well, the benefits package is far more attractive.
permalinkparent
[ ]__ghostpants 25 points 7 hours ago
and somehow snitches go to jail instead of the criminals
permalinkparent
[ ]iismitch55 1 point 3 hours ago
Snitches get stitches. Whistleblowers get their mouth sowed shut.
permalinkparent
[ ]HandsOffMyDitka 5 points 5 hours ago
Why break a law, when you can just change it.
permalinkparent
[ ]moresmarterthanyou 2 points 5 hours ago
except when they have to answer questions themselves...
permalinkparent
[ ]dontbullshityourself 1 point 5 hours ago
Well you know liberty is wasted on peasant swine 'eh?
permalinkparent
[ ]ButterflyAttack 1 point 4 hours ago
Sounds like the constitution doesn't mean much at this point. . .
permalinkparent
[ ]dontbullshityourself 1 point 3 hours ago

Sounds like the constitution doesn't mean much at this point. . .


All it means is that the scum who rule us have a legal contract that they say ba
cks up all their power. But their actions shit all over that document.
President Obama, a constitutional law professor ordered the deaths of two US cit
izens without trial in EXPRESS and DIRECT violation of the constitution.
permalinkparent
load more comments (4 replies)
[ ]Eurynom0s 68 points 9 hours ago
And on top of it, even if being in public was a justification for this, how the
fuck do you prevent the device from nabbing people who are inside their own hous
e or apartment as well?
Oh right, you can't, because that's not how radio waves work.
permalinkparent
[ ]Ioneos 18 points 8 hours ago
You can increase the noise gate to reduce range on purpose, but what good would
that do to keep the terrorists citizens under scrutiny.
permalinkparent
[ ]Eurynom0s 20 points 8 hours ago
Even if they were going to do that, I can't imagine that you could do it to a su
fficient degree in a place like NYC to not scoop up at least some people inside
of buildings.
permalinkparent
load more comments (5 replies)
[ ]Codoro 1 point 4 hours ago
I foresee turning your house into a Faraday Cage being the cop radar finder of t
omorrow.
permalinkparent
[ ]Kenny_Login 23 points 7 hours ago
Taxation without representation, an income far below what the productivity was v
alued at, government intrusion? The founding fathers (you know, those "heroes" o
f our nation) got much more pissed off for much less.
permalinkparent
[ ]Socialdem 8 points 5 hours ago
Can you really blame them? The Constitution was written when people were still r
iding on horses. There's no way the founding fathers could have anticipated the
advances in technology and the way people communicate. I think we're due for a f
irmware upgrade.
permalinkparent
[ ]upandrunning 11 points 3 hours ago
Yes, it's called 'replacing congress'. What we're seeing is a natural consequenc
e of career politicians. Most of the people in office have gotten so comfortable
with the idea that they'll get reelected that what they actually do during thei
r term is almost irrelevent.
permalinkparent
[ ]theothercoolfish 2 points 2 hours ago
Exactly. I think we should look at sortition - with an approval vote, and extrem
ely strict rules on what sort of laws can be passed (eg any law must apply equal
ly to everyone - protecting the minority), and a approval bonus for the randomly
selected representatives if the public approves. Fuck career politicians - they
've proven themselves wholly incapable, and the system that supports them is too
corruptible. I don't think campaign finance reform will 1) ever happen 2) adequ
ately deal with institutional corruption.
permalinkparent
[ ]NuclearWookiee 0 points 2 hours ago
All of this should be covered, in any reasonable interpretation, by the Fourth a
mendment. Rebooting who change anything if the limits on government are ignored.
permalinkparent
[ ]KalAl 1 point 1 hour ago
Do you update your firmware by smashing your bios chip with a hammer?
permalinkparent

[ ]FireFromTheWire 4 points 6 hours ago


You're just another Steve Irwin to them.
permalinkparent
[ ]iismitch55 2 points 3 hours ago
Too soon mate :'(
permalinkparent
[ ]Penguin_in_the_sand 1 point 1 hour ago*
I am curious to know what this comment means?... Oh! Steve Irwin was killed by a
stingray. I thought you may have been referring to some conspiracy relating the
Steve Irwin's death. He had an American wife and both were invited to Howard's
Bush BBQ. http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/10/27/1067233100397.html
permalinkparent
[ ]gloubenterder 2 points 1 hour ago
Steve Irwin was a wildlife documentary filmmaker who was well-known for getting
up close and personal with dangerous animals such as crocodiles and komodo drago
ns.
He was pierced through a heart by a stingray in 2006, while shooting footage for
a documentary called Ocean's Deadliest.
After his death, stingrays had a period of great infamy, and there were even rep
orts of people killing and mutilating stingrays as vengeance for Steve Irwin. ..
.which, of course, is the last thing Irwin would have wanted; he was a conservat
ionist, and whenever he was injured by an animal he was studying, he would alway
s clarify to the viewer that that was his own fault and a risk he was aware of.
permalinkparent
[ ]Agent-BurtMacklinFBI 1 point 5 hours ago
Don't worry I'm keeping a look out
permalinkparent
[ ]pion3435 1 point 3 hours ago
It's not a constitutional issue. It might be an FCC one, but they just do whatev
er they're told anyway.
permalinkparent
[ ]dntur 1 point 3 hours ago
theoretically, every cell tower is in a public place. Why not just attach a stin
gray to all of them? Think of the money mobile companies could make renting towe
r space! next comes google who wants to know who you are calling on your iphone
and windows phone for better directed advertising, followed by Bing. /s
permalinkparent
[ ]Brian3232 [score hidden] 46 minutes ago
Why are they wrong? You already can take pictures of people in public places wit
hout warrant
permalinkparent
[ ]GaltsGulchTouristInf [score hidden] 24 minutes ago
When the constitution, the supreme law of the land, the contract between the gov
ernment and the people, is violated, this violating it should be banned from 'pu
blic service' for life, should be personally liable to those whose rights they v
iolated, and should forfeit their government pension and benefits.
permalinkparent
[ ]wtfmuck [score hidden] 17 minutes ago
It's sad how they shirk doing what is right for what is easy.
permalinkparent
load more comments (8 replies)
[ ]quiteintriguing 127 points 12 hours ago
I think it's about time these fuckers provided some evidence that privacy invadi
ng is helping stop crime or terrorism. As far as I can see, there is an Islamic
army in the middle east right now filled with westerners that simply flew over a
nd caught a bus. Nice job government agencies, you sure showed us.
permalink
[ ]HappyAtavism 81 points 11 hours ago
I think it's about time these fuckers provided some evidence that privacy invadi
ng is helping stop crime or terrorism.

Even more importantly they should provide evidence that they're not violating th
e 4th Amendment. The Bill of Rights doesn't say it applies only when convenient.
P.S. I agree that repeated failures to demonstrate the effectiveness of these th
ings, or lies which get "corrected", is yet another reason why this stuff is BS,
but the Constitution is first and foremost. Don't like the 4th Amendment? Try t
o repeal it. Until then it's in force.
permalinkparent
[ ]7u5 3 points 5 hours ago
The "checks and balances" of the judiciary are a farce. They are free to "interp
ret" the Constitution as they see fit.
permalinkparent
load more comments (3 replies)
[ ]DiaperParty 9 points 3 hours ago
Fuck that. FUUUCK that. If this did stop terrorists, it would still not be worth
the violation of rights. We absolutely CANNOT start OKing this shit as long as
it "stops bad guys."
permalinkparent
[ ]quiteintriguing 1 point 3 hours ago
I think you misunderstood. I think they should have to back up their justificati
on, which they obviously can't.
permalinkparent
[ ]DiaperParty 4 points 3 hours ago
But if we ask them to, we lend legitimacy to that claim. We need to say from the
get go that no justification is needed because none will be sufficient.
permalinkparent
[ ]ebouwman 7 points 5 hours ago
In Canada we had the Ottawa shooting and that dude that ran over some soldiers.
Correct me if I'm wrong but both these guys had had their passports revoked.
I'm not a fan of letting them just go over and fight a dirty war but wtf.
permalinkparent
[ ]Ceejae 4 points 4 hours ago
But so what if it is? How successful the program is is irrelevant.
I'm sure if they set up a government camera in every home they'd stop plenty of
murders and rapes.
permalinkparent
load more comments (2 replies)
[ ]cassieloveseffie 5 points 2 hours ago
Well we all know that the FBI has followed people like John Lennon who believed
in radical peace, urged MLK to kill himself and was prepared to assassinate occu
py members. It is not about crime, it is about maintaining a status quo.
permalinkparent
[ ]monopixel 2 points 1 hour ago
was prepared to assassinate occupy members.
Interesting, where can I read up about this?
permalinkparent
[ ]wirepants 4 points 4 hours ago
Locking everyone in solitary could stop crime and terrorism too. That's not a go
od enough reason to violate our rights even if it was working.
permalinkparent
[ ]egodeath92 2 points 5 hours ago
Shh that's classified. This entire country would be a post-apocalyptic dirt-patc
h is not for the heroic NSA collecting dirt on most of the country.
permalinkparent
[ ]pion3435 1 point 3 hours ago
You had no privacy in the first place. That's not how cell phones work.
permalinkparent
load more comments (6 replies)
[ ]MashItMatt 143 points 13 hours ago
Obviously these are constitution free zones, citizen.
permalink

[ ]THANKS-FOR-THE-GOLD 22 points 7 hours ago


Embrace democracy or you will be eradicated
permalinkparent
[ ]jroddie4 14 points 5 hours ago
Citizen, pick up that can.
permalinkparent
[ ]douko 3 points 5 hours ago
This image won't even load (here's another one), but I still know what it is.
DEATH IS A PREFERABLE ALTERNATIVE TO COMMUNISM.
COMMUNISM IS THE VERY DEFINITION OF FAILURE!
permalinkparent
[ ]chewysquirrel 15 points 6 hours ago
Approximately 2/3 of Americans live in a "constitution free zone"
permalinkparent
[ ]newpolitics 50 points 10 hours ago
The Federal Bureau of Investigation is taking the position that court warrants a
re not required when deploying cell-site simulators in public places. Nicknamed
"stingrays," the devices are decoy cell towers that capture locations and identi
ties of mobile phone users and can intercept calls and texts.
So nobody has any expectation of privacy? Talking out of their asses. The implic
ation that a warrant shouldn't be needed to intercept someone's text messages, i
s outrageous.
permalink
[ ]acerplatanoides [score hidden] 16 minutes ago
The implication that a warrant shouldn't be needed to intercept someone's text m
essages, is outrageous.
The implication of intercepting a PRESS related text message, and thus also supp
ressing a free press.
I think many of these are used to stop uploading of images to social medial. You
ever tried that during a demonstration?
permalinkparent
[ ]dalasocatyemerc 67 points 9 hours ago
Hmm, I didn't realize the FBI had the authority to ignore the constitution of th
e United States of America.
Maybe this organization doesn't actually serve Americans. That's what I think
permalink
[ ]Jagoonder 17 points 2 hours ago
They don't. However, lets look at their 3rd criteria:
(3) cases in which the technology is used in public places or other locations at
which the FBI deems there is no reasonable expectation of privacy.
In public, noone has an expectation to privacy. SCOTUS has ruled on such. Theref
ore, it could be argued that phone conversations in public places forfeits at le
ast one party's rights to privacy.
There are a couple of problems with this. First, Stingray is indiscriminate. Sec
ond, the other party of the phone conversation may be in their own home thus hav
ing an expectation of privacy.
I don't know how law works in regards to phone tapping. But, I would assume that
any warrant to do so would provide the agency a waiver on a second party's priv
acy protections when conversing with the target of the warrant. Except in the ca
se of Stingray no warrant was ever obtained thus, no waiver, thus the second par
ty probably still has privacy protections.
So, I think it's bullshit. I'm no lawyer. I suspect the FBI also knows it's bull
shit. But, the more excuses they can come up with to bend the law around their w
ill the more time it takes to try to stop them since each instance requires anot
her court decision.
permalinkparent
[ ]punkrampant 13 points 1 hour ago
There's only "no expectation of privacy" in public in terms of video+camera surv
eillance. People still get disturbed if you look over their shoulder at their ph
one, or listen to a conversation.

Text messages, emails, phone calls, all of it, are the modern day written letter
s. What the FBI is trying to do is the equivalent of setting up a post office th
at opens everyone's envelopes and makes copies of all the contents.
permalinkparent
[ ]Jagoonder 5 points 1 hour ago
Text messages, emails, phone calls, all of it, are the modern day written letter
s. What the FBI is trying to do is the equivalent of setting up a post office th
at opens everyone's envelopes and makes copies of all the contents.
You're right. I was focusing on an actual phone conversation where one party cou
ld be overheard by others, thus no expectation to privacy.
permalinkparent
[ ]Cambodian_Drug_Mule 2 points 1 hour ago
Surely there are people with technical expertise that can just fuck their shit u
p. If I'm not mistaken the stingrays were detected with consumer grade electroni
cs. If everyone just looked out for them and pinned where they are at on a map,
couldn't some people with the technical know how take them offline?
permalinkparent
[ ]monopixel 1 point 1 hour ago
Hmm, I didn't realize the FBI had the authority to ignore the constitution of th
e United States of America.
The US government and its agencies has been doing it for ages.
permalinkparent
[ ]rtpg 40 points 6 hours ago
Surprised nobody's mentioned Kyllo v. United States yet.
This is fairly recent (2001) jurisprudence. The gov't used a thermal imager, and
saw that there were heat lamps inside of a house, and used that to get a search
warrant. The gov't argued that, well, the heat was outside, so pretty much publ
ic information.
The courts disagreed and ruled this an illegal search. Main reason being that no
t many people have thermal imagers, so there's a reasonable expectation of priva
cy. I think even less people have stingrays, so even from the "discovering that
someone has a cell phone" aspect, there's unreasonableness in the search.
Now to the wiretapping aspect... there's Katz v. United States. Here, somebody w
as in a phone booth, and the feds had set a microphone outside the phone booth w
ithout warrant (so not exactly a wiretap). Again, the courts ruled this an unrea
sonable search.
A part of the ruling:
Regardless of the location, a conversation is protected from unreasonable search
and seizure under the Fourth Amendment if it is made with a "reasonable expecta
tion of privacy".
Text messages definitely fall under this. I can't see this holding up for 2 seco
nds in court.
The article goes into it into detail, but few of the FBI's interpretations on pr
ivacy have been holding up in courts recently. The system is kind of working, an
d this interpretation will be shut down as well. Now, if only everyone had good
lawyers...
permalink
[ ]ryewheats 7 points 4 hours ago
But the biggest problem I see would be them not declaring how they gathered any
information they collected in the first place. It would be pretty easy to skirt
around the system and act like you caught the suspect red-handed (because you we
re tipped off by illegal searches). That is the really scary part.
permalinkparent
[ ]argv_minus_one 5 points 3 hours ago
This practice is known as "parallel construction".
permalinkparent
[ ]tughdffvdlfhegl 3 points 3 hours ago
Honestly, this is the biggest concern. The courts won't allow a challenge becaus
e no one will have standing, because the feds/police won't actively declare this
as evidence in a trial. Meanwhile, they'll continue to use it, having a chillin

g effect on the press and others (which the courts have not seen in recent histo
ry as sufficient to provide legal standing).
permalinkparent
[ ]JustaChimp 3 points 5 hours ago
With the Katz v US case, it took them 39 years to overturn the Olmstead v US rul
ing. Let's hope it takes a little less time for this medium.
The recent Romano v Steelcase Inc. court case could indicate how the courts will
rule in the short term with regards to "reasonable expectation of privacy" thou
gh this ruling was in the context of social media and not text messages. The ana
logy was made that much like a letter writer has no reasonable expectation of pr
ivacy once the recipient is in possession of the letter, neither does the post's
author. Same could be extended to text messages and would be equally as trouble
some.
permalinkparent
[ ]qdarius 1 point 3 hours ago
Damn, that doesn't seem right at all. If I send someone a letter I definitely ex
pect that only they will read it.
Could anyone expand on the logic that a letter writer has no reasonable expectat
ion of privacy?
permalinkparent
[ ]Boltaeg 1 point 3 hours ago
After that letter is given to the recipient, they can do whatever they want with
it without you knowing. They could copy it, show it to friends, frame it and pu
t it on their wall....etc. You have no control over that and must assume that an
ything you write in a letter can be disclosed in some manner, simply because you
have no control over that persons actions.
As to why that is the case, I have no idea. Especially considering it is illegal
to open someone elses mail, but perfectly legal to read someone else's letter o
nce they open it. At least that is my understanding of it.
permalinkparent
[ ]TheMightyBarbarian 1 point 3 hours ago
Its fairly simple, you sent a letter, until it is received by the intended recip
ient it has federal protections. Once the recipient receives it, they are free t
o do with it as they wish, even if you disagree with what they do, specifically
because the letter is now their property, even though you wrote it.
permalinkparent
[ ]qdarius 1 point 2 hours ago
I understand that. But if someone else intercepts my letter shouldn't that still
be illegal?
Maybe I'm misunderstanding how stingrays work but it seems like they're basicall
y designed to intercept hundreds of messages.
permalinkparent
[ ]TheMightyBarbarian 1 point 2 hours ago
Intercept isn't illegal, its sketchy but not illegal. As for reading it, it's a
grey area since texts are not encrypted and even if they were it would do shit i
f billions of devices can decrypt them. So unless you use something like a messe
nger system that can use basic encrypting. It won't stop the FBI from reading it
, but it does show you took steps to have a private conversation and that's what
matters to the court.
permalinkparent
[ ]coalbeeashi 1 point 3 hours ago
Re: Katz v. United States
Certain details, such as shutting the door on the telephone booth, help determin
e if a person intends for a conversation to be private. Thus, private conversati
ons can be made in public areas.
What steps is the average Joe taking to exhibit a reasonable expectation of priv
acy regarding his/her data usage? Honest question.
permalinkparent
[ ]TheMightyBarbarian 1 point 2 hours ago
Beyond using a VPN to mimic another location, not much really. Since there are m

any devices involved in the process of just looking up a website. Ex. You google
Microsoft. Here are all the parties involved: You, Your ISP, Google, Microsoft.
That's four parties involved and that's assuming you are not using a Phones Mob
ile Data plan and are using WiFi. Because then it can add a few more people invo
lved.
Sure you should have protection just the same, but currently the law doesn't rec
ognize that, because the people in charge dont understand how any of it works.
permalinkparent
[ ]rtpg [score hidden] 54 minutes ago
I would say that cultural norms kind of define that in that it is extremely rude
to look at another stranger's phone while they are using it to browse/look at t
heir emails/whatever. Not the most solid argument, I know.
permalinkparent
[ ]Sic_SemperTyrannis 1 point 2 hours ago
When the use of stingrays is challenged in court police have dropped the cases r
ather than explain their use of stingrays.
permalinkparent
[ ]cassieloveseffie 1 point 2 hours ago
I have seen a printed record of every one of someone's txt messages for 6 months
. Never assume txt messages are private.
permalinkparent
[ ]Ladderjack 29 points 12 hours ago
I'm sorry, have they gone ahead and combined the FBI and the Supreme Court of th
e United States of America? No? Well, we will see how long this lasts. . .
permalink
[ ]butitssnot 46 points 7 hours ago
Its ok. In 2016 we can vote for hope and change and transparency and fix all thi
s.
permalinkparent
[ ]CriticalThink 3 points 5 hours ago
yeah. I bet Hillary will fix this mess, right Reddit?
permalinkparent
[ ]TheMightyBarbarian 1 point 2 hours ago
We still got time before they can start promoting themselves for President, lega
lly actually, they can't start until a certain number of days from the election.
permalinkparent
[ ]looneybandito 5 points 6 hours ago
Haha. As if our votes matter.
permalinkparent
[ ]atomofconsumption 9 points 5 hours ago
thatsthejoke.jpg
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]dichroeyes 1 point 4 hours ago
You are right. I give up. Long live the hegemony.
permalinkparent
[ ]Pikaflu 1 point 3 hours ago
America is an irradiated wasteland. Within it lies a city. Outside the boundary
walls, a desert. A cursed earth. Inside the walls, a cursed city, stretching fro
m Boston to Washington D.C. An unbroken concrete landscape. 800 million people l
iving in the ruin of the old world and the mega structures of the new one. Mega
blocks. Mega highways. Mega City One. Convulsing. Choking. Breaking under its ow
n weight. Citizens in fear of the street. The gun. The gang. Only one thing figh
ting for order in the chaos: the men and women of the Hall of Justice. Juries. E
xecutioners. Judges.
permalinkparent
[ ]Ago_Solvo 36 points 9 hours ago
I'm sure that means that stingrays are also open for public hacking in that case
, because they're in a public place, and doing so can't be considered an intrusi
on on government properties or a violation of any Federal Law.

permalink
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]whysopositive 57 points 12 hours ago
Say whatever you want, you don't think big brother is going to find every way to
spy on you?
The thing is I bet every time we the people get upset about some "new" trespass
against our rights there's already something technologically beyond our knowledg
e being put to use to on us now.
permalink
[ ]I_SPLIT_INFINITIVES 16 points 7 hours ago
My dad always said, "If that's what they're telling us they have now, they proba
bly had it ten years ago. Just imagine what they really have."
permalinkparent
[ ]oOTHX1138Oo 28 points 9 hours ago
Thats why we need to add to the bill of rights, so that we continue to be protec
ted in the digital age.
permalinkparent
[ ]TheBlueWaffleHouse 18 points 8 hours ago
At this point in time the bill of rights only shrinks. It doesn't get bigger.
permalinkparent
[ ]tallerthanunicorngod 33 points 7 hours ago
Not with that attitude.
permalinkparent
[ ]mattacular2001 3 points 5 hours ago
Doesn't matter unless you're wealthy
permalinkparent
[ ]tallerthanunicorngod 1 point 2 hours ago
Wealthy people don't like to be spied on either. Honestly, they probably like it
even less.
permalinkparent
[ ]sockgorilla 1 point 5 hours ago
He's John Titor, he's watched it before.
permalinkparent
[ ]mastahslayah 1 point 4 hours ago
Well he isn't getting any of my Dr. Pepper.
permalinkparent
[ ]Poor__Yorick 1 point 2 hours ago
Wow that's a name I haven't heard in a while.
We've got a world war this year though.
3 billion dead by the end of it.
permalinkparent
load more comments (5 replies)
[ ]pion3435 1 point 3 hours ago
We already did. That's the point of laws like HIPAA. There's just no equivalent
for things like email or cell phones so it's legal to see whatever people are na
ively broadcasting.
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]ZomNomNomBeeZ 5 points 7 hours ago
This technology is not particularly new. The man-in-the-middle attack is a class
ic hacking technique. I remember reading an article after one of the security co
nventions detailing a small group of participants that used a remote control air
plane to do this exact thing to convention attendees. This was years ago.
permalinkparent
[ ]hershmire 4 points 7 hours ago
Which is why it's illegality could be successfully code into law.
permalinkparent
[ ]TheMightyBarbarian 1 point 3 hours ago
That's the problem, the people who make the laws don't understand how the techno
logy works, and the people making and using it are telling them its fine, so the

y don't feel like they need to make a law about.


And as such making a law about it would be bad, since the law would need specifi
c language to prevent certain technologies and usage of such. But the biggest is
sue is that some of the technology and uses are too general that it would never
work to stop anything. Since they can't just write a law preventing man in the m
iddle because they need to get a definitive wording on what that is exactly and
then word it so a slight variation doesn't just immediately skirt the new law.
Our technology grew faster than our laws did, but now it's grown faster than our
ability to properly define what it is we do. So controlling it is incredibly ha
rd and will take a long time, so for now we kinda have to suck it up and wait, b
ecause the worst possible thing is them putting out ineffective laws that do les
s than nothing to prevent stuff like that and hearing us complain and think we a
re whining when they just put out a law. I would rather wait a little longer to
make sure the law is proper and effective than to have a crap law screw everythi
ng up.
permalinkparent
[ ]ScorpionPool 1 point 6 hours ago
Serious question. What benefits does the government get from spying on us? Power
? Information for corporations? Shits and giggles? Some kind of profit?
permalinkparent
[ ]swingmemallet 2 points 5 hours ago
All of the above
permalinkparent
[ ]eyeforgot 1 point 5 hours ago*
What like complete access to what anyone posts/chats about on facebook/skype bei
ng dumped into a database? Anyone who work with cisco routers notice anything fu
nny like carefully crafted packets fucking w. the settings and not creating logs
. Maybe like there is a back door that someone has that doesn't require a passwo
rd.
permalinkparent
load more comments (3 replies)
[ ]philtech 26 points 10 hours ago
You can scan for stingray use.
Only works on rooted phones with Qualcomm chipset however. https://play.google.c
om/store/apps/details?id=de.srlabs.snoopsnitch&hl=en
permalink
[ ]vamper 2 points 6 hours ago
damn, no go for my nexus 5
permalinkparent
[ ]Ice_Pirate 1 point 5 hours ago
Should work on my 20 dollar ZTE's with dualies :). Overclocks to 1.8 like butta.
http://www.phonearena.com/phones/ZTE-N800_id8191
permalinkparent
[ ]willyboxc 1 point 2 hours ago
we need a version that will work without root :(
permalinkparent
[ ]networklackey 49 points 11 hours ago*
Bullshit... it's radio. They have no way of determining whether the person they
are monitoring is in public or not.
They shouldn't be able to use this without a warrant any more than they should b
e able to point a laser mic at your window.
The fact that they are in public is irrelevant... the subject they are monitorin
g has to be in public.
permalink
[ ]lll_1_lll 29 points 6 hours ago
Even if we are in public, what the fuck gives them the right to look through my
texts, phone calls, voicemails, emails, call history, etc?
permalinkparent
[ ]zoidbug 5 points 3 hours ago
It should be protected the level of paper mail. It is your private communication

s.
permalinkparent
[ ]networklackey 1 point 2 hours ago
Technically... because you are in public and are broadcasting. But I feel the sa
me way. None of this shit should be legal.
permalinkparent
load more comments (6 replies)
[ ]goatmagic 2 points 3 hours ago
laser mic
Well, TIL this exists :/
permalinkparent
[ ]networklackey 2 points 2 hours ago
They absolutely exist and they are freaking awesome. They should not however be
used by law enforcement without a warrant.
permalinkparent
[ ]makingupdumbnames 1 point 5 hours ago
I think it's that their airwaves cross public space. pls correct me if I'm wrong
, though
permalinkparent
[ ]networklackey 1 point 2 hours ago
That's certainly the argument they are making.
permalinkparent
[ ]wirepants 1 point 4 hours ago
Even assuming you are in public, who's to say the guy on the other side is too?
permalinkparent
[ ]networklackey 1 point 2 hours ago
Nothing but their log books but that doesn't really matter. It's your right to p
rivacy they are violating.
permalinkparent
[ ]Sarah_Connor 9 points 9 hours ago
We need a way to be able to identify, then jamm, stingrays.
permalink
[ ]cookie_nrk 8 points 7 hours ago
This Jammer made in sweden should do the trick. From what I have read it complet
ely blocks all signals, so using a phone wouldn't work at all, but if you were i
n a position to not want to be tracked during a certain time, you could use this
: http://www.jammer-store.com/monstro-10-all-frequencies-portable-jammer.html
permalinkparent
[ ]hershmire 10 points 7 hours ago
We're talking about blanket monitoring of civilians. It needs to be outlawed imm
ediately. Hoping each and every Joe Schmoe is going to buy an illegal cell phone
jammer to protect his identity is, well, ridiculous.
permalinkparent
[ ]davidverner 6 points 7 hours ago
Jammers are illegal in the US on the cellphone frequency. Good luck importing on
e.
permalinkparent
[ ]wicard 5 points 6 hours ago
had one from deal extreme i bought when i was younger to prank friends, was alot
of fun. But if you are worried about being tracked wouldn't just shutting your
phone off do the trick? If you are jamming your phone you arnt going to be talki
ng to anyone.
permalinkparent
[ ]RellenD 4 points 5 hours ago
You have to do more than just turn it off, unfortunately.
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]willyboxc 1 point 2 hours ago
we need the schematics so we can build one... also include 700 mhz jam for lte
permalinkparent

load more comments (1 reply)


[ ]ademnus 11 points 7 hours ago
That's nice but it's not up to the FBI if it is illegal or not.
permalink
[ ]MonitoredCitizen 21 points 7 hours ago
Come on Google and Apple, stop being so lame. Make the phones themselves defend
against this by always displaying the negotiated encryption level and allowing u
ser to configure the phone to refuse to connect if the GSM encryption level is A
5/0.
permalink
[ ]argv_minus_one 2 points 2 hours ago
If they do that, these same spooks will have some words with their CEOs. Otherwi
se, yeah, they likely would.
permalinkparent
[ ]vzzzbux 2 points 1 hour ago
Not sure on the technical specifics but my old Nokia from 10 years ago used to s
how a padlock if the call was "secure", which I guess meant it was encrypted in
some way.
Sounds like yet another way we've gone backwards with the rise of Google and App
le
permalinkparent
[ ]cryptovariable 180 points 12 hours ago
This seems icky, but anyone with a Raspberry Pi ($48.00), an RTL-SDR ($17.00), a
nd an ability to follow written step-by-step instructions on how to install and
configure some open source software ($0.00) can do this, albeit on a smaller sca
le.
That tutorial doesn't cover decrypting GSM traffic. This one does. You'll need s
omething faster than a Raspberry Pi, though. Maybe a $200 netbook.
And you can do it on the same scale as the police with a surplus commercial ante
nna and three or four friends.
I don't see how restricting the government's ability to do this would have any o
ther effect than to criminalize a private citizen's desire to experiment with GS
M.
permalink
[ ]HappyAtavism 113 points 11 hours ago
I don't see how restricting the government's ability to do this would have any o
ther effect than to criminalize a private citizen's desire to experiment with GS
M.
Experiment with GSM all you want, just don't eavesdrop or commit fraud by preten
ding to be part of a legitimate business.
I like to play with miniature cameras, microphones and transmitters. That's a fi
ne hobby as long as I don't use it to spy on my neighbors.
permalinkparent
load more comments (5 replies)
[ ]mr___ 50 points 12 hours ago
But theirs has a transmitter, and actively spoofs cell sites
permalinkparent
[ ]cryptovariable 55 points 12 hours ago
It you want to spoof rather than just eavesdrop all you have to do is buy any of
the SDR kits that are coming on to the market like a bladeRF or something and h
ave GNUradio (which hilariously autocorrects to FBI radio on my phone) pretend t
o be a tower, the credentials of which you sniffed with your Pi setup.
The reason the Feds spoof is so that they can target specific devices on a white
list and only have those connect. The size of the whitelist is unknown and up fo
r debate.
If you're capturing and decrypting all the GSM your antenna can receive you don'
t care if you're spoofing the tower unless you want to modify the traffic in som
e way. To quote Sir Patrick Stewart: "It's too late, I've seen everything."
If you just scoop up everything using cheap/free and publicly available tools yo
u don't really care about spoofing.

It should be noted that the Feds have a leg up with CDMA because of its smaller
global footprint and the scarcity of developers working on it, as well as UMTS (
3G) and LTE.
But people are poking at LTE every day: http://www.rtl-sdr.com/analyzing-td-ltertl-sdr/
permalinkparent
[ ]HappyAtavism 36 points 11 hours ago
The reason the Feds spoof is so that they can target specific devices on a white
list and only have those connect. The size of the whitelist is unknown and up fo
r debate.
We do know they don't have warrants. How many violations of the 4th Amendment do
es it take before it's considered a bad thing?
permalinkparent
load more comments (19 replies)
[ ]A530[??] 6 points 6 hours ago
I have to ask an honest question. Knowing what you know, do you live in a Farada
y cage or just eschew cell phones all together? I'm in InfoSec (I'm guessing you
are too) and with the shit I know, maintaining OPSec is just a never ending bat
tle. I can't imagine my paranoia if I went down the cellular rabbit hole (althou
gh I do know a lot about the shit happening with the carrier baseband MDM garbag
e).
Many thanks for the very informative post.
permalinkparent
[ ]tornadoRadar 1 point 1 hour ago
Gotta keep it segmented. Personal never mixes with biz
permalinkparent
[ ]the_nap_mutilator 1 point 5 hours ago
Spoofing the cell site also gives them access to the phone at something akin to
the hardware level... so unless you have rooted and or installed software to sec
ure the device, they can push new software onto your phone without your knowledg
e/consent in the same way that your carrier updates subscriber units say when th
ey make changes to the network or something. At that point your phone has been p
ermanently compromised.
permalinkparent
load more comments (13 replies)
[ ]mag17435 29 points 10 hours ago
I dont understand how people think the government can do things citizens can. Or
dering our government not to do something has no bearing on what citizens can do
.
permalinkparent
[ ]Golden-Fox 7 points 6 hours ago
Well when police are trying to visually collect evidence they can in general onl
y search from public areas. If a cop is looking for a certain car and they see i
t on the street, that's fine. If the car is parked in a closed garage and on pri
vate property, the cop wouldn't be able to see it without going onto private pro
perty and looking in a window. If the car is in the same garage and the garage d
oor is open, then anyone can see it, and the cop can legally use that informatio
n.
The FBI is trying to apply that same logic to these stingrays. Stingrays are a t
echnology that is available to the public. You could make your own and do exactl
y what the FBI does. The data being collected isn't encrypted, password protecte
d, or anything else. Everything is publicly available. You just have to have a c
ertain machine to be able to read it. The garage door has to be open.
permalinkparent
[ ]Wordygit 6 points 6 hours ago
The key word here is "public" whereas where there is the expectation of privacy,
I would think think that would carry some special considerations. That seems to
be some of what the courts are deciding about, where the expectation of privacy
holds sway over searches. Its already been determined that law enforcement cann
ot force you to unlock your phone. One such Supreme Court case, decided this pas

t summer, led to a sweeping victory for privacy rights advocates. In a rare unan
imous decision, the court found that police cannot search cellphones, and by ext
ension tablets and other digital communication devices, without first obtaining
a warrant. Smartphones, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote, hold the privacies of l
ife, and the fact that technology now allows an individual to carry such informati
on in his hand does not make the information any less worthy of the protection f
or which the Founders fought. I think, as well, that it has been established that
if there is encryption being used, that constitutes an acknowledgement that ste
ps have been taken to protect and maintain the sense of privacy, and so the expe
ctation carries onto the information being transmitted. Not sure if there is a l
egal precedent for that though.
permalinkparent
[ ]Golden-Fox 2 points 5 hours ago
Its already been determined that law enforcement cannot force you to unlock your
phone.
This is what I've heard, but to me it implies that police can access your phone
if you don't have it locked. Carrying that logic over to this argument, the poli
ce would be able to access your cell info as long as it isn't encrypted. It seem
s that you only have a "reasonable expectation to privacy" with your cell phone
if you've taken any steps to make your phone more private. If there were some wa
y to get your carrier to encrypt your data, then there'd be no question, but the
way cell providers are these days, that's not gonna happen.
permalinkparent
[ ]ThreeTimesUp 1 point 1 hour ago
Something that I have heard repeatedly (and I may yet have it wrong), is that if
your front door is closed, but unlocked, the police are free to enter without a
warrant.
This has always bothered me.
I could understand the mind-set of someone (i.e. a Justice of the Supreme court)
thinking that way if they grew up (or lived) in an area where they lived a life
always fearful of intruders and locking doors was a practical necessity.
But to me, a closed door means "Keep out, knock for admittance - no entry withou
t permission."
So, for naive, trusting, me, I would not expect the police (or anyone) to examin
e my phone (without a warrant) just to see what they could find.
permalinkparent
[ ]pion3435 1 point 3 hours ago
A technologically illiterate moron's expectation of privacy doesn't become a rea
sonable expectation of privacy just because the majority of the population is te
chnologically illiterate.
permalinkparent
[ ]F0sh 1 point 2 hours ago
This is totally wrong thinking. A private citizen can look for your car through
the garage window without legal repercussions, even though a police officer migh
t not be allowed. The police officer has to conduct his searches according to th
e expectation of privacy and you have every expectation that your private phone
conversations are private - even if you're sending your texts at the shopping ce
ntre.
This is a bullshit equivocation on the part of the FBI, who are claiming that si
nce any old person at the shops can see that you're also at the shops you have n
o expectation of privacy at all.
This logic, if extended, would also mean the FBI could clone your hard drive if
you took your laptop to a public place - after all, you have no expectation of p
rivacy there. No. Bullshit - just because you're in the park doesn't mean all yo
ur possessions and emails became public.
This has nothing to do with what an ordinary citizen is able to do in public or
in private.
permalinkparent
[ ]ThreeTimesUp 1 point 2 hours ago*
Well when police are trying to visually collect evidence they can in general onl

y search from public areas. If a cop is looking for a certain car and they see i
t on the street, that's fine.
To counterpoint this:
Infra-red light (heat) is just light that's at a lower frequency than humans can
detect.
Courts have ruled that the police using specialized equipment to detect heat sig
natures (Infra-red light) emanating from from houses for the purpose of snooping
for grow operations are an invasion of privacy.
The signals Stingray is picking up are just another frequency, even lower than I
nfra-red light, originating from inside your phone, that is your property, which
is in your possession.
Authorities are using all manner of logical distortions in an express attempt to
get around the ideals and principles expressed in the Constitution.
What law-abiding citizen would attempt such a thing?
What authority that the public has placed their trust in, would make continual a
ttempts to subvert the Constitution?
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
load more comments (2 replies)
[ ]kromem 2 points 3 hours ago
It is already criminal to capture and decrypt GSM traffic for citizens (Wiretap
Act), same as capturing and parsing WiFi data.
But I think I can point out the issue with your logic with a simple analogy:
Citizens can buy guns.
Law enforcement can be provided guns.
Citizens can practice shooting guns.
Law enforcement should do the same.
Citizens can't shoot other citizens with guns except in really specific exemptio
ns.
According to your logic, just because citizens can buy guns, and could possibly
go around shooting other people with them, law enforcement should not have any l
egal restrictions on their use of guns.
It is illegal for you to capture and decrypt anyone else's traffic, and it shoul
d be illegal for cops to do the same without a warrant. It's not that hard to ge
t a warrant when actually justified, creates a paper trail that can be examined
for abuses, and has been the case without serious issue for years now.
For what purpose does the law need to be changed to allow this? Because warrants
are inconvenient? Well then why not get rid of them for entering homes too? It'
s quite trivial to pick a lock, and even easier to smash a window and climb in.
Any citizen could do it. So why do we need to restrict the police from the same?
permalinkparent
[ ]dfioabnionjio 4 points 9 hours ago
I don't see how restricting the government's ability to do this would have any o
ther effect than to criminalize a private citizen's desire to experiment with GS
M.
Why not have it be illegal for government and legal for private citizens? Make i
t perfectly legal for private citizens to experiment with GSM, but don't let the
FBI do the same, like you can have a private citizen share something a defendan
t said in court while the police cannot do the same unless the suspect had been
told of their rights.
Of course, the problem here is not using GSM. It's tracking people who did not k
nowingly join your network. You could have it be legal to experiment with GSM an
d not legal to spoof a network, or make it so tracking someone on your network i
s illegal unless the person being tracked is aware they will be tracked and cons
ents to it.
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]confusiondiffusion 3 points 10 hours ago
Yeah, I really don't see the point in making laws against this, since they'll be
broken anyway. We need to fix the underlying technology. There is no excuse for

the sad state of cellphone security.


permalinkparent
[ ]HappyAtavism 18 points 10 hours ago
I really don't see the point in making laws against this
Then let's just flush the Constitution down the toilet. All laws get broken, the
question is what gets done about it.
since they'll be broken anyway
It's not very hard to break into my house either, but they're not supposed to do
it without a warrant.
permalinkparent
load more comments (4 replies)
[ ]HighMonster 1 point 7 hours ago
Wow that's intriguing
permalinkparent
[ ]lll_1_lll 1 point 6 hours ago
You act like this is realistically doable for the large majority of people and y
ou know that's BS.
permalinkparent
[+][deleted] 6 hours ago (1 child)
[ ]JabroniZamboni 1 point 5 hours ago
Are you suggesting that radar jammers should be legal? As well as cell phone or
wifi jammers? What if your neighbor wants to experiment with a jammer for the ne
xt 4 months? 6 years? I assume you wouldn't be too happy. There's experimentatio
n and then there's purposeful disruption and spying.
permalinkparent
[ ]egodeath92 1 point 5 hours ago
Yeah except "anyone with device X" can't prosecute people. It doesn't matter whe
n corporations do mass data collection because they are just trying to make mone
y/sell people shit. The government can create a database of people's private liv
es then prosecute them. You could even imagine a time where data collection is s
o widespread that this kind of info is used for political purposes rather then b
usting drug dealers/ other criminals which is what it's used for now.
permalinkparent
[ ]Kuusou 1 point 4 hours ago
What the people can do, and what the government can do, are no the same things,
nor should they.
permalinkparent
[ ]qdarius 1 point 4 hours ago
If a random person overhears my conversation I don't care. Even if they tell the
ir friends I'm still not too concerned.
If the government records my conversation and uses it to investigate or prosecut
e me that's clearly a different situation.
Just because someone can do something doesn't mean it should be legal. It defini
tely doesn't mean we should be okay with our government using it on us.
permalinkparent
load more comments (9 replies)
[ ]Sir_not_sir 52 points 13 hours ago
The main purpose of the stinger is to circumvent the need and time of acquiring
a warrant and getting the data from all the service providers.
Regardless of data retention plans, they should require a separate judicial warr
ant for each individual suspect in order to be deployed.
permalink
[ ]manoninternets 8 points 7 hours ago*
The time required to get a warrant is usually far less than what they make it ou
t to be, although cost is as factor. Phone companies make tons of money off poli
ce records requests.
To play devil's advocate (and I do think the STINGRAY arrangement is devilish):
once you request records from the phone companies, there's no guarantee that won
't get leaked to the people being investigated. The cartels have people everywhe

re.
permalinkparent
[ ]kevincreeperpants 6 points 6 hours ago
What if they are the cartels!?...dun dun dun
permalinkparent
[ ]tughdffvdlfhegl 1 point 3 hours ago
I don't think anyone here has a problem with STINGRAY being used, given that the
y have a warrant for the person's data they're monitoring. So in your situation,
that's easy to do.
permalinkparent
[ ]manoninternets 2 points 3 hours ago
Yeah it's the same concept as going through my private letters, or close enough
to it anyhow. (Even though letters are physically sealed and radio waves permeat
e the air freely, my intention is for my text messages to be as private as posta
l mail.)
Even a child could rip open an envelope with ease. That doesn't mean police don'
t need a warrant to do so.
permalinkparent
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[ ]turnthatfrown 9 points 7 hours ago
I think the FBI is conveniently forgetting that they are intercepting a communic
ation that is normally secured via encryption and carried privately by your wire
less provider then switched privately all the way to the party on the other end
who has similar expectations of the connection.
I mean, come on, the Stingrays themselves are impersonating the carrier that you
have a contract with and using techniques to avoid the strong encryption. The p
rove by their own design and implementation that the FBI's argument is bullshit.
permalink
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]dontbullshityourself 27 points 11 hours ago
I'm so sick of the ways these callous assholes use to crush our freedom.
What is the point of massive expensive law enforcement agencies if the law can't
protect our rights and freedoms? Hasn't the cart been put before the horse here
?
permalink
[ ]donottakethisserious 13 points 6 hours ago
If you are told you are free enough times, you start to believe it. You start at
a young age with a pledge every day and then when you grow up you attend sporti
ng events and stand for the national anthem and tear up at how free you are. Tha
t way nobody will ever question whether or not this is actually a free country.
permalinkparent
[ ]dontbullshityourself 10 points 5 hours ago
When I was a kid I started to sit during the pledge. Honestly I think I just wan
ted to test and see how free I was. I knew that saying the pledge etc wasn't in
the school handbook. I knew there was no rule saying I had to say it or stand or
anything. The powers that be at my school just used the herd instinct to keep t
his shit going.
So I started sitting down. This resulted in a lot of attention from gangs of bul
lies. My home room teacher didn't like it either and lectured/bitched about it e
very day. But she stopped short of anything more than shaming me unlike the bull
ies.
Anyway I just decided to drop out. Fuck it. Humans don't like new things that co
nfuse them and challenge them to think. How interesting that was to be the last
thing I learned in school. I found another kind of freedom. The freedom to leave
the assholes mired in their stupidity and find my own path in life.
permalinkparent
[ ]joshyfitzo90 4 points 5 hours ago
I like your style.
permalinkparent

[ ]Jack41096 3 points 4 hours ago


I applaud you. I stood but that's all I did. it was in our rulebook to stand but
fuck them if they thought I was gonna do more than that. I started a wave of pe
ople standing and doing nothing.
eventually my first period class was reduced to two people and the teacher actua
lly doing anything. they bitches about it but we all had our own reasons.
permalinkparent
[ ]dontbullshityourself 2 points 3 hours ago
eventually my first period class was reduced to two people and the teacher actua
lly doing anything. they bitches about it but we all had our own reasons.
There are lots of reasons to resist and only one reason to obey. Fear.
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]CriticalThink 3 points 5 hours ago
Government hasn't been interested in protecting our rights and freedoms in a lon
g time.
permalinkparent
[ ]jkeyser14 5 points 7 hours ago
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety
, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. - Benjamin Franklin
permalinkparent
[ ]dontbullshityourself 5 points 6 hours ago
We didn't give it up. They are taking it.
permalinkparent
[ ]jkeyser14 10 points 6 hours ago
Only because we aren't rioting. The first group of rioters to tar and feather a
politician again will bring about change very quickly.
permalinkparent
[ ]dontbullshityourself 4 points 5 hours ago
People are gonna have to get a lot more desperate. I reckon we'll get our riot s
oon enough.
permalinkparent
[ ]Jack41096 1 point 4 hours ago
take the food. that's the surefire way to cause a riot.
people will be content as long as they're fed. you take that away and suddenly t
hey have nothing to lose. they have to survive. that is the most primal response
we have. to fight tooth and nail for food. to eat no matter the cost.
permalinkparent
[ ]RamsNation 1 point 4 hours ago
America has a very stable food supply so I doubt that will happen.
permalinkparent
[ ]dontbullshityourself 1 point 3 hours ago
I don't think we have to take the food. I think that people today are a lot more
self entitled and will jump into a fit without their iphones. They can't even i
magine a world without abundant food.
permalinkparent
[ ]grungebucket 1 point 4 hours ago
bring about change very quickly. street executions very quickly.
there. Corrected that for you. After all. You wouldn't want to be mistaken for a
terrorist endorsing a terrorist act now, would you?
permalinkparent
[ ]pion3435 2 points 3 hours ago
You never had it. You're just now finding out.
permalinkparent
[ ]hershmire 7 points 7 hours ago
Ok, I get the FBI's argument. Technically, we are all choosing to carry a digita
l device around with us that uniquely identifies us via radio frequency. It's tr
ue that we could very well decide not to partake in the use of cell phones if we
're so worried about being tracked. And thus because we decide to carry these pa

rtially secure devices around with us, they FBI has every right to hack them and
track us.
But this argument is bogus. The FBI can't read our mail or tap our phones becaus
e legislators and judges at one time recognized that technology becomes indispen
sable, and therefore should be protected under privacy laws. Just because I choo
se to carry a cell phone around with me doesn't give the FBI to track my whereab
outs, or worse. That'd be like saying it's my fault for having my mail read by t
he FBI because I chose to write letters, or I chose to have my phones monitored
and recorded by the FBI because I chose to use telephones.
The FBI is part of the executive branch. They (supposedly) operate within the sc
ope of the law. If there's no specific law preventing their actions, they'll go
ahead and do it. So write your representatives and get shit like this regulated.
And use letters because they're obligated to at least open the envelope.
permalink
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]drakecherry 5 points 8 hours ago
we might as well get rid of warrants all together. they are gonna search if they
want to, and nothing will happen if they are wrong.
permalink
[ ]MeganNancySmith 6 points 6 hours ago
The FBI doesn't have the legal authority to make that determination.
It would be like if I said that murder is legal every other Sunday. I can say it
all I like, but it doesn't make it true.
permalink
[ ]Todda468 6 points 6 hours ago
Anything a private citizen can't do should require reasonable suspicion or a war
rent.
permalink
[ ]Sonotmethen 6 points 9 hours ago
Then signal jammers aren't either.
permalink
[ ]MrJDouble 4 points 9 hours ago
FBI tends to say a lot of things, doesn't mean it isn't a pile of horseshit.
permalink
[ ]blueiron0 4 points 6 hours ago
(3) cases in which the technology is used in public places or other locations at
which the FBI deems there is no reasonable expectation of privacy.
Love how the FBI gets to decide when it's ok for them to assume you shouldnt hav
e any expectation on privacy. "we saw a poop porn video on pornhub. you shouldnt
expect privacy when pooping then."
permalink
[ ]ragn4rok234 4 points 6 hours ago
Whoo! Now I don't need a warrant or sufficient reason to wire tap anyone and eve
ryone. Stalkers of the world rejoice! It's like Oprah is handing out privacy bre
aches in here
permalink
[ ]fourslaps 4 points 4 hours ago
This isn't what Steve Irwin would have wanted
permalink
[ ]knowyourbrain 7 points 8 hours ago
How sad is it that we have an R Senator trying to rein in a D president's FBI?
If Snowden et al have not been able to show the American people what a farce our
government is then I don't know how it can be demonstrated.
permalink
[ ]makingupdumbnames 1 point 5 hours ago
that's Chelsea to you, mister!
permalinkparent
[ ]StellarUsername 4 points 9 hours ago
Can someone ELI5 why my cell carrier lets this happen? Seems like it would be ea
sy enough for them to put a stop to it if they wanted.

permalink
[ ]giantgnat 13 points 8 hours ago
Because if you don't play nice with them, they don't play nice with you like wha
t happened to the CEO of quest after he refused to cooperate.
permalinkparent
[ ]lll_1_lll 6 points 6 hours ago
CEO of quest
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/09/30/a-ceo-who-resistednsa-spying-is-out-of-prison-and-he-feels-vindicated-by-snowden-leaks/
permalinkparent
[ ]WatchoutItsAllan 1 point 4 hours ago
Looks like the only way to be out of the eyes of the NSA is to go back to using
these http://imgur.com/JEFUt4h
permalinkparent
[ ]jkeyser14 4 points 7 hours ago
The cell and internet companies get paid millions by the government for direct a
ccess to their lines. This was one of the things Snowden blew the whistle on.
permalinkparent
[ ]MadPooter 2 points 7 hours ago
I believe that the technology behind our current cell phone towers needs to allo
w for widespread access to said cell phone towers from a wide array of technolog
ical devices.
The Stingray makes the cell phone tower believe that it's a cell phone--I don't
know that it's as easy as you might think to re-design all cell phone models to
differentiate themselves from what Stingrays currently are.
TL;DR: This might be a better issue for cell phone designers to solve rather the
n cell phone carriers.
permalinkparent
[ ]egalroc 2 points 6 hours ago
Maybe design a Falcon drone that homes in and locks on fake Stingray towers. Wou
ldn't the FBI just shit to see a couple sparrows zooming down on them?
permalinkparent
[ ]A530[??] 1 point 6 hours ago
Cell carriers couldn't care less. They're also packaging backdoors in their base
band software to do all kinds of functional crap, like over the air updates and
remote access.
permalinkparent
[ ]here4DaBacon 3 points 7 hours ago
So it's a honey pot for cell phones. This same method is used to intercept WiFi
internet traffic. The world is becoming a hackers paradise.
permalink
[ ]CapAnson 4 points 6 hours ago
I don't even think of the FBI's exceptions two and three are valid. And as for i
mminent danger to public safety I can't imagine when that safety hinges on inter
cepting a cell call right now this very second without a warrant
permalink
[ ]SquidwardSnowden1 3 points 6 hours ago
Let it be noted, I love big brother.
permalink
[ ]ryanknapper 3 points 6 hours ago
There was a comment asking what prevents private citizens from doing this. My re
ply was: Absolutely nothing. In fact, there are legal ways of doing exactly this
.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xKihq1fClQg
permalink
[ ]lll_1_lll 2 points 6 hours ago
inb4 this thread gets removed by the mods and/or shadowbanned
permalink
[ ]doctorshady[S] 3 points 6 hours ago
I was almost sure it was going to be removed when I submitted it.

permalinkparent
[ ]grtwatkins 1 point 3 hours ago
Wait, so mods = FBI?
permalinkparent
[ ]doctorshady[S] 2 points 2 hours ago
The mods here are quite restrictive about what is allowed to be submitted. Wheth
er or not they're under someone's influence is a question I can't answer (though
I'd honestly like to know), but you'll occasionally see high profile topics rem
oved, like the Snowden leaks back when PRISM was first pointed out.
permalinkparent
[ ]tomcat23 3 points 6 hours ago
If I had a hundred dollars for every time the FBI said it could do something une
thical or unconstitutional I'd be shooting rockets into space like Elon Musk rig
ht now.
permalink
[ ]leafygreenstuff 3 points 6 hours ago
Oh, well if they said....
permalink
[ ]wlxr 3 points 5 hours ago
Is this implying that they are going to repeatedly kill Steve Irwin?
permalink
[ ]Bulldog65 3 points 2 hours ago
Can I Use my Stingray in public places to intercept communications ?
If the answer is no, then the FBI needs a warrant.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effec
ts, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Wa
rrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, a
nd particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things t
o be seized.
This can only be changed by super majority votes in Congress and the States, not
treasonous opinions of mouthpiece lawyers in Department of Justice. This is why
prosecutions of torture memo writers is important. If they want to try and make
up laws they need to be held accountable under the law.
permalink
[ ]Do_Em_Till_They_Derp 13 points 12 hours ago
I don't think that is a good idea considering what happened to Steve Irwin.
permalink
[ ]Smgth 1 point 4 hours ago
I can't believe how far down I had to scroll to find this joke. I was worried I'
d have to make it myself. This thread is WAY too serious for my taste...
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]go1dfish 10 points 10 hours ago
This is what happens when you give a group of people authority over all else.
They use that authority to extort funds from you to pay for your own oppression.
But reddit still cheers it on. It seems to some; the concepts of roads or compas
sion cannot exist without specially anointed jack boot thugs.
permalink
[ ]Arael15th 3 points 6 hours ago
Do you see anyone in this post cheering this on? Moreover is this your first tim
e here?
permalinkparent
[ ]Flight_MH370 2 points 9 hours ago
Can the cell providers see every time this happens? If so, they could alert peop
le of fake towers or something. Alas, I'm pretty sure all the cell providers are
in bed with the feds already anyway.
permalink
[ ]leftnotracks 1 point 8 hours ago
This is why it s a good thing the FBI are not the people in charge of what is lega
l.

permalink
[ ]iluvmilfs420 3 points 7 hours ago
Ohh cool more of my taxes wasted on stupid shit...
permalink
[ ]fuzzycuffs 3 points 7 hours ago
Then I can do the same thing with wifi and not be charged with hacking, right?
permalink
[ ]endprism 2 points 7 hours ago
Use of Stringray in America: https://www.aclu.org/maps/stingray-tracking-devices
-whos-got-them
http://rt.com/usa/215735-sandiego-police-phone-tracking/
http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/First-Amendment-Coalition-Files-Lawsuit-Ab
out-Stingray-Surveillance--286092741.html
http://www.miaminewtimes.com/2012-02-16/news/cell-phone-tracking-miami-cops-know
-where-you-are/
http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/Fort-Worth-Cellphone-Tracking-Rings-Controversy
-140796693.html
http://www.wgrz.com/story/news/investigations/2014/02/13/are-local-police-spying
-on-your-cell-phone/5462273/
Tick tock...
permalink
[ ]johnnybiggs15 2 points 7 hours ago
didnt know they had that type of power
permalink
[ ]jwyche008 2 points 6 hours ago
They would fucking say that wouldn't they? The thing is it isn't supposed to be
their damn decision to make!
permalink
[ ]ICEClownfishWok 1 point 6 hours ago
Did the US government learn nothing from Nazi Germany? I honestly won't be surpr
ised if WWIII occurs when the rest of the world gets tired of our governments bu
llshit
permalink
[ ]frankenstilskin 3 points 6 hours ago
America, for the corporations by the corporations
permalink
[ ]Elephant_rhino_tiger 3 points 5 hours ago
It sounds like a 6 year old coming up with a superhero. "This is FBI man, and he
can fly and like punch through the earth, and he can y'know like intercept cell
traffic if he thinks it's important. But he is weak against himself though, so
like if he punched himself he would die."
permalink
[ ]Banana_blanket 2 points 4 hours ago
Hey who wants to just sit around and let it happen? Oh, everyone? Perfect. Ready
? Go.
permalink
[ ]poopinbutt2014 3 points 4 hours ago
Ah yes, the cops deciding what laws they are and aren't subject to.
permalink
[ ]burnerthrown 2 points 2 hours ago
Has anyone else notied a pattern of more and more laws that protect enforcement
operations from civilians, and fewer nd fewer laws protecting civilians from enf
orcement?
permalink
[ ]siquisiudices 2 points 2 hours ago
Increasingly I am astonished by the state of democracy in the developed western
countries. What has happened and how? I realise that there have always been infr
ingements of liberties by the state - always. But it seems to me that what has c
hanged is the blatent nature of the compromise of democratic norms. I'm not a hi
storian but my impression is that the origins of our current situation lie in tw

o iconic regimes in the UK and US - Reagan and Thatcher (and those that followed
) - and in the fall of the soviet regimes.
The economic philosophy that Reagan and Thatcher promoted reduced liberty to pro
perty rights while at the same time it condemned (rightly) the soviet regimes fo
r their lack of respect for democratic norms. The appeal of this economic ideolo
gy to capital, to the corporations, was obvious especially as during the 1970s t
here had been intermittent but recurring periods when profitability had fallen.
In the context of declining profitability, a roll back of the state and public e
xpenditure was a quick win.
For the rest of society, the implication that growth in personal, individual wea
lth was being held back by public spending and that the welfare state eroded ind
ividual responsibility also won the day. A key element in this process was the d
efeat and denigration of trade unionism: Thatcher going so far as to suggest tha
t trade unions (in the person of the National Union of Miners) were dangerous tr
aitors. People bought into the arguments for radical individualism ("there is no
such thing as society") because, in part, the concrete experience of collectivi
sm in trade unions declined in the face a massive anti-trade union assault.
The fall of the corrupt and totalitarian soviet regimes underpinned this all by
giving concrete expression to the notion that there is no alternative.
Economically the result has been massive widening of the discrepancy in wealth i
n many western countries and increased immiseration of labour across the world a
nd no force to counterbalance the power of the corporations and the state that t
hey (quite naturally) control. The state is the central committee of capital.
In all of this, the oft misnamed "libertarian" tendencies were accompanied by an
increasingly authoritarian and intrusive state apparatus which was promoted and
defended around quite classical nationalist ideas but recast often as the defen
se of western democracy against various external enemies.
And so, little by little, we have allowed our civil liberties to be chipped away
. Even the radical libertarians have been sidelined and fooled into irrelevant s
truggles around gun control in the US. Really, if an armed citizenry were the gu
arantee of liberty then one wold have hoped it would have done a better job. But
overall anti-welfare, anti-European and anti-immigrant rhetoric in the UK and,
for example, religious manipulation of public discourse in the US have allowed t
he authoritarian, pro-corporate state to gradually encroach on political and per
sonal freedoms. And here we are.
We can't say we didn't know - we were warned but the ruling class managed to def
ame the messengers and in other ways render us impotent.
One can only hope that we wake up in time and that our new disdain for collectiv
ism is overcome by the necessity of taking collective action.
permalink
[ ]DinglebellRock [score hidden] 49 minutes ago
You have a right to privacy according to the Constitution. Except for maybe your
cell phone calls. Or email. Or handwritten or typed letters. Or what you read f
rom the library and Amazon. Or maybe your colon and lower intestine if you are i
n New Mexico. What a fucked up nation this has become...
permalink
[ ]nstalker91 [score hidden] 38 minutes ago
Oh sure, when they do it, it's "protecting" and "morally right", but when I do i
t, it's a "federal crime" and "the FCC watches me"
permalink
[ ]The_Media_Collector 3 points 9 hours ago
This is why my phone has an app to continually report IMSI changes to me. I swit
ch one tower to another, I get a warning.
permalink
[ ]Redd575 1 point 7 hours ago
How is that helpful? Not being an ass, just curious. Seems if a Stingray can spo
of a tower then the app does little unless you are standing absolutely still.
permalinkparent
[ ]The_Media_Collector 3 points 7 hours ago
it's my understanding that Stingray "towers" do not encrypt traffic. anytime I a

m connected to an unencrypted "tower" the IMSI detector goes red and lets me kno
w.
permalinkparent
[ ]Redd575 1 point 6 hours ago
Wow. Whomever figured that out was clever.
permalinkparent
[ ]ExReverie93 1 point 7 hours ago
Which app? And would a normal person (not meaning you're not normal. You know wh
at I mean.) be able to use it?
permalinkparent
[ ]The_Media_Collector 1 point 7 hours ago
Requires Root. It's just caeld "Adnroid IMSI-Catchter"
permalinkparent
[ ]egalroc 1 point 6 hours ago
Makes a person want to be a criminal or spy just for the fun of it.
permalinkparent
[ ]Effo 3 points 7 hours ago
Goodbye America the Great, hello police state. :-[
permalink
[ ]Casemods 2 points 7 hours ago
Another reason why I don't have a cell phone.
permalink
[ ]GiveMe_TreeFiddy 3 points 7 hours ago
Things libertarians have been screaming about and offering solutions to for 500$
, Alex...
permalink
[ ]ilovesellinblow 1 point 9 hours ago
police and marshals have been running these for years.
permalink
[ ]bbelt16ag 1 point 8 hours ago
so FBI lets see what the Supreme court has to say to that. I am sure once they r
ule on this you will be going home with your tails between your legs.
permalink
[ ]Banana_blanket 1 point 4 hours ago
Do you people really have that much faith in our Supreme Court? Really?
permalinkparent
[ ]bbelt16ag 1 point 3 hours ago
gotta have some faith, other wise its just anarchy, or revolution. I am not read
y to give up quite yet.
permalinkparent
[ ]bonyponyride 1 point 8 hours ago
If digital communication in a public (and private) space is fair game, there's n
othing to stop an FBI tech specialist from stealing things like knowledge that w
ould be considered insider trading. There's an extreme potential for abuse.
permalink
[ ]jkeyser14 2 points 7 hours ago
If was fair game then hacking into wireless signals by private citizens wouldn't
be illegal.
permalinkparent
[ ]egalroc 1 point 6 hours ago
Just waiting for Anonymous to set up shop in a public park and hack into police
communications then dispatch them to bogus locations throughout the city. If any
thing goes wrong, they could always blame North Korea.
permalinkparent
[ ]coalbeeashi 1 point 3 hours ago
Aren't government agencies encrypting their digital communication - thus exhibit
ing an expectation of privacy?
I'm not sure what steps the "reasonable person" is taking to exhibit an expectat
ion of privacy over their data, tbh.
permalinkparent

[ ]hmmwhatsthisdo 1 point 8 hours ago


If you used RedPhone, Whisperpush/TextSecure, and a VPN, this wouldn't be of con
cern to you, right?
permalink
[ ]LucifersCounselNZ 1 point 7 hours ago
Wrong.
In other cases, the IMSI or equivalent identifier of a target is not known to th
e StingRay operator and the goal of the surveillance operation is to identify on
e or more cellular devices being used in a known area.[16] For example, if visua
l surveillance is being conducted on a group of protestors,[17] a StingRay can b
e used to download the IMSI or equivalent identifier from each phone within the
protest area. After identifying the phones, locating and tracking operations can
be conducted, and service providers can be forced to turn over account informat
ion identifying the phone users.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stingray_phone_tracker#Extracting_Data_From_Interna
l_Storage
Before any of that shit you're talking about comes into play, the IMSI number is
used when establishing the connection. It is uniquely identifying. With your IM
SI number and a court order (or cooperative telco) they will know who you are an
d who you were communicating with.
Then they can use that information to punish you for participating in legal prot
ests, associating with the wrong people, or simply because some Fed didn't like
the look of you.
permalinkparent
[ ]hmmwhatsthisdo 1 point 6 hours ago
So, the only way is to modify your IMEI (which is questionably legal) and use a
prepaid SIM?
permalinkparent
[ ]facepalmdude 1 point 5 hours ago
The IMSI part makes sense, but by using the mentioned tools authorities are very
unlikely to find out who you communicated with, or what the content was. All th
ey know is that you're the end point of an encrypted data connection.
permalinkparent
[ ]coalbeeashi 1 point 3 hours ago
I would assume that a court would view this as an individual exhibiting an expec
tation of privacy over their data.
permalinkparent
[ ]mambotangohandala 1 point 7 hours ago
Law?
We don't need no stinkin' law...
permalink
[ ]smilesbot 1 point 7 hours ago
You've just used a double negative! :P
permalinkparent
[ ]mambotangohandala 1 point 7 hours ago
no i did not, never would i do such a thing, nope, i don't think i ever did...
Ever see the movie 'blazing saddles'? Context kid, context
permalinkparent
[ ]smilesbot 1 point 7 hours ago
yup yup yup!
permalinkparent
[ ]mambotangohandala 1 point 7 hours ago
oh no a triple positive,what a stupendous faux pas!
permalinkparent
[ ]smilesbot 1 point 7 hours ago
yup yup yup!
permalinkparent
[ ]mambotangohandala 1 point 7 hours ago
Did mom give you too many sodas tonight?
permalinkparent

[ ]mambotangohandala 1 point 7 hours ago


Now where are those kiddy downers?
permalinkparent
[ ]mambotangohandala 1 point 7 hours ago
Remember tomorrow is a school day
permalinkparent
[ ]BigTex8900 1 point 7 hours ago
The Federal Bureau of Investigation is taking the position that court warrants a
re not required when deploying cell-site simulators in public places.
Wait so can I take the position that it's not actually illegal to suck dick for
money in public places?
permalink
[ ]AssOrca 1 point 6 hours ago
Well thank god there not doing it in my home!
permalinkparent
[ ]Drunken_Economist 1 point 7 hours ago
The FCC says they are needed, FWIW
permalink
[ ]FadingEchoes11 0 points 6 hours ago
100% true, power to the people
You should learn about and try to understand firearms more, they are just tools
after all.
permalink
[ ]winstrol 1 point 6 hours ago
Can i use a stingray? Al stick to my snoopsnitch.
permalink
[ ]fatscat84 2 points 6 hours ago
Big fucking surprise, 4th amendment=toilet paper anymore. The rights of the citi
zens arent even considered anymore since we dont have lobbyists. Maybe ill start
a kickstarter campaign to make a lobbyist group to give americans a voice in d.
c.
permalink
[ ]urbn 2 points 6 hours ago
The Obama Administration has repeatedly maintained that the public has no privac
y in public places.
And yet the excuse always used when someone records a police officer breaking th
e law and is arrested, detained and has his property stolen is that it violates
their privacy.
permalink
[ ]Vigilias 1 point 6 hours ago
If it's stealing signals being send from private residences it sure should fucki
ng be wtf.
permalink
[ ]2013palmtreepam 1 point 6 hours ago
Because stingrays automatically stop working at private property lines? Don't re
call the part of the 4th Amendment that exempts the requirement for probable cau
se and a search warrant when one happens to be in a public place.
permalink
[ ]makingupdumbnames 2 points 6 hours ago
I don't think it would be too hard to develop a stingray jammer, something that
just floods their equipment with a bunch of useless/fake cell phone numbers...I'
m in favor of a more strategic response to these types of infringements of our r
ights. We actually have a right and responsibility to fight tyranny...
permalink
[ ]ghotiaroma 1 point 3 hours ago
It's possible, but you wouldn't know where and when to use it. And it would be d
etectable you are using a jammer and anyone using one would find themselves fill
ed with SWAT bullets in no time.
permalinkparent
[ ]ononewheel 1 point 2 hours ago

Cant you rent bot net time and do this?


permalinkparent
[ ]psilontech 1 point 5 hours ago
I think that's for the courts to decide, FBI.
permalink
[ ]coalbeeashi 1 point 4 hours ago
...the only way the courts could decide is if it were practiced and a lawsuit wa
s brought against those practices.
Of course the FBI is going to finagle ways to flirt with obscure, outdated laws
for the purpose of investigating, thus practice it. Of course some group or orga
nization is going to take issue with it, thus taking it to court.
permalinkparent
[ ]cynoclast 2 points 5 hours ago
And the 4th Amendment says the FBI is wrong. And to the idea that subsequent law
s or that prededence says otherwise, I say that lawyers who make those interpret
ations were paid to do so by people with a vested interest in saying otherwise.
The constitution and amendments were intended to be read and interpreted by ever
yone, not just lawyers and judges so it matters not at all what lawyers and judg
es say.
permalink
[ ]coalbeeashi 1 point 5 hours ago
The constitution and amendments were intended to be read and interpreted by ever
yone
Uhh...interpreted by everyone? Do you know how fucked up that would be? There's
a reason for the judicial branch.
permalinkparent
[ ]cynoclast 2 points 4 hours ago
More fucked up than corporations as people? The 4th Amendment being ignored by t
he DHS, Homeland Security, and the NSA? More fucked up than than all the ridicul
ous, unconstitutional restrictions on cosmetic features of firearms that all vio
late the 2nd amendment? More fucked up than justices appointed by war criminals
refusing to recuse themselves where they have a clear conflict of interest?
The judicial branch is staffed by people, just as fallible as the rest of us. Th
e judicial branch was nly ever an attempt to reign in the other two. It was alwa
ys intended that it was the right of the people to alter or abolish the governme
nt if it gets out of hand and it has.
permalinkparent
[ ]coalbeeashi 1 point 4 hours ago
I would still rather have the fate of laws be in the hands of individuals who sp
ecifically studied the very nature of their professional practice than leave it
up to a mass of people with little-to-no understanding of the law, outside of wh
at is force-fed to them by media (comparable to your assertion of less-than-idea
l practices by lawyer/judges)
I fully agree that laws should be written in ways that the public can understand
and interpret (however, you're never going to reach a consensus on laws written
200+ years ago). And I believe that, reading most supreme court decisions, the
justices advocate for specifics in laws and understand that outdated or vague la
ws is a main reason cases are brought before them. Laws aren't concrete or stati
c. It's a court of public opinion.
permalinkparent
[ ]cynoclast 1 point 4 hours ago
I would still rather have the fate of laws be in the hands of individuals who sp
ecifically studied the very nature of their professional practice than leave it
up to a mass of people with little-to-no understanding of the law, outside of wh
at is force-fed to them by media (comparable to your assertion of less-than-idea
l practices by lawyer/judges)
I think there's balance between the two. It's similar to the balance between IT
and the user. While the IT guy is more knowledgeable about the field than most o
f the users he's supposed to facilitate, he often forgets that his purpose is to
facilitate, not to rule, and what the users are doing is what keeps the lights

on. People in congress and the senate are mislabelled when called 'lawmakers' th
eir job is representative of their constituency. And lawyers face a conflict of
interest between simplifying the law and representing people fairly and seeing a
fter their own welfare and ensuring their own job security. Simple, clear, and u
nambiguous laws have little value to the professional attorney at law. But the p
eople at large have no interest, and in fact a reason to despise laws they don't
understand, especially ones decided by decades old case law they know nothing a
bout. But for too long the balance has been swinging in favor of the lawyer seek
ing payment for services from the rich instead of the poor seeking freedom from
those with the resources to hire teams of lawyers for years to drain them of res
ources. The day a rich man could sue an innocent poor man under false pretenses
and crush him is the day the justice department ceased to function as intended.
I fully agree that laws should be written in ways that the public can understand
and interpret (however, you're never going to reach a consensus on laws written
200+ years ago). And I believe that, reading most supreme court decisions, the
justices advocate for specifics in laws and understand that outdated or vague la
ws is a main reason cases are brought before them. Laws aren't concrete or stati
c. It's a court of public opinion.
Lawyers like to pretend that they are concrete or static. Just imagine the phras
e "settled case law" coming out of their mouths and you need go no further. It's
like they forget that eventually given the dynamic equilibrium of the poor vs.
the rich that sometimes words written on paper in a dusty library somewhere mean
absolutely nothing when the pitchforks and guillotines come out, the old laws t
hrown out, and new ones written even more strongly against tyrants. You're right
, sometimes, it's a court of public opinion. But sometimes the court is brutal,
but not unjustly so:
There were two Reigns of Terror, if we would but remember it and consider it; the
one wrought murder in hot passion, the other in heartless cold blood; the one la
sted mere months, the other had lasted a thousand years; the one inflicted death
upon ten thousand persons, the other upon a hundred millions; but our shudders
are all for the horrors of the minor Terror, the momentary Terror, so to speak; wh
ereas, what is the horror of swift death by the axe, compared with lifelong deat
h from hunger, cold, insult, cruelty, and heart-break? What is swift death by li
ghtning compared with death by slow fire at the stake? A city cemetery could con
tain the coffins filled by that brief Terror which we have all been so diligentl
y taught to shiver at and mourn over; but all France could hardly contain the co
ffins filled by that older and real Terror that unspeakably bitter and awful Terro
r which none of us has been taught to see in its vastness or pity as it deserves
.
permalinkparent
[ ]DongleNocker 2 points 5 hours ago
Don't you wish government organizations would get permission from congress prior
to assuming they have the authority?
permalink
[ ]Euracil 1 point 5 hours ago
Whoops! Someone just happened to spill wine all over the Bill of Rights! Well, a
t least the Second Amendment survived!
permalink
[ ]ripvannwinkler 1 point 5 hours ago
What is the practical operational radius of one of these things?
If my place of business or residence falls in this radius of an operating device
, is my phone subject to interception by the device?
If so, you require a warrant. Period. No equivocation.
permalink
[ ]bittopia 1 point 5 hours ago
What is going to be interesting is when systems and encryptions becomes so resil
ient and powerful that nothing can be spied on AT ALL. What will they do then?
permalink
[ ]johnnybullet 1 point 5 hours ago
I thought only God was listening to me... This changes everything!

permalink
[ ]TronicTonic 2 points 5 hours ago
Thank god the FBI is in charge of the judicial branch and gets to decide what is
right vs wrong.
permalink
[ ]Vinven 1 point 5 hours ago
They can say whatever they want, it doesn't make it legal.
permalink
[ ]coffeethulhu 2 points 5 hours ago
Under this theory anybody could buy one of these devices and use it in "public s
paces" without fear of falling foul of the law....Who wants to start a kickstart
er campaign to buy one?
permalink
[ ]redditezmode 1 point 5 hours ago
Based on what, exactly? Why would they think search warrants aren't necessary?
permalink
[ ]Fucksfuturefatchicks 1 point 4 hours ago
If it stops me from downloading porn, it's a dead giveaway. If it doesn't, thank
s for the government funded and sanctioned porn.
permalink
[ ]egalroc 1 point 4 hours ago
I wonder if the FBI can upload unsanctioned porn to your computer using a stingr
ay? Interesting thought isn't it?
permalinkparent
[ ]winsomecowboy 1 point 4 hours ago
So my clandestine FBI staff list shouldn't be an issue.
permalink
[ ]Heisenpurrrrg 1 point 4 hours ago
Those guys can fuck right off, eh?
permalink
[ ]cerealcable 1 point 4 hours ago
Every time an invasion of our rights & privacy especially related to our establi
shed forms of communications happens it just terrifies me. Not because our gover
nment is throwing wind to established laws but because of what the future could
bring.
The reason why most of us are upset today over this is because we have an expect
ation of privacy when we pick up our cell phones. We expect our text messages, p
hone calls and data to be private thus protected by law requiring a warrant to "
tap" it only for Law Enforcement. Telecoms (wired, wireless, voip) will only com
ply to requests when required by law, but when it comes to the public air waves
using technology to just listen in we're starting a terrible precedent.
Essentially what I'm concerned about is that eventually it'll be so commonly acc
epted that these communications are not private (after all the government can sn
oop in on those conversations, and everyone already expects it) and thus we no l
onger have the expectation of privacy and thus no warrant is actually acquired.
The terrifying process is how it all started, with the government over stepping
their legal abilities with little to no repercussions.
Now that I'm reading that paragraph again, I honestly wouldn't be surprised if t
hat exact argument is/was/will be used in a secret court of which none of us wil
l be able to hold accountable.
It's scary to see what the future will hold for privacy related to technology. O
ur government is doing anything and everything they want and if people aren't sc
ared they need to get some tinfoil and make some hats because they're going to n
eed them.
Obligatory point: As the government snoops more and more, technology will just e
ncrypt more and more making it nearly pointless for the snooping, but it won't c
hange the expectation of privacy after say a decade of common knowledge that the
se communications are not private. Then Law Enforcement Agencies will just subpo
ena records instead of following due process of getting a warrant.
tl;dr It's a very slippery slope and I'm just watching us slowly sliding further

and further into the trap. :-(


permalink
[ ]coalbeeashi 1 point 4 hours ago
Honest question - in the eyes of laws, is our view on "expectation of privacy" i
gnorant or misguided? When I send a text - even though I don't think about it I gave permission to Apple, AT&T, my friend, their carrier, their phone, and pro
bably countless others that I don't even realize. When I download an app I give
them all sorts of permissions to access my information.
Also, what's stopping the government from creating an app, let's say some crazed
game like Trivia Crack, hide a bunch of permissions that no one looks at and do
it that way. They could have access to my photos, access to my microphone, acce
ss to my location, etc. (obviously I understand that you can retract most of tho
se permissions, but I doubt many people do)
So, I guess my question is, using multiple third parties, do I really have the r
ight to expect complete privacy?
permalinkparent
[ ]Rockerofboats 2 points 4 hours ago
I do what I wants to.
permalink
[ ]Gymshortsboner55 2 points 4 hours ago
I'm not trying to sound like the uncle that's always bitchin' at family reunions
but man is this country going down the shitter. I'm almost ashamed to live here
anymore.
permalink
[ ]kazuri85 2 points 4 hours ago
The government has no right to make your property do something you do not want i
t to do.
permalink
[ ]SpacemanLurker 2 points 3 hours ago
Crikey! Australian accent
Too soon?
permalink
[ ]Undisclosed-dopeness 1 point 3 hours ago
Really wish this was about actual stingrays
permalink
[ ]k-h 1 point 3 hours ago
Is that the "stingrays" that don't exist?
Of course they don't need a warrant on equipment that doesn't exist.
permalink
[ ]PhorTwenny 2 points 3 hours ago
if it picks up all cells text/call/info how do they know your not inside a house
or anyother private area? Either way this is disgusting!
permalink
[ ]MarxIzalias 2 points 3 hours ago
The more of these that get posted, the harder I laugh at America's freedoms.
You pretty much have the same as everybody else.
It seems as though the constitution is like bog roll to your law enforcement. Co
vered in meaningless shit that doesn't even stick to them.
What a joke.
The FBI stating that 'stingrays' don't apply to privacy laws because you're in a
public place makes no sense, otherwise you could walk around butt naked and arg
ue that "According to the FBI, personal privacy is not required in public".
Of course, they could say, what any deceitful peice of trash could say. "If you
weren't doing anything illegal then you have nothing to worry about."
Unless you were talking to you solicitor about a patent. In which case it would
be worthless the moment a third party heard about the invention.
Talking to your doctor about a condition that could prejudice a group against yo
u.
Talking to a solicitor about the details of a case.
Talking to fellow jurors over the phone about a details of a case, that's always

good to be spied on.


Talk about family history and possible ties you might have to foreign nations, w
hich could put you on a watch list.
Give personal details to bankers about foreign business accounts which have diff
erent protection laws.
Discuss plans you may have that they could interfere with.
Or just miscellaneous emails to and from your employer that could be damaging to
the companies reputation if published and could be used against them as leverag
e with a false flag operation LOOKING AT YOU SONY!
This isn't even a comprehensive list of things that you could do, but hey, it's
America, the land where freedom is a lie and the constitution is apparently wort
h less and less with each new government. XFD
permalink
[ ]NightOfTheLivingHam 1 point 3 hours ago
while we're declaring bullshit, I declare I'm owed a million dollars.
permalink
[ ]ZedOud 1 point 3 hours ago
Most warrant-less law enforcement surveillance techniques are legal because they
can be performed by members of the public, in public. (ex. tailing)
So can we also legally operate a stingray?
Yes we can!
permalink
[ ]Wulfgar_RIP 1 point 3 hours ago
FBI protecting freedoms and constitution from terrorists
permalink
[ ]CantHugEveryCat 2 points 3 hours ago
I'm surprised the FBI still feel they have to justify their actions.
permalink
[ ]bazingabrain 0 points 3 hours ago
Here I am thinking the FBI is going to be throwing real stingrays around without
a search warrant. Can't have that
permalink
[ ]tobsn 1 point 3 hours ago
and whoever said that should be immediately terminated.
permalink
[ ]joshladd 1 point 3 hours ago
Didn't the supreme court just say that searching cell phones requires a warrant?
Is this different than searching cell phones? I might be uninformed but it seem
s like a blatant disregard for court rulings.
permalink
[ ]birdington1 1 point 3 hours ago
Can anybody explain what a 'stingray' is?
permalink
[ ]one_love_silvia 1 point 2 hours ago
the article explains it in literally the first paragraph.
permalinkparent
[ ]IllegalOperator 0 points 2 hours ago
Yeah right, dropping the case rather than reveal their methods says otherwise. I
f there weren't doing anything wrong they would have nothing to hide.
permalink
[ ]HauntedBeepers 1 point 2 hours ago
FBI says FBI can do what it wants
permalink
[ ]Fig1024 1 point 2 hours ago
does that mean I, as private citizen, can also use them? After all, there are no
laws against it
permalink
[ ]Monkeibusiness 1 point 2 hours ago
"FBI - out if control since 2001" -Simpsons
permalink

[ ]skztr 1 point 2 hours ago


good test for whether or not you need a warrant:
If any random person off the street did it, would that be legal? If not, you nee
d a fucking warrant.
permalink
[ ]Rusky82 1 point 2 hours ago
Land of the free eh......
permalink
[ ]WECGEWHYAAIORTNU 1 point 2 hours ago
So in some states its "wiretapping" to record with a microphone a conversation b
etween two people happening at a table, but pretending to be a cell tower is a-o
k?
permalink
[ ]Amanoo 1 point 2 hours ago
"concerned about whether the FBI and other law enforcement agencies have adequat
ely considered the privacy interests" of Americans
Privacy interests of Americans? Is that supposed to still be a thing? I thought
that privacy interests were considered something for terrorists in the US, by no
w.
permalink
[ ]raviddadford 1 point 2 hours ago
Stingray got Steve Irwin
permalink
[ ]Homarus_Americanus 1 point 2 hours ago
It's all good 'cause I can by me all guns I want.
permalink
[ ]anshu1234 0 points 2 hours ago
This is non-news if you are not a drug-peddler. Next please.
permalink
[ ]bubbafat1155 1 point 2 hours ago
It's over. "They" have won. The only hope now is for individuals, society is los
t. Get off the grid, or join the sheep. http://imgur.com/W7CdURh
permalink
[ ]Targun 1 point 2 hours ago
And how are they going to filter out cellphones of all the people who live next
to public places where stingray is located?
permalink
[ ]riderer 1 point 2 hours ago
So can i do the same in public place? just stingray everyone?
permalink
[ ]Neker 1 point 1 hour ago
There are blueprints and tutorials out there that put "stingrays" within reach o
f an hobbyist. Law-breaking hobbyist, that is, but still : mobile phones essenti
aly broadcast your conversations.
permalink
[ ]mindwandering 1 point 1 hour ago
The flying DRT box.
permalink
[ ]SilenceGivesConsent [score hidden] 48 minutes ago
In other words, FBI says it does not need search warrants to warrant a search.
permalink
[ ]Formally_Nightman [score hidden] 46 minutes ago
FBI: "Senator we have been monitoring your calls and your exact geographical loc
ation for years ... You shouldn't find that unconstitutional or the public and y
our wife will learn how unconstitutional you've been"
permalink
[ ]ActuallyNotSparticus [score hidden] 40 minutes ago
Fuck this shit. Stingrays killed the crocodile hunter. Are we ready for the gove
rnment to use these stingrays?
permalink

[ ]Rayhueston [score hidden] 38 minutes ago


The article says the Obama administration consistently maintains that people hav
e no privacy in public. Is that true or is that hyperbole?
If I'm walking down the street, do I have the right to keep the contents of my w
allet private? My blood type? My thoughts?
If I have no privacy with regard to these and many other sensitive things, who d
oes have the right to them?
permalink
[ ]swollennode [score hidden] 37 minutes ago
People don't have privacy in public places..hmmm, I think that people are entitl
ed to privacy if something private belongs to them. Sure, people's faces aren't
private when they're in public places. But people's phone calls and texts should
be.
permalink
[ ]pomod [score hidden] 18 minutes ago
Well if the FBI says they are not needed...
Seriously, this should be a court decision not a cop one. Cops, even a fancy cop
s like the FBI, should not make the laws just enforce them.
permalink
[ ]CJ59 [score hidden] 18 minutes ago
In other news, the FBI says, "You know what, screw it. There are no more laws. W
e'll do whatever the hell we want. Not like you're going to do anything about it
."
permalink
[ ]gkiltz [score hidden] 15 minutes ago
Just because the FBI says it, that does not mean it's true!
I don't envy the poor schmuck who has to stan in front of the Supreme Court and
argue that!!
permalink
load more comments (48 replies)
about
blog
about
team
source code
advertise
jobs
help
wiki
FAQ
reddiquette
rules
contact us
tools
mobile
firefox extension
chrome extension
buttons
widget
<3
reddit gold
store
redditgifts
reddit AMA app
reddit.tv
radio reddit
Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy
. 2015 reddit inc. All rights reserved.
REDDIT and the ALIEN Logo are registered trademarks of reddit inc.

p jump to content
MY SUBREDDITS
FRONT-ALL-RANDOM | PHOTOSHOPBATTLES-HISTORY-GIFS-FOOD-PHILOSOPHY-TELEVISION-WORL
DNEWS-SHOWERTHOUGHTS-LIFEPROTIPS-ART-SPACE-NOTTHEONION-DOCUMENTARIES-NOSLEEP-GAM
ING-GADGETS-EARTHPORN-ASKREDDIT-FUNNY-MOVIES-DIY-FUTUROLOGY-FITNESS-BOOKS-LISTEN
TOTHIS-INTERNETISBEAUTIFUL-MUSIC-EXPLAINLIKEIMFIVE-UPLIFTINGNEWS-SPORTS-PICS-TOD
AYILEARNED-PERSONALFINANCE-DATAISBEAUTIFUL-IAMA-OLDSCHOOLCOOL-EUROPE-CREEPY-TWOX
CHROMOSOMES-AWW-NEWS-WRITINGPROMPTS-GETMOTIVATED-VIDEOS-TIFU-ASKSCIENCE-JOKES-MI
LDLYINTERESTING-SCIENCE
MORE
news newscommentsrelatedother discussions (15)
want to join? sign in or create an account in seconds|English
this post was submitted on 05 Jan 2015
3,152 points (95% upvoted)
shortlink:
remember mereset passwordlogin
news
unsubscribe4,562,294 readers
2,631 users here now
/r/inthenews
/r/worldnews
new submissions
new comments
Post analysis/opinion articles to /r/inthenews
Want to talk?
Chat with us on IRC
Follow @rslashnews on Twitter
See a post that violates the rules below? Had your post stuck in the spam filter
? Have a question about policy? Just want to give feedback? Send the mod team a
message.
Please post news items only, with the exception of meta posts about /r/news itse
lf. Self-posts aggregating news data and "independent reporting" each count as n
ews, but are not an excuse to editorialize.
Your post will likely be removed if it:
is not news (or a meta post).
is an opinion/analysis or advocacy piece.
primarily concerns politics.
has a title not taken from the article.
has a pay wall or steals content.
covers an already-submitted story.
violates reddit's site-wide rules, especially regarding personal info.
Your comment will likely be removed if it:
is racist, sexist, vitriolic, or overly crude.
is unnecessarily rude or provocative.
is a cheap and distracting joke or meme.
is responding to spam.
violates reddit's site-wide rules.
Extreme or repeat offenders will be banned.
Expanded Rules
If your post doesn't fit, consider finding an appropriate news article on that s
tory to submit instead, or submitting yours to lower moderation subreddits:
/r/inthenews - all news-related content
/r/AnythingGoesNews - unrestricted news
/r/truereddit - insightful articles
/r/self - any self-post
/r/misc, /r/redditdotcom - anything
or other news subreddits:
/r/worldnews - from outside the USA only
/r/SyrianCivilWar - about the conflict in Syria

/r/MidEastRegionalWar - on MidEast conflict /r/UpliftingNews - uplifting


/r/mediaquotes - the things they say
or subreddits for other topics:
/r/FoodForThought - discussion-worthy long form articles about interesting subje
cts
/r/politics - for shouting about politics
/r/moderatepolitics - less shouting
/r/politicaldiscussion - even less shouting
/r/geopolitics - intl. politics and geography
/r/entertainment - Justin Bieber updates, etc.
/r/europe - news from Europe
or check out the 200 most active subreddits, categorized by content and the full
list of subreddits by subscribers.
Recommendations:
/r/redactedcharts
/r/patriots
/r/personalfinance
/r/restorethefourth
reddit is fun for Android and its subreddit /r/redditisfun
submit analysis/opinion article
submit news article
submit something else
submit analysis/opinion article
a community for 6 years
message the moderators
moderators
douglasmacarthur
KyldeThe Janitor
AyeMatey
CandyManCan
Elderthedog
LuckyBdx4
NickWasHere09
ani625
pomosexuality
IKingJeremy
...and 1 more
3152
FBI says search warrants not needed to use stingrays in public places (arstechnica
.com)
submitted 13 hours ago by doctorshady
731 commentsshare
top 500 comments
sorted by: best
[ ]peaceshark 654 points 11 hours ago
If only there were some branch of government that would keep the FBI in check, o
ne that judged people and organizations supremely...
permalink
[ ]misogichan 641 points 8 hours ago
Unfortunately the Catholic church has its hands full dealing with its own intern
al reforms and recasting its vision and mission.
permalinkparent
[ ]wutshappening 93 points 7 hours ago
And looking at cat photos that's why they're Cat-holic. Alco-holics are addicted
to alcohol and catholics well you get the idea.
permalinkparent
[ ]TuffLuffJimmy 142 points 6 hours ago
Omg dad you're embarrassing me in front of my friends
permalinkparent
[ ]okmkz 27 points 4 hours ago

We ain't your friends, bruh


permalinkparent
[ ]Corruptionss 4 points 2 hours ago
We ain't your bruh, friends
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
load more comments (2 replies)
[ ]ROLLINGtemple 9 points 5 hours ago
What's their Dogma?
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
load more comments (9 replies)
[ ]hershmire 73 points 7 hours ago
The courts gave up about ten years ago.
permalinkparent
[ ]endprism 50 points 7 hours ago
The courts are pwned by the surveillance state.
permalinkparent
[ ]sushisection 41 points 6 hours ago
This is what I'm afraid of. Nsa is collecting data from all citizens including p
oliticians and supreme court judges.
permalinkparent
[ ]dutchguilder2 19 points 5 hours ago
Whistleblower confirms: http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=d6m1XbWOfVk
permalinkparent
[ ]TwitchTV_Subbort 1 point 3 hours ago
D.C. is Hollywood for ugly people. best line ever!!
permalinkparent
[ ]sklite 1 point 1 hour ago
Charles Augustus Magnussen approves
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]CriticalThink 1 point 6 hours ago
Skeletons in the closet are easy to find with intelligence infrastructure.
permalinkparent
[ ]HurricaneSandyHook 1 point 5 hours ago
The 10th circuit a few days ago sided with the government saying the cops use of
doppler radar to see if anyone was inside a house was legal. They did say it is
a troubling tactic that needs further review and just left it at that....
permalinkparent
[ ]-_--___-_--_--___--_ 27 points 6 hours ago
One major problem with judicial review is that there must be a case for the cour
t to review. I guess the other avenue would be to sue the government, but I'm no
t an attorney so I don't know how that would work.
permalinkparent
[ ]downvotesmakemehard 14 points 4 hours ago
I believe the current court has taken the stance that to take up a case someone
has to show they've been harmed in some way.
The police will never say that stingray is the source of the evidence. This woul
d open stingray to be scrutinized. They will use stingray to go after phone comp
any records which they will claim they requested on a hunch or some other bullsh
it excuse.
permalinkparent
[ ]great_gape [score hidden] 29 minutes ago
Anonymous tip.
permalinkparent
load more comments (2 replies)
[ ]dissonance07 8 points 6 hours ago
With is wide a latitude as the current SCOTUS seems to give to individual libert
y, this seems like the one kind of thing that they could actually usefully addre

ss, right?
permalinkparent
[ ]MrBojangles528 1 point 5 hours ago
Scalia and the rest of the SCOTUS is bought and sold just like the rest of our g
overnment. They answer first and foremost to the parties that nominated them as
well as the corporations that own them.
permalinkparent
[ ]psilontech 12 points 5 hours ago
See, I don't get that. You get into the Supreme Court and you're golden. Unless
you are actively breaking the law and can be impeached, you're untouchable. Why
not, you know, do what's best for your country instead of remaining beholden to
the parasites that leveraged you into that position?
permalinkparent
[ ]Ratbasher88 14 points 4 hours ago
Yep, Supreme Court justices have a well established history of turning out way d
ifferent than their supporters thought they'd be. For whatever reason this curre
nt batch of justices seems more comfortable with the security state than their p
redecessors, however that's true for most Americans in general so I suppose it s
houldn't be shocking.
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]MrBojangles528 2 points 4 hours ago
Good question, but you'd have to ask them about it.
permalinkparent
[ ]cynoclast 0 points 3 hours ago
Unless you are actively breaking the law and can be impeached, you're untouchabl
e.
But you can get richer. Or have your personal communications made public.
permalinkparent
[ ]tughdffvdlfhegl 1 point 3 hours ago
Honestly? Because they run in those social circles. They're friends with the peo
ple at the top. They don't actively associate with "regular folk" that much.
They've been ingratiated into the upper echelons of society long before ever rea
ching the supreme court through lifetimes spent at the forefront of the legal pr
ofession. This insulates them from others, and leaves them in an echo chamber of
their peers.
Now, when a case comes up that pits one of their friends, or friends' friends ag
ainst some random angry dude who's only making 50k a year, who do you think they
automatically side with, when the case isn't cut and dried? I'm not even saying
it's conscious, but prejudices come in all kinds and run deep. Tribalism happen
s all the time in subtle ways.
Plus there's Scalia taking paid for hunting trips with people who are directly a
ffected by cases in front of him, all of them getting invited to dinners and fun
ctions of the DC elite, etc.
permalinkparent
[ ]pion3435 1 point 3 hours ago
They do. It's possible to disagree with you without being corrupt.
permalinkparent
[ ]Jagoonder 1 point 2 hours ago
Not in an omnipotent surveillance state, however.
permalinkparent
[ ]DownFromYesBad 1 point 2 hours ago
Money, bribery.
permalinkparent
[ ]neotropic9 1 point 1 hour ago
Because they are selected to be the type of people who think whats "best for the
ir country" is serving the parasites, the corporate oligarchs, and the surveilla
nce state. They support the status quo, and the status quo supports them. It wou
ld be a miracle if someone with real principles was actually brought into the Su
preme Court, let alone enough of them to form a majority.

permalinkparent
[ ]isprobablyatwork 1 point 1 hour ago
This does happen, sometimes. Good examples would be Justices Warren and Stevens.
They played along with the GOP right up until they were put on the Court, then
immediately started voting their actual conscience (or if not their conscience,
then at least not as their political backers wanted).
permalinkparent
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[ ]cynoclast 2 points 3 hours ago
You mean the press?
permalinkparent
[ ]scrapinpeg 3 points 6 hours ago*
Obligatory link to illustrated law.
EDIT: fixed link
permalinkparent
[ ]ducttapejedi 3 points 6 hours ago*
error 404, check the link.
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[+][deleted] 13 hours ago (56 children)
[ ]sunbolts 701 points 12 hours ago
Glad to see the FBI is tearing up the constitution to increase their own powers
and authority. /s
permalink
[ ]dontbullshityourself 325 points 11 hours ago
Glad to see the FBI is tearing up the constitution to increase their own powers
and authority
I wish this was just the FBI. Pretty much everybody in the federal, state and lo
cals are doing this. Have been doing for this quite some time too.
permalinkparent
[ ]sunbolts 136 points 10 hours ago
Precisely, and that's what makes this very frightening. The whole club's in on i
t.
permalinkparent
[ ]radonthetyrant 75 points 7 hours ago
but why.. I realize that these "zomg the terrorists!!!11" is only a PR-lie. What
do they really accomplish with this? Industry espionage? Bribes from the indust
ries which create the espionage hardware? Feeling of total control? Control the
masses so it all stays as conservative and corrupt as possible?
Why would you amass such a criminal energy to break constitutional laws just to
be able to see through everyone's communication?
permalinkparent
[ ]BettyRubbleIsHot 151 points 7 hours ago
Total control.
That way when the state has it, they can really put the boot on our necks. Think
they treat us poorly now? Just wait until they have the infrastructure in place
where they feel confident there are absolutely zero threats to their power. Tha
t's when shit is going to get BAD.
permalinkparent
[ ]b-LE-z_it 106 points 6 hours ago
And that's why, despite being terrified of some gun owners, despite being terrif
ied of mass shootings, I don't think we should ban guns, even combat rifles. It
can happen here, and we should at least make it hurt if and when it happens.
permalinkparent
[ ]7V3N 47 points 6 hours ago
Welcome to the list.
permalinkparent

[ ]M00glemuffins 10 points 5 hours ago


Sign me up too. If they try to pull a fast one on the public I'm not standing fo
r their bullshit.
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]FadingEchoes11 26 points 6 hours ago
*rifle. No "combat" rifles are owned by citizens
permalinkparent
[ ]b-LE-z_it 39 points 6 hours ago
Did I mention I don't know anything about guns? I don't know anything about guns
.
Point is, force is not something only people in power should have.
permalinkparent
[ ]teefour 19 points 6 hours ago
You should go to a shooting range and take a class. You won't be so unnecessaril
y afraid of them after that.
permalinkparent
[ ]Pullo_T 27 points 6 hours ago
He's not afraid of guns. He's afraid of some gun owners. At least, as far as we
know.
permalinkparent
continue this thread
load more comments (3 replies)
[ ]Bootsncatsn4 5 points 5 hours ago
i understand where youre coming from, but what will a bunch of angry townsfolk d
o to a predator drone strike?
permalinkparent
[ ]Oeboues 18 points 4 hours ago
You should ask the angry townsfolk of Iraq and Afghanistan.
Once the US military is done slinking away in shame, I mean.
permalinkparent
continue this thread
[ ]nuesuh 1 point 1 hour ago
Remove them. Predator drones are being operated from the ground, and has to land
after a couple hours to refuel.
permalinkparent
[ ]joe_m107 4 points 6 hours ago
Maybe we should change that. Repeal the NFA.
permalinkparent
load more comments (2 replies)
[ ]4nco1j 0 points 2 hours ago
You don't know much about guns, do you now.
permalinkparent
load more comments (6 replies)
[ ]conquer69 15 points 4 hours ago
You can have all the guns you want. That won't stop them from labeling you a "su
spected school shooter, pedophile or terrorist".
A gun can't protect you from that. A gun can't teach your fellow countryman to t
hink by themselves or see through propaganda.
Good luck destroying a drone, plane or tank with a rifle. Not sure how useful a
gun is against your own trained military with even better guns and more.
People thinking they can start a revolution and win with a handgun don't realize
this isn't the 1700's anymore.
permalinkparent
[ ]JimmyBuffer 14 points 4 hours ago
Better tell the Middle East they haven't had a bout of revolutions then
permalinkparent
load more comments (2 replies)
[ ]b-LE-z_it 7 points 4 hours ago
Didn't say we would win, I said we could at least make it hurt. Assuming, of cou

rse, that the American people themselves aren't the ones willingly handing in th
eir freedoms, which would mean we're all fucked immediately.
permalinkparent
[ ]theothercoolfish 13 points 2 hours ago
Assuming, of course, that the American people themselves aren't the ones willing
ly handing in their freedoms, which would mean we're all fucked immediately.
Err, you guys gave up much of your freedoms long ago. And it isn't just the US politicians everywhere are taking as much as they can get, because it's simply
more power for them. More power, more money, more control. It's not a conspiracy
- this is just how an imperfect system with inadequate controls eventually goes
. We need to start re-examining our systems and look at alternatives that are no
w possible with the internet.
permalinkparent
[ ]vynusmagnus 3 points 2 hours ago
Tell that to the insurgents in Afghanistan. It seems to me that the US military
has been unable to defeat them in over a decade of war, despite its overwhelming
technological superiority. Tanks and fighter jets are nice, but they do little
against a small guerrilla force that can disappear into the woodwork.
permalinkparent
[ ]Qoix 3 points 3 hours ago
I think the main issue with that line of thinking is that the military would gun
down the civilians it pledges to protect. How many people in the armed forces d
o you know? Now, are any of them willing to murder innocent people? Probably not
.
permalinkparent
[ ]ihcn 6 points 2 hours ago
They're not innocent people, they're armed revolutionaries, suspected terrorists
permalinkparent
[ ]chance-- 4 points 3 hours ago
You say that as if there isn't insurmountable evidence to the contrary.
Military coups are thoroughly woven into the fabric of humanity's history.
permalinkparent
[ ]theothercoolfish 1 point 2 hours ago
gun down the civilians it pledges to protect.
Err, they don't pledge to protect civilians. They pledge to protect the constitu
tion. And if they are convinced that these people are attempting to "subvert" th
e constitution, then they are enemies. Nevermind that their leaders have shat al
l over the constitution - soldiers take their orders and follow 'em.
Now, are any of them willing to murder innocent people?
lol.
permalinkparent
load more comments (2 replies)
[ ]eloquentnemesis [score hidden] 33 minutes ago
Welcome to 4th generation warfare. You don't need a better gun, or the ability t
o kill a drone, or anything else like that. You just need A gun and more commitm
ent than the other side.
permalinkparent
[ ]homegrowncountryboy [score hidden] 16 minutes ago*
Good luck with those tanks, planes and drones when the American people stop supp
lying fuel and ammunition. My brother is in the Army and he will tell you about
75%, or more of the military will disband and fight to protect the American peop
le. All you have to do is look at New Orleans during Katrina, when they got the
order to start confiscating guns almost all of them refused, instead it was main
ly police stealing people's weapons.
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]Hermit_ 2 points 5 hours ago
Yeah but if it does happen all people would be doing is creating the chaos one o
f the armed and militarized militias needs to take power. For example, The KKK.
permalinkparent

[ ]b-LE-z_it 1 point 5 hours ago


Hopefully not the KKK.
permalinkparent
[ ]AussieArcher 1 point 3 hours ago
Fuck me there's always one of you. I'm starting to think the gun club spends mor
e time on reddit than anyone.
permalinkparent
[ ]astronautg117 1 point 1 hour ago
What's a combat rifle going to do against a drone?
permalinkparent
[ ]datbino 1 point 1 hour ago
i think thats where 2nd ammendment people miss the mark- you owning a rifle will
do nothing against the government.
you becoming an active participating member in that government can help fix it,
the goal is to make you a kony2012 fb sharer rather than a person who gets to wo
rk and fixes shit
permalinkparent
[ ]mpg1846 1 point 1 hour ago
You think 50 guys with hand guns are going to do anything to anyone? Gun laws ar
e a joke.
permalinkparent
[ ]Actionbuilding 1 point 1 hour ago
The founders of the United States of America WANTED the citizens to rise up and
overthrow the government if it approached the levels of corruption it is current
ly working toward.
permalinkparent
load more comments (11 replies)
[ ]nuesuh 1 point 1 hour ago
Ever seen "Das Leben der Anderen"? Imagine this, just with total corruption and
100 times better technology. This is what we are moving towards. Imagine this sy
stem getting in the hands of someone like Hitler or Stalin.. And it can happen.
Before Hitler came to power Germany was a modern, western, christian nation. We
need safety with this technology. And when i say safety, i don't mean surveillan
ce. I mean the opposite.
permalinkparent
[ ]know_comment [score hidden] 14 minutes ago
I agree, but I think the reason for the infrastructure development is because it
is going to get bad. As we are forced to compete more globally, quality of life
stagnates. Even the slightest hint of austerity is going to be very painful for
the lower classes in a society with a large income disparity.
That's why we see the race baiting and divisive rhetoric being used so much. Kee
p the poor and working classes quibbling at each other.
I want you to consider the daffodil. And while you're doing that, I'll be over h
ere, looking through your stuff.
permalinkparent
[ ]mzackler 19 points 7 hours ago
It takes a really complicated answer to truly understand but you often get into
the us vs them mentality in siloed areas of law enforcement. You also often get
frustrated with the levels of proof you need to put the bad guy in jail. Thus an
y method you can use you feel justified in using. Although I think there are a l
ot of issues with The Wire, it's a great starting off point for a discussion if
you want a serious answer.
permalinkparent
load more comments (2 replies)
[ ]hershmire 30 points 7 hours ago
Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts, absolutely.
permalinkparent
[ ]TheNewRavager 70 points 6 hours ago
"All governments suffer a recurring problem: Power attracts pathological persona
lities. It is not that power corrupts but that it is magnetic to the corruptible

. Such people have a tendency to become drunk on violence, a condition to which


they are quickly addicted."
permalinkparent
[ ]gee_iwonderwhy 22 points 6 hours ago
Oh shit, a Dune quote outside /r/dune not about spice.
permalinkparent
[ ]TheNumberMuncher 3 points 6 hours ago
This is pretty cool.
permalinkparent
[ ]YawnDogg 1 point 3 hours ago
Gene Hackman was so kinky in that movie.
permalinkparent
[ ]ThreeTimesUp 2 points 2 hours ago
From a Guardian article by Glenn Greenwald I came across recently:
Inside the mind of NSA chief Gen Keith Alexander
Any casual review of human history proves how deeply irrational it is to believe
that powerful factions can be trusted to exercise vast surveillance power with
little accountability or transparency.
But the more they proudly flaunt their warped imperial hubris, the more irration
al it becomes.
permalinkparent
[ ]Epsilox 3 points 2 hours ago
I'm going to take an unpopular stance here and argue that they get more effectiv
e investigations. Which isn't to say I have no reservations about this stuff, be
cause I do.
I've worked in a field tangential to law enforcement, and I've had the unpleasan
t experience of watching very bad people act with impunity because law enforceme
nt had to play by the rules and they didn't. Does that justify the modern trend
towards more invasive government? Maybe that's just the price we pay to live in
a free society. I don't know. I'm a fan of the H.L. Mencken quote:
"The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's ti
me defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are f
irst aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopp
ed at all."
On the other hand, it's very hard to watch members of organized crime and other
monsters literally get away with murder.
In part the difficulty the lies in the infrastructure of modern society. Communi
cations move at such speed and in such quantity that the sort of pinpoint accura
cy required for effective investigations and prosecutions becomes much more diff
icult.
None of which is to say that what we're doing is necessarily right. I've felt th
e fear of writing an opinion online and knowing that the NSA can see it and ever
ything else I've ever written if they so choose. I've had that feeling of always
being watched. I know exactly what is meant by the danger of chilling free spee
ch, because it's happened to me. But I do tend to trust (perhaps naively) that,
for the most part, most of the people making these decisions have good intention
s. I've worked with many of them, and I believe that it more than anything is th
e result of them trying to do their jobs well. Whether they are actually protect
ing the American people or simply paving the road to hell, only time will really
tell.
permalinkparent
[ ]eyeforgot 4 points 6 hours ago
Think of all the blackmail material they have for any future politicians. They w
ill firmly be in check by the powers that be.
permalinkparent
[ ]ademnus 3 points 7 hours ago
Total control.
permalinkparent
[ ]NotAnotherDecoy 4 points 7 hours ago
Total control?

permalinkparent
[ ]leamas666 2 points 5 hours ago
Why would you amass such a criminal energy to break constitutional laws just to
be able to see through everyone's communication?
It's the deep state attempting to preserve its own regime continuity in the even
t of violent revolution.
permalinkparent
[ ]sunbolts 3 points 6 hours ago
Because those in power try to keep it and in addition, there is always a lust fo
r more power. One who is wealthy seeks to increase his riches usually, right? Sa
me thing going on here. In terms of practicality, there's no reason for breaking
constitutional laws, but when you realize how human nature functions in regards
to ambitions and power, well, what we see going on explains itself.
permalinkparent
[ ]Martenz05 1 point 3 hours ago
So, in order to become a political leader who really does work for the benefit o
f the people, one would somehow have to lose every shred of their humanity so th
ey wouldn't have a human nature that could be corrupted by ambition and power?
That sounds ominous, when I put it like that
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]RuthlessDickTater 1 point 5 hours ago
but why.. I realize that these "zomg the terrorists!!!11" is only a PR-lie.
Well pretty soon they might have their terrorists, but they'll be the domestic k
ind.
permalinkparent
[ ]karadan100 1 point 4 hours ago
More money.
permalinkparent
[ ]cynoclast 1 point 3 hours ago
What do they really accomplish with this?
Get rich.
permalinkparent
load more comments (7 replies)
[ ]TGlucifer 50 points 10 hours ago
Criminals learned it's just way easier to do their lawbreaking with a government
salary.
permalinkparent
[ ]pete1729 22 points 9 hours ago
Well, the benefits package is far more attractive.
permalinkparent
[ ]__ghostpants 25 points 7 hours ago
and somehow snitches go to jail instead of the criminals
permalinkparent
[ ]iismitch55 1 point 3 hours ago
Snitches get stitches. Whistleblowers get their mouth sowed shut.
permalinkparent
[ ]HandsOffMyDitka 5 points 5 hours ago
Why break a law, when you can just change it.
permalinkparent
[ ]moresmarterthanyou 2 points 5 hours ago
except when they have to answer questions themselves...
permalinkparent
[ ]dontbullshityourself 1 point 5 hours ago
Well you know liberty is wasted on peasant swine 'eh?
permalinkparent
[ ]ButterflyAttack 1 point 4 hours ago
Sounds like the constitution doesn't mean much at this point. . .
permalinkparent
[ ]dontbullshityourself 1 point 3 hours ago

Sounds like the constitution doesn't mean much at this point. . .


All it means is that the scum who rule us have a legal contract that they say ba
cks up all their power. But their actions shit all over that document.
President Obama, a constitutional law professor ordered the deaths of two US cit
izens without trial in EXPRESS and DIRECT violation of the constitution.
permalinkparent
load more comments (4 replies)
[ ]Eurynom0s 68 points 9 hours ago
And on top of it, even if being in public was a justification for this, how the
fuck do you prevent the device from nabbing people who are inside their own hous
e or apartment as well?
Oh right, you can't, because that's not how radio waves work.
permalinkparent
[ ]Ioneos 18 points 8 hours ago
You can increase the noise gate to reduce range on purpose, but what good would
that do to keep the terrorists citizens under scrutiny.
permalinkparent
[ ]Eurynom0s 20 points 8 hours ago
Even if they were going to do that, I can't imagine that you could do it to a su
fficient degree in a place like NYC to not scoop up at least some people inside
of buildings.
permalinkparent
load more comments (5 replies)
[ ]Codoro 1 point 4 hours ago
I foresee turning your house into a Faraday Cage being the cop radar finder of t
omorrow.
permalinkparent
[ ]Kenny_Login 23 points 7 hours ago
Taxation without representation, an income far below what the productivity was v
alued at, government intrusion? The founding fathers (you know, those "heroes" o
f our nation) got much more pissed off for much less.
permalinkparent
[ ]Socialdem 8 points 5 hours ago
Can you really blame them? The Constitution was written when people were still r
iding on horses. There's no way the founding fathers could have anticipated the
advances in technology and the way people communicate. I think we're due for a f
irmware upgrade.
permalinkparent
[ ]upandrunning 11 points 3 hours ago
Yes, it's called 'replacing congress'. What we're seeing is a natural consequenc
e of career politicians. Most of the people in office have gotten so comfortable
with the idea that they'll get reelected that what they actually do during thei
r term is almost irrelevent.
permalinkparent
[ ]theothercoolfish 2 points 2 hours ago
Exactly. I think we should look at sortition - with an approval vote, and extrem
ely strict rules on what sort of laws can be passed (eg any law must apply equal
ly to everyone - protecting the minority), and a approval bonus for the randomly
selected representatives if the public approves. Fuck career politicians - they
've proven themselves wholly incapable, and the system that supports them is too
corruptible. I don't think campaign finance reform will 1) ever happen 2) adequ
ately deal with institutional corruption.
permalinkparent
[ ]NuclearWookiee 0 points 2 hours ago
All of this should be covered, in any reasonable interpretation, by the Fourth a
mendment. Rebooting who change anything if the limits on government are ignored.
permalinkparent
[ ]KalAl 1 point 1 hour ago
Do you update your firmware by smashing your bios chip with a hammer?
permalinkparent

[ ]FireFromTheWire 4 points 6 hours ago


You're just another Steve Irwin to them.
permalinkparent
[ ]iismitch55 2 points 3 hours ago
Too soon mate :'(
permalinkparent
[ ]Penguin_in_the_sand 1 point 1 hour ago*
I am curious to know what this comment means?... Oh! Steve Irwin was killed by a
stingray. I thought you may have been referring to some conspiracy relating the
Steve Irwin's death. He had an American wife and both were invited to Howard's
Bush BBQ. http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/10/27/1067233100397.html
permalinkparent
[ ]gloubenterder 2 points 1 hour ago
Steve Irwin was a wildlife documentary filmmaker who was well-known for getting
up close and personal with dangerous animals such as crocodiles and komodo drago
ns.
He was pierced through a heart by a stingray in 2006, while shooting footage for
a documentary called Ocean's Deadliest.
After his death, stingrays had a period of great infamy, and there were even rep
orts of people killing and mutilating stingrays as vengeance for Steve Irwin. ..
.which, of course, is the last thing Irwin would have wanted; he was a conservat
ionist, and whenever he was injured by an animal he was studying, he would alway
s clarify to the viewer that that was his own fault and a risk he was aware of.
permalinkparent
[ ]Agent-BurtMacklinFBI 1 point 5 hours ago
Don't worry I'm keeping a look out
permalinkparent
[ ]pion3435 1 point 3 hours ago
It's not a constitutional issue. It might be an FCC one, but they just do whatev
er they're told anyway.
permalinkparent
[ ]dntur 1 point 3 hours ago
theoretically, every cell tower is in a public place. Why not just attach a stin
gray to all of them? Think of the money mobile companies could make renting towe
r space! next comes google who wants to know who you are calling on your iphone
and windows phone for better directed advertising, followed by Bing. /s
permalinkparent
[ ]Brian3232 [score hidden] 46 minutes ago
Why are they wrong? You already can take pictures of people in public places wit
hout warrant
permalinkparent
[ ]GaltsGulchTouristInf [score hidden] 24 minutes ago
When the constitution, the supreme law of the land, the contract between the gov
ernment and the people, is violated, this violating it should be banned from 'pu
blic service' for life, should be personally liable to those whose rights they v
iolated, and should forfeit their government pension and benefits.
permalinkparent
[ ]wtfmuck [score hidden] 17 minutes ago
It's sad how they shirk doing what is right for what is easy.
permalinkparent
load more comments (8 replies)
[ ]quiteintriguing 127 points 12 hours ago
I think it's about time these fuckers provided some evidence that privacy invadi
ng is helping stop crime or terrorism. As far as I can see, there is an Islamic
army in the middle east right now filled with westerners that simply flew over a
nd caught a bus. Nice job government agencies, you sure showed us.
permalink
[ ]HappyAtavism 81 points 11 hours ago
I think it's about time these fuckers provided some evidence that privacy invadi
ng is helping stop crime or terrorism.

Even more importantly they should provide evidence that they're not violating th
e 4th Amendment. The Bill of Rights doesn't say it applies only when convenient.
P.S. I agree that repeated failures to demonstrate the effectiveness of these th
ings, or lies which get "corrected", is yet another reason why this stuff is BS,
but the Constitution is first and foremost. Don't like the 4th Amendment? Try t
o repeal it. Until then it's in force.
permalinkparent
[ ]7u5 3 points 5 hours ago
The "checks and balances" of the judiciary are a farce. They are free to "interp
ret" the Constitution as they see fit.
permalinkparent
load more comments (3 replies)
[ ]DiaperParty 9 points 3 hours ago
Fuck that. FUUUCK that. If this did stop terrorists, it would still not be worth
the violation of rights. We absolutely CANNOT start OKing this shit as long as
it "stops bad guys."
permalinkparent
[ ]quiteintriguing 1 point 3 hours ago
I think you misunderstood. I think they should have to back up their justificati
on, which they obviously can't.
permalinkparent
[ ]DiaperParty 4 points 3 hours ago
But if we ask them to, we lend legitimacy to that claim. We need to say from the
get go that no justification is needed because none will be sufficient.
permalinkparent
[ ]ebouwman 7 points 5 hours ago
In Canada we had the Ottawa shooting and that dude that ran over some soldiers.
Correct me if I'm wrong but both these guys had had their passports revoked.
I'm not a fan of letting them just go over and fight a dirty war but wtf.
permalinkparent
[ ]Ceejae 4 points 4 hours ago
But so what if it is? How successful the program is is irrelevant.
I'm sure if they set up a government camera in every home they'd stop plenty of
murders and rapes.
permalinkparent
load more comments (2 replies)
[ ]cassieloveseffie 5 points 2 hours ago
Well we all know that the FBI has followed people like John Lennon who believed
in radical peace, urged MLK to kill himself and was prepared to assassinate occu
py members. It is not about crime, it is about maintaining a status quo.
permalinkparent
[ ]monopixel 2 points 1 hour ago
was prepared to assassinate occupy members.
Interesting, where can I read up about this?
permalinkparent
[ ]wirepants 4 points 4 hours ago
Locking everyone in solitary could stop crime and terrorism too. That's not a go
od enough reason to violate our rights even if it was working.
permalinkparent
[ ]egodeath92 2 points 5 hours ago
Shh that's classified. This entire country would be a post-apocalyptic dirt-patc
h is not for the heroic NSA collecting dirt on most of the country.
permalinkparent
[ ]pion3435 1 point 3 hours ago
You had no privacy in the first place. That's not how cell phones work.
permalinkparent
load more comments (6 replies)
[ ]MashItMatt 143 points 13 hours ago
Obviously these are constitution free zones, citizen.
permalink

[ ]THANKS-FOR-THE-GOLD 22 points 7 hours ago


Embrace democracy or you will be eradicated
permalinkparent
[ ]jroddie4 14 points 5 hours ago
Citizen, pick up that can.
permalinkparent
[ ]douko 3 points 5 hours ago
This image won't even load (here's another one), but I still know what it is.
DEATH IS A PREFERABLE ALTERNATIVE TO COMMUNISM.
COMMUNISM IS THE VERY DEFINITION OF FAILURE!
permalinkparent
[ ]chewysquirrel 15 points 6 hours ago
Approximately 2/3 of Americans live in a "constitution free zone"
permalinkparent
[ ]newpolitics 50 points 10 hours ago
The Federal Bureau of Investigation is taking the position that court warrants a
re not required when deploying cell-site simulators in public places. Nicknamed
"stingrays," the devices are decoy cell towers that capture locations and identi
ties of mobile phone users and can intercept calls and texts.
So nobody has any expectation of privacy? Talking out of their asses. The implic
ation that a warrant shouldn't be needed to intercept someone's text messages, i
s outrageous.
permalink
[ ]acerplatanoides [score hidden] 16 minutes ago
The implication that a warrant shouldn't be needed to intercept someone's text m
essages, is outrageous.
The implication of intercepting a PRESS related text message, and thus also supp
ressing a free press.
I think many of these are used to stop uploading of images to social medial. You
ever tried that during a demonstration?
permalinkparent
[ ]dalasocatyemerc 67 points 9 hours ago
Hmm, I didn't realize the FBI had the authority to ignore the constitution of th
e United States of America.
Maybe this organization doesn't actually serve Americans. That's what I think
permalink
[ ]Jagoonder 17 points 2 hours ago
They don't. However, lets look at their 3rd criteria:
(3) cases in which the technology is used in public places or other locations at
which the FBI deems there is no reasonable expectation of privacy.
In public, noone has an expectation to privacy. SCOTUS has ruled on such. Theref
ore, it could be argued that phone conversations in public places forfeits at le
ast one party's rights to privacy.
There are a couple of problems with this. First, Stingray is indiscriminate. Sec
ond, the other party of the phone conversation may be in their own home thus hav
ing an expectation of privacy.
I don't know how law works in regards to phone tapping. But, I would assume that
any warrant to do so would provide the agency a waiver on a second party's priv
acy protections when conversing with the target of the warrant. Except in the ca
se of Stingray no warrant was ever obtained thus, no waiver, thus the second par
ty probably still has privacy protections.
So, I think it's bullshit. I'm no lawyer. I suspect the FBI also knows it's bull
shit. But, the more excuses they can come up with to bend the law around their w
ill the more time it takes to try to stop them since each instance requires anot
her court decision.
permalinkparent
[ ]punkrampant 13 points 1 hour ago
There's only "no expectation of privacy" in public in terms of video+camera surv
eillance. People still get disturbed if you look over their shoulder at their ph
one, or listen to a conversation.

Text messages, emails, phone calls, all of it, are the modern day written letter
s. What the FBI is trying to do is the equivalent of setting up a post office th
at opens everyone's envelopes and makes copies of all the contents.
permalinkparent
[ ]Jagoonder 5 points 1 hour ago
Text messages, emails, phone calls, all of it, are the modern day written letter
s. What the FBI is trying to do is the equivalent of setting up a post office th
at opens everyone's envelopes and makes copies of all the contents.
You're right. I was focusing on an actual phone conversation where one party cou
ld be overheard by others, thus no expectation to privacy.
permalinkparent
[ ]Cambodian_Drug_Mule 2 points 1 hour ago
Surely there are people with technical expertise that can just fuck their shit u
p. If I'm not mistaken the stingrays were detected with consumer grade electroni
cs. If everyone just looked out for them and pinned where they are at on a map,
couldn't some people with the technical know how take them offline?
permalinkparent
[ ]monopixel 1 point 1 hour ago
Hmm, I didn't realize the FBI had the authority to ignore the constitution of th
e United States of America.
The US government and its agencies has been doing it for ages.
permalinkparent
[ ]rtpg 40 points 6 hours ago
Surprised nobody's mentioned Kyllo v. United States yet.
This is fairly recent (2001) jurisprudence. The gov't used a thermal imager, and
saw that there were heat lamps inside of a house, and used that to get a search
warrant. The gov't argued that, well, the heat was outside, so pretty much publ
ic information.
The courts disagreed and ruled this an illegal search. Main reason being that no
t many people have thermal imagers, so there's a reasonable expectation of priva
cy. I think even less people have stingrays, so even from the "discovering that
someone has a cell phone" aspect, there's unreasonableness in the search.
Now to the wiretapping aspect... there's Katz v. United States. Here, somebody w
as in a phone booth, and the feds had set a microphone outside the phone booth w
ithout warrant (so not exactly a wiretap). Again, the courts ruled this an unrea
sonable search.
A part of the ruling:
Regardless of the location, a conversation is protected from unreasonable search
and seizure under the Fourth Amendment if it is made with a "reasonable expecta
tion of privacy".
Text messages definitely fall under this. I can't see this holding up for 2 seco
nds in court.
The article goes into it into detail, but few of the FBI's interpretations on pr
ivacy have been holding up in courts recently. The system is kind of working, an
d this interpretation will be shut down as well. Now, if only everyone had good
lawyers...
permalink
[ ]ryewheats 7 points 4 hours ago
But the biggest problem I see would be them not declaring how they gathered any
information they collected in the first place. It would be pretty easy to skirt
around the system and act like you caught the suspect red-handed (because you we
re tipped off by illegal searches). That is the really scary part.
permalinkparent
[ ]argv_minus_one 5 points 3 hours ago
This practice is known as "parallel construction".
permalinkparent
[ ]tughdffvdlfhegl 3 points 3 hours ago
Honestly, this is the biggest concern. The courts won't allow a challenge becaus
e no one will have standing, because the feds/police won't actively declare this
as evidence in a trial. Meanwhile, they'll continue to use it, having a chillin

g effect on the press and others (which the courts have not seen in recent histo
ry as sufficient to provide legal standing).
permalinkparent
[ ]JustaChimp 3 points 5 hours ago
With the Katz v US case, it took them 39 years to overturn the Olmstead v US rul
ing. Let's hope it takes a little less time for this medium.
The recent Romano v Steelcase Inc. court case could indicate how the courts will
rule in the short term with regards to "reasonable expectation of privacy" thou
gh this ruling was in the context of social media and not text messages. The ana
logy was made that much like a letter writer has no reasonable expectation of pr
ivacy once the recipient is in possession of the letter, neither does the post's
author. Same could be extended to text messages and would be equally as trouble
some.
permalinkparent
[ ]qdarius 1 point 3 hours ago
Damn, that doesn't seem right at all. If I send someone a letter I definitely ex
pect that only they will read it.
Could anyone expand on the logic that a letter writer has no reasonable expectat
ion of privacy?
permalinkparent
[ ]Boltaeg 1 point 3 hours ago
After that letter is given to the recipient, they can do whatever they want with
it without you knowing. They could copy it, show it to friends, frame it and pu
t it on their wall....etc. You have no control over that and must assume that an
ything you write in a letter can be disclosed in some manner, simply because you
have no control over that persons actions.
As to why that is the case, I have no idea. Especially considering it is illegal
to open someone elses mail, but perfectly legal to read someone else's letter o
nce they open it. At least that is my understanding of it.
permalinkparent
[ ]TheMightyBarbarian 1 point 3 hours ago
Its fairly simple, you sent a letter, until it is received by the intended recip
ient it has federal protections. Once the recipient receives it, they are free t
o do with it as they wish, even if you disagree with what they do, specifically
because the letter is now their property, even though you wrote it.
permalinkparent
[ ]qdarius 1 point 2 hours ago
I understand that. But if someone else intercepts my letter shouldn't that still
be illegal?
Maybe I'm misunderstanding how stingrays work but it seems like they're basicall
y designed to intercept hundreds of messages.
permalinkparent
[ ]TheMightyBarbarian 1 point 2 hours ago
Intercept isn't illegal, its sketchy but not illegal. As for reading it, it's a
grey area since texts are not encrypted and even if they were it would do shit i
f billions of devices can decrypt them. So unless you use something like a messe
nger system that can use basic encrypting. It won't stop the FBI from reading it
, but it does show you took steps to have a private conversation and that's what
matters to the court.
permalinkparent
[ ]coalbeeashi 1 point 3 hours ago
Re: Katz v. United States
Certain details, such as shutting the door on the telephone booth, help determin
e if a person intends for a conversation to be private. Thus, private conversati
ons can be made in public areas.
What steps is the average Joe taking to exhibit a reasonable expectation of priv
acy regarding his/her data usage? Honest question.
permalinkparent
[ ]TheMightyBarbarian 1 point 2 hours ago
Beyond using a VPN to mimic another location, not much really. Since there are m

any devices involved in the process of just looking up a website. Ex. You google
Microsoft. Here are all the parties involved: You, Your ISP, Google, Microsoft.
That's four parties involved and that's assuming you are not using a Phones Mob
ile Data plan and are using WiFi. Because then it can add a few more people invo
lved.
Sure you should have protection just the same, but currently the law doesn't rec
ognize that, because the people in charge dont understand how any of it works.
permalinkparent
[ ]rtpg [score hidden] 54 minutes ago
I would say that cultural norms kind of define that in that it is extremely rude
to look at another stranger's phone while they are using it to browse/look at t
heir emails/whatever. Not the most solid argument, I know.
permalinkparent
[ ]Sic_SemperTyrannis 1 point 2 hours ago
When the use of stingrays is challenged in court police have dropped the cases r
ather than explain their use of stingrays.
permalinkparent
[ ]cassieloveseffie 1 point 2 hours ago
I have seen a printed record of every one of someone's txt messages for 6 months
. Never assume txt messages are private.
permalinkparent
[ ]Ladderjack 29 points 12 hours ago
I'm sorry, have they gone ahead and combined the FBI and the Supreme Court of th
e United States of America? No? Well, we will see how long this lasts. . .
permalink
[ ]butitssnot 46 points 7 hours ago
Its ok. In 2016 we can vote for hope and change and transparency and fix all thi
s.
permalinkparent
[ ]CriticalThink 3 points 5 hours ago
yeah. I bet Hillary will fix this mess, right Reddit?
permalinkparent
[ ]TheMightyBarbarian 1 point 2 hours ago
We still got time before they can start promoting themselves for President, lega
lly actually, they can't start until a certain number of days from the election.
permalinkparent
[ ]looneybandito 5 points 6 hours ago
Haha. As if our votes matter.
permalinkparent
[ ]atomofconsumption 9 points 5 hours ago
thatsthejoke.jpg
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]dichroeyes 1 point 4 hours ago
You are right. I give up. Long live the hegemony.
permalinkparent
[ ]Pikaflu 1 point 3 hours ago
America is an irradiated wasteland. Within it lies a city. Outside the boundary
walls, a desert. A cursed earth. Inside the walls, a cursed city, stretching fro
m Boston to Washington D.C. An unbroken concrete landscape. 800 million people l
iving in the ruin of the old world and the mega structures of the new one. Mega
blocks. Mega highways. Mega City One. Convulsing. Choking. Breaking under its ow
n weight. Citizens in fear of the street. The gun. The gang. Only one thing figh
ting for order in the chaos: the men and women of the Hall of Justice. Juries. E
xecutioners. Judges.
permalinkparent
[ ]Ago_Solvo 36 points 9 hours ago
I'm sure that means that stingrays are also open for public hacking in that case
, because they're in a public place, and doing so can't be considered an intrusi
on on government properties or a violation of any Federal Law.

permalink
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]whysopositive 57 points 12 hours ago
Say whatever you want, you don't think big brother is going to find every way to
spy on you?
The thing is I bet every time we the people get upset about some "new" trespass
against our rights there's already something technologically beyond our knowledg
e being put to use to on us now.
permalink
[ ]I_SPLIT_INFINITIVES 16 points 7 hours ago
My dad always said, "If that's what they're telling us they have now, they proba
bly had it ten years ago. Just imagine what they really have."
permalinkparent
[ ]oOTHX1138Oo 28 points 9 hours ago
Thats why we need to add to the bill of rights, so that we continue to be protec
ted in the digital age.
permalinkparent
[ ]TheBlueWaffleHouse 18 points 8 hours ago
At this point in time the bill of rights only shrinks. It doesn't get bigger.
permalinkparent
[ ]tallerthanunicorngod 33 points 7 hours ago
Not with that attitude.
permalinkparent
[ ]mattacular2001 3 points 5 hours ago
Doesn't matter unless you're wealthy
permalinkparent
[ ]tallerthanunicorngod 1 point 2 hours ago
Wealthy people don't like to be spied on either. Honestly, they probably like it
even less.
permalinkparent
[ ]sockgorilla 1 point 5 hours ago
He's John Titor, he's watched it before.
permalinkparent
[ ]mastahslayah 1 point 4 hours ago
Well he isn't getting any of my Dr. Pepper.
permalinkparent
[ ]Poor__Yorick 1 point 2 hours ago
Wow that's a name I haven't heard in a while.
We've got a world war this year though.
3 billion dead by the end of it.
permalinkparent
load more comments (5 replies)
[ ]pion3435 1 point 3 hours ago
We already did. That's the point of laws like HIPAA. There's just no equivalent
for things like email or cell phones so it's legal to see whatever people are na
ively broadcasting.
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]ZomNomNomBeeZ 5 points 7 hours ago
This technology is not particularly new. The man-in-the-middle attack is a class
ic hacking technique. I remember reading an article after one of the security co
nventions detailing a small group of participants that used a remote control air
plane to do this exact thing to convention attendees. This was years ago.
permalinkparent
[ ]hershmire 4 points 7 hours ago
Which is why it's illegality could be successfully code into law.
permalinkparent
[ ]TheMightyBarbarian 1 point 3 hours ago
That's the problem, the people who make the laws don't understand how the techno
logy works, and the people making and using it are telling them its fine, so the

y don't feel like they need to make a law about.


And as such making a law about it would be bad, since the law would need specifi
c language to prevent certain technologies and usage of such. But the biggest is
sue is that some of the technology and uses are too general that it would never
work to stop anything. Since they can't just write a law preventing man in the m
iddle because they need to get a definitive wording on what that is exactly and
then word it so a slight variation doesn't just immediately skirt the new law.
Our technology grew faster than our laws did, but now it's grown faster than our
ability to properly define what it is we do. So controlling it is incredibly ha
rd and will take a long time, so for now we kinda have to suck it up and wait, b
ecause the worst possible thing is them putting out ineffective laws that do les
s than nothing to prevent stuff like that and hearing us complain and think we a
re whining when they just put out a law. I would rather wait a little longer to
make sure the law is proper and effective than to have a crap law screw everythi
ng up.
permalinkparent
[ ]ScorpionPool 1 point 6 hours ago
Serious question. What benefits does the government get from spying on us? Power
? Information for corporations? Shits and giggles? Some kind of profit?
permalinkparent
[ ]swingmemallet 2 points 5 hours ago
All of the above
permalinkparent
[ ]eyeforgot 1 point 5 hours ago*
What like complete access to what anyone posts/chats about on facebook/skype bei
ng dumped into a database? Anyone who work with cisco routers notice anything fu
nny like carefully crafted packets fucking w. the settings and not creating logs
. Maybe like there is a back door that someone has that doesn't require a passwo
rd.
permalinkparent
load more comments (3 replies)
[ ]philtech 26 points 10 hours ago
You can scan for stingray use.
Only works on rooted phones with Qualcomm chipset however. https://play.google.c
om/store/apps/details?id=de.srlabs.snoopsnitch&hl=en
permalink
[ ]vamper 2 points 6 hours ago
damn, no go for my nexus 5
permalinkparent
[ ]Ice_Pirate 1 point 5 hours ago
Should work on my 20 dollar ZTE's with dualies :). Overclocks to 1.8 like butta.
http://www.phonearena.com/phones/ZTE-N800_id8191
permalinkparent
[ ]willyboxc 1 point 2 hours ago
we need a version that will work without root :(
permalinkparent
[ ]networklackey 49 points 11 hours ago*
Bullshit... it's radio. They have no way of determining whether the person they
are monitoring is in public or not.
They shouldn't be able to use this without a warrant any more than they should b
e able to point a laser mic at your window.
The fact that they are in public is irrelevant... the subject they are monitorin
g has to be in public.
permalink
[ ]lll_1_lll 29 points 6 hours ago
Even if we are in public, what the fuck gives them the right to look through my
texts, phone calls, voicemails, emails, call history, etc?
permalinkparent
[ ]zoidbug 5 points 3 hours ago
It should be protected the level of paper mail. It is your private communication

s.
permalinkparent
[ ]networklackey 1 point 2 hours ago
Technically... because you are in public and are broadcasting. But I feel the sa
me way. None of this shit should be legal.
permalinkparent
load more comments (6 replies)
[ ]goatmagic 2 points 3 hours ago
laser mic
Well, TIL this exists :/
permalinkparent
[ ]networklackey 2 points 2 hours ago
They absolutely exist and they are freaking awesome. They should not however be
used by law enforcement without a warrant.
permalinkparent
[ ]makingupdumbnames 1 point 5 hours ago
I think it's that their airwaves cross public space. pls correct me if I'm wrong
, though
permalinkparent
[ ]networklackey 1 point 2 hours ago
That's certainly the argument they are making.
permalinkparent
[ ]wirepants 1 point 4 hours ago
Even assuming you are in public, who's to say the guy on the other side is too?
permalinkparent
[ ]networklackey 1 point 2 hours ago
Nothing but their log books but that doesn't really matter. It's your right to p
rivacy they are violating.
permalinkparent
[ ]Sarah_Connor 9 points 9 hours ago
We need a way to be able to identify, then jamm, stingrays.
permalink
[ ]cookie_nrk 8 points 7 hours ago
This Jammer made in sweden should do the trick. From what I have read it complet
ely blocks all signals, so using a phone wouldn't work at all, but if you were i
n a position to not want to be tracked during a certain time, you could use this
: http://www.jammer-store.com/monstro-10-all-frequencies-portable-jammer.html
permalinkparent
[ ]hershmire 10 points 7 hours ago
We're talking about blanket monitoring of civilians. It needs to be outlawed imm
ediately. Hoping each and every Joe Schmoe is going to buy an illegal cell phone
jammer to protect his identity is, well, ridiculous.
permalinkparent
[ ]davidverner 6 points 7 hours ago
Jammers are illegal in the US on the cellphone frequency. Good luck importing on
e.
permalinkparent
[ ]wicard 5 points 6 hours ago
had one from deal extreme i bought when i was younger to prank friends, was alot
of fun. But if you are worried about being tracked wouldn't just shutting your
phone off do the trick? If you are jamming your phone you arnt going to be talki
ng to anyone.
permalinkparent
[ ]RellenD 4 points 5 hours ago
You have to do more than just turn it off, unfortunately.
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]willyboxc 1 point 2 hours ago
we need the schematics so we can build one... also include 700 mhz jam for lte
permalinkparent

load more comments (1 reply)


[ ]ademnus 11 points 7 hours ago
That's nice but it's not up to the FBI if it is illegal or not.
permalink
[ ]MonitoredCitizen 21 points 7 hours ago
Come on Google and Apple, stop being so lame. Make the phones themselves defend
against this by always displaying the negotiated encryption level and allowing u
ser to configure the phone to refuse to connect if the GSM encryption level is A
5/0.
permalink
[ ]argv_minus_one 2 points 2 hours ago
If they do that, these same spooks will have some words with their CEOs. Otherwi
se, yeah, they likely would.
permalinkparent
[ ]vzzzbux 2 points 1 hour ago
Not sure on the technical specifics but my old Nokia from 10 years ago used to s
how a padlock if the call was "secure", which I guess meant it was encrypted in
some way.
Sounds like yet another way we've gone backwards with the rise of Google and App
le
permalinkparent
[ ]cryptovariable 180 points 12 hours ago
This seems icky, but anyone with a Raspberry Pi ($48.00), an RTL-SDR ($17.00), a
nd an ability to follow written step-by-step instructions on how to install and
configure some open source software ($0.00) can do this, albeit on a smaller sca
le.
That tutorial doesn't cover decrypting GSM traffic. This one does. You'll need s
omething faster than a Raspberry Pi, though. Maybe a $200 netbook.
And you can do it on the same scale as the police with a surplus commercial ante
nna and three or four friends.
I don't see how restricting the government's ability to do this would have any o
ther effect than to criminalize a private citizen's desire to experiment with GS
M.
permalink
[ ]HappyAtavism 113 points 11 hours ago
I don't see how restricting the government's ability to do this would have any o
ther effect than to criminalize a private citizen's desire to experiment with GS
M.
Experiment with GSM all you want, just don't eavesdrop or commit fraud by preten
ding to be part of a legitimate business.
I like to play with miniature cameras, microphones and transmitters. That's a fi
ne hobby as long as I don't use it to spy on my neighbors.
permalinkparent
load more comments (5 replies)
[ ]mr___ 50 points 12 hours ago
But theirs has a transmitter, and actively spoofs cell sites
permalinkparent
[ ]cryptovariable 55 points 12 hours ago
It you want to spoof rather than just eavesdrop all you have to do is buy any of
the SDR kits that are coming on to the market like a bladeRF or something and h
ave GNUradio (which hilariously autocorrects to FBI radio on my phone) pretend t
o be a tower, the credentials of which you sniffed with your Pi setup.
The reason the Feds spoof is so that they can target specific devices on a white
list and only have those connect. The size of the whitelist is unknown and up fo
r debate.
If you're capturing and decrypting all the GSM your antenna can receive you don'
t care if you're spoofing the tower unless you want to modify the traffic in som
e way. To quote Sir Patrick Stewart: "It's too late, I've seen everything."
If you just scoop up everything using cheap/free and publicly available tools yo
u don't really care about spoofing.

It should be noted that the Feds have a leg up with CDMA because of its smaller
global footprint and the scarcity of developers working on it, as well as UMTS (
3G) and LTE.
But people are poking at LTE every day: http://www.rtl-sdr.com/analyzing-td-ltertl-sdr/
permalinkparent
[ ]HappyAtavism 36 points 11 hours ago
The reason the Feds spoof is so that they can target specific devices on a white
list and only have those connect. The size of the whitelist is unknown and up fo
r debate.
We do know they don't have warrants. How many violations of the 4th Amendment do
es it take before it's considered a bad thing?
permalinkparent
load more comments (19 replies)
[ ]A530[??] 6 points 6 hours ago
I have to ask an honest question. Knowing what you know, do you live in a Farada
y cage or just eschew cell phones all together? I'm in InfoSec (I'm guessing you
are too) and with the shit I know, maintaining OPSec is just a never ending bat
tle. I can't imagine my paranoia if I went down the cellular rabbit hole (althou
gh I do know a lot about the shit happening with the carrier baseband MDM garbag
e).
Many thanks for the very informative post.
permalinkparent
[ ]tornadoRadar 1 point 1 hour ago
Gotta keep it segmented. Personal never mixes with biz
permalinkparent
[ ]the_nap_mutilator 1 point 5 hours ago
Spoofing the cell site also gives them access to the phone at something akin to
the hardware level... so unless you have rooted and or installed software to sec
ure the device, they can push new software onto your phone without your knowledg
e/consent in the same way that your carrier updates subscriber units say when th
ey make changes to the network or something. At that point your phone has been p
ermanently compromised.
permalinkparent
load more comments (13 replies)
[ ]mag17435 29 points 10 hours ago
I dont understand how people think the government can do things citizens can. Or
dering our government not to do something has no bearing on what citizens can do
.
permalinkparent
[ ]Golden-Fox 7 points 6 hours ago
Well when police are trying to visually collect evidence they can in general onl
y search from public areas. If a cop is looking for a certain car and they see i
t on the street, that's fine. If the car is parked in a closed garage and on pri
vate property, the cop wouldn't be able to see it without going onto private pro
perty and looking in a window. If the car is in the same garage and the garage d
oor is open, then anyone can see it, and the cop can legally use that informatio
n.
The FBI is trying to apply that same logic to these stingrays. Stingrays are a t
echnology that is available to the public. You could make your own and do exactl
y what the FBI does. The data being collected isn't encrypted, password protecte
d, or anything else. Everything is publicly available. You just have to have a c
ertain machine to be able to read it. The garage door has to be open.
permalinkparent
[ ]Wordygit 6 points 6 hours ago
The key word here is "public" whereas where there is the expectation of privacy,
I would think think that would carry some special considerations. That seems to
be some of what the courts are deciding about, where the expectation of privacy
holds sway over searches. Its already been determined that law enforcement cann
ot force you to unlock your phone. One such Supreme Court case, decided this pas

t summer, led to a sweeping victory for privacy rights advocates. In a rare unan
imous decision, the court found that police cannot search cellphones, and by ext
ension tablets and other digital communication devices, without first obtaining
a warrant. Smartphones, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote, hold the privacies of l
ife, and the fact that technology now allows an individual to carry such informati
on in his hand does not make the information any less worthy of the protection f
or which the Founders fought. I think, as well, that it has been established that
if there is encryption being used, that constitutes an acknowledgement that ste
ps have been taken to protect and maintain the sense of privacy, and so the expe
ctation carries onto the information being transmitted. Not sure if there is a l
egal precedent for that though.
permalinkparent
[ ]Golden-Fox 2 points 5 hours ago
Its already been determined that law enforcement cannot force you to unlock your
phone.
This is what I've heard, but to me it implies that police can access your phone
if you don't have it locked. Carrying that logic over to this argument, the poli
ce would be able to access your cell info as long as it isn't encrypted. It seem
s that you only have a "reasonable expectation to privacy" with your cell phone
if you've taken any steps to make your phone more private. If there were some wa
y to get your carrier to encrypt your data, then there'd be no question, but the
way cell providers are these days, that's not gonna happen.
permalinkparent
[ ]ThreeTimesUp 1 point 1 hour ago
Something that I have heard repeatedly (and I may yet have it wrong), is that if
your front door is closed, but unlocked, the police are free to enter without a
warrant.
This has always bothered me.
I could understand the mind-set of someone (i.e. a Justice of the Supreme court)
thinking that way if they grew up (or lived) in an area where they lived a life
always fearful of intruders and locking doors was a practical necessity.
But to me, a closed door means "Keep out, knock for admittance - no entry withou
t permission."
So, for naive, trusting, me, I would not expect the police (or anyone) to examin
e my phone (without a warrant) just to see what they could find.
permalinkparent
[ ]pion3435 1 point 3 hours ago
A technologically illiterate moron's expectation of privacy doesn't become a rea
sonable expectation of privacy just because the majority of the population is te
chnologically illiterate.
permalinkparent
[ ]F0sh 1 point 2 hours ago
This is totally wrong thinking. A private citizen can look for your car through
the garage window without legal repercussions, even though a police officer migh
t not be allowed. The police officer has to conduct his searches according to th
e expectation of privacy and you have every expectation that your private phone
conversations are private - even if you're sending your texts at the shopping ce
ntre.
This is a bullshit equivocation on the part of the FBI, who are claiming that si
nce any old person at the shops can see that you're also at the shops you have n
o expectation of privacy at all.
This logic, if extended, would also mean the FBI could clone your hard drive if
you took your laptop to a public place - after all, you have no expectation of p
rivacy there. No. Bullshit - just because you're in the park doesn't mean all yo
ur possessions and emails became public.
This has nothing to do with what an ordinary citizen is able to do in public or
in private.
permalinkparent
[ ]ThreeTimesUp 1 point 2 hours ago*
Well when police are trying to visually collect evidence they can in general onl

y search from public areas. If a cop is looking for a certain car and they see i
t on the street, that's fine.
To counterpoint this:
Infra-red light (heat) is just light that's at a lower frequency than humans can
detect.
Courts have ruled that the police using specialized equipment to detect heat sig
natures (Infra-red light) emanating from from houses for the purpose of snooping
for grow operations are an invasion of privacy.
The signals Stingray is picking up are just another frequency, even lower than I
nfra-red light, originating from inside your phone, that is your property, which
is in your possession.
Authorities are using all manner of logical distortions in an express attempt to
get around the ideals and principles expressed in the Constitution.
What law-abiding citizen would attempt such a thing?
What authority that the public has placed their trust in, would make continual a
ttempts to subvert the Constitution?
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
load more comments (2 replies)
[ ]kromem 2 points 3 hours ago
It is already criminal to capture and decrypt GSM traffic for citizens (Wiretap
Act), same as capturing and parsing WiFi data.
But I think I can point out the issue with your logic with a simple analogy:
Citizens can buy guns.
Law enforcement can be provided guns.
Citizens can practice shooting guns.
Law enforcement should do the same.
Citizens can't shoot other citizens with guns except in really specific exemptio
ns.
According to your logic, just because citizens can buy guns, and could possibly
go around shooting other people with them, law enforcement should not have any l
egal restrictions on their use of guns.
It is illegal for you to capture and decrypt anyone else's traffic, and it shoul
d be illegal for cops to do the same without a warrant. It's not that hard to ge
t a warrant when actually justified, creates a paper trail that can be examined
for abuses, and has been the case without serious issue for years now.
For what purpose does the law need to be changed to allow this? Because warrants
are inconvenient? Well then why not get rid of them for entering homes too? It'
s quite trivial to pick a lock, and even easier to smash a window and climb in.
Any citizen could do it. So why do we need to restrict the police from the same?
permalinkparent
[ ]dfioabnionjio 4 points 9 hours ago
I don't see how restricting the government's ability to do this would have any o
ther effect than to criminalize a private citizen's desire to experiment with GS
M.
Why not have it be illegal for government and legal for private citizens? Make i
t perfectly legal for private citizens to experiment with GSM, but don't let the
FBI do the same, like you can have a private citizen share something a defendan
t said in court while the police cannot do the same unless the suspect had been
told of their rights.
Of course, the problem here is not using GSM. It's tracking people who did not k
nowingly join your network. You could have it be legal to experiment with GSM an
d not legal to spoof a network, or make it so tracking someone on your network i
s illegal unless the person being tracked is aware they will be tracked and cons
ents to it.
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]confusiondiffusion 3 points 10 hours ago
Yeah, I really don't see the point in making laws against this, since they'll be
broken anyway. We need to fix the underlying technology. There is no excuse for

the sad state of cellphone security.


permalinkparent
[ ]HappyAtavism 18 points 10 hours ago
I really don't see the point in making laws against this
Then let's just flush the Constitution down the toilet. All laws get broken, the
question is what gets done about it.
since they'll be broken anyway
It's not very hard to break into my house either, but they're not supposed to do
it without a warrant.
permalinkparent
load more comments (4 replies)
[ ]HighMonster 1 point 7 hours ago
Wow that's intriguing
permalinkparent
[ ]lll_1_lll 1 point 6 hours ago
You act like this is realistically doable for the large majority of people and y
ou know that's BS.
permalinkparent
[+][deleted] 6 hours ago (1 child)
[ ]JabroniZamboni 1 point 5 hours ago
Are you suggesting that radar jammers should be legal? As well as cell phone or
wifi jammers? What if your neighbor wants to experiment with a jammer for the ne
xt 4 months? 6 years? I assume you wouldn't be too happy. There's experimentatio
n and then there's purposeful disruption and spying.
permalinkparent
[ ]egodeath92 1 point 5 hours ago
Yeah except "anyone with device X" can't prosecute people. It doesn't matter whe
n corporations do mass data collection because they are just trying to make mone
y/sell people shit. The government can create a database of people's private liv
es then prosecute them. You could even imagine a time where data collection is s
o widespread that this kind of info is used for political purposes rather then b
usting drug dealers/ other criminals which is what it's used for now.
permalinkparent
[ ]Kuusou 1 point 4 hours ago
What the people can do, and what the government can do, are no the same things,
nor should they.
permalinkparent
[ ]qdarius 1 point 4 hours ago
If a random person overhears my conversation I don't care. Even if they tell the
ir friends I'm still not too concerned.
If the government records my conversation and uses it to investigate or prosecut
e me that's clearly a different situation.
Just because someone can do something doesn't mean it should be legal. It defini
tely doesn't mean we should be okay with our government using it on us.
permalinkparent
load more comments (9 replies)
[ ]Sir_not_sir 52 points 13 hours ago
The main purpose of the stinger is to circumvent the need and time of acquiring
a warrant and getting the data from all the service providers.
Regardless of data retention plans, they should require a separate judicial warr
ant for each individual suspect in order to be deployed.
permalink
[ ]manoninternets 8 points 7 hours ago*
The time required to get a warrant is usually far less than what they make it ou
t to be, although cost is as factor. Phone companies make tons of money off poli
ce records requests.
To play devil's advocate (and I do think the STINGRAY arrangement is devilish):
once you request records from the phone companies, there's no guarantee that won
't get leaked to the people being investigated. The cartels have people everywhe

re.
permalinkparent
[ ]kevincreeperpants 6 points 6 hours ago
What if they are the cartels!?...dun dun dun
permalinkparent
[ ]tughdffvdlfhegl 1 point 3 hours ago
I don't think anyone here has a problem with STINGRAY being used, given that the
y have a warrant for the person's data they're monitoring. So in your situation,
that's easy to do.
permalinkparent
[ ]manoninternets 2 points 3 hours ago
Yeah it's the same concept as going through my private letters, or close enough
to it anyhow. (Even though letters are physically sealed and radio waves permeat
e the air freely, my intention is for my text messages to be as private as posta
l mail.)
Even a child could rip open an envelope with ease. That doesn't mean police don'
t need a warrant to do so.
permalinkparent
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[ ]turnthatfrown 9 points 7 hours ago
I think the FBI is conveniently forgetting that they are intercepting a communic
ation that is normally secured via encryption and carried privately by your wire
less provider then switched privately all the way to the party on the other end
who has similar expectations of the connection.
I mean, come on, the Stingrays themselves are impersonating the carrier that you
have a contract with and using techniques to avoid the strong encryption. The p
rove by their own design and implementation that the FBI's argument is bullshit.
permalink
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]dontbullshityourself 27 points 11 hours ago
I'm so sick of the ways these callous assholes use to crush our freedom.
What is the point of massive expensive law enforcement agencies if the law can't
protect our rights and freedoms? Hasn't the cart been put before the horse here
?
permalink
[ ]donottakethisserious 13 points 6 hours ago
If you are told you are free enough times, you start to believe it. You start at
a young age with a pledge every day and then when you grow up you attend sporti
ng events and stand for the national anthem and tear up at how free you are. Tha
t way nobody will ever question whether or not this is actually a free country.
permalinkparent
[ ]dontbullshityourself 10 points 5 hours ago
When I was a kid I started to sit during the pledge. Honestly I think I just wan
ted to test and see how free I was. I knew that saying the pledge etc wasn't in
the school handbook. I knew there was no rule saying I had to say it or stand or
anything. The powers that be at my school just used the herd instinct to keep t
his shit going.
So I started sitting down. This resulted in a lot of attention from gangs of bul
lies. My home room teacher didn't like it either and lectured/bitched about it e
very day. But she stopped short of anything more than shaming me unlike the bull
ies.
Anyway I just decided to drop out. Fuck it. Humans don't like new things that co
nfuse them and challenge them to think. How interesting that was to be the last
thing I learned in school. I found another kind of freedom. The freedom to leave
the assholes mired in their stupidity and find my own path in life.
permalinkparent
[ ]joshyfitzo90 4 points 5 hours ago
I like your style.
permalinkparent

[ ]Jack41096 3 points 4 hours ago


I applaud you. I stood but that's all I did. it was in our rulebook to stand but
fuck them if they thought I was gonna do more than that. I started a wave of pe
ople standing and doing nothing.
eventually my first period class was reduced to two people and the teacher actua
lly doing anything. they bitches about it but we all had our own reasons.
permalinkparent
[ ]dontbullshityourself 2 points 3 hours ago
eventually my first period class was reduced to two people and the teacher actua
lly doing anything. they bitches about it but we all had our own reasons.
There are lots of reasons to resist and only one reason to obey. Fear.
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]CriticalThink 3 points 5 hours ago
Government hasn't been interested in protecting our rights and freedoms in a lon
g time.
permalinkparent
[ ]jkeyser14 5 points 7 hours ago
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety
, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. - Benjamin Franklin
permalinkparent
[ ]dontbullshityourself 5 points 6 hours ago
We didn't give it up. They are taking it.
permalinkparent
[ ]jkeyser14 10 points 6 hours ago
Only because we aren't rioting. The first group of rioters to tar and feather a
politician again will bring about change very quickly.
permalinkparent
[ ]dontbullshityourself 4 points 5 hours ago
People are gonna have to get a lot more desperate. I reckon we'll get our riot s
oon enough.
permalinkparent
[ ]Jack41096 1 point 4 hours ago
take the food. that's the surefire way to cause a riot.
people will be content as long as they're fed. you take that away and suddenly t
hey have nothing to lose. they have to survive. that is the most primal response
we have. to fight tooth and nail for food. to eat no matter the cost.
permalinkparent
[ ]RamsNation 1 point 4 hours ago
America has a very stable food supply so I doubt that will happen.
permalinkparent
[ ]dontbullshityourself 1 point 3 hours ago
I don't think we have to take the food. I think that people today are a lot more
self entitled and will jump into a fit without their iphones. They can't even i
magine a world without abundant food.
permalinkparent
[ ]grungebucket 1 point 4 hours ago
bring about change very quickly. street executions very quickly.
there. Corrected that for you. After all. You wouldn't want to be mistaken for a
terrorist endorsing a terrorist act now, would you?
permalinkparent
[ ]pion3435 2 points 3 hours ago
You never had it. You're just now finding out.
permalinkparent
[ ]hershmire 7 points 7 hours ago
Ok, I get the FBI's argument. Technically, we are all choosing to carry a digita
l device around with us that uniquely identifies us via radio frequency. It's tr
ue that we could very well decide not to partake in the use of cell phones if we
're so worried about being tracked. And thus because we decide to carry these pa

rtially secure devices around with us, they FBI has every right to hack them and
track us.
But this argument is bogus. The FBI can't read our mail or tap our phones becaus
e legislators and judges at one time recognized that technology becomes indispen
sable, and therefore should be protected under privacy laws. Just because I choo
se to carry a cell phone around with me doesn't give the FBI to track my whereab
outs, or worse. That'd be like saying it's my fault for having my mail read by t
he FBI because I chose to write letters, or I chose to have my phones monitored
and recorded by the FBI because I chose to use telephones.
The FBI is part of the executive branch. They (supposedly) operate within the sc
ope of the law. If there's no specific law preventing their actions, they'll go
ahead and do it. So write your representatives and get shit like this regulated.
And use letters because they're obligated to at least open the envelope.
permalink
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]drakecherry 5 points 8 hours ago
we might as well get rid of warrants all together. they are gonna search if they
want to, and nothing will happen if they are wrong.
permalink
[ ]MeganNancySmith 6 points 6 hours ago
The FBI doesn't have the legal authority to make that determination.
It would be like if I said that murder is legal every other Sunday. I can say it
all I like, but it doesn't make it true.
permalink
[ ]Todda468 6 points 6 hours ago
Anything a private citizen can't do should require reasonable suspicion or a war
rent.
permalink
[ ]Sonotmethen 6 points 9 hours ago
Then signal jammers aren't either.
permalink
[ ]MrJDouble 4 points 9 hours ago
FBI tends to say a lot of things, doesn't mean it isn't a pile of horseshit.
permalink
[ ]blueiron0 4 points 6 hours ago
(3) cases in which the technology is used in public places or other locations at
which the FBI deems there is no reasonable expectation of privacy.
Love how the FBI gets to decide when it's ok for them to assume you shouldnt hav
e any expectation on privacy. "we saw a poop porn video on pornhub. you shouldnt
expect privacy when pooping then."
permalink
[ ]ragn4rok234 4 points 6 hours ago
Whoo! Now I don't need a warrant or sufficient reason to wire tap anyone and eve
ryone. Stalkers of the world rejoice! It's like Oprah is handing out privacy bre
aches in here
permalink
[ ]fourslaps 4 points 4 hours ago
This isn't what Steve Irwin would have wanted
permalink
[ ]knowyourbrain 7 points 8 hours ago
How sad is it that we have an R Senator trying to rein in a D president's FBI?
If Snowden et al have not been able to show the American people what a farce our
government is then I don't know how it can be demonstrated.
permalink
[ ]makingupdumbnames 1 point 5 hours ago
that's Chelsea to you, mister!
permalinkparent
[ ]StellarUsername 4 points 9 hours ago
Can someone ELI5 why my cell carrier lets this happen? Seems like it would be ea
sy enough for them to put a stop to it if they wanted.

permalink
[ ]giantgnat 13 points 8 hours ago
Because if you don't play nice with them, they don't play nice with you like wha
t happened to the CEO of quest after he refused to cooperate.
permalinkparent
[ ]lll_1_lll 6 points 6 hours ago
CEO of quest
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/09/30/a-ceo-who-resistednsa-spying-is-out-of-prison-and-he-feels-vindicated-by-snowden-leaks/
permalinkparent
[ ]WatchoutItsAllan 1 point 4 hours ago
Looks like the only way to be out of the eyes of the NSA is to go back to using
these http://imgur.com/JEFUt4h
permalinkparent
[ ]jkeyser14 4 points 7 hours ago
The cell and internet companies get paid millions by the government for direct a
ccess to their lines. This was one of the things Snowden blew the whistle on.
permalinkparent
[ ]MadPooter 2 points 7 hours ago
I believe that the technology behind our current cell phone towers needs to allo
w for widespread access to said cell phone towers from a wide array of technolog
ical devices.
The Stingray makes the cell phone tower believe that it's a cell phone--I don't
know that it's as easy as you might think to re-design all cell phone models to
differentiate themselves from what Stingrays currently are.
TL;DR: This might be a better issue for cell phone designers to solve rather the
n cell phone carriers.
permalinkparent
[ ]egalroc 2 points 6 hours ago
Maybe design a Falcon drone that homes in and locks on fake Stingray towers. Wou
ldn't the FBI just shit to see a couple sparrows zooming down on them?
permalinkparent
[ ]A530[??] 1 point 6 hours ago
Cell carriers couldn't care less. They're also packaging backdoors in their base
band software to do all kinds of functional crap, like over the air updates and
remote access.
permalinkparent
[ ]here4DaBacon 3 points 7 hours ago
So it's a honey pot for cell phones. This same method is used to intercept WiFi
internet traffic. The world is becoming a hackers paradise.
permalink
[ ]CapAnson 4 points 6 hours ago
I don't even think of the FBI's exceptions two and three are valid. And as for i
mminent danger to public safety I can't imagine when that safety hinges on inter
cepting a cell call right now this very second without a warrant
permalink
[ ]SquidwardSnowden1 3 points 6 hours ago
Let it be noted, I love big brother.
permalink
[ ]ryanknapper 3 points 6 hours ago
There was a comment asking what prevents private citizens from doing this. My re
ply was: Absolutely nothing. In fact, there are legal ways of doing exactly this
.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xKihq1fClQg
permalink
[ ]lll_1_lll 2 points 6 hours ago
inb4 this thread gets removed by the mods and/or shadowbanned
permalink
[ ]doctorshady[S] 3 points 6 hours ago
I was almost sure it was going to be removed when I submitted it.

permalinkparent
[ ]grtwatkins 1 point 3 hours ago
Wait, so mods = FBI?
permalinkparent
[ ]doctorshady[S] 2 points 2 hours ago
The mods here are quite restrictive about what is allowed to be submitted. Wheth
er or not they're under someone's influence is a question I can't answer (though
I'd honestly like to know), but you'll occasionally see high profile topics rem
oved, like the Snowden leaks back when PRISM was first pointed out.
permalinkparent
[ ]tomcat23 3 points 6 hours ago
If I had a hundred dollars for every time the FBI said it could do something une
thical or unconstitutional I'd be shooting rockets into space like Elon Musk rig
ht now.
permalink
[ ]leafygreenstuff 3 points 6 hours ago
Oh, well if they said....
permalink
[ ]wlxr 3 points 5 hours ago
Is this implying that they are going to repeatedly kill Steve Irwin?
permalink
[ ]Bulldog65 3 points 2 hours ago
Can I Use my Stingray in public places to intercept communications ?
If the answer is no, then the FBI needs a warrant.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effec
ts, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Wa
rrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, a
nd particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things t
o be seized.
This can only be changed by super majority votes in Congress and the States, not
treasonous opinions of mouthpiece lawyers in Department of Justice. This is why
prosecutions of torture memo writers is important. If they want to try and make
up laws they need to be held accountable under the law.
permalink
[ ]Do_Em_Till_They_Derp 13 points 12 hours ago
I don't think that is a good idea considering what happened to Steve Irwin.
permalink
[ ]Smgth 1 point 4 hours ago
I can't believe how far down I had to scroll to find this joke. I was worried I'
d have to make it myself. This thread is WAY too serious for my taste...
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]go1dfish 10 points 10 hours ago
This is what happens when you give a group of people authority over all else.
They use that authority to extort funds from you to pay for your own oppression.
But reddit still cheers it on. It seems to some; the concepts of roads or compas
sion cannot exist without specially anointed jack boot thugs.
permalink
[ ]Arael15th 3 points 6 hours ago
Do you see anyone in this post cheering this on? Moreover is this your first tim
e here?
permalinkparent
[ ]Flight_MH370 2 points 9 hours ago
Can the cell providers see every time this happens? If so, they could alert peop
le of fake towers or something. Alas, I'm pretty sure all the cell providers are
in bed with the feds already anyway.
permalink
[ ]leftnotracks 1 point 8 hours ago
This is why it s a good thing the FBI are not the people in charge of what is lega
l.

permalink
[ ]iluvmilfs420 3 points 7 hours ago
Ohh cool more of my taxes wasted on stupid shit...
permalink
[ ]fuzzycuffs 3 points 7 hours ago
Then I can do the same thing with wifi and not be charged with hacking, right?
permalink
[ ]endprism 2 points 7 hours ago
Use of Stringray in America: https://www.aclu.org/maps/stingray-tracking-devices
-whos-got-them
http://rt.com/usa/215735-sandiego-police-phone-tracking/
http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/First-Amendment-Coalition-Files-Lawsuit-Ab
out-Stingray-Surveillance--286092741.html
http://www.miaminewtimes.com/2012-02-16/news/cell-phone-tracking-miami-cops-know
-where-you-are/
http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/Fort-Worth-Cellphone-Tracking-Rings-Controversy
-140796693.html
http://www.wgrz.com/story/news/investigations/2014/02/13/are-local-police-spying
-on-your-cell-phone/5462273/
Tick tock...
permalink
[ ]johnnybiggs15 2 points 7 hours ago
didnt know they had that type of power
permalink
[ ]jwyche008 2 points 6 hours ago
They would fucking say that wouldn't they? The thing is it isn't supposed to be
their damn decision to make!
permalink
[ ]ICEClownfishWok 1 point 6 hours ago
Did the US government learn nothing from Nazi Germany? I honestly won't be surpr
ised if WWIII occurs when the rest of the world gets tired of our governments bu
llshit
permalink
[ ]frankenstilskin 3 points 6 hours ago
America, for the corporations by the corporations
permalink
[ ]Elephant_rhino_tiger 3 points 5 hours ago
It sounds like a 6 year old coming up with a superhero. "This is FBI man, and he
can fly and like punch through the earth, and he can y'know like intercept cell
traffic if he thinks it's important. But he is weak against himself though, so
like if he punched himself he would die."
permalink
[ ]Banana_blanket 2 points 4 hours ago
Hey who wants to just sit around and let it happen? Oh, everyone? Perfect. Ready
? Go.
permalink
[ ]poopinbutt2014 3 points 4 hours ago
Ah yes, the cops deciding what laws they are and aren't subject to.
permalink
[ ]burnerthrown 2 points 2 hours ago
Has anyone else notied a pattern of more and more laws that protect enforcement
operations from civilians, and fewer nd fewer laws protecting civilians from enf
orcement?
permalink
[ ]siquisiudices 2 points 2 hours ago
Increasingly I am astonished by the state of democracy in the developed western
countries. What has happened and how? I realise that there have always been infr
ingements of liberties by the state - always. But it seems to me that what has c
hanged is the blatent nature of the compromise of democratic norms. I'm not a hi
storian but my impression is that the origins of our current situation lie in tw

o iconic regimes in the UK and US - Reagan and Thatcher (and those that followed
) - and in the fall of the soviet regimes.
The economic philosophy that Reagan and Thatcher promoted reduced liberty to pro
perty rights while at the same time it condemned (rightly) the soviet regimes fo
r their lack of respect for democratic norms. The appeal of this economic ideolo
gy to capital, to the corporations, was obvious especially as during the 1970s t
here had been intermittent but recurring periods when profitability had fallen.
In the context of declining profitability, a roll back of the state and public e
xpenditure was a quick win.
For the rest of society, the implication that growth in personal, individual wea
lth was being held back by public spending and that the welfare state eroded ind
ividual responsibility also won the day. A key element in this process was the d
efeat and denigration of trade unionism: Thatcher going so far as to suggest tha
t trade unions (in the person of the National Union of Miners) were dangerous tr
aitors. People bought into the arguments for radical individualism ("there is no
such thing as society") because, in part, the concrete experience of collectivi
sm in trade unions declined in the face a massive anti-trade union assault.
The fall of the corrupt and totalitarian soviet regimes underpinned this all by
giving concrete expression to the notion that there is no alternative.
Economically the result has been massive widening of the discrepancy in wealth i
n many western countries and increased immiseration of labour across the world a
nd no force to counterbalance the power of the corporations and the state that t
hey (quite naturally) control. The state is the central committee of capital.
In all of this, the oft misnamed "libertarian" tendencies were accompanied by an
increasingly authoritarian and intrusive state apparatus which was promoted and
defended around quite classical nationalist ideas but recast often as the defen
se of western democracy against various external enemies.
And so, little by little, we have allowed our civil liberties to be chipped away
. Even the radical libertarians have been sidelined and fooled into irrelevant s
truggles around gun control in the US. Really, if an armed citizenry were the gu
arantee of liberty then one wold have hoped it would have done a better job. But
overall anti-welfare, anti-European and anti-immigrant rhetoric in the UK and,
for example, religious manipulation of public discourse in the US have allowed t
he authoritarian, pro-corporate state to gradually encroach on political and per
sonal freedoms. And here we are.
We can't say we didn't know - we were warned but the ruling class managed to def
ame the messengers and in other ways render us impotent.
One can only hope that we wake up in time and that our new disdain for collectiv
ism is overcome by the necessity of taking collective action.
permalink
[ ]DinglebellRock [score hidden] 49 minutes ago
You have a right to privacy according to the Constitution. Except for maybe your
cell phone calls. Or email. Or handwritten or typed letters. Or what you read f
rom the library and Amazon. Or maybe your colon and lower intestine if you are i
n New Mexico. What a fucked up nation this has become...
permalink
[ ]nstalker91 [score hidden] 38 minutes ago
Oh sure, when they do it, it's "protecting" and "morally right", but when I do i
t, it's a "federal crime" and "the FCC watches me"
permalink
[ ]The_Media_Collector 3 points 9 hours ago
This is why my phone has an app to continually report IMSI changes to me. I swit
ch one tower to another, I get a warning.
permalink
[ ]Redd575 1 point 7 hours ago
How is that helpful? Not being an ass, just curious. Seems if a Stingray can spo
of a tower then the app does little unless you are standing absolutely still.
permalinkparent
[ ]The_Media_Collector 3 points 7 hours ago
it's my understanding that Stingray "towers" do not encrypt traffic. anytime I a

m connected to an unencrypted "tower" the IMSI detector goes red and lets me kno
w.
permalinkparent
[ ]Redd575 1 point 6 hours ago
Wow. Whomever figured that out was clever.
permalinkparent
[ ]ExReverie93 1 point 7 hours ago
Which app? And would a normal person (not meaning you're not normal. You know wh
at I mean.) be able to use it?
permalinkparent
[ ]The_Media_Collector 1 point 7 hours ago
Requires Root. It's just caeld "Adnroid IMSI-Catchter"
permalinkparent
[ ]egalroc 1 point 6 hours ago
Makes a person want to be a criminal or spy just for the fun of it.
permalinkparent
[ ]Effo 3 points 7 hours ago
Goodbye America the Great, hello police state. :-[
permalink
[ ]Casemods 2 points 7 hours ago
Another reason why I don't have a cell phone.
permalink
[ ]GiveMe_TreeFiddy 3 points 7 hours ago
Things libertarians have been screaming about and offering solutions to for 500$
, Alex...
permalink
[ ]ilovesellinblow 1 point 9 hours ago
police and marshals have been running these for years.
permalink
[ ]bbelt16ag 1 point 8 hours ago
so FBI lets see what the Supreme court has to say to that. I am sure once they r
ule on this you will be going home with your tails between your legs.
permalink
[ ]Banana_blanket 1 point 4 hours ago
Do you people really have that much faith in our Supreme Court? Really?
permalinkparent
[ ]bbelt16ag 1 point 3 hours ago
gotta have some faith, other wise its just anarchy, or revolution. I am not read
y to give up quite yet.
permalinkparent
[ ]bonyponyride 1 point 8 hours ago
If digital communication in a public (and private) space is fair game, there's n
othing to stop an FBI tech specialist from stealing things like knowledge that w
ould be considered insider trading. There's an extreme potential for abuse.
permalink
[ ]jkeyser14 2 points 7 hours ago
If was fair game then hacking into wireless signals by private citizens wouldn't
be illegal.
permalinkparent
[ ]egalroc 1 point 6 hours ago
Just waiting for Anonymous to set up shop in a public park and hack into police
communications then dispatch them to bogus locations throughout the city. If any
thing goes wrong, they could always blame North Korea.
permalinkparent
[ ]coalbeeashi 1 point 3 hours ago
Aren't government agencies encrypting their digital communication - thus exhibit
ing an expectation of privacy?
I'm not sure what steps the "reasonable person" is taking to exhibit an expectat
ion of privacy over their data, tbh.
permalinkparent

[ ]hmmwhatsthisdo 1 point 8 hours ago


If you used RedPhone, Whisperpush/TextSecure, and a VPN, this wouldn't be of con
cern to you, right?
permalink
[ ]LucifersCounselNZ 1 point 7 hours ago
Wrong.
In other cases, the IMSI or equivalent identifier of a target is not known to th
e StingRay operator and the goal of the surveillance operation is to identify on
e or more cellular devices being used in a known area.[16] For example, if visua
l surveillance is being conducted on a group of protestors,[17] a StingRay can b
e used to download the IMSI or equivalent identifier from each phone within the
protest area. After identifying the phones, locating and tracking operations can
be conducted, and service providers can be forced to turn over account informat
ion identifying the phone users.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stingray_phone_tracker#Extracting_Data_From_Interna
l_Storage
Before any of that shit you're talking about comes into play, the IMSI number is
used when establishing the connection. It is uniquely identifying. With your IM
SI number and a court order (or cooperative telco) they will know who you are an
d who you were communicating with.
Then they can use that information to punish you for participating in legal prot
ests, associating with the wrong people, or simply because some Fed didn't like
the look of you.
permalinkparent
[ ]hmmwhatsthisdo 1 point 6 hours ago
So, the only way is to modify your IMEI (which is questionably legal) and use a
prepaid SIM?
permalinkparent
[ ]facepalmdude 1 point 5 hours ago
The IMSI part makes sense, but by using the mentioned tools authorities are very
unlikely to find out who you communicated with, or what the content was. All th
ey know is that you're the end point of an encrypted data connection.
permalinkparent
[ ]coalbeeashi 1 point 3 hours ago
I would assume that a court would view this as an individual exhibiting an expec
tation of privacy over their data.
permalinkparent
[ ]mambotangohandala 1 point 7 hours ago
Law?
We don't need no stinkin' law...
permalink
[ ]smilesbot 1 point 7 hours ago
You've just used a double negative! :P
permalinkparent
[ ]mambotangohandala 1 point 7 hours ago
no i did not, never would i do such a thing, nope, i don't think i ever did...
Ever see the movie 'blazing saddles'? Context kid, context
permalinkparent
[ ]smilesbot 1 point 7 hours ago
yup yup yup!
permalinkparent
[ ]mambotangohandala 1 point 7 hours ago
oh no a triple positive,what a stupendous faux pas!
permalinkparent
[ ]smilesbot 1 point 7 hours ago
yup yup yup!
permalinkparent
[ ]mambotangohandala 1 point 7 hours ago
Did mom give you too many sodas tonight?
permalinkparent

[ ]mambotangohandala 1 point 7 hours ago


Now where are those kiddy downers?
permalinkparent
[ ]mambotangohandala 1 point 7 hours ago
Remember tomorrow is a school day
permalinkparent
[ ]BigTex8900 1 point 7 hours ago
The Federal Bureau of Investigation is taking the position that court warrants a
re not required when deploying cell-site simulators in public places.
Wait so can I take the position that it's not actually illegal to suck dick for
money in public places?
permalink
[ ]AssOrca 1 point 6 hours ago
Well thank god there not doing it in my home!
permalinkparent
[ ]Drunken_Economist 1 point 7 hours ago
The FCC says they are needed, FWIW
permalink
[ ]FadingEchoes11 0 points 6 hours ago
100% true, power to the people
You should learn about and try to understand firearms more, they are just tools
after all.
permalink
[ ]winstrol 1 point 6 hours ago
Can i use a stingray? Al stick to my snoopsnitch.
permalink
[ ]fatscat84 2 points 6 hours ago
Big fucking surprise, 4th amendment=toilet paper anymore. The rights of the citi
zens arent even considered anymore since we dont have lobbyists. Maybe ill start
a kickstarter campaign to make a lobbyist group to give americans a voice in d.
c.
permalink
[ ]urbn 2 points 6 hours ago
The Obama Administration has repeatedly maintained that the public has no privac
y in public places.
And yet the excuse always used when someone records a police officer breaking th
e law and is arrested, detained and has his property stolen is that it violates
their privacy.
permalink
[ ]Vigilias 1 point 6 hours ago
If it's stealing signals being send from private residences it sure should fucki
ng be wtf.
permalink
[ ]2013palmtreepam 1 point 6 hours ago
Because stingrays automatically stop working at private property lines? Don't re
call the part of the 4th Amendment that exempts the requirement for probable cau
se and a search warrant when one happens to be in a public place.
permalink
[ ]makingupdumbnames 2 points 6 hours ago
I don't think it would be too hard to develop a stingray jammer, something that
just floods their equipment with a bunch of useless/fake cell phone numbers...I'
m in favor of a more strategic response to these types of infringements of our r
ights. We actually have a right and responsibility to fight tyranny...
permalink
[ ]ghotiaroma 1 point 3 hours ago
It's possible, but you wouldn't know where and when to use it. And it would be d
etectable you are using a jammer and anyone using one would find themselves fill
ed with SWAT bullets in no time.
permalinkparent
[ ]ononewheel 1 point 2 hours ago

Cant you rent bot net time and do this?


permalinkparent
[ ]psilontech 1 point 5 hours ago
I think that's for the courts to decide, FBI.
permalink
[ ]coalbeeashi 1 point 4 hours ago
...the only way the courts could decide is if it were practiced and a lawsuit wa
s brought against those practices.
Of course the FBI is going to finagle ways to flirt with obscure, outdated laws
for the purpose of investigating, thus practice it. Of course some group or orga
nization is going to take issue with it, thus taking it to court.
permalinkparent
[ ]cynoclast 2 points 5 hours ago
And the 4th Amendment says the FBI is wrong. And to the idea that subsequent law
s or that prededence says otherwise, I say that lawyers who make those interpret
ations were paid to do so by people with a vested interest in saying otherwise.
The constitution and amendments were intended to be read and interpreted by ever
yone, not just lawyers and judges so it matters not at all what lawyers and judg
es say.
permalink
[ ]coalbeeashi 1 point 5 hours ago
The constitution and amendments were intended to be read and interpreted by ever
yone
Uhh...interpreted by everyone? Do you know how fucked up that would be? There's
a reason for the judicial branch.
permalinkparent
[ ]cynoclast 2 points 4 hours ago
More fucked up than corporations as people? The 4th Amendment being ignored by t
he DHS, Homeland Security, and the NSA? More fucked up than than all the ridicul
ous, unconstitutional restrictions on cosmetic features of firearms that all vio
late the 2nd amendment? More fucked up than justices appointed by war criminals
refusing to recuse themselves where they have a clear conflict of interest?
The judicial branch is staffed by people, just as fallible as the rest of us. Th
e judicial branch was nly ever an attempt to reign in the other two. It was alwa
ys intended that it was the right of the people to alter or abolish the governme
nt if it gets out of hand and it has.
permalinkparent
[ ]coalbeeashi 1 point 4 hours ago
I would still rather have the fate of laws be in the hands of individuals who sp
ecifically studied the very nature of their professional practice than leave it
up to a mass of people with little-to-no understanding of the law, outside of wh
at is force-fed to them by media (comparable to your assertion of less-than-idea
l practices by lawyer/judges)
I fully agree that laws should be written in ways that the public can understand
and interpret (however, you're never going to reach a consensus on laws written
200+ years ago). And I believe that, reading most supreme court decisions, the
justices advocate for specifics in laws and understand that outdated or vague la
ws is a main reason cases are brought before them. Laws aren't concrete or stati
c. It's a court of public opinion.
permalinkparent
[ ]cynoclast 1 point 4 hours ago
I would still rather have the fate of laws be in the hands of individuals who sp
ecifically studied the very nature of their professional practice than leave it
up to a mass of people with little-to-no understanding of the law, outside of wh
at is force-fed to them by media (comparable to your assertion of less-than-idea
l practices by lawyer/judges)
I think there's balance between the two. It's similar to the balance between IT
and the user. While the IT guy is more knowledgeable about the field than most o
f the users he's supposed to facilitate, he often forgets that his purpose is to
facilitate, not to rule, and what the users are doing is what keeps the lights

on. People in congress and the senate are mislabelled when called 'lawmakers' th
eir job is representative of their constituency. And lawyers face a conflict of
interest between simplifying the law and representing people fairly and seeing a
fter their own welfare and ensuring their own job security. Simple, clear, and u
nambiguous laws have little value to the professional attorney at law. But the p
eople at large have no interest, and in fact a reason to despise laws they don't
understand, especially ones decided by decades old case law they know nothing a
bout. But for too long the balance has been swinging in favor of the lawyer seek
ing payment for services from the rich instead of the poor seeking freedom from
those with the resources to hire teams of lawyers for years to drain them of res
ources. The day a rich man could sue an innocent poor man under false pretenses
and crush him is the day the justice department ceased to function as intended.
I fully agree that laws should be written in ways that the public can understand
and interpret (however, you're never going to reach a consensus on laws written
200+ years ago). And I believe that, reading most supreme court decisions, the
justices advocate for specifics in laws and understand that outdated or vague la
ws is a main reason cases are brought before them. Laws aren't concrete or stati
c. It's a court of public opinion.
Lawyers like to pretend that they are concrete or static. Just imagine the phras
e "settled case law" coming out of their mouths and you need go no further. It's
like they forget that eventually given the dynamic equilibrium of the poor vs.
the rich that sometimes words written on paper in a dusty library somewhere mean
absolutely nothing when the pitchforks and guillotines come out, the old laws t
hrown out, and new ones written even more strongly against tyrants. You're right
, sometimes, it's a court of public opinion. But sometimes the court is brutal,
but not unjustly so:
There were two Reigns of Terror, if we would but remember it and consider it; the
one wrought murder in hot passion, the other in heartless cold blood; the one la
sted mere months, the other had lasted a thousand years; the one inflicted death
upon ten thousand persons, the other upon a hundred millions; but our shudders
are all for the horrors of the minor Terror, the momentary Terror, so to speak; wh
ereas, what is the horror of swift death by the axe, compared with lifelong deat
h from hunger, cold, insult, cruelty, and heart-break? What is swift death by li
ghtning compared with death by slow fire at the stake? A city cemetery could con
tain the coffins filled by that brief Terror which we have all been so diligentl
y taught to shiver at and mourn over; but all France could hardly contain the co
ffins filled by that older and real Terror that unspeakably bitter and awful Terro
r which none of us has been taught to see in its vastness or pity as it deserves
.
permalinkparent
[ ]DongleNocker 2 points 5 hours ago
Don't you wish government organizations would get permission from congress prior
to assuming they have the authority?
permalink
[ ]Euracil 1 point 5 hours ago
Whoops! Someone just happened to spill wine all over the Bill of Rights! Well, a
t least the Second Amendment survived!
permalink
[ ]ripvannwinkler 1 point 5 hours ago
What is the practical operational radius of one of these things?
If my place of business or residence falls in this radius of an operating device
, is my phone subject to interception by the device?
If so, you require a warrant. Period. No equivocation.
permalink
[ ]bittopia 1 point 5 hours ago
What is going to be interesting is when systems and encryptions becomes so resil
ient and powerful that nothing can be spied on AT ALL. What will they do then?
permalink
[ ]johnnybullet 1 point 5 hours ago
I thought only God was listening to me... This changes everything!

permalink
[ ]TronicTonic 2 points 5 hours ago
Thank god the FBI is in charge of the judicial branch and gets to decide what is
right vs wrong.
permalink
[ ]Vinven 1 point 5 hours ago
They can say whatever they want, it doesn't make it legal.
permalink
[ ]coffeethulhu 2 points 5 hours ago
Under this theory anybody could buy one of these devices and use it in "public s
paces" without fear of falling foul of the law....Who wants to start a kickstart
er campaign to buy one?
permalink
[ ]redditezmode 1 point 5 hours ago
Based on what, exactly? Why would they think search warrants aren't necessary?
permalink
[ ]Fucksfuturefatchicks 1 point 4 hours ago
If it stops me from downloading porn, it's a dead giveaway. If it doesn't, thank
s for the government funded and sanctioned porn.
permalink
[ ]egalroc 1 point 4 hours ago
I wonder if the FBI can upload unsanctioned porn to your computer using a stingr
ay? Interesting thought isn't it?
permalinkparent
[ ]winsomecowboy 1 point 4 hours ago
So my clandestine FBI staff list shouldn't be an issue.
permalink
[ ]Heisenpurrrrg 1 point 4 hours ago
Those guys can fuck right off, eh?
permalink
[ ]cerealcable 1 point 4 hours ago
Every time an invasion of our rights & privacy especially related to our establi
shed forms of communications happens it just terrifies me. Not because our gover
nment is throwing wind to established laws but because of what the future could
bring.
The reason why most of us are upset today over this is because we have an expect
ation of privacy when we pick up our cell phones. We expect our text messages, p
hone calls and data to be private thus protected by law requiring a warrant to "
tap" it only for Law Enforcement. Telecoms (wired, wireless, voip) will only com
ply to requests when required by law, but when it comes to the public air waves
using technology to just listen in we're starting a terrible precedent.
Essentially what I'm concerned about is that eventually it'll be so commonly acc
epted that these communications are not private (after all the government can sn
oop in on those conversations, and everyone already expects it) and thus we no l
onger have the expectation of privacy and thus no warrant is actually acquired.
The terrifying process is how it all started, with the government over stepping
their legal abilities with little to no repercussions.
Now that I'm reading that paragraph again, I honestly wouldn't be surprised if t
hat exact argument is/was/will be used in a secret court of which none of us wil
l be able to hold accountable.
It's scary to see what the future will hold for privacy related to technology. O
ur government is doing anything and everything they want and if people aren't sc
ared they need to get some tinfoil and make some hats because they're going to n
eed them.
Obligatory point: As the government snoops more and more, technology will just e
ncrypt more and more making it nearly pointless for the snooping, but it won't c
hange the expectation of privacy after say a decade of common knowledge that the
se communications are not private. Then Law Enforcement Agencies will just subpo
ena records instead of following due process of getting a warrant.
tl;dr It's a very slippery slope and I'm just watching us slowly sliding further

and further into the trap. :-(


permalink
[ ]coalbeeashi 1 point 4 hours ago
Honest question - in the eyes of laws, is our view on "expectation of privacy" i
gnorant or misguided? When I send a text - even though I don't think about it I gave permission to Apple, AT&T, my friend, their carrier, their phone, and pro
bably countless others that I don't even realize. When I download an app I give
them all sorts of permissions to access my information.
Also, what's stopping the government from creating an app, let's say some crazed
game like Trivia Crack, hide a bunch of permissions that no one looks at and do
it that way. They could have access to my photos, access to my microphone, acce
ss to my location, etc. (obviously I understand that you can retract most of tho
se permissions, but I doubt many people do)
So, I guess my question is, using multiple third parties, do I really have the r
ight to expect complete privacy?
permalinkparent
[ ]Rockerofboats 2 points 4 hours ago
I do what I wants to.
permalink
[ ]Gymshortsboner55 2 points 4 hours ago
I'm not trying to sound like the uncle that's always bitchin' at family reunions
but man is this country going down the shitter. I'm almost ashamed to live here
anymore.
permalink
[ ]kazuri85 2 points 4 hours ago
The government has no right to make your property do something you do not want i
t to do.
permalink
[ ]SpacemanLurker 2 points 3 hours ago
Crikey! Australian accent
Too soon?
permalink
[ ]Undisclosed-dopeness 1 point 3 hours ago
Really wish this was about actual stingrays
permalink
[ ]k-h 1 point 3 hours ago
Is that the "stingrays" that don't exist?
Of course they don't need a warrant on equipment that doesn't exist.
permalink
[ ]PhorTwenny 2 points 3 hours ago
if it picks up all cells text/call/info how do they know your not inside a house
or anyother private area? Either way this is disgusting!
permalink
[ ]MarxIzalias 2 points 3 hours ago
The more of these that get posted, the harder I laugh at America's freedoms.
You pretty much have the same as everybody else.
It seems as though the constitution is like bog roll to your law enforcement. Co
vered in meaningless shit that doesn't even stick to them.
What a joke.
The FBI stating that 'stingrays' don't apply to privacy laws because you're in a
public place makes no sense, otherwise you could walk around butt naked and arg
ue that "According to the FBI, personal privacy is not required in public".
Of course, they could say, what any deceitful peice of trash could say. "If you
weren't doing anything illegal then you have nothing to worry about."
Unless you were talking to you solicitor about a patent. In which case it would
be worthless the moment a third party heard about the invention.
Talking to your doctor about a condition that could prejudice a group against yo
u.
Talking to a solicitor about the details of a case.
Talking to fellow jurors over the phone about a details of a case, that's always

good to be spied on.


Talk about family history and possible ties you might have to foreign nations, w
hich could put you on a watch list.
Give personal details to bankers about foreign business accounts which have diff
erent protection laws.
Discuss plans you may have that they could interfere with.
Or just miscellaneous emails to and from your employer that could be damaging to
the companies reputation if published and could be used against them as leverag
e with a false flag operation LOOKING AT YOU SONY!
This isn't even a comprehensive list of things that you could do, but hey, it's
America, the land where freedom is a lie and the constitution is apparently wort
h less and less with each new government. XFD
permalink
[ ]NightOfTheLivingHam 1 point 3 hours ago
while we're declaring bullshit, I declare I'm owed a million dollars.
permalink
[ ]ZedOud 1 point 3 hours ago
Most warrant-less law enforcement surveillance techniques are legal because they
can be performed by members of the public, in public. (ex. tailing)
So can we also legally operate a stingray?
Yes we can!
permalink
[ ]Wulfgar_RIP 1 point 3 hours ago
FBI protecting freedoms and constitution from terrorists
permalink
[ ]CantHugEveryCat 2 points 3 hours ago
I'm surprised the FBI still feel they have to justify their actions.
permalink
[ ]bazingabrain 0 points 3 hours ago
Here I am thinking the FBI is going to be throwing real stingrays around without
a search warrant. Can't have that
permalink
[ ]tobsn 1 point 3 hours ago
and whoever said that should be immediately terminated.
permalink
[ ]joshladd 1 point 3 hours ago
Didn't the supreme court just say that searching cell phones requires a warrant?
Is this different than searching cell phones? I might be uninformed but it seem
s like a blatant disregard for court rulings.
permalink
[ ]birdington1 1 point 3 hours ago
Can anybody explain what a 'stingray' is?
permalink
[ ]one_love_silvia 1 point 2 hours ago
the article explains it in literally the first paragraph.
permalinkparent
[ ]IllegalOperator 0 points 2 hours ago
Yeah right, dropping the case rather than reveal their methods says otherwise. I
f there weren't doing anything wrong they would have nothing to hide.
permalink
[ ]HauntedBeepers 1 point 2 hours ago
FBI says FBI can do what it wants
permalink
[ ]Fig1024 1 point 2 hours ago
does that mean I, as private citizen, can also use them? After all, there are no
laws against it
permalink
[ ]Monkeibusiness 1 point 2 hours ago
"FBI - out if control since 2001" -Simpsons
permalink

[ ]skztr 1 point 2 hours ago


good test for whether or not you need a warrant:
If any random person off the street did it, would that be legal? If not, you nee
d a fucking warrant.
permalink
[ ]Rusky82 1 point 2 hours ago
Land of the free eh......
permalink
[ ]WECGEWHYAAIORTNU 1 point 2 hours ago
So in some states its "wiretapping" to record with a microphone a conversation b
etween two people happening at a table, but pretending to be a cell tower is a-o
k?
permalink
[ ]Amanoo 1 point 2 hours ago
"concerned about whether the FBI and other law enforcement agencies have adequat
ely considered the privacy interests" of Americans
Privacy interests of Americans? Is that supposed to still be a thing? I thought
that privacy interests were considered something for terrorists in the US, by no
w.
permalink
[ ]raviddadford 1 point 2 hours ago
Stingray got Steve Irwin
permalink
[ ]Homarus_Americanus 1 point 2 hours ago
It's all good 'cause I can by me all guns I want.
permalink
[ ]anshu1234 0 points 2 hours ago
This is non-news if you are not a drug-peddler. Next please.
permalink
[ ]bubbafat1155 1 point 2 hours ago
It's over. "They" have won. The only hope now is for individuals, society is los
t. Get off the grid, or join the sheep. http://imgur.com/W7CdURh
permalink
[ ]Targun 1 point 2 hours ago
And how are they going to filter out cellphones of all the people who live next
to public places where stingray is located?
permalink
[ ]riderer 1 point 2 hours ago
So can i do the same in public place? just stingray everyone?
permalink
[ ]Neker 1 point 1 hour ago
There are blueprints and tutorials out there that put "stingrays" within reach o
f an hobbyist. Law-breaking hobbyist, that is, but still : mobile phones essenti
aly broadcast your conversations.
permalink
[ ]mindwandering 1 point 1 hour ago
The flying DRT box.
permalink
[ ]SilenceGivesConsent [score hidden] 48 minutes ago
In other words, FBI says it does not need search warrants to warrant a search.
permalink
[ ]Formally_Nightman [score hidden] 46 minutes ago
FBI: "Senator we have been monitoring your calls and your exact geographical loc
ation for years ... You shouldn't find that unconstitutional or the public and y
our wife will learn how unconstitutional you've been"
permalink
[ ]ActuallyNotSparticus [score hidden] 40 minutes ago
Fuck this shit. Stingrays killed the crocodile hunter. Are we ready for the gove
rnment to use these stingrays?
permalink

[ ]Rayhueston [score hidden] 38 minutes ago


The article says the Obama administration consistently maintains that people hav
e no privacy in public. Is that true or is that hyperbole?
If I'm walking down the street, do I have the right to keep the contents of my w
allet private? My blood type? My thoughts?
If I have no privacy with regard to these and many other sensitive things, who d
oes have the right to them?
permalink
[ ]swollennode [score hidden] 37 minutes ago
People don't have privacy in public places..hmmm, I think that people are entitl
ed to privacy if something private belongs to them. Sure, people's faces aren't
private when they're in public places. But people's phone calls and texts should
be.
permalink
[ ]pomod [score hidden] 18 minutes ago
Well if the FBI says they are not needed...
Seriously, this should be a court decision not a cop one. Cops, even a fancy cop
s like the FBI, should not make the laws just enforce them.
permalink
[ ]CJ59 [score hidden] 18 minutes ago
In other news, the FBI says, "You know what, screw it. There are no more laws. W
e'll do whatever the hell we want. Not like you're going to do anything about it
."
permalink
[ ]gkiltz [score hidden] 15 minutes ago
Just because the FBI says it, that does not mean it's true!
I don't envy the poor schmuck who has to stan in front of the Supreme Court and
argue that!!
permalink
load more comments (48 replies)
about
blog
about
team
source code
advertise
jobs
help
wiki
FAQ
reddiquette
rules
contact us
tools
mobile
firefox extension
chrome extension
buttons
widget
<3
reddit gold
store
redditgifts
reddit AMA app
reddit.tv
radio reddit
Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy
. 2015 reddit inc. All rights reserved.
REDDIT and the ALIEN Logo are registered trademarks of reddit inc.

p jump to content
MY SUBREDDITS
FRONT-ALL-RANDOM | PHOTOSHOPBATTLES-HISTORY-GIFS-FOOD-PHILOSOPHY-TELEVISION-WORL
DNEWS-SHOWERTHOUGHTS-LIFEPROTIPS-ART-SPACE-NOTTHEONION-DOCUMENTARIES-NOSLEEP-GAM
ING-GADGETS-EARTHPORN-ASKREDDIT-FUNNY-MOVIES-DIY-FUTUROLOGY-FITNESS-BOOKS-LISTEN
TOTHIS-INTERNETISBEAUTIFUL-MUSIC-EXPLAINLIKEIMFIVE-UPLIFTINGNEWS-SPORTS-PICS-TOD
AYILEARNED-PERSONALFINANCE-DATAISBEAUTIFUL-IAMA-OLDSCHOOLCOOL-EUROPE-CREEPY-TWOX
CHROMOSOMES-AWW-NEWS-WRITINGPROMPTS-GETMOTIVATED-VIDEOS-TIFU-ASKSCIENCE-JOKES-MI
LDLYINTERESTING-SCIENCE
MORE
news newscommentsrelatedother discussions (15)
want to join? sign in or create an account in seconds|English
this post was submitted on 05 Jan 2015
3,152 points (95% upvoted)
shortlink:
remember mereset passwordlogin
news
unsubscribe4,562,294 readers
2,631 users here now
/r/inthenews
/r/worldnews
new submissions
new comments
Post analysis/opinion articles to /r/inthenews
Want to talk?
Chat with us on IRC
Follow @rslashnews on Twitter
See a post that violates the rules below? Had your post stuck in the spam filter
? Have a question about policy? Just want to give feedback? Send the mod team a
message.
Please post news items only, with the exception of meta posts about /r/news itse
lf. Self-posts aggregating news data and "independent reporting" each count as n
ews, but are not an excuse to editorialize.
Your post will likely be removed if it:
is not news (or a meta post).
is an opinion/analysis or advocacy piece.
primarily concerns politics.
has a title not taken from the article.
has a pay wall or steals content.
covers an already-submitted story.
violates reddit's site-wide rules, especially regarding personal info.
Your comment will likely be removed if it:
is racist, sexist, vitriolic, or overly crude.
is unnecessarily rude or provocative.
is a cheap and distracting joke or meme.
is responding to spam.
violates reddit's site-wide rules.
Extreme or repeat offenders will be banned.
Expanded Rules
If your post doesn't fit, consider finding an appropriate news article on that s
tory to submit instead, or submitting yours to lower moderation subreddits:
/r/inthenews - all news-related content
/r/AnythingGoesNews - unrestricted news
/r/truereddit - insightful articles
/r/self - any self-post
/r/misc, /r/redditdotcom - anything
or other news subreddits:
/r/worldnews - from outside the USA only
/r/SyrianCivilWar - about the conflict in Syria

/r/MidEastRegionalWar - on MidEast conflict /r/UpliftingNews - uplifting


/r/mediaquotes - the things they say
or subreddits for other topics:
/r/FoodForThought - discussion-worthy long form articles about interesting subje
cts
/r/politics - for shouting about politics
/r/moderatepolitics - less shouting
/r/politicaldiscussion - even less shouting
/r/geopolitics - intl. politics and geography
/r/entertainment - Justin Bieber updates, etc.
/r/europe - news from Europe
or check out the 200 most active subreddits, categorized by content and the full
list of subreddits by subscribers.
Recommendations:
/r/redactedcharts
/r/patriots
/r/personalfinance
/r/restorethefourth
reddit is fun for Android and its subreddit /r/redditisfun
submit analysis/opinion article
submit news article
submit something else
submit analysis/opinion article
a community for 6 years
message the moderators
moderators
douglasmacarthur
KyldeThe Janitor
AyeMatey
CandyManCan
Elderthedog
LuckyBdx4
NickWasHere09
ani625
pomosexuality
IKingJeremy
...and 1 more
3152
FBI says search warrants not needed to use stingrays in public places (arstechnica
.com)
submitted 13 hours ago by doctorshady
731 commentsshare
top 500 comments
sorted by: best
[ ]peaceshark 654 points 11 hours ago
If only there were some branch of government that would keep the FBI in check, o
ne that judged people and organizations supremely...
permalink
[ ]misogichan 641 points 8 hours ago
Unfortunately the Catholic church has its hands full dealing with its own intern
al reforms and recasting its vision and mission.
permalinkparent
[ ]wutshappening 93 points 7 hours ago
And looking at cat photos that's why they're Cat-holic. Alco-holics are addicted
to alcohol and catholics well you get the idea.
permalinkparent
[ ]TuffLuffJimmy 142 points 6 hours ago
Omg dad you're embarrassing me in front of my friends
permalinkparent
[ ]okmkz 27 points 4 hours ago

We ain't your friends, bruh


permalinkparent
[ ]Corruptionss 4 points 2 hours ago
We ain't your bruh, friends
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
load more comments (2 replies)
[ ]ROLLINGtemple 9 points 5 hours ago
What's their Dogma?
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
load more comments (9 replies)
[ ]hershmire 73 points 7 hours ago
The courts gave up about ten years ago.
permalinkparent
[ ]endprism 50 points 7 hours ago
The courts are pwned by the surveillance state.
permalinkparent
[ ]sushisection 41 points 6 hours ago
This is what I'm afraid of. Nsa is collecting data from all citizens including p
oliticians and supreme court judges.
permalinkparent
[ ]dutchguilder2 19 points 5 hours ago
Whistleblower confirms: http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=d6m1XbWOfVk
permalinkparent
[ ]TwitchTV_Subbort 1 point 3 hours ago
D.C. is Hollywood for ugly people. best line ever!!
permalinkparent
[ ]sklite 1 point 1 hour ago
Charles Augustus Magnussen approves
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]CriticalThink 1 point 6 hours ago
Skeletons in the closet are easy to find with intelligence infrastructure.
permalinkparent
[ ]HurricaneSandyHook 1 point 5 hours ago
The 10th circuit a few days ago sided with the government saying the cops use of
doppler radar to see if anyone was inside a house was legal. They did say it is
a troubling tactic that needs further review and just left it at that....
permalinkparent
[ ]-_--___-_--_--___--_ 27 points 6 hours ago
One major problem with judicial review is that there must be a case for the cour
t to review. I guess the other avenue would be to sue the government, but I'm no
t an attorney so I don't know how that would work.
permalinkparent
[ ]downvotesmakemehard 14 points 4 hours ago
I believe the current court has taken the stance that to take up a case someone
has to show they've been harmed in some way.
The police will never say that stingray is the source of the evidence. This woul
d open stingray to be scrutinized. They will use stingray to go after phone comp
any records which they will claim they requested on a hunch or some other bullsh
it excuse.
permalinkparent
[ ]great_gape [score hidden] 29 minutes ago
Anonymous tip.
permalinkparent
load more comments (2 replies)
[ ]dissonance07 8 points 6 hours ago
With is wide a latitude as the current SCOTUS seems to give to individual libert
y, this seems like the one kind of thing that they could actually usefully addre

ss, right?
permalinkparent
[ ]MrBojangles528 1 point 5 hours ago
Scalia and the rest of the SCOTUS is bought and sold just like the rest of our g
overnment. They answer first and foremost to the parties that nominated them as
well as the corporations that own them.
permalinkparent
[ ]psilontech 12 points 5 hours ago
See, I don't get that. You get into the Supreme Court and you're golden. Unless
you are actively breaking the law and can be impeached, you're untouchable. Why
not, you know, do what's best for your country instead of remaining beholden to
the parasites that leveraged you into that position?
permalinkparent
[ ]Ratbasher88 14 points 4 hours ago
Yep, Supreme Court justices have a well established history of turning out way d
ifferent than their supporters thought they'd be. For whatever reason this curre
nt batch of justices seems more comfortable with the security state than their p
redecessors, however that's true for most Americans in general so I suppose it s
houldn't be shocking.
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]MrBojangles528 2 points 4 hours ago
Good question, but you'd have to ask them about it.
permalinkparent
[ ]cynoclast 0 points 3 hours ago
Unless you are actively breaking the law and can be impeached, you're untouchabl
e.
But you can get richer. Or have your personal communications made public.
permalinkparent
[ ]tughdffvdlfhegl 1 point 3 hours ago
Honestly? Because they run in those social circles. They're friends with the peo
ple at the top. They don't actively associate with "regular folk" that much.
They've been ingratiated into the upper echelons of society long before ever rea
ching the supreme court through lifetimes spent at the forefront of the legal pr
ofession. This insulates them from others, and leaves them in an echo chamber of
their peers.
Now, when a case comes up that pits one of their friends, or friends' friends ag
ainst some random angry dude who's only making 50k a year, who do you think they
automatically side with, when the case isn't cut and dried? I'm not even saying
it's conscious, but prejudices come in all kinds and run deep. Tribalism happen
s all the time in subtle ways.
Plus there's Scalia taking paid for hunting trips with people who are directly a
ffected by cases in front of him, all of them getting invited to dinners and fun
ctions of the DC elite, etc.
permalinkparent
[ ]pion3435 1 point 3 hours ago
They do. It's possible to disagree with you without being corrupt.
permalinkparent
[ ]Jagoonder 1 point 2 hours ago
Not in an omnipotent surveillance state, however.
permalinkparent
[ ]DownFromYesBad 1 point 2 hours ago
Money, bribery.
permalinkparent
[ ]neotropic9 1 point 1 hour ago
Because they are selected to be the type of people who think whats "best for the
ir country" is serving the parasites, the corporate oligarchs, and the surveilla
nce state. They support the status quo, and the status quo supports them. It wou
ld be a miracle if someone with real principles was actually brought into the Su
preme Court, let alone enough of them to form a majority.

permalinkparent
[ ]isprobablyatwork 1 point 1 hour ago
This does happen, sometimes. Good examples would be Justices Warren and Stevens.
They played along with the GOP right up until they were put on the Court, then
immediately started voting their actual conscience (or if not their conscience,
then at least not as their political backers wanted).
permalinkparent
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[ ]cynoclast 2 points 3 hours ago
You mean the press?
permalinkparent
[ ]scrapinpeg 3 points 6 hours ago*
Obligatory link to illustrated law.
EDIT: fixed link
permalinkparent
[ ]ducttapejedi 3 points 6 hours ago*
error 404, check the link.
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[+][deleted] 13 hours ago (56 children)
[ ]sunbolts 701 points 12 hours ago
Glad to see the FBI is tearing up the constitution to increase their own powers
and authority. /s
permalink
[ ]dontbullshityourself 325 points 11 hours ago
Glad to see the FBI is tearing up the constitution to increase their own powers
and authority
I wish this was just the FBI. Pretty much everybody in the federal, state and lo
cals are doing this. Have been doing for this quite some time too.
permalinkparent
[ ]sunbolts 136 points 10 hours ago
Precisely, and that's what makes this very frightening. The whole club's in on i
t.
permalinkparent
[ ]radonthetyrant 75 points 7 hours ago
but why.. I realize that these "zomg the terrorists!!!11" is only a PR-lie. What
do they really accomplish with this? Industry espionage? Bribes from the indust
ries which create the espionage hardware? Feeling of total control? Control the
masses so it all stays as conservative and corrupt as possible?
Why would you amass such a criminal energy to break constitutional laws just to
be able to see through everyone's communication?
permalinkparent
[ ]BettyRubbleIsHot 151 points 7 hours ago
Total control.
That way when the state has it, they can really put the boot on our necks. Think
they treat us poorly now? Just wait until they have the infrastructure in place
where they feel confident there are absolutely zero threats to their power. Tha
t's when shit is going to get BAD.
permalinkparent
[ ]b-LE-z_it 106 points 6 hours ago
And that's why, despite being terrified of some gun owners, despite being terrif
ied of mass shootings, I don't think we should ban guns, even combat rifles. It
can happen here, and we should at least make it hurt if and when it happens.
permalinkparent
[ ]7V3N 47 points 6 hours ago
Welcome to the list.
permalinkparent

[ ]M00glemuffins 10 points 5 hours ago


Sign me up too. If they try to pull a fast one on the public I'm not standing fo
r their bullshit.
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]FadingEchoes11 26 points 6 hours ago
*rifle. No "combat" rifles are owned by citizens
permalinkparent
[ ]b-LE-z_it 39 points 6 hours ago
Did I mention I don't know anything about guns? I don't know anything about guns
.
Point is, force is not something only people in power should have.
permalinkparent
[ ]teefour 19 points 6 hours ago
You should go to a shooting range and take a class. You won't be so unnecessaril
y afraid of them after that.
permalinkparent
[ ]Pullo_T 27 points 6 hours ago
He's not afraid of guns. He's afraid of some gun owners. At least, as far as we
know.
permalinkparent
continue this thread
load more comments (3 replies)
[ ]Bootsncatsn4 5 points 5 hours ago
i understand where youre coming from, but what will a bunch of angry townsfolk d
o to a predator drone strike?
permalinkparent
[ ]Oeboues 18 points 4 hours ago
You should ask the angry townsfolk of Iraq and Afghanistan.
Once the US military is done slinking away in shame, I mean.
permalinkparent
continue this thread
[ ]nuesuh 1 point 1 hour ago
Remove them. Predator drones are being operated from the ground, and has to land
after a couple hours to refuel.
permalinkparent
[ ]joe_m107 4 points 6 hours ago
Maybe we should change that. Repeal the NFA.
permalinkparent
load more comments (2 replies)
[ ]4nco1j 0 points 2 hours ago
You don't know much about guns, do you now.
permalinkparent
load more comments (6 replies)
[ ]conquer69 15 points 4 hours ago
You can have all the guns you want. That won't stop them from labeling you a "su
spected school shooter, pedophile or terrorist".
A gun can't protect you from that. A gun can't teach your fellow countryman to t
hink by themselves or see through propaganda.
Good luck destroying a drone, plane or tank with a rifle. Not sure how useful a
gun is against your own trained military with even better guns and more.
People thinking they can start a revolution and win with a handgun don't realize
this isn't the 1700's anymore.
permalinkparent
[ ]JimmyBuffer 14 points 4 hours ago
Better tell the Middle East they haven't had a bout of revolutions then
permalinkparent
load more comments (2 replies)
[ ]b-LE-z_it 7 points 4 hours ago
Didn't say we would win, I said we could at least make it hurt. Assuming, of cou

rse, that the American people themselves aren't the ones willingly handing in th
eir freedoms, which would mean we're all fucked immediately.
permalinkparent
[ ]theothercoolfish 13 points 2 hours ago
Assuming, of course, that the American people themselves aren't the ones willing
ly handing in their freedoms, which would mean we're all fucked immediately.
Err, you guys gave up much of your freedoms long ago. And it isn't just the US politicians everywhere are taking as much as they can get, because it's simply
more power for them. More power, more money, more control. It's not a conspiracy
- this is just how an imperfect system with inadequate controls eventually goes
. We need to start re-examining our systems and look at alternatives that are no
w possible with the internet.
permalinkparent
[ ]vynusmagnus 3 points 2 hours ago
Tell that to the insurgents in Afghanistan. It seems to me that the US military
has been unable to defeat them in over a decade of war, despite its overwhelming
technological superiority. Tanks and fighter jets are nice, but they do little
against a small guerrilla force that can disappear into the woodwork.
permalinkparent
[ ]Qoix 3 points 3 hours ago
I think the main issue with that line of thinking is that the military would gun
down the civilians it pledges to protect. How many people in the armed forces d
o you know? Now, are any of them willing to murder innocent people? Probably not
.
permalinkparent
[ ]ihcn 6 points 2 hours ago
They're not innocent people, they're armed revolutionaries, suspected terrorists
permalinkparent
[ ]chance-- 4 points 3 hours ago
You say that as if there isn't insurmountable evidence to the contrary.
Military coups are thoroughly woven into the fabric of humanity's history.
permalinkparent
[ ]theothercoolfish 1 point 2 hours ago
gun down the civilians it pledges to protect.
Err, they don't pledge to protect civilians. They pledge to protect the constitu
tion. And if they are convinced that these people are attempting to "subvert" th
e constitution, then they are enemies. Nevermind that their leaders have shat al
l over the constitution - soldiers take their orders and follow 'em.
Now, are any of them willing to murder innocent people?
lol.
permalinkparent
load more comments (2 replies)
[ ]eloquentnemesis [score hidden] 33 minutes ago
Welcome to 4th generation warfare. You don't need a better gun, or the ability t
o kill a drone, or anything else like that. You just need A gun and more commitm
ent than the other side.
permalinkparent
[ ]homegrowncountryboy [score hidden] 16 minutes ago*
Good luck with those tanks, planes and drones when the American people stop supp
lying fuel and ammunition. My brother is in the Army and he will tell you about
75%, or more of the military will disband and fight to protect the American peop
le. All you have to do is look at New Orleans during Katrina, when they got the
order to start confiscating guns almost all of them refused, instead it was main
ly police stealing people's weapons.
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]Hermit_ 2 points 5 hours ago
Yeah but if it does happen all people would be doing is creating the chaos one o
f the armed and militarized militias needs to take power. For example, The KKK.
permalinkparent

[ ]b-LE-z_it 1 point 5 hours ago


Hopefully not the KKK.
permalinkparent
[ ]AussieArcher 1 point 3 hours ago
Fuck me there's always one of you. I'm starting to think the gun club spends mor
e time on reddit than anyone.
permalinkparent
[ ]astronautg117 1 point 1 hour ago
What's a combat rifle going to do against a drone?
permalinkparent
[ ]datbino 1 point 1 hour ago
i think thats where 2nd ammendment people miss the mark- you owning a rifle will
do nothing against the government.
you becoming an active participating member in that government can help fix it,
the goal is to make you a kony2012 fb sharer rather than a person who gets to wo
rk and fixes shit
permalinkparent
[ ]mpg1846 1 point 1 hour ago
You think 50 guys with hand guns are going to do anything to anyone? Gun laws ar
e a joke.
permalinkparent
[ ]Actionbuilding 1 point 1 hour ago
The founders of the United States of America WANTED the citizens to rise up and
overthrow the government if it approached the levels of corruption it is current
ly working toward.
permalinkparent
load more comments (11 replies)
[ ]nuesuh 1 point 1 hour ago
Ever seen "Das Leben der Anderen"? Imagine this, just with total corruption and
100 times better technology. This is what we are moving towards. Imagine this sy
stem getting in the hands of someone like Hitler or Stalin.. And it can happen.
Before Hitler came to power Germany was a modern, western, christian nation. We
need safety with this technology. And when i say safety, i don't mean surveillan
ce. I mean the opposite.
permalinkparent
[ ]know_comment [score hidden] 14 minutes ago
I agree, but I think the reason for the infrastructure development is because it
is going to get bad. As we are forced to compete more globally, quality of life
stagnates. Even the slightest hint of austerity is going to be very painful for
the lower classes in a society with a large income disparity.
That's why we see the race baiting and divisive rhetoric being used so much. Kee
p the poor and working classes quibbling at each other.
I want you to consider the daffodil. And while you're doing that, I'll be over h
ere, looking through your stuff.
permalinkparent
[ ]mzackler 19 points 7 hours ago
It takes a really complicated answer to truly understand but you often get into
the us vs them mentality in siloed areas of law enforcement. You also often get
frustrated with the levels of proof you need to put the bad guy in jail. Thus an
y method you can use you feel justified in using. Although I think there are a l
ot of issues with The Wire, it's a great starting off point for a discussion if
you want a serious answer.
permalinkparent
load more comments (2 replies)
[ ]hershmire 30 points 7 hours ago
Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts, absolutely.
permalinkparent
[ ]TheNewRavager 70 points 6 hours ago
"All governments suffer a recurring problem: Power attracts pathological persona
lities. It is not that power corrupts but that it is magnetic to the corruptible

. Such people have a tendency to become drunk on violence, a condition to which


they are quickly addicted."
permalinkparent
[ ]gee_iwonderwhy 22 points 6 hours ago
Oh shit, a Dune quote outside /r/dune not about spice.
permalinkparent
[ ]TheNumberMuncher 3 points 6 hours ago
This is pretty cool.
permalinkparent
[ ]YawnDogg 1 point 3 hours ago
Gene Hackman was so kinky in that movie.
permalinkparent
[ ]ThreeTimesUp 2 points 2 hours ago
From a Guardian article by Glenn Greenwald I came across recently:
Inside the mind of NSA chief Gen Keith Alexander
Any casual review of human history proves how deeply irrational it is to believe
that powerful factions can be trusted to exercise vast surveillance power with
little accountability or transparency.
But the more they proudly flaunt their warped imperial hubris, the more irration
al it becomes.
permalinkparent
[ ]Epsilox 3 points 2 hours ago
I'm going to take an unpopular stance here and argue that they get more effectiv
e investigations. Which isn't to say I have no reservations about this stuff, be
cause I do.
I've worked in a field tangential to law enforcement, and I've had the unpleasan
t experience of watching very bad people act with impunity because law enforceme
nt had to play by the rules and they didn't. Does that justify the modern trend
towards more invasive government? Maybe that's just the price we pay to live in
a free society. I don't know. I'm a fan of the H.L. Mencken quote:
"The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's ti
me defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are f
irst aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopp
ed at all."
On the other hand, it's very hard to watch members of organized crime and other
monsters literally get away with murder.
In part the difficulty the lies in the infrastructure of modern society. Communi
cations move at such speed and in such quantity that the sort of pinpoint accura
cy required for effective investigations and prosecutions becomes much more diff
icult.
None of which is to say that what we're doing is necessarily right. I've felt th
e fear of writing an opinion online and knowing that the NSA can see it and ever
ything else I've ever written if they so choose. I've had that feeling of always
being watched. I know exactly what is meant by the danger of chilling free spee
ch, because it's happened to me. But I do tend to trust (perhaps naively) that,
for the most part, most of the people making these decisions have good intention
s. I've worked with many of them, and I believe that it more than anything is th
e result of them trying to do their jobs well. Whether they are actually protect
ing the American people or simply paving the road to hell, only time will really
tell.
permalinkparent
[ ]eyeforgot 4 points 6 hours ago
Think of all the blackmail material they have for any future politicians. They w
ill firmly be in check by the powers that be.
permalinkparent
[ ]ademnus 3 points 7 hours ago
Total control.
permalinkparent
[ ]NotAnotherDecoy 4 points 7 hours ago
Total control?

permalinkparent
[ ]leamas666 2 points 5 hours ago
Why would you amass such a criminal energy to break constitutional laws just to
be able to see through everyone's communication?
It's the deep state attempting to preserve its own regime continuity in the even
t of violent revolution.
permalinkparent
[ ]sunbolts 3 points 6 hours ago
Because those in power try to keep it and in addition, there is always a lust fo
r more power. One who is wealthy seeks to increase his riches usually, right? Sa
me thing going on here. In terms of practicality, there's no reason for breaking
constitutional laws, but when you realize how human nature functions in regards
to ambitions and power, well, what we see going on explains itself.
permalinkparent
[ ]Martenz05 1 point 3 hours ago
So, in order to become a political leader who really does work for the benefit o
f the people, one would somehow have to lose every shred of their humanity so th
ey wouldn't have a human nature that could be corrupted by ambition and power?
That sounds ominous, when I put it like that
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]RuthlessDickTater 1 point 5 hours ago
but why.. I realize that these "zomg the terrorists!!!11" is only a PR-lie.
Well pretty soon they might have their terrorists, but they'll be the domestic k
ind.
permalinkparent
[ ]karadan100 1 point 4 hours ago
More money.
permalinkparent
[ ]cynoclast 1 point 3 hours ago
What do they really accomplish with this?
Get rich.
permalinkparent
load more comments (7 replies)
[ ]TGlucifer 50 points 10 hours ago
Criminals learned it's just way easier to do their lawbreaking with a government
salary.
permalinkparent
[ ]pete1729 22 points 9 hours ago
Well, the benefits package is far more attractive.
permalinkparent
[ ]__ghostpants 25 points 7 hours ago
and somehow snitches go to jail instead of the criminals
permalinkparent
[ ]iismitch55 1 point 3 hours ago
Snitches get stitches. Whistleblowers get their mouth sowed shut.
permalinkparent
[ ]HandsOffMyDitka 5 points 5 hours ago
Why break a law, when you can just change it.
permalinkparent
[ ]moresmarterthanyou 2 points 5 hours ago
except when they have to answer questions themselves...
permalinkparent
[ ]dontbullshityourself 1 point 5 hours ago
Well you know liberty is wasted on peasant swine 'eh?
permalinkparent
[ ]ButterflyAttack 1 point 4 hours ago
Sounds like the constitution doesn't mean much at this point. . .
permalinkparent
[ ]dontbullshityourself 1 point 3 hours ago

Sounds like the constitution doesn't mean much at this point. . .


All it means is that the scum who rule us have a legal contract that they say ba
cks up all their power. But their actions shit all over that document.
President Obama, a constitutional law professor ordered the deaths of two US cit
izens without trial in EXPRESS and DIRECT violation of the constitution.
permalinkparent
load more comments (4 replies)
[ ]Eurynom0s 68 points 9 hours ago
And on top of it, even if being in public was a justification for this, how the
fuck do you prevent the device from nabbing people who are inside their own hous
e or apartment as well?
Oh right, you can't, because that's not how radio waves work.
permalinkparent
[ ]Ioneos 18 points 8 hours ago
You can increase the noise gate to reduce range on purpose, but what good would
that do to keep the terrorists citizens under scrutiny.
permalinkparent
[ ]Eurynom0s 20 points 8 hours ago
Even if they were going to do that, I can't imagine that you could do it to a su
fficient degree in a place like NYC to not scoop up at least some people inside
of buildings.
permalinkparent
load more comments (5 replies)
[ ]Codoro 1 point 4 hours ago
I foresee turning your house into a Faraday Cage being the cop radar finder of t
omorrow.
permalinkparent
[ ]Kenny_Login 23 points 7 hours ago
Taxation without representation, an income far below what the productivity was v
alued at, government intrusion? The founding fathers (you know, those "heroes" o
f our nation) got much more pissed off for much less.
permalinkparent
[ ]Socialdem 8 points 5 hours ago
Can you really blame them? The Constitution was written when people were still r
iding on horses. There's no way the founding fathers could have anticipated the
advances in technology and the way people communicate. I think we're due for a f
irmware upgrade.
permalinkparent
[ ]upandrunning 11 points 3 hours ago
Yes, it's called 'replacing congress'. What we're seeing is a natural consequenc
e of career politicians. Most of the people in office have gotten so comfortable
with the idea that they'll get reelected that what they actually do during thei
r term is almost irrelevent.
permalinkparent
[ ]theothercoolfish 2 points 2 hours ago
Exactly. I think we should look at sortition - with an approval vote, and extrem
ely strict rules on what sort of laws can be passed (eg any law must apply equal
ly to everyone - protecting the minority), and a approval bonus for the randomly
selected representatives if the public approves. Fuck career politicians - they
've proven themselves wholly incapable, and the system that supports them is too
corruptible. I don't think campaign finance reform will 1) ever happen 2) adequ
ately deal with institutional corruption.
permalinkparent
[ ]NuclearWookiee 0 points 2 hours ago
All of this should be covered, in any reasonable interpretation, by the Fourth a
mendment. Rebooting who change anything if the limits on government are ignored.
permalinkparent
[ ]KalAl 1 point 1 hour ago
Do you update your firmware by smashing your bios chip with a hammer?
permalinkparent

[ ]FireFromTheWire 4 points 6 hours ago


You're just another Steve Irwin to them.
permalinkparent
[ ]iismitch55 2 points 3 hours ago
Too soon mate :'(
permalinkparent
[ ]Penguin_in_the_sand 1 point 1 hour ago*
I am curious to know what this comment means?... Oh! Steve Irwin was killed by a
stingray. I thought you may have been referring to some conspiracy relating the
Steve Irwin's death. He had an American wife and both were invited to Howard's
Bush BBQ. http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/10/27/1067233100397.html
permalinkparent
[ ]gloubenterder 2 points 1 hour ago
Steve Irwin was a wildlife documentary filmmaker who was well-known for getting
up close and personal with dangerous animals such as crocodiles and komodo drago
ns.
He was pierced through a heart by a stingray in 2006, while shooting footage for
a documentary called Ocean's Deadliest.
After his death, stingrays had a period of great infamy, and there were even rep
orts of people killing and mutilating stingrays as vengeance for Steve Irwin. ..
.which, of course, is the last thing Irwin would have wanted; he was a conservat
ionist, and whenever he was injured by an animal he was studying, he would alway
s clarify to the viewer that that was his own fault and a risk he was aware of.
permalinkparent
[ ]Agent-BurtMacklinFBI 1 point 5 hours ago
Don't worry I'm keeping a look out
permalinkparent
[ ]pion3435 1 point 3 hours ago
It's not a constitutional issue. It might be an FCC one, but they just do whatev
er they're told anyway.
permalinkparent
[ ]dntur 1 point 3 hours ago
theoretically, every cell tower is in a public place. Why not just attach a stin
gray to all of them? Think of the money mobile companies could make renting towe
r space! next comes google who wants to know who you are calling on your iphone
and windows phone for better directed advertising, followed by Bing. /s
permalinkparent
[ ]Brian3232 [score hidden] 46 minutes ago
Why are they wrong? You already can take pictures of people in public places wit
hout warrant
permalinkparent
[ ]GaltsGulchTouristInf [score hidden] 24 minutes ago
When the constitution, the supreme law of the land, the contract between the gov
ernment and the people, is violated, this violating it should be banned from 'pu
blic service' for life, should be personally liable to those whose rights they v
iolated, and should forfeit their government pension and benefits.
permalinkparent
[ ]wtfmuck [score hidden] 17 minutes ago
It's sad how they shirk doing what is right for what is easy.
permalinkparent
load more comments (8 replies)
[ ]quiteintriguing 127 points 12 hours ago
I think it's about time these fuckers provided some evidence that privacy invadi
ng is helping stop crime or terrorism. As far as I can see, there is an Islamic
army in the middle east right now filled with westerners that simply flew over a
nd caught a bus. Nice job government agencies, you sure showed us.
permalink
[ ]HappyAtavism 81 points 11 hours ago
I think it's about time these fuckers provided some evidence that privacy invadi
ng is helping stop crime or terrorism.

Even more importantly they should provide evidence that they're not violating th
e 4th Amendment. The Bill of Rights doesn't say it applies only when convenient.
P.S. I agree that repeated failures to demonstrate the effectiveness of these th
ings, or lies which get "corrected", is yet another reason why this stuff is BS,
but the Constitution is first and foremost. Don't like the 4th Amendment? Try t
o repeal it. Until then it's in force.
permalinkparent
[ ]7u5 3 points 5 hours ago
The "checks and balances" of the judiciary are a farce. They are free to "interp
ret" the Constitution as they see fit.
permalinkparent
load more comments (3 replies)
[ ]DiaperParty 9 points 3 hours ago
Fuck that. FUUUCK that. If this did stop terrorists, it would still not be worth
the violation of rights. We absolutely CANNOT start OKing this shit as long as
it "stops bad guys."
permalinkparent
[ ]quiteintriguing 1 point 3 hours ago
I think you misunderstood. I think they should have to back up their justificati
on, which they obviously can't.
permalinkparent
[ ]DiaperParty 4 points 3 hours ago
But if we ask them to, we lend legitimacy to that claim. We need to say from the
get go that no justification is needed because none will be sufficient.
permalinkparent
[ ]ebouwman 7 points 5 hours ago
In Canada we had the Ottawa shooting and that dude that ran over some soldiers.
Correct me if I'm wrong but both these guys had had their passports revoked.
I'm not a fan of letting them just go over and fight a dirty war but wtf.
permalinkparent
[ ]Ceejae 4 points 4 hours ago
But so what if it is? How successful the program is is irrelevant.
I'm sure if they set up a government camera in every home they'd stop plenty of
murders and rapes.
permalinkparent
load more comments (2 replies)
[ ]cassieloveseffie 5 points 2 hours ago
Well we all know that the FBI has followed people like John Lennon who believed
in radical peace, urged MLK to kill himself and was prepared to assassinate occu
py members. It is not about crime, it is about maintaining a status quo.
permalinkparent
[ ]monopixel 2 points 1 hour ago
was prepared to assassinate occupy members.
Interesting, where can I read up about this?
permalinkparent
[ ]wirepants 4 points 4 hours ago
Locking everyone in solitary could stop crime and terrorism too. That's not a go
od enough reason to violate our rights even if it was working.
permalinkparent
[ ]egodeath92 2 points 5 hours ago
Shh that's classified. This entire country would be a post-apocalyptic dirt-patc
h is not for the heroic NSA collecting dirt on most of the country.
permalinkparent
[ ]pion3435 1 point 3 hours ago
You had no privacy in the first place. That's not how cell phones work.
permalinkparent
load more comments (6 replies)
[ ]MashItMatt 143 points 13 hours ago
Obviously these are constitution free zones, citizen.
permalink

[ ]THANKS-FOR-THE-GOLD 22 points 7 hours ago


Embrace democracy or you will be eradicated
permalinkparent
[ ]jroddie4 14 points 5 hours ago
Citizen, pick up that can.
permalinkparent
[ ]douko 3 points 5 hours ago
This image won't even load (here's another one), but I still know what it is.
DEATH IS A PREFERABLE ALTERNATIVE TO COMMUNISM.
COMMUNISM IS THE VERY DEFINITION OF FAILURE!
permalinkparent
[ ]chewysquirrel 15 points 6 hours ago
Approximately 2/3 of Americans live in a "constitution free zone"
permalinkparent
[ ]newpolitics 50 points 10 hours ago
The Federal Bureau of Investigation is taking the position that court warrants a
re not required when deploying cell-site simulators in public places. Nicknamed
"stingrays," the devices are decoy cell towers that capture locations and identi
ties of mobile phone users and can intercept calls and texts.
So nobody has any expectation of privacy? Talking out of their asses. The implic
ation that a warrant shouldn't be needed to intercept someone's text messages, i
s outrageous.
permalink
[ ]acerplatanoides [score hidden] 16 minutes ago
The implication that a warrant shouldn't be needed to intercept someone's text m
essages, is outrageous.
The implication of intercepting a PRESS related text message, and thus also supp
ressing a free press.
I think many of these are used to stop uploading of images to social medial. You
ever tried that during a demonstration?
permalinkparent
[ ]dalasocatyemerc 67 points 9 hours ago
Hmm, I didn't realize the FBI had the authority to ignore the constitution of th
e United States of America.
Maybe this organization doesn't actually serve Americans. That's what I think
permalink
[ ]Jagoonder 17 points 2 hours ago
They don't. However, lets look at their 3rd criteria:
(3) cases in which the technology is used in public places or other locations at
which the FBI deems there is no reasonable expectation of privacy.
In public, noone has an expectation to privacy. SCOTUS has ruled on such. Theref
ore, it could be argued that phone conversations in public places forfeits at le
ast one party's rights to privacy.
There are a couple of problems with this. First, Stingray is indiscriminate. Sec
ond, the other party of the phone conversation may be in their own home thus hav
ing an expectation of privacy.
I don't know how law works in regards to phone tapping. But, I would assume that
any warrant to do so would provide the agency a waiver on a second party's priv
acy protections when conversing with the target of the warrant. Except in the ca
se of Stingray no warrant was ever obtained thus, no waiver, thus the second par
ty probably still has privacy protections.
So, I think it's bullshit. I'm no lawyer. I suspect the FBI also knows it's bull
shit. But, the more excuses they can come up with to bend the law around their w
ill the more time it takes to try to stop them since each instance requires anot
her court decision.
permalinkparent
[ ]punkrampant 13 points 1 hour ago
There's only "no expectation of privacy" in public in terms of video+camera surv
eillance. People still get disturbed if you look over their shoulder at their ph
one, or listen to a conversation.

Text messages, emails, phone calls, all of it, are the modern day written letter
s. What the FBI is trying to do is the equivalent of setting up a post office th
at opens everyone's envelopes and makes copies of all the contents.
permalinkparent
[ ]Jagoonder 5 points 1 hour ago
Text messages, emails, phone calls, all of it, are the modern day written letter
s. What the FBI is trying to do is the equivalent of setting up a post office th
at opens everyone's envelopes and makes copies of all the contents.
You're right. I was focusing on an actual phone conversation where one party cou
ld be overheard by others, thus no expectation to privacy.
permalinkparent
[ ]Cambodian_Drug_Mule 2 points 1 hour ago
Surely there are people with technical expertise that can just fuck their shit u
p. If I'm not mistaken the stingrays were detected with consumer grade electroni
cs. If everyone just looked out for them and pinned where they are at on a map,
couldn't some people with the technical know how take them offline?
permalinkparent
[ ]monopixel 1 point 1 hour ago
Hmm, I didn't realize the FBI had the authority to ignore the constitution of th
e United States of America.
The US government and its agencies has been doing it for ages.
permalinkparent
[ ]rtpg 40 points 6 hours ago
Surprised nobody's mentioned Kyllo v. United States yet.
This is fairly recent (2001) jurisprudence. The gov't used a thermal imager, and
saw that there were heat lamps inside of a house, and used that to get a search
warrant. The gov't argued that, well, the heat was outside, so pretty much publ
ic information.
The courts disagreed and ruled this an illegal search. Main reason being that no
t many people have thermal imagers, so there's a reasonable expectation of priva
cy. I think even less people have stingrays, so even from the "discovering that
someone has a cell phone" aspect, there's unreasonableness in the search.
Now to the wiretapping aspect... there's Katz v. United States. Here, somebody w
as in a phone booth, and the feds had set a microphone outside the phone booth w
ithout warrant (so not exactly a wiretap). Again, the courts ruled this an unrea
sonable search.
A part of the ruling:
Regardless of the location, a conversation is protected from unreasonable search
and seizure under the Fourth Amendment if it is made with a "reasonable expecta
tion of privacy".
Text messages definitely fall under this. I can't see this holding up for 2 seco
nds in court.
The article goes into it into detail, but few of the FBI's interpretations on pr
ivacy have been holding up in courts recently. The system is kind of working, an
d this interpretation will be shut down as well. Now, if only everyone had good
lawyers...
permalink
[ ]ryewheats 7 points 4 hours ago
But the biggest problem I see would be them not declaring how they gathered any
information they collected in the first place. It would be pretty easy to skirt
around the system and act like you caught the suspect red-handed (because you we
re tipped off by illegal searches). That is the really scary part.
permalinkparent
[ ]argv_minus_one 5 points 3 hours ago
This practice is known as "parallel construction".
permalinkparent
[ ]tughdffvdlfhegl 3 points 3 hours ago
Honestly, this is the biggest concern. The courts won't allow a challenge becaus
e no one will have standing, because the feds/police won't actively declare this
as evidence in a trial. Meanwhile, they'll continue to use it, having a chillin

g effect on the press and others (which the courts have not seen in recent histo
ry as sufficient to provide legal standing).
permalinkparent
[ ]JustaChimp 3 points 5 hours ago
With the Katz v US case, it took them 39 years to overturn the Olmstead v US rul
ing. Let's hope it takes a little less time for this medium.
The recent Romano v Steelcase Inc. court case could indicate how the courts will
rule in the short term with regards to "reasonable expectation of privacy" thou
gh this ruling was in the context of social media and not text messages. The ana
logy was made that much like a letter writer has no reasonable expectation of pr
ivacy once the recipient is in possession of the letter, neither does the post's
author. Same could be extended to text messages and would be equally as trouble
some.
permalinkparent
[ ]qdarius 1 point 3 hours ago
Damn, that doesn't seem right at all. If I send someone a letter I definitely ex
pect that only they will read it.
Could anyone expand on the logic that a letter writer has no reasonable expectat
ion of privacy?
permalinkparent
[ ]Boltaeg 1 point 3 hours ago
After that letter is given to the recipient, they can do whatever they want with
it without you knowing. They could copy it, show it to friends, frame it and pu
t it on their wall....etc. You have no control over that and must assume that an
ything you write in a letter can be disclosed in some manner, simply because you
have no control over that persons actions.
As to why that is the case, I have no idea. Especially considering it is illegal
to open someone elses mail, but perfectly legal to read someone else's letter o
nce they open it. At least that is my understanding of it.
permalinkparent
[ ]TheMightyBarbarian 1 point 3 hours ago
Its fairly simple, you sent a letter, until it is received by the intended recip
ient it has federal protections. Once the recipient receives it, they are free t
o do with it as they wish, even if you disagree with what they do, specifically
because the letter is now their property, even though you wrote it.
permalinkparent
[ ]qdarius 1 point 2 hours ago
I understand that. But if someone else intercepts my letter shouldn't that still
be illegal?
Maybe I'm misunderstanding how stingrays work but it seems like they're basicall
y designed to intercept hundreds of messages.
permalinkparent
[ ]TheMightyBarbarian 1 point 2 hours ago
Intercept isn't illegal, its sketchy but not illegal. As for reading it, it's a
grey area since texts are not encrypted and even if they were it would do shit i
f billions of devices can decrypt them. So unless you use something like a messe
nger system that can use basic encrypting. It won't stop the FBI from reading it
, but it does show you took steps to have a private conversation and that's what
matters to the court.
permalinkparent
[ ]coalbeeashi 1 point 3 hours ago
Re: Katz v. United States
Certain details, such as shutting the door on the telephone booth, help determin
e if a person intends for a conversation to be private. Thus, private conversati
ons can be made in public areas.
What steps is the average Joe taking to exhibit a reasonable expectation of priv
acy regarding his/her data usage? Honest question.
permalinkparent
[ ]TheMightyBarbarian 1 point 2 hours ago
Beyond using a VPN to mimic another location, not much really. Since there are m

any devices involved in the process of just looking up a website. Ex. You google
Microsoft. Here are all the parties involved: You, Your ISP, Google, Microsoft.
That's four parties involved and that's assuming you are not using a Phones Mob
ile Data plan and are using WiFi. Because then it can add a few more people invo
lved.
Sure you should have protection just the same, but currently the law doesn't rec
ognize that, because the people in charge dont understand how any of it works.
permalinkparent
[ ]rtpg [score hidden] 54 minutes ago
I would say that cultural norms kind of define that in that it is extremely rude
to look at another stranger's phone while they are using it to browse/look at t
heir emails/whatever. Not the most solid argument, I know.
permalinkparent
[ ]Sic_SemperTyrannis 1 point 2 hours ago
When the use of stingrays is challenged in court police have dropped the cases r
ather than explain their use of stingrays.
permalinkparent
[ ]cassieloveseffie 1 point 2 hours ago
I have seen a printed record of every one of someone's txt messages for 6 months
. Never assume txt messages are private.
permalinkparent
[ ]Ladderjack 29 points 12 hours ago
I'm sorry, have they gone ahead and combined the FBI and the Supreme Court of th
e United States of America? No? Well, we will see how long this lasts. . .
permalink
[ ]butitssnot 46 points 7 hours ago
Its ok. In 2016 we can vote for hope and change and transparency and fix all thi
s.
permalinkparent
[ ]CriticalThink 3 points 5 hours ago
yeah. I bet Hillary will fix this mess, right Reddit?
permalinkparent
[ ]TheMightyBarbarian 1 point 2 hours ago
We still got time before they can start promoting themselves for President, lega
lly actually, they can't start until a certain number of days from the election.
permalinkparent
[ ]looneybandito 5 points 6 hours ago
Haha. As if our votes matter.
permalinkparent
[ ]atomofconsumption 9 points 5 hours ago
thatsthejoke.jpg
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]dichroeyes 1 point 4 hours ago
You are right. I give up. Long live the hegemony.
permalinkparent
[ ]Pikaflu 1 point 3 hours ago
America is an irradiated wasteland. Within it lies a city. Outside the boundary
walls, a desert. A cursed earth. Inside the walls, a cursed city, stretching fro
m Boston to Washington D.C. An unbroken concrete landscape. 800 million people l
iving in the ruin of the old world and the mega structures of the new one. Mega
blocks. Mega highways. Mega City One. Convulsing. Choking. Breaking under its ow
n weight. Citizens in fear of the street. The gun. The gang. Only one thing figh
ting for order in the chaos: the men and women of the Hall of Justice. Juries. E
xecutioners. Judges.
permalinkparent
[ ]Ago_Solvo 36 points 9 hours ago
I'm sure that means that stingrays are also open for public hacking in that case
, because they're in a public place, and doing so can't be considered an intrusi
on on government properties or a violation of any Federal Law.

permalink
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]whysopositive 57 points 12 hours ago
Say whatever you want, you don't think big brother is going to find every way to
spy on you?
The thing is I bet every time we the people get upset about some "new" trespass
against our rights there's already something technologically beyond our knowledg
e being put to use to on us now.
permalink
[ ]I_SPLIT_INFINITIVES 16 points 7 hours ago
My dad always said, "If that's what they're telling us they have now, they proba
bly had it ten years ago. Just imagine what they really have."
permalinkparent
[ ]oOTHX1138Oo 28 points 9 hours ago
Thats why we need to add to the bill of rights, so that we continue to be protec
ted in the digital age.
permalinkparent
[ ]TheBlueWaffleHouse 18 points 8 hours ago
At this point in time the bill of rights only shrinks. It doesn't get bigger.
permalinkparent
[ ]tallerthanunicorngod 33 points 7 hours ago
Not with that attitude.
permalinkparent
[ ]mattacular2001 3 points 5 hours ago
Doesn't matter unless you're wealthy
permalinkparent
[ ]tallerthanunicorngod 1 point 2 hours ago
Wealthy people don't like to be spied on either. Honestly, they probably like it
even less.
permalinkparent
[ ]sockgorilla 1 point 5 hours ago
He's John Titor, he's watched it before.
permalinkparent
[ ]mastahslayah 1 point 4 hours ago
Well he isn't getting any of my Dr. Pepper.
permalinkparent
[ ]Poor__Yorick 1 point 2 hours ago
Wow that's a name I haven't heard in a while.
We've got a world war this year though.
3 billion dead by the end of it.
permalinkparent
load more comments (5 replies)
[ ]pion3435 1 point 3 hours ago
We already did. That's the point of laws like HIPAA. There's just no equivalent
for things like email or cell phones so it's legal to see whatever people are na
ively broadcasting.
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]ZomNomNomBeeZ 5 points 7 hours ago
This technology is not particularly new. The man-in-the-middle attack is a class
ic hacking technique. I remember reading an article after one of the security co
nventions detailing a small group of participants that used a remote control air
plane to do this exact thing to convention attendees. This was years ago.
permalinkparent
[ ]hershmire 4 points 7 hours ago
Which is why it's illegality could be successfully code into law.
permalinkparent
[ ]TheMightyBarbarian 1 point 3 hours ago
That's the problem, the people who make the laws don't understand how the techno
logy works, and the people making and using it are telling them its fine, so the

y don't feel like they need to make a law about.


And as such making a law about it would be bad, since the law would need specifi
c language to prevent certain technologies and usage of such. But the biggest is
sue is that some of the technology and uses are too general that it would never
work to stop anything. Since they can't just write a law preventing man in the m
iddle because they need to get a definitive wording on what that is exactly and
then word it so a slight variation doesn't just immediately skirt the new law.
Our technology grew faster than our laws did, but now it's grown faster than our
ability to properly define what it is we do. So controlling it is incredibly ha
rd and will take a long time, so for now we kinda have to suck it up and wait, b
ecause the worst possible thing is them putting out ineffective laws that do les
s than nothing to prevent stuff like that and hearing us complain and think we a
re whining when they just put out a law. I would rather wait a little longer to
make sure the law is proper and effective than to have a crap law screw everythi
ng up.
permalinkparent
[ ]ScorpionPool 1 point 6 hours ago
Serious question. What benefits does the government get from spying on us? Power
? Information for corporations? Shits and giggles? Some kind of profit?
permalinkparent
[ ]swingmemallet 2 points 5 hours ago
All of the above
permalinkparent
[ ]eyeforgot 1 point 5 hours ago*
What like complete access to what anyone posts/chats about on facebook/skype bei
ng dumped into a database? Anyone who work with cisco routers notice anything fu
nny like carefully crafted packets fucking w. the settings and not creating logs
. Maybe like there is a back door that someone has that doesn't require a passwo
rd.
permalinkparent
load more comments (3 replies)
[ ]philtech 26 points 10 hours ago
You can scan for stingray use.
Only works on rooted phones with Qualcomm chipset however. https://play.google.c
om/store/apps/details?id=de.srlabs.snoopsnitch&hl=en
permalink
[ ]vamper 2 points 6 hours ago
damn, no go for my nexus 5
permalinkparent
[ ]Ice_Pirate 1 point 5 hours ago
Should work on my 20 dollar ZTE's with dualies :). Overclocks to 1.8 like butta.
http://www.phonearena.com/phones/ZTE-N800_id8191
permalinkparent
[ ]willyboxc 1 point 2 hours ago
we need a version that will work without root :(
permalinkparent
[ ]networklackey 49 points 11 hours ago*
Bullshit... it's radio. They have no way of determining whether the person they
are monitoring is in public or not.
They shouldn't be able to use this without a warrant any more than they should b
e able to point a laser mic at your window.
The fact that they are in public is irrelevant... the subject they are monitorin
g has to be in public.
permalink
[ ]lll_1_lll 29 points 6 hours ago
Even if we are in public, what the fuck gives them the right to look through my
texts, phone calls, voicemails, emails, call history, etc?
permalinkparent
[ ]zoidbug 5 points 3 hours ago
It should be protected the level of paper mail. It is your private communication

s.
permalinkparent
[ ]networklackey 1 point 2 hours ago
Technically... because you are in public and are broadcasting. But I feel the sa
me way. None of this shit should be legal.
permalinkparent
load more comments (6 replies)
[ ]goatmagic 2 points 3 hours ago
laser mic
Well, TIL this exists :/
permalinkparent
[ ]networklackey 2 points 2 hours ago
They absolutely exist and they are freaking awesome. They should not however be
used by law enforcement without a warrant.
permalinkparent
[ ]makingupdumbnames 1 point 5 hours ago
I think it's that their airwaves cross public space. pls correct me if I'm wrong
, though
permalinkparent
[ ]networklackey 1 point 2 hours ago
That's certainly the argument they are making.
permalinkparent
[ ]wirepants 1 point 4 hours ago
Even assuming you are in public, who's to say the guy on the other side is too?
permalinkparent
[ ]networklackey 1 point 2 hours ago
Nothing but their log books but that doesn't really matter. It's your right to p
rivacy they are violating.
permalinkparent
[ ]Sarah_Connor 9 points 9 hours ago
We need a way to be able to identify, then jamm, stingrays.
permalink
[ ]cookie_nrk 8 points 7 hours ago
This Jammer made in sweden should do the trick. From what I have read it complet
ely blocks all signals, so using a phone wouldn't work at all, but if you were i
n a position to not want to be tracked during a certain time, you could use this
: http://www.jammer-store.com/monstro-10-all-frequencies-portable-jammer.html
permalinkparent
[ ]hershmire 10 points 7 hours ago
We're talking about blanket monitoring of civilians. It needs to be outlawed imm
ediately. Hoping each and every Joe Schmoe is going to buy an illegal cell phone
jammer to protect his identity is, well, ridiculous.
permalinkparent
[ ]davidverner 6 points 7 hours ago
Jammers are illegal in the US on the cellphone frequency. Good luck importing on
e.
permalinkparent
[ ]wicard 5 points 6 hours ago
had one from deal extreme i bought when i was younger to prank friends, was alot
of fun. But if you are worried about being tracked wouldn't just shutting your
phone off do the trick? If you are jamming your phone you arnt going to be talki
ng to anyone.
permalinkparent
[ ]RellenD 4 points 5 hours ago
You have to do more than just turn it off, unfortunately.
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]willyboxc 1 point 2 hours ago
we need the schematics so we can build one... also include 700 mhz jam for lte
permalinkparent

load more comments (1 reply)


[ ]ademnus 11 points 7 hours ago
That's nice but it's not up to the FBI if it is illegal or not.
permalink
[ ]MonitoredCitizen 21 points 7 hours ago
Come on Google and Apple, stop being so lame. Make the phones themselves defend
against this by always displaying the negotiated encryption level and allowing u
ser to configure the phone to refuse to connect if the GSM encryption level is A
5/0.
permalink
[ ]argv_minus_one 2 points 2 hours ago
If they do that, these same spooks will have some words with their CEOs. Otherwi
se, yeah, they likely would.
permalinkparent
[ ]vzzzbux 2 points 1 hour ago
Not sure on the technical specifics but my old Nokia from 10 years ago used to s
how a padlock if the call was "secure", which I guess meant it was encrypted in
some way.
Sounds like yet another way we've gone backwards with the rise of Google and App
le
permalinkparent
[ ]cryptovariable 180 points 12 hours ago
This seems icky, but anyone with a Raspberry Pi ($48.00), an RTL-SDR ($17.00), a
nd an ability to follow written step-by-step instructions on how to install and
configure some open source software ($0.00) can do this, albeit on a smaller sca
le.
That tutorial doesn't cover decrypting GSM traffic. This one does. You'll need s
omething faster than a Raspberry Pi, though. Maybe a $200 netbook.
And you can do it on the same scale as the police with a surplus commercial ante
nna and three or four friends.
I don't see how restricting the government's ability to do this would have any o
ther effect than to criminalize a private citizen's desire to experiment with GS
M.
permalink
[ ]HappyAtavism 113 points 11 hours ago
I don't see how restricting the government's ability to do this would have any o
ther effect than to criminalize a private citizen's desire to experiment with GS
M.
Experiment with GSM all you want, just don't eavesdrop or commit fraud by preten
ding to be part of a legitimate business.
I like to play with miniature cameras, microphones and transmitters. That's a fi
ne hobby as long as I don't use it to spy on my neighbors.
permalinkparent
load more comments (5 replies)
[ ]mr___ 50 points 12 hours ago
But theirs has a transmitter, and actively spoofs cell sites
permalinkparent
[ ]cryptovariable 55 points 12 hours ago
It you want to spoof rather than just eavesdrop all you have to do is buy any of
the SDR kits that are coming on to the market like a bladeRF or something and h
ave GNUradio (which hilariously autocorrects to FBI radio on my phone) pretend t
o be a tower, the credentials of which you sniffed with your Pi setup.
The reason the Feds spoof is so that they can target specific devices on a white
list and only have those connect. The size of the whitelist is unknown and up fo
r debate.
If you're capturing and decrypting all the GSM your antenna can receive you don'
t care if you're spoofing the tower unless you want to modify the traffic in som
e way. To quote Sir Patrick Stewart: "It's too late, I've seen everything."
If you just scoop up everything using cheap/free and publicly available tools yo
u don't really care about spoofing.

It should be noted that the Feds have a leg up with CDMA because of its smaller
global footprint and the scarcity of developers working on it, as well as UMTS (
3G) and LTE.
But people are poking at LTE every day: http://www.rtl-sdr.com/analyzing-td-ltertl-sdr/
permalinkparent
[ ]HappyAtavism 36 points 11 hours ago
The reason the Feds spoof is so that they can target specific devices on a white
list and only have those connect. The size of the whitelist is unknown and up fo
r debate.
We do know they don't have warrants. How many violations of the 4th Amendment do
es it take before it's considered a bad thing?
permalinkparent
load more comments (19 replies)
[ ]A530[??] 6 points 6 hours ago
I have to ask an honest question. Knowing what you know, do you live in a Farada
y cage or just eschew cell phones all together? I'm in InfoSec (I'm guessing you
are too) and with the shit I know, maintaining OPSec is just a never ending bat
tle. I can't imagine my paranoia if I went down the cellular rabbit hole (althou
gh I do know a lot about the shit happening with the carrier baseband MDM garbag
e).
Many thanks for the very informative post.
permalinkparent
[ ]tornadoRadar 1 point 1 hour ago
Gotta keep it segmented. Personal never mixes with biz
permalinkparent
[ ]the_nap_mutilator 1 point 5 hours ago
Spoofing the cell site also gives them access to the phone at something akin to
the hardware level... so unless you have rooted and or installed software to sec
ure the device, they can push new software onto your phone without your knowledg
e/consent in the same way that your carrier updates subscriber units say when th
ey make changes to the network or something. At that point your phone has been p
ermanently compromised.
permalinkparent
load more comments (13 replies)
[ ]mag17435 29 points 10 hours ago
I dont understand how people think the government can do things citizens can. Or
dering our government not to do something has no bearing on what citizens can do
.
permalinkparent
[ ]Golden-Fox 7 points 6 hours ago
Well when police are trying to visually collect evidence they can in general onl
y search from public areas. If a cop is looking for a certain car and they see i
t on the street, that's fine. If the car is parked in a closed garage and on pri
vate property, the cop wouldn't be able to see it without going onto private pro
perty and looking in a window. If the car is in the same garage and the garage d
oor is open, then anyone can see it, and the cop can legally use that informatio
n.
The FBI is trying to apply that same logic to these stingrays. Stingrays are a t
echnology that is available to the public. You could make your own and do exactl
y what the FBI does. The data being collected isn't encrypted, password protecte
d, or anything else. Everything is publicly available. You just have to have a c
ertain machine to be able to read it. The garage door has to be open.
permalinkparent
[ ]Wordygit 6 points 6 hours ago
The key word here is "public" whereas where there is the expectation of privacy,
I would think think that would carry some special considerations. That seems to
be some of what the courts are deciding about, where the expectation of privacy
holds sway over searches. Its already been determined that law enforcement cann
ot force you to unlock your phone. One such Supreme Court case, decided this pas

t summer, led to a sweeping victory for privacy rights advocates. In a rare unan
imous decision, the court found that police cannot search cellphones, and by ext
ension tablets and other digital communication devices, without first obtaining
a warrant. Smartphones, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote, hold the privacies of l
ife, and the fact that technology now allows an individual to carry such informati
on in his hand does not make the information any less worthy of the protection f
or which the Founders fought. I think, as well, that it has been established that
if there is encryption being used, that constitutes an acknowledgement that ste
ps have been taken to protect and maintain the sense of privacy, and so the expe
ctation carries onto the information being transmitted. Not sure if there is a l
egal precedent for that though.
permalinkparent
[ ]Golden-Fox 2 points 5 hours ago
Its already been determined that law enforcement cannot force you to unlock your
phone.
This is what I've heard, but to me it implies that police can access your phone
if you don't have it locked. Carrying that logic over to this argument, the poli
ce would be able to access your cell info as long as it isn't encrypted. It seem
s that you only have a "reasonable expectation to privacy" with your cell phone
if you've taken any steps to make your phone more private. If there were some wa
y to get your carrier to encrypt your data, then there'd be no question, but the
way cell providers are these days, that's not gonna happen.
permalinkparent
[ ]ThreeTimesUp 1 point 1 hour ago
Something that I have heard repeatedly (and I may yet have it wrong), is that if
your front door is closed, but unlocked, the police are free to enter without a
warrant.
This has always bothered me.
I could understand the mind-set of someone (i.e. a Justice of the Supreme court)
thinking that way if they grew up (or lived) in an area where they lived a life
always fearful of intruders and locking doors was a practical necessity.
But to me, a closed door means "Keep out, knock for admittance - no entry withou
t permission."
So, for naive, trusting, me, I would not expect the police (or anyone) to examin
e my phone (without a warrant) just to see what they could find.
permalinkparent
[ ]pion3435 1 point 3 hours ago
A technologically illiterate moron's expectation of privacy doesn't become a rea
sonable expectation of privacy just because the majority of the population is te
chnologically illiterate.
permalinkparent
[ ]F0sh 1 point 2 hours ago
This is totally wrong thinking. A private citizen can look for your car through
the garage window without legal repercussions, even though a police officer migh
t not be allowed. The police officer has to conduct his searches according to th
e expectation of privacy and you have every expectation that your private phone
conversations are private - even if you're sending your texts at the shopping ce
ntre.
This is a bullshit equivocation on the part of the FBI, who are claiming that si
nce any old person at the shops can see that you're also at the shops you have n
o expectation of privacy at all.
This logic, if extended, would also mean the FBI could clone your hard drive if
you took your laptop to a public place - after all, you have no expectation of p
rivacy there. No. Bullshit - just because you're in the park doesn't mean all yo
ur possessions and emails became public.
This has nothing to do with what an ordinary citizen is able to do in public or
in private.
permalinkparent
[ ]ThreeTimesUp 1 point 2 hours ago*
Well when police are trying to visually collect evidence they can in general onl

y search from public areas. If a cop is looking for a certain car and they see i
t on the street, that's fine.
To counterpoint this:
Infra-red light (heat) is just light that's at a lower frequency than humans can
detect.
Courts have ruled that the police using specialized equipment to detect heat sig
natures (Infra-red light) emanating from from houses for the purpose of snooping
for grow operations are an invasion of privacy.
The signals Stingray is picking up are just another frequency, even lower than I
nfra-red light, originating from inside your phone, that is your property, which
is in your possession.
Authorities are using all manner of logical distortions in an express attempt to
get around the ideals and principles expressed in the Constitution.
What law-abiding citizen would attempt such a thing?
What authority that the public has placed their trust in, would make continual a
ttempts to subvert the Constitution?
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
load more comments (2 replies)
[ ]kromem 2 points 3 hours ago
It is already criminal to capture and decrypt GSM traffic for citizens (Wiretap
Act), same as capturing and parsing WiFi data.
But I think I can point out the issue with your logic with a simple analogy:
Citizens can buy guns.
Law enforcement can be provided guns.
Citizens can practice shooting guns.
Law enforcement should do the same.
Citizens can't shoot other citizens with guns except in really specific exemptio
ns.
According to your logic, just because citizens can buy guns, and could possibly
go around shooting other people with them, law enforcement should not have any l
egal restrictions on their use of guns.
It is illegal for you to capture and decrypt anyone else's traffic, and it shoul
d be illegal for cops to do the same without a warrant. It's not that hard to ge
t a warrant when actually justified, creates a paper trail that can be examined
for abuses, and has been the case without serious issue for years now.
For what purpose does the law need to be changed to allow this? Because warrants
are inconvenient? Well then why not get rid of them for entering homes too? It'
s quite trivial to pick a lock, and even easier to smash a window and climb in.
Any citizen could do it. So why do we need to restrict the police from the same?
permalinkparent
[ ]dfioabnionjio 4 points 9 hours ago
I don't see how restricting the government's ability to do this would have any o
ther effect than to criminalize a private citizen's desire to experiment with GS
M.
Why not have it be illegal for government and legal for private citizens? Make i
t perfectly legal for private citizens to experiment with GSM, but don't let the
FBI do the same, like you can have a private citizen share something a defendan
t said in court while the police cannot do the same unless the suspect had been
told of their rights.
Of course, the problem here is not using GSM. It's tracking people who did not k
nowingly join your network. You could have it be legal to experiment with GSM an
d not legal to spoof a network, or make it so tracking someone on your network i
s illegal unless the person being tracked is aware they will be tracked and cons
ents to it.
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]confusiondiffusion 3 points 10 hours ago
Yeah, I really don't see the point in making laws against this, since they'll be
broken anyway. We need to fix the underlying technology. There is no excuse for

the sad state of cellphone security.


permalinkparent
[ ]HappyAtavism 18 points 10 hours ago
I really don't see the point in making laws against this
Then let's just flush the Constitution down the toilet. All laws get broken, the
question is what gets done about it.
since they'll be broken anyway
It's not very hard to break into my house either, but they're not supposed to do
it without a warrant.
permalinkparent
load more comments (4 replies)
[ ]HighMonster 1 point 7 hours ago
Wow that's intriguing
permalinkparent
[ ]lll_1_lll 1 point 6 hours ago
You act like this is realistically doable for the large majority of people and y
ou know that's BS.
permalinkparent
[+][deleted] 6 hours ago (1 child)
[ ]JabroniZamboni 1 point 5 hours ago
Are you suggesting that radar jammers should be legal? As well as cell phone or
wifi jammers? What if your neighbor wants to experiment with a jammer for the ne
xt 4 months? 6 years? I assume you wouldn't be too happy. There's experimentatio
n and then there's purposeful disruption and spying.
permalinkparent
[ ]egodeath92 1 point 5 hours ago
Yeah except "anyone with device X" can't prosecute people. It doesn't matter whe
n corporations do mass data collection because they are just trying to make mone
y/sell people shit. The government can create a database of people's private liv
es then prosecute them. You could even imagine a time where data collection is s
o widespread that this kind of info is used for political purposes rather then b
usting drug dealers/ other criminals which is what it's used for now.
permalinkparent
[ ]Kuusou 1 point 4 hours ago
What the people can do, and what the government can do, are no the same things,
nor should they.
permalinkparent
[ ]qdarius 1 point 4 hours ago
If a random person overhears my conversation I don't care. Even if they tell the
ir friends I'm still not too concerned.
If the government records my conversation and uses it to investigate or prosecut
e me that's clearly a different situation.
Just because someone can do something doesn't mean it should be legal. It defini
tely doesn't mean we should be okay with our government using it on us.
permalinkparent
load more comments (9 replies)
[ ]Sir_not_sir 52 points 13 hours ago
The main purpose of the stinger is to circumvent the need and time of acquiring
a warrant and getting the data from all the service providers.
Regardless of data retention plans, they should require a separate judicial warr
ant for each individual suspect in order to be deployed.
permalink
[ ]manoninternets 8 points 7 hours ago*
The time required to get a warrant is usually far less than what they make it ou
t to be, although cost is as factor. Phone companies make tons of money off poli
ce records requests.
To play devil's advocate (and I do think the STINGRAY arrangement is devilish):
once you request records from the phone companies, there's no guarantee that won
't get leaked to the people being investigated. The cartels have people everywhe

re.
permalinkparent
[ ]kevincreeperpants 6 points 6 hours ago
What if they are the cartels!?...dun dun dun
permalinkparent
[ ]tughdffvdlfhegl 1 point 3 hours ago
I don't think anyone here has a problem with STINGRAY being used, given that the
y have a warrant for the person's data they're monitoring. So in your situation,
that's easy to do.
permalinkparent
[ ]manoninternets 2 points 3 hours ago
Yeah it's the same concept as going through my private letters, or close enough
to it anyhow. (Even though letters are physically sealed and radio waves permeat
e the air freely, my intention is for my text messages to be as private as posta
l mail.)
Even a child could rip open an envelope with ease. That doesn't mean police don'
t need a warrant to do so.
permalinkparent
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[ ]turnthatfrown 9 points 7 hours ago
I think the FBI is conveniently forgetting that they are intercepting a communic
ation that is normally secured via encryption and carried privately by your wire
less provider then switched privately all the way to the party on the other end
who has similar expectations of the connection.
I mean, come on, the Stingrays themselves are impersonating the carrier that you
have a contract with and using techniques to avoid the strong encryption. The p
rove by their own design and implementation that the FBI's argument is bullshit.
permalink
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]dontbullshityourself 27 points 11 hours ago
I'm so sick of the ways these callous assholes use to crush our freedom.
What is the point of massive expensive law enforcement agencies if the law can't
protect our rights and freedoms? Hasn't the cart been put before the horse here
?
permalink
[ ]donottakethisserious 13 points 6 hours ago
If you are told you are free enough times, you start to believe it. You start at
a young age with a pledge every day and then when you grow up you attend sporti
ng events and stand for the national anthem and tear up at how free you are. Tha
t way nobody will ever question whether or not this is actually a free country.
permalinkparent
[ ]dontbullshityourself 10 points 5 hours ago
When I was a kid I started to sit during the pledge. Honestly I think I just wan
ted to test and see how free I was. I knew that saying the pledge etc wasn't in
the school handbook. I knew there was no rule saying I had to say it or stand or
anything. The powers that be at my school just used the herd instinct to keep t
his shit going.
So I started sitting down. This resulted in a lot of attention from gangs of bul
lies. My home room teacher didn't like it either and lectured/bitched about it e
very day. But she stopped short of anything more than shaming me unlike the bull
ies.
Anyway I just decided to drop out. Fuck it. Humans don't like new things that co
nfuse them and challenge them to think. How interesting that was to be the last
thing I learned in school. I found another kind of freedom. The freedom to leave
the assholes mired in their stupidity and find my own path in life.
permalinkparent
[ ]joshyfitzo90 4 points 5 hours ago
I like your style.
permalinkparent

[ ]Jack41096 3 points 4 hours ago


I applaud you. I stood but that's all I did. it was in our rulebook to stand but
fuck them if they thought I was gonna do more than that. I started a wave of pe
ople standing and doing nothing.
eventually my first period class was reduced to two people and the teacher actua
lly doing anything. they bitches about it but we all had our own reasons.
permalinkparent
[ ]dontbullshityourself 2 points 3 hours ago
eventually my first period class was reduced to two people and the teacher actua
lly doing anything. they bitches about it but we all had our own reasons.
There are lots of reasons to resist and only one reason to obey. Fear.
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]CriticalThink 3 points 5 hours ago
Government hasn't been interested in protecting our rights and freedoms in a lon
g time.
permalinkparent
[ ]jkeyser14 5 points 7 hours ago
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety
, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. - Benjamin Franklin
permalinkparent
[ ]dontbullshityourself 5 points 6 hours ago
We didn't give it up. They are taking it.
permalinkparent
[ ]jkeyser14 10 points 6 hours ago
Only because we aren't rioting. The first group of rioters to tar and feather a
politician again will bring about change very quickly.
permalinkparent
[ ]dontbullshityourself 4 points 5 hours ago
People are gonna have to get a lot more desperate. I reckon we'll get our riot s
oon enough.
permalinkparent
[ ]Jack41096 1 point 4 hours ago
take the food. that's the surefire way to cause a riot.
people will be content as long as they're fed. you take that away and suddenly t
hey have nothing to lose. they have to survive. that is the most primal response
we have. to fight tooth and nail for food. to eat no matter the cost.
permalinkparent
[ ]RamsNation 1 point 4 hours ago
America has a very stable food supply so I doubt that will happen.
permalinkparent
[ ]dontbullshityourself 1 point 3 hours ago
I don't think we have to take the food. I think that people today are a lot more
self entitled and will jump into a fit without their iphones. They can't even i
magine a world without abundant food.
permalinkparent
[ ]grungebucket 1 point 4 hours ago
bring about change very quickly. street executions very quickly.
there. Corrected that for you. After all. You wouldn't want to be mistaken for a
terrorist endorsing a terrorist act now, would you?
permalinkparent
[ ]pion3435 2 points 3 hours ago
You never had it. You're just now finding out.
permalinkparent
[ ]hershmire 7 points 7 hours ago
Ok, I get the FBI's argument. Technically, we are all choosing to carry a digita
l device around with us that uniquely identifies us via radio frequency. It's tr
ue that we could very well decide not to partake in the use of cell phones if we
're so worried about being tracked. And thus because we decide to carry these pa

rtially secure devices around with us, they FBI has every right to hack them and
track us.
But this argument is bogus. The FBI can't read our mail or tap our phones becaus
e legislators and judges at one time recognized that technology becomes indispen
sable, and therefore should be protected under privacy laws. Just because I choo
se to carry a cell phone around with me doesn't give the FBI to track my whereab
outs, or worse. That'd be like saying it's my fault for having my mail read by t
he FBI because I chose to write letters, or I chose to have my phones monitored
and recorded by the FBI because I chose to use telephones.
The FBI is part of the executive branch. They (supposedly) operate within the sc
ope of the law. If there's no specific law preventing their actions, they'll go
ahead and do it. So write your representatives and get shit like this regulated.
And use letters because they're obligated to at least open the envelope.
permalink
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]drakecherry 5 points 8 hours ago
we might as well get rid of warrants all together. they are gonna search if they
want to, and nothing will happen if they are wrong.
permalink
[ ]MeganNancySmith 6 points 6 hours ago
The FBI doesn't have the legal authority to make that determination.
It would be like if I said that murder is legal every other Sunday. I can say it
all I like, but it doesn't make it true.
permalink
[ ]Todda468 6 points 6 hours ago
Anything a private citizen can't do should require reasonable suspicion or a war
rent.
permalink
[ ]Sonotmethen 6 points 9 hours ago
Then signal jammers aren't either.
permalink
[ ]MrJDouble 4 points 9 hours ago
FBI tends to say a lot of things, doesn't mean it isn't a pile of horseshit.
permalink
[ ]blueiron0 4 points 6 hours ago
(3) cases in which the technology is used in public places or other locations at
which the FBI deems there is no reasonable expectation of privacy.
Love how the FBI gets to decide when it's ok for them to assume you shouldnt hav
e any expectation on privacy. "we saw a poop porn video on pornhub. you shouldnt
expect privacy when pooping then."
permalink
[ ]ragn4rok234 4 points 6 hours ago
Whoo! Now I don't need a warrant or sufficient reason to wire tap anyone and eve
ryone. Stalkers of the world rejoice! It's like Oprah is handing out privacy bre
aches in here
permalink
[ ]fourslaps 4 points 4 hours ago
This isn't what Steve Irwin would have wanted
permalink
[ ]knowyourbrain 7 points 8 hours ago
How sad is it that we have an R Senator trying to rein in a D president's FBI?
If Snowden et al have not been able to show the American people what a farce our
government is then I don't know how it can be demonstrated.
permalink
[ ]makingupdumbnames 1 point 5 hours ago
that's Chelsea to you, mister!
permalinkparent
[ ]StellarUsername 4 points 9 hours ago
Can someone ELI5 why my cell carrier lets this happen? Seems like it would be ea
sy enough for them to put a stop to it if they wanted.

permalink
[ ]giantgnat 13 points 8 hours ago
Because if you don't play nice with them, they don't play nice with you like wha
t happened to the CEO of quest after he refused to cooperate.
permalinkparent
[ ]lll_1_lll 6 points 6 hours ago
CEO of quest
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/09/30/a-ceo-who-resistednsa-spying-is-out-of-prison-and-he-feels-vindicated-by-snowden-leaks/
permalinkparent
[ ]WatchoutItsAllan 1 point 4 hours ago
Looks like the only way to be out of the eyes of the NSA is to go back to using
these http://imgur.com/JEFUt4h
permalinkparent
[ ]jkeyser14 4 points 7 hours ago
The cell and internet companies get paid millions by the government for direct a
ccess to their lines. This was one of the things Snowden blew the whistle on.
permalinkparent
[ ]MadPooter 2 points 7 hours ago
I believe that the technology behind our current cell phone towers needs to allo
w for widespread access to said cell phone towers from a wide array of technolog
ical devices.
The Stingray makes the cell phone tower believe that it's a cell phone--I don't
know that it's as easy as you might think to re-design all cell phone models to
differentiate themselves from what Stingrays currently are.
TL;DR: This might be a better issue for cell phone designers to solve rather the
n cell phone carriers.
permalinkparent
[ ]egalroc 2 points 6 hours ago
Maybe design a Falcon drone that homes in and locks on fake Stingray towers. Wou
ldn't the FBI just shit to see a couple sparrows zooming down on them?
permalinkparent
[ ]A530[??] 1 point 6 hours ago
Cell carriers couldn't care less. They're also packaging backdoors in their base
band software to do all kinds of functional crap, like over the air updates and
remote access.
permalinkparent
[ ]here4DaBacon 3 points 7 hours ago
So it's a honey pot for cell phones. This same method is used to intercept WiFi
internet traffic. The world is becoming a hackers paradise.
permalink
[ ]CapAnson 4 points 6 hours ago
I don't even think of the FBI's exceptions two and three are valid. And as for i
mminent danger to public safety I can't imagine when that safety hinges on inter
cepting a cell call right now this very second without a warrant
permalink
[ ]SquidwardSnowden1 3 points 6 hours ago
Let it be noted, I love big brother.
permalink
[ ]ryanknapper 3 points 6 hours ago
There was a comment asking what prevents private citizens from doing this. My re
ply was: Absolutely nothing. In fact, there are legal ways of doing exactly this
.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xKihq1fClQg
permalink
[ ]lll_1_lll 2 points 6 hours ago
inb4 this thread gets removed by the mods and/or shadowbanned
permalink
[ ]doctorshady[S] 3 points 6 hours ago
I was almost sure it was going to be removed when I submitted it.

permalinkparent
[ ]grtwatkins 1 point 3 hours ago
Wait, so mods = FBI?
permalinkparent
[ ]doctorshady[S] 2 points 2 hours ago
The mods here are quite restrictive about what is allowed to be submitted. Wheth
er or not they're under someone's influence is a question I can't answer (though
I'd honestly like to know), but you'll occasionally see high profile topics rem
oved, like the Snowden leaks back when PRISM was first pointed out.
permalinkparent
[ ]tomcat23 3 points 6 hours ago
If I had a hundred dollars for every time the FBI said it could do something une
thical or unconstitutional I'd be shooting rockets into space like Elon Musk rig
ht now.
permalink
[ ]leafygreenstuff 3 points 6 hours ago
Oh, well if they said....
permalink
[ ]wlxr 3 points 5 hours ago
Is this implying that they are going to repeatedly kill Steve Irwin?
permalink
[ ]Bulldog65 3 points 2 hours ago
Can I Use my Stingray in public places to intercept communications ?
If the answer is no, then the FBI needs a warrant.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effec
ts, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Wa
rrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, a
nd particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things t
o be seized.
This can only be changed by super majority votes in Congress and the States, not
treasonous opinions of mouthpiece lawyers in Department of Justice. This is why
prosecutions of torture memo writers is important. If they want to try and make
up laws they need to be held accountable under the law.
permalink
[ ]Do_Em_Till_They_Derp 13 points 12 hours ago
I don't think that is a good idea considering what happened to Steve Irwin.
permalink
[ ]Smgth 1 point 4 hours ago
I can't believe how far down I had to scroll to find this joke. I was worried I'
d have to make it myself. This thread is WAY too serious for my taste...
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]go1dfish 10 points 10 hours ago
This is what happens when you give a group of people authority over all else.
They use that authority to extort funds from you to pay for your own oppression.
But reddit still cheers it on. It seems to some; the concepts of roads or compas
sion cannot exist without specially anointed jack boot thugs.
permalink
[ ]Arael15th 3 points 6 hours ago
Do you see anyone in this post cheering this on? Moreover is this your first tim
e here?
permalinkparent
[ ]Flight_MH370 2 points 9 hours ago
Can the cell providers see every time this happens? If so, they could alert peop
le of fake towers or something. Alas, I'm pretty sure all the cell providers are
in bed with the feds already anyway.
permalink
[ ]leftnotracks 1 point 8 hours ago
This is why it s a good thing the FBI are not the people in charge of what is lega
l.

permalink
[ ]iluvmilfs420 3 points 7 hours ago
Ohh cool more of my taxes wasted on stupid shit...
permalink
[ ]fuzzycuffs 3 points 7 hours ago
Then I can do the same thing with wifi and not be charged with hacking, right?
permalink
[ ]endprism 2 points 7 hours ago
Use of Stringray in America: https://www.aclu.org/maps/stingray-tracking-devices
-whos-got-them
http://rt.com/usa/215735-sandiego-police-phone-tracking/
http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/First-Amendment-Coalition-Files-Lawsuit-Ab
out-Stingray-Surveillance--286092741.html
http://www.miaminewtimes.com/2012-02-16/news/cell-phone-tracking-miami-cops-know
-where-you-are/
http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/Fort-Worth-Cellphone-Tracking-Rings-Controversy
-140796693.html
http://www.wgrz.com/story/news/investigations/2014/02/13/are-local-police-spying
-on-your-cell-phone/5462273/
Tick tock...
permalink
[ ]johnnybiggs15 2 points 7 hours ago
didnt know they had that type of power
permalink
[ ]jwyche008 2 points 6 hours ago
They would fucking say that wouldn't they? The thing is it isn't supposed to be
their damn decision to make!
permalink
[ ]ICEClownfishWok 1 point 6 hours ago
Did the US government learn nothing from Nazi Germany? I honestly won't be surpr
ised if WWIII occurs when the rest of the world gets tired of our governments bu
llshit
permalink
[ ]frankenstilskin 3 points 6 hours ago
America, for the corporations by the corporations
permalink
[ ]Elephant_rhino_tiger 3 points 5 hours ago
It sounds like a 6 year old coming up with a superhero. "This is FBI man, and he
can fly and like punch through the earth, and he can y'know like intercept cell
traffic if he thinks it's important. But he is weak against himself though, so
like if he punched himself he would die."
permalink
[ ]Banana_blanket 2 points 4 hours ago
Hey who wants to just sit around and let it happen? Oh, everyone? Perfect. Ready
? Go.
permalink
[ ]poopinbutt2014 3 points 4 hours ago
Ah yes, the cops deciding what laws they are and aren't subject to.
permalink
[ ]burnerthrown 2 points 2 hours ago
Has anyone else notied a pattern of more and more laws that protect enforcement
operations from civilians, and fewer nd fewer laws protecting civilians from enf
orcement?
permalink
[ ]siquisiudices 2 points 2 hours ago
Increasingly I am astonished by the state of democracy in the developed western
countries. What has happened and how? I realise that there have always been infr
ingements of liberties by the state - always. But it seems to me that what has c
hanged is the blatent nature of the compromise of democratic norms. I'm not a hi
storian but my impression is that the origins of our current situation lie in tw

o iconic regimes in the UK and US - Reagan and Thatcher (and those that followed
) - and in the fall of the soviet regimes.
The economic philosophy that Reagan and Thatcher promoted reduced liberty to pro
perty rights while at the same time it condemned (rightly) the soviet regimes fo
r their lack of respect for democratic norms. The appeal of this economic ideolo
gy to capital, to the corporations, was obvious especially as during the 1970s t
here had been intermittent but recurring periods when profitability had fallen.
In the context of declining profitability, a roll back of the state and public e
xpenditure was a quick win.
For the rest of society, the implication that growth in personal, individual wea
lth was being held back by public spending and that the welfare state eroded ind
ividual responsibility also won the day. A key element in this process was the d
efeat and denigration of trade unionism: Thatcher going so far as to suggest tha
t trade unions (in the person of the National Union of Miners) were dangerous tr
aitors. People bought into the arguments for radical individualism ("there is no
such thing as society") because, in part, the concrete experience of collectivi
sm in trade unions declined in the face a massive anti-trade union assault.
The fall of the corrupt and totalitarian soviet regimes underpinned this all by
giving concrete expression to the notion that there is no alternative.
Economically the result has been massive widening of the discrepancy in wealth i
n many western countries and increased immiseration of labour across the world a
nd no force to counterbalance the power of the corporations and the state that t
hey (quite naturally) control. The state is the central committee of capital.
In all of this, the oft misnamed "libertarian" tendencies were accompanied by an
increasingly authoritarian and intrusive state apparatus which was promoted and
defended around quite classical nationalist ideas but recast often as the defen
se of western democracy against various external enemies.
And so, little by little, we have allowed our civil liberties to be chipped away
. Even the radical libertarians have been sidelined and fooled into irrelevant s
truggles around gun control in the US. Really, if an armed citizenry were the gu
arantee of liberty then one wold have hoped it would have done a better job. But
overall anti-welfare, anti-European and anti-immigrant rhetoric in the UK and,
for example, religious manipulation of public discourse in the US have allowed t
he authoritarian, pro-corporate state to gradually encroach on political and per
sonal freedoms. And here we are.
We can't say we didn't know - we were warned but the ruling class managed to def
ame the messengers and in other ways render us impotent.
One can only hope that we wake up in time and that our new disdain for collectiv
ism is overcome by the necessity of taking collective action.
permalink
[ ]DinglebellRock [score hidden] 49 minutes ago
You have a right to privacy according to the Constitution. Except for maybe your
cell phone calls. Or email. Or handwritten or typed letters. Or what you read f
rom the library and Amazon. Or maybe your colon and lower intestine if you are i
n New Mexico. What a fucked up nation this has become...
permalink
[ ]nstalker91 [score hidden] 38 minutes ago
Oh sure, when they do it, it's "protecting" and "morally right", but when I do i
t, it's a "federal crime" and "the FCC watches me"
permalink
[ ]The_Media_Collector 3 points 9 hours ago
This is why my phone has an app to continually report IMSI changes to me. I swit
ch one tower to another, I get a warning.
permalink
[ ]Redd575 1 point 7 hours ago
How is that helpful? Not being an ass, just curious. Seems if a Stingray can spo
of a tower then the app does little unless you are standing absolutely still.
permalinkparent
[ ]The_Media_Collector 3 points 7 hours ago
it's my understanding that Stingray "towers" do not encrypt traffic. anytime I a

m connected to an unencrypted "tower" the IMSI detector goes red and lets me kno
w.
permalinkparent
[ ]Redd575 1 point 6 hours ago
Wow. Whomever figured that out was clever.
permalinkparent
[ ]ExReverie93 1 point 7 hours ago
Which app? And would a normal person (not meaning you're not normal. You know wh
at I mean.) be able to use it?
permalinkparent
[ ]The_Media_Collector 1 point 7 hours ago
Requires Root. It's just caeld "Adnroid IMSI-Catchter"
permalinkparent
[ ]egalroc 1 point 6 hours ago
Makes a person want to be a criminal or spy just for the fun of it.
permalinkparent
[ ]Effo 3 points 7 hours ago
Goodbye America the Great, hello police state. :-[
permalink
[ ]Casemods 2 points 7 hours ago
Another reason why I don't have a cell phone.
permalink
[ ]GiveMe_TreeFiddy 3 points 7 hours ago
Things libertarians have been screaming about and offering solutions to for 500$
, Alex...
permalink
[ ]ilovesellinblow 1 point 9 hours ago
police and marshals have been running these for years.
permalink
[ ]bbelt16ag 1 point 8 hours ago
so FBI lets see what the Supreme court has to say to that. I am sure once they r
ule on this you will be going home with your tails between your legs.
permalink
[ ]Banana_blanket 1 point 4 hours ago
Do you people really have that much faith in our Supreme Court? Really?
permalinkparent
[ ]bbelt16ag 1 point 3 hours ago
gotta have some faith, other wise its just anarchy, or revolution. I am not read
y to give up quite yet.
permalinkparent
[ ]bonyponyride 1 point 8 hours ago
If digital communication in a public (and private) space is fair game, there's n
othing to stop an FBI tech specialist from stealing things like knowledge that w
ould be considered insider trading. There's an extreme potential for abuse.
permalink
[ ]jkeyser14 2 points 7 hours ago
If was fair game then hacking into wireless signals by private citizens wouldn't
be illegal.
permalinkparent
[ ]egalroc 1 point 6 hours ago
Just waiting for Anonymous to set up shop in a public park and hack into police
communications then dispatch them to bogus locations throughout the city. If any
thing goes wrong, they could always blame North Korea.
permalinkparent
[ ]coalbeeashi 1 point 3 hours ago
Aren't government agencies encrypting their digital communication - thus exhibit
ing an expectation of privacy?
I'm not sure what steps the "reasonable person" is taking to exhibit an expectat
ion of privacy over their data, tbh.
permalinkparent

[ ]hmmwhatsthisdo 1 point 8 hours ago


If you used RedPhone, Whisperpush/TextSecure, and a VPN, this wouldn't be of con
cern to you, right?
permalink
[ ]LucifersCounselNZ 1 point 7 hours ago
Wrong.
In other cases, the IMSI or equivalent identifier of a target is not known to th
e StingRay operator and the goal of the surveillance operation is to identify on
e or more cellular devices being used in a known area.[16] For example, if visua
l surveillance is being conducted on a group of protestors,[17] a StingRay can b
e used to download the IMSI or equivalent identifier from each phone within the
protest area. After identifying the phones, locating and tracking operations can
be conducted, and service providers can be forced to turn over account informat
ion identifying the phone users.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stingray_phone_tracker#Extracting_Data_From_Interna
l_Storage
Before any of that shit you're talking about comes into play, the IMSI number is
used when establishing the connection. It is uniquely identifying. With your IM
SI number and a court order (or cooperative telco) they will know who you are an
d who you were communicating with.
Then they can use that information to punish you for participating in legal prot
ests, associating with the wrong people, or simply because some Fed didn't like
the look of you.
permalinkparent
[ ]hmmwhatsthisdo 1 point 6 hours ago
So, the only way is to modify your IMEI (which is questionably legal) and use a
prepaid SIM?
permalinkparent
[ ]facepalmdude 1 point 5 hours ago
The IMSI part makes sense, but by using the mentioned tools authorities are very
unlikely to find out who you communicated with, or what the content was. All th
ey know is that you're the end point of an encrypted data connection.
permalinkparent
[ ]coalbeeashi 1 point 3 hours ago
I would assume that a court would view this as an individual exhibiting an expec
tation of privacy over their data.
permalinkparent
[ ]mambotangohandala 1 point 7 hours ago
Law?
We don't need no stinkin' law...
permalink
[ ]smilesbot 1 point 7 hours ago
You've just used a double negative! :P
permalinkparent
[ ]mambotangohandala 1 point 7 hours ago
no i did not, never would i do such a thing, nope, i don't think i ever did...
Ever see the movie 'blazing saddles'? Context kid, context
permalinkparent
[ ]smilesbot 1 point 7 hours ago
yup yup yup!
permalinkparent
[ ]mambotangohandala 1 point 7 hours ago
oh no a triple positive,what a stupendous faux pas!
permalinkparent
[ ]smilesbot 1 point 7 hours ago
yup yup yup!
permalinkparent
[ ]mambotangohandala 1 point 7 hours ago
Did mom give you too many sodas tonight?
permalinkparent

[ ]mambotangohandala 1 point 7 hours ago


Now where are those kiddy downers?
permalinkparent
[ ]mambotangohandala 1 point 7 hours ago
Remember tomorrow is a school day
permalinkparent
[ ]BigTex8900 1 point 7 hours ago
The Federal Bureau of Investigation is taking the position that court warrants a
re not required when deploying cell-site simulators in public places.
Wait so can I take the position that it's not actually illegal to suck dick for
money in public places?
permalink
[ ]AssOrca 1 point 6 hours ago
Well thank god there not doing it in my home!
permalinkparent
[ ]Drunken_Economist 1 point 7 hours ago
The FCC says they are needed, FWIW
permalink
[ ]FadingEchoes11 0 points 6 hours ago
100% true, power to the people
You should learn about and try to understand firearms more, they are just tools
after all.
permalink
[ ]winstrol 1 point 6 hours ago
Can i use a stingray? Al stick to my snoopsnitch.
permalink
[ ]fatscat84 2 points 6 hours ago
Big fucking surprise, 4th amendment=toilet paper anymore. The rights of the citi
zens arent even considered anymore since we dont have lobbyists. Maybe ill start
a kickstarter campaign to make a lobbyist group to give americans a voice in d.
c.
permalink
[ ]urbn 2 points 6 hours ago
The Obama Administration has repeatedly maintained that the public has no privac
y in public places.
And yet the excuse always used when someone records a police officer breaking th
e law and is arrested, detained and has his property stolen is that it violates
their privacy.
permalink
[ ]Vigilias 1 point 6 hours ago
If it's stealing signals being send from private residences it sure should fucki
ng be wtf.
permalink
[ ]2013palmtreepam 1 point 6 hours ago
Because stingrays automatically stop working at private property lines? Don't re
call the part of the 4th Amendment that exempts the requirement for probable cau
se and a search warrant when one happens to be in a public place.
permalink
[ ]makingupdumbnames 2 points 6 hours ago
I don't think it would be too hard to develop a stingray jammer, something that
just floods their equipment with a bunch of useless/fake cell phone numbers...I'
m in favor of a more strategic response to these types of infringements of our r
ights. We actually have a right and responsibility to fight tyranny...
permalink
[ ]ghotiaroma 1 point 3 hours ago
It's possible, but you wouldn't know where and when to use it. And it would be d
etectable you are using a jammer and anyone using one would find themselves fill
ed with SWAT bullets in no time.
permalinkparent
[ ]ononewheel 1 point 2 hours ago

Cant you rent bot net time and do this?


permalinkparent
[ ]psilontech 1 point 5 hours ago
I think that's for the courts to decide, FBI.
permalink
[ ]coalbeeashi 1 point 4 hours ago
...the only way the courts could decide is if it were practiced and a lawsuit wa
s brought against those practices.
Of course the FBI is going to finagle ways to flirt with obscure, outdated laws
for the purpose of investigating, thus practice it. Of course some group or orga
nization is going to take issue with it, thus taking it to court.
permalinkparent
[ ]cynoclast 2 points 5 hours ago
And the 4th Amendment says the FBI is wrong. And to the idea that subsequent law
s or that prededence says otherwise, I say that lawyers who make those interpret
ations were paid to do so by people with a vested interest in saying otherwise.
The constitution and amendments were intended to be read and interpreted by ever
yone, not just lawyers and judges so it matters not at all what lawyers and judg
es say.
permalink
[ ]coalbeeashi 1 point 5 hours ago
The constitution and amendments were intended to be read and interpreted by ever
yone
Uhh...interpreted by everyone? Do you know how fucked up that would be? There's
a reason for the judicial branch.
permalinkparent
[ ]cynoclast 2 points 4 hours ago
More fucked up than corporations as people? The 4th Amendment being ignored by t
he DHS, Homeland Security, and the NSA? More fucked up than than all the ridicul
ous, unconstitutional restrictions on cosmetic features of firearms that all vio
late the 2nd amendment? More fucked up than justices appointed by war criminals
refusing to recuse themselves where they have a clear conflict of interest?
The judicial branch is staffed by people, just as fallible as the rest of us. Th
e judicial branch was nly ever an attempt to reign in the other two. It was alwa
ys intended that it was the right of the people to alter or abolish the governme
nt if it gets out of hand and it has.
permalinkparent
[ ]coalbeeashi 1 point 4 hours ago
I would still rather have the fate of laws be in the hands of individuals who sp
ecifically studied the very nature of their professional practice than leave it
up to a mass of people with little-to-no understanding of the law, outside of wh
at is force-fed to them by media (comparable to your assertion of less-than-idea
l practices by lawyer/judges)
I fully agree that laws should be written in ways that the public can understand
and interpret (however, you're never going to reach a consensus on laws written
200+ years ago). And I believe that, reading most supreme court decisions, the
justices advocate for specifics in laws and understand that outdated or vague la
ws is a main reason cases are brought before them. Laws aren't concrete or stati
c. It's a court of public opinion.
permalinkparent
[ ]cynoclast 1 point 4 hours ago
I would still rather have the fate of laws be in the hands of individuals who sp
ecifically studied the very nature of their professional practice than leave it
up to a mass of people with little-to-no understanding of the law, outside of wh
at is force-fed to them by media (comparable to your assertion of less-than-idea
l practices by lawyer/judges)
I think there's balance between the two. It's similar to the balance between IT
and the user. While the IT guy is more knowledgeable about the field than most o
f the users he's supposed to facilitate, he often forgets that his purpose is to
facilitate, not to rule, and what the users are doing is what keeps the lights

on. People in congress and the senate are mislabelled when called 'lawmakers' th
eir job is representative of their constituency. And lawyers face a conflict of
interest between simplifying the law and representing people fairly and seeing a
fter their own welfare and ensuring their own job security. Simple, clear, and u
nambiguous laws have little value to the professional attorney at law. But the p
eople at large have no interest, and in fact a reason to despise laws they don't
understand, especially ones decided by decades old case law they know nothing a
bout. But for too long the balance has been swinging in favor of the lawyer seek
ing payment for services from the rich instead of the poor seeking freedom from
those with the resources to hire teams of lawyers for years to drain them of res
ources. The day a rich man could sue an innocent poor man under false pretenses
and crush him is the day the justice department ceased to function as intended.
I fully agree that laws should be written in ways that the public can understand
and interpret (however, you're never going to reach a consensus on laws written
200+ years ago). And I believe that, reading most supreme court decisions, the
justices advocate for specifics in laws and understand that outdated or vague la
ws is a main reason cases are brought before them. Laws aren't concrete or stati
c. It's a court of public opinion.
Lawyers like to pretend that they are concrete or static. Just imagine the phras
e "settled case law" coming out of their mouths and you need go no further. It's
like they forget that eventually given the dynamic equilibrium of the poor vs.
the rich that sometimes words written on paper in a dusty library somewhere mean
absolutely nothing when the pitchforks and guillotines come out, the old laws t
hrown out, and new ones written even more strongly against tyrants. You're right
, sometimes, it's a court of public opinion. But sometimes the court is brutal,
but not unjustly so:
There were two Reigns of Terror, if we would but remember it and consider it; the
one wrought murder in hot passion, the other in heartless cold blood; the one la
sted mere months, the other had lasted a thousand years; the one inflicted death
upon ten thousand persons, the other upon a hundred millions; but our shudders
are all for the horrors of the minor Terror, the momentary Terror, so to speak; wh
ereas, what is the horror of swift death by the axe, compared with lifelong deat
h from hunger, cold, insult, cruelty, and heart-break? What is swift death by li
ghtning compared with death by slow fire at the stake? A city cemetery could con
tain the coffins filled by that brief Terror which we have all been so diligentl
y taught to shiver at and mourn over; but all France could hardly contain the co
ffins filled by that older and real Terror that unspeakably bitter and awful Terro
r which none of us has been taught to see in its vastness or pity as it deserves
.
permalinkparent
[ ]DongleNocker 2 points 5 hours ago
Don't you wish government organizations would get permission from congress prior
to assuming they have the authority?
permalink
[ ]Euracil 1 point 5 hours ago
Whoops! Someone just happened to spill wine all over the Bill of Rights! Well, a
t least the Second Amendment survived!
permalink
[ ]ripvannwinkler 1 point 5 hours ago
What is the practical operational radius of one of these things?
If my place of business or residence falls in this radius of an operating device
, is my phone subject to interception by the device?
If so, you require a warrant. Period. No equivocation.
permalink
[ ]bittopia 1 point 5 hours ago
What is going to be interesting is when systems and encryptions becomes so resil
ient and powerful that nothing can be spied on AT ALL. What will they do then?
permalink
[ ]johnnybullet 1 point 5 hours ago
I thought only God was listening to me... This changes everything!

permalink
[ ]TronicTonic 2 points 5 hours ago
Thank god the FBI is in charge of the judicial branch and gets to decide what is
right vs wrong.
permalink
[ ]Vinven 1 point 5 hours ago
They can say whatever they want, it doesn't make it legal.
permalink
[ ]coffeethulhu 2 points 5 hours ago
Under this theory anybody could buy one of these devices and use it in "public s
paces" without fear of falling foul of the law....Who wants to start a kickstart
er campaign to buy one?
permalink
[ ]redditezmode 1 point 5 hours ago
Based on what, exactly? Why would they think search warrants aren't necessary?
permalink
[ ]Fucksfuturefatchicks 1 point 4 hours ago
If it stops me from downloading porn, it's a dead giveaway. If it doesn't, thank
s for the government funded and sanctioned porn.
permalink
[ ]egalroc 1 point 4 hours ago
I wonder if the FBI can upload unsanctioned porn to your computer using a stingr
ay? Interesting thought isn't it?
permalinkparent
[ ]winsomecowboy 1 point 4 hours ago
So my clandestine FBI staff list shouldn't be an issue.
permalink
[ ]Heisenpurrrrg 1 point 4 hours ago
Those guys can fuck right off, eh?
permalink
[ ]cerealcable 1 point 4 hours ago
Every time an invasion of our rights & privacy especially related to our establi
shed forms of communications happens it just terrifies me. Not because our gover
nment is throwing wind to established laws but because of what the future could
bring.
The reason why most of us are upset today over this is because we have an expect
ation of privacy when we pick up our cell phones. We expect our text messages, p
hone calls and data to be private thus protected by law requiring a warrant to "
tap" it only for Law Enforcement. Telecoms (wired, wireless, voip) will only com
ply to requests when required by law, but when it comes to the public air waves
using technology to just listen in we're starting a terrible precedent.
Essentially what I'm concerned about is that eventually it'll be so commonly acc
epted that these communications are not private (after all the government can sn
oop in on those conversations, and everyone already expects it) and thus we no l
onger have the expectation of privacy and thus no warrant is actually acquired.
The terrifying process is how it all started, with the government over stepping
their legal abilities with little to no repercussions.
Now that I'm reading that paragraph again, I honestly wouldn't be surprised if t
hat exact argument is/was/will be used in a secret court of which none of us wil
l be able to hold accountable.
It's scary to see what the future will hold for privacy related to technology. O
ur government is doing anything and everything they want and if people aren't sc
ared they need to get some tinfoil and make some hats because they're going to n
eed them.
Obligatory point: As the government snoops more and more, technology will just e
ncrypt more and more making it nearly pointless for the snooping, but it won't c
hange the expectation of privacy after say a decade of common knowledge that the
se communications are not private. Then Law Enforcement Agencies will just subpo
ena records instead of following due process of getting a warrant.
tl;dr It's a very slippery slope and I'm just watching us slowly sliding further

and further into the trap. :-(


permalink
[ ]coalbeeashi 1 point 4 hours ago
Honest question - in the eyes of laws, is our view on "expectation of privacy" i
gnorant or misguided? When I send a text - even though I don't think about it I gave permission to Apple, AT&T, my friend, their carrier, their phone, and pro
bably countless others that I don't even realize. When I download an app I give
them all sorts of permissions to access my information.
Also, what's stopping the government from creating an app, let's say some crazed
game like Trivia Crack, hide a bunch of permissions that no one looks at and do
it that way. They could have access to my photos, access to my microphone, acce
ss to my location, etc. (obviously I understand that you can retract most of tho
se permissions, but I doubt many people do)
So, I guess my question is, using multiple third parties, do I really have the r
ight to expect complete privacy?
permalinkparent
[ ]Rockerofboats 2 points 4 hours ago
I do what I wants to.
permalink
[ ]Gymshortsboner55 2 points 4 hours ago
I'm not trying to sound like the uncle that's always bitchin' at family reunions
but man is this country going down the shitter. I'm almost ashamed to live here
anymore.
permalink
[ ]kazuri85 2 points 4 hours ago
The government has no right to make your property do something you do not want i
t to do.
permalink
[ ]SpacemanLurker 2 points 3 hours ago
Crikey! Australian accent
Too soon?
permalink
[ ]Undisclosed-dopeness 1 point 3 hours ago
Really wish this was about actual stingrays
permalink
[ ]k-h 1 point 3 hours ago
Is that the "stingrays" that don't exist?
Of course they don't need a warrant on equipment that doesn't exist.
permalink
[ ]PhorTwenny 2 points 3 hours ago
if it picks up all cells text/call/info how do they know your not inside a house
or anyother private area? Either way this is disgusting!
permalink
[ ]MarxIzalias 2 points 3 hours ago
The more of these that get posted, the harder I laugh at America's freedoms.
You pretty much have the same as everybody else.
It seems as though the constitution is like bog roll to your law enforcement. Co
vered in meaningless shit that doesn't even stick to them.
What a joke.
The FBI stating that 'stingrays' don't apply to privacy laws because you're in a
public place makes no sense, otherwise you could walk around butt naked and arg
ue that "According to the FBI, personal privacy is not required in public".
Of course, they could say, what any deceitful peice of trash could say. "If you
weren't doing anything illegal then you have nothing to worry about."
Unless you were talking to you solicitor about a patent. In which case it would
be worthless the moment a third party heard about the invention.
Talking to your doctor about a condition that could prejudice a group against yo
u.
Talking to a solicitor about the details of a case.
Talking to fellow jurors over the phone about a details of a case, that's always

good to be spied on.


Talk about family history and possible ties you might have to foreign nations, w
hich could put you on a watch list.
Give personal details to bankers about foreign business accounts which have diff
erent protection laws.
Discuss plans you may have that they could interfere with.
Or just miscellaneous emails to and from your employer that could be damaging to
the companies reputation if published and could be used against them as leverag
e with a false flag operation LOOKING AT YOU SONY!
This isn't even a comprehensive list of things that you could do, but hey, it's
America, the land where freedom is a lie and the constitution is apparently wort
h less and less with each new government. XFD
permalink
[ ]NightOfTheLivingHam 1 point 3 hours ago
while we're declaring bullshit, I declare I'm owed a million dollars.
permalink
[ ]ZedOud 1 point 3 hours ago
Most warrant-less law enforcement surveillance techniques are legal because they
can be performed by members of the public, in public. (ex. tailing)
So can we also legally operate a stingray?
Yes we can!
permalink
[ ]Wulfgar_RIP 1 point 3 hours ago
FBI protecting freedoms and constitution from terrorists
permalink
[ ]CantHugEveryCat 2 points 3 hours ago
I'm surprised the FBI still feel they have to justify their actions.
permalink
[ ]bazingabrain 0 points 3 hours ago
Here I am thinking the FBI is going to be throwing real stingrays around without
a search warrant. Can't have that
permalink
[ ]tobsn 1 point 3 hours ago
and whoever said that should be immediately terminated.
permalink
[ ]joshladd 1 point 3 hours ago
Didn't the supreme court just say that searching cell phones requires a warrant?
Is this different than searching cell phones? I might be uninformed but it seem
s like a blatant disregard for court rulings.
permalink
[ ]birdington1 1 point 3 hours ago
Can anybody explain what a 'stingray' is?
permalink
[ ]one_love_silvia 1 point 2 hours ago
the article explains it in literally the first paragraph.
permalinkparent
[ ]IllegalOperator 0 points 2 hours ago
Yeah right, dropping the case rather than reveal their methods says otherwise. I
f there weren't doing anything wrong they would have nothing to hide.
permalink
[ ]HauntedBeepers 1 point 2 hours ago
FBI says FBI can do what it wants
permalink
[ ]Fig1024 1 point 2 hours ago
does that mean I, as private citizen, can also use them? After all, there are no
laws against it
permalink
[ ]Monkeibusiness 1 point 2 hours ago
"FBI - out if control since 2001" -Simpsons
permalink

[ ]skztr 1 point 2 hours ago


good test for whether or not you need a warrant:
If any random person off the street did it, would that be legal? If not, you nee
d a fucking warrant.
permalink
[ ]Rusky82 1 point 2 hours ago
Land of the free eh......
permalink
[ ]WECGEWHYAAIORTNU 1 point 2 hours ago
So in some states its "wiretapping" to record with a microphone a conversation b
etween two people happening at a table, but pretending to be a cell tower is a-o
k?
permalink
[ ]Amanoo 1 point 2 hours ago
"concerned about whether the FBI and other law enforcement agencies have adequat
ely considered the privacy interests" of Americans
Privacy interests of Americans? Is that supposed to still be a thing? I thought
that privacy interests were considered something for terrorists in the US, by no
w.
permalink
[ ]raviddadford 1 point 2 hours ago
Stingray got Steve Irwin
permalink
[ ]Homarus_Americanus 1 point 2 hours ago
It's all good 'cause I can by me all guns I want.
permalink
[ ]anshu1234 0 points 2 hours ago
This is non-news if you are not a drug-peddler. Next please.
permalink
[ ]bubbafat1155 1 point 2 hours ago
It's over. "They" have won. The only hope now is for individuals, society is los
t. Get off the grid, or join the sheep. http://imgur.com/W7CdURh
permalink
[ ]Targun 1 point 2 hours ago
And how are they going to filter out cellphones of all the people who live next
to public places where stingray is located?
permalink
[ ]riderer 1 point 2 hours ago
So can i do the same in public place? just stingray everyone?
permalink
[ ]Neker 1 point 1 hour ago
There are blueprints and tutorials out there that put "stingrays" within reach o
f an hobbyist. Law-breaking hobbyist, that is, but still : mobile phones essenti
aly broadcast your conversations.
permalink
[ ]mindwandering 1 point 1 hour ago
The flying DRT box.
permalink
[ ]SilenceGivesConsent [score hidden] 48 minutes ago
In other words, FBI says it does not need search warrants to warrant a search.
permalink
[ ]Formally_Nightman [score hidden] 46 minutes ago
FBI: "Senator we have been monitoring your calls and your exact geographical loc
ation for years ... You shouldn't find that unconstitutional or the public and y
our wife will learn how unconstitutional you've been"
permalink
[ ]ActuallyNotSparticus [score hidden] 40 minutes ago
Fuck this shit. Stingrays killed the crocodile hunter. Are we ready for the gove
rnment to use these stingrays?
permalink

[ ]Rayhueston [score hidden] 38 minutes ago


The article says the Obama administration consistently maintains that people hav
e no privacy in public. Is that true or is that hyperbole?
If I'm walking down the street, do I have the right to keep the contents of my w
allet private? My blood type? My thoughts?
If I have no privacy with regard to these and many other sensitive things, who d
oes have the right to them?
permalink
[ ]swollennode [score hidden] 37 minutes ago
People don't have privacy in public places..hmmm, I think that people are entitl
ed to privacy if something private belongs to them. Sure, people's faces aren't
private when they're in public places. But people's phone calls and texts should
be.
permalink
[ ]pomod [score hidden] 18 minutes ago
Well if the FBI says they are not needed...
Seriously, this should be a court decision not a cop one. Cops, even a fancy cop
s like the FBI, should not make the laws just enforce them.
permalink
[ ]CJ59 [score hidden] 18 minutes ago
In other news, the FBI says, "You know what, screw it. There are no more laws. W
e'll do whatever the hell we want. Not like you're going to do anything about it
."
permalink
[ ]gkiltz [score hidden] 15 minutes ago
Just because the FBI says it, that does not mean it's true!
I don't envy the poor schmuck who has to stan in front of the Supreme Court and
argue that!!
permalink
load more comments (48 replies)
about
blog
about
team
source code
advertise
jobs
help
wiki
FAQ
reddiquette
rules
contact us
tools
mobile
firefox extension
chrome extension
buttons
widget
<3
reddit gold
store
redditgifts
reddit AMA app
reddit.tv
radio reddit
Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy
. 2015 reddit inc. All rights reserved.
REDDIT and the ALIEN Logo are registered trademarks of reddit inc.

p jump to content
MY SUBREDDITS
FRONT-ALL-RANDOM | PHOTOSHOPBATTLES-HISTORY-GIFS-FOOD-PHILOSOPHY-TELEVISION-WORL
DNEWS-SHOWERTHOUGHTS-LIFEPROTIPS-ART-SPACE-NOTTHEONION-DOCUMENTARIES-NOSLEEP-GAM
ING-GADGETS-EARTHPORN-ASKREDDIT-FUNNY-MOVIES-DIY-FUTUROLOGY-FITNESS-BOOKS-LISTEN
TOTHIS-INTERNETISBEAUTIFUL-MUSIC-EXPLAINLIKEIMFIVE-UPLIFTINGNEWS-SPORTS-PICS-TOD
AYILEARNED-PERSONALFINANCE-DATAISBEAUTIFUL-IAMA-OLDSCHOOLCOOL-EUROPE-CREEPY-TWOX
CHROMOSOMES-AWW-NEWS-WRITINGPROMPTS-GETMOTIVATED-VIDEOS-TIFU-ASKSCIENCE-JOKES-MI
LDLYINTERESTING-SCIENCE
MORE
news newscommentsrelatedother discussions (15)
want to join? sign in or create an account in seconds|English
this post was submitted on 05 Jan 2015
3,152 points (95% upvoted)
shortlink:
remember mereset passwordlogin
news
unsubscribe4,562,294 readers
2,631 users here now
/r/inthenews
/r/worldnews
new submissions
new comments
Post analysis/opinion articles to /r/inthenews
Want to talk?
Chat with us on IRC
Follow @rslashnews on Twitter
See a post that violates the rules below? Had your post stuck in the spam filter
? Have a question about policy? Just want to give feedback? Send the mod team a
message.
Please post news items only, with the exception of meta posts about /r/news itse
lf. Self-posts aggregating news data and "independent reporting" each count as n
ews, but are not an excuse to editorialize.
Your post will likely be removed if it:
is not news (or a meta post).
is an opinion/analysis or advocacy piece.
primarily concerns politics.
has a title not taken from the article.
has a pay wall or steals content.
covers an already-submitted story.
violates reddit's site-wide rules, especially regarding personal info.
Your comment will likely be removed if it:
is racist, sexist, vitriolic, or overly crude.
is unnecessarily rude or provocative.
is a cheap and distracting joke or meme.
is responding to spam.
violates reddit's site-wide rules.
Extreme or repeat offenders will be banned.
Expanded Rules
If your post doesn't fit, consider finding an appropriate news article on that s
tory to submit instead, or submitting yours to lower moderation subreddits:
/r/inthenews - all news-related content
/r/AnythingGoesNews - unrestricted news
/r/truereddit - insightful articles
/r/self - any self-post
/r/misc, /r/redditdotcom - anything
or other news subreddits:
/r/worldnews - from outside the USA only
/r/SyrianCivilWar - about the conflict in Syria

/r/MidEastRegionalWar - on MidEast conflict /r/UpliftingNews - uplifting


/r/mediaquotes - the things they say
or subreddits for other topics:
/r/FoodForThought - discussion-worthy long form articles about interesting subje
cts
/r/politics - for shouting about politics
/r/moderatepolitics - less shouting
/r/politicaldiscussion - even less shouting
/r/geopolitics - intl. politics and geography
/r/entertainment - Justin Bieber updates, etc.
/r/europe - news from Europe
or check out the 200 most active subreddits, categorized by content and the full
list of subreddits by subscribers.
Recommendations:
/r/redactedcharts
/r/patriots
/r/personalfinance
/r/restorethefourth
reddit is fun for Android and its subreddit /r/redditisfun
submit analysis/opinion article
submit news article
submit something else
submit analysis/opinion article
a community for 6 years
message the moderators
moderators
douglasmacarthur
KyldeThe Janitor
AyeMatey
CandyManCan
Elderthedog
LuckyBdx4
NickWasHere09
ani625
pomosexuality
IKingJeremy
...and 1 more
3152
FBI says search warrants not needed to use stingrays in public places (arstechnica
.com)
submitted 13 hours ago by doctorshady
731 commentsshare
top 500 comments
sorted by: best
[ ]peaceshark 654 points 11 hours ago
If only there were some branch of government that would keep the FBI in check, o
ne that judged people and organizations supremely...
permalink
[ ]misogichan 641 points 8 hours ago
Unfortunately the Catholic church has its hands full dealing with its own intern
al reforms and recasting its vision and mission.
permalinkparent
[ ]wutshappening 93 points 7 hours ago
And looking at cat photos that's why they're Cat-holic. Alco-holics are addicted
to alcohol and catholics well you get the idea.
permalinkparent
[ ]TuffLuffJimmy 142 points 6 hours ago
Omg dad you're embarrassing me in front of my friends
permalinkparent
[ ]okmkz 27 points 4 hours ago

We ain't your friends, bruh


permalinkparent
[ ]Corruptionss 4 points 2 hours ago
We ain't your bruh, friends
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
load more comments (2 replies)
[ ]ROLLINGtemple 9 points 5 hours ago
What's their Dogma?
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
load more comments (9 replies)
[ ]hershmire 73 points 7 hours ago
The courts gave up about ten years ago.
permalinkparent
[ ]endprism 50 points 7 hours ago
The courts are pwned by the surveillance state.
permalinkparent
[ ]sushisection 41 points 6 hours ago
This is what I'm afraid of. Nsa is collecting data from all citizens including p
oliticians and supreme court judges.
permalinkparent
[ ]dutchguilder2 19 points 5 hours ago
Whistleblower confirms: http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=d6m1XbWOfVk
permalinkparent
[ ]TwitchTV_Subbort 1 point 3 hours ago
D.C. is Hollywood for ugly people. best line ever!!
permalinkparent
[ ]sklite 1 point 1 hour ago
Charles Augustus Magnussen approves
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]CriticalThink 1 point 6 hours ago
Skeletons in the closet are easy to find with intelligence infrastructure.
permalinkparent
[ ]HurricaneSandyHook 1 point 5 hours ago
The 10th circuit a few days ago sided with the government saying the cops use of
doppler radar to see if anyone was inside a house was legal. They did say it is
a troubling tactic that needs further review and just left it at that....
permalinkparent
[ ]-_--___-_--_--___--_ 27 points 6 hours ago
One major problem with judicial review is that there must be a case for the cour
t to review. I guess the other avenue would be to sue the government, but I'm no
t an attorney so I don't know how that would work.
permalinkparent
[ ]downvotesmakemehard 14 points 4 hours ago
I believe the current court has taken the stance that to take up a case someone
has to show they've been harmed in some way.
The police will never say that stingray is the source of the evidence. This woul
d open stingray to be scrutinized. They will use stingray to go after phone comp
any records which they will claim they requested on a hunch or some other bullsh
it excuse.
permalinkparent
[ ]great_gape [score hidden] 29 minutes ago
Anonymous tip.
permalinkparent
load more comments (2 replies)
[ ]dissonance07 8 points 6 hours ago
With is wide a latitude as the current SCOTUS seems to give to individual libert
y, this seems like the one kind of thing that they could actually usefully addre

ss, right?
permalinkparent
[ ]MrBojangles528 1 point 5 hours ago
Scalia and the rest of the SCOTUS is bought and sold just like the rest of our g
overnment. They answer first and foremost to the parties that nominated them as
well as the corporations that own them.
permalinkparent
[ ]psilontech 12 points 5 hours ago
See, I don't get that. You get into the Supreme Court and you're golden. Unless
you are actively breaking the law and can be impeached, you're untouchable. Why
not, you know, do what's best for your country instead of remaining beholden to
the parasites that leveraged you into that position?
permalinkparent
[ ]Ratbasher88 14 points 4 hours ago
Yep, Supreme Court justices have a well established history of turning out way d
ifferent than their supporters thought they'd be. For whatever reason this curre
nt batch of justices seems more comfortable with the security state than their p
redecessors, however that's true for most Americans in general so I suppose it s
houldn't be shocking.
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]MrBojangles528 2 points 4 hours ago
Good question, but you'd have to ask them about it.
permalinkparent
[ ]cynoclast 0 points 3 hours ago
Unless you are actively breaking the law and can be impeached, you're untouchabl
e.
But you can get richer. Or have your personal communications made public.
permalinkparent
[ ]tughdffvdlfhegl 1 point 3 hours ago
Honestly? Because they run in those social circles. They're friends with the peo
ple at the top. They don't actively associate with "regular folk" that much.
They've been ingratiated into the upper echelons of society long before ever rea
ching the supreme court through lifetimes spent at the forefront of the legal pr
ofession. This insulates them from others, and leaves them in an echo chamber of
their peers.
Now, when a case comes up that pits one of their friends, or friends' friends ag
ainst some random angry dude who's only making 50k a year, who do you think they
automatically side with, when the case isn't cut and dried? I'm not even saying
it's conscious, but prejudices come in all kinds and run deep. Tribalism happen
s all the time in subtle ways.
Plus there's Scalia taking paid for hunting trips with people who are directly a
ffected by cases in front of him, all of them getting invited to dinners and fun
ctions of the DC elite, etc.
permalinkparent
[ ]pion3435 1 point 3 hours ago
They do. It's possible to disagree with you without being corrupt.
permalinkparent
[ ]Jagoonder 1 point 2 hours ago
Not in an omnipotent surveillance state, however.
permalinkparent
[ ]DownFromYesBad 1 point 2 hours ago
Money, bribery.
permalinkparent
[ ]neotropic9 1 point 1 hour ago
Because they are selected to be the type of people who think whats "best for the
ir country" is serving the parasites, the corporate oligarchs, and the surveilla
nce state. They support the status quo, and the status quo supports them. It wou
ld be a miracle if someone with real principles was actually brought into the Su
preme Court, let alone enough of them to form a majority.

permalinkparent
[ ]isprobablyatwork 1 point 1 hour ago
This does happen, sometimes. Good examples would be Justices Warren and Stevens.
They played along with the GOP right up until they were put on the Court, then
immediately started voting their actual conscience (or if not their conscience,
then at least not as their political backers wanted).
permalinkparent
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[ ]cynoclast 2 points 3 hours ago
You mean the press?
permalinkparent
[ ]scrapinpeg 3 points 6 hours ago*
Obligatory link to illustrated law.
EDIT: fixed link
permalinkparent
[ ]ducttapejedi 3 points 6 hours ago*
error 404, check the link.
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[+][deleted] 13 hours ago (56 children)
[ ]sunbolts 701 points 12 hours ago
Glad to see the FBI is tearing up the constitution to increase their own powers
and authority. /s
permalink
[ ]dontbullshityourself 325 points 11 hours ago
Glad to see the FBI is tearing up the constitution to increase their own powers
and authority
I wish this was just the FBI. Pretty much everybody in the federal, state and lo
cals are doing this. Have been doing for this quite some time too.
permalinkparent
[ ]sunbolts 136 points 10 hours ago
Precisely, and that's what makes this very frightening. The whole club's in on i
t.
permalinkparent
[ ]radonthetyrant 75 points 7 hours ago
but why.. I realize that these "zomg the terrorists!!!11" is only a PR-lie. What
do they really accomplish with this? Industry espionage? Bribes from the indust
ries which create the espionage hardware? Feeling of total control? Control the
masses so it all stays as conservative and corrupt as possible?
Why would you amass such a criminal energy to break constitutional laws just to
be able to see through everyone's communication?
permalinkparent
[ ]BettyRubbleIsHot 151 points 7 hours ago
Total control.
That way when the state has it, they can really put the boot on our necks. Think
they treat us poorly now? Just wait until they have the infrastructure in place
where they feel confident there are absolutely zero threats to their power. Tha
t's when shit is going to get BAD.
permalinkparent
[ ]b-LE-z_it 106 points 6 hours ago
And that's why, despite being terrified of some gun owners, despite being terrif
ied of mass shootings, I don't think we should ban guns, even combat rifles. It
can happen here, and we should at least make it hurt if and when it happens.
permalinkparent
[ ]7V3N 47 points 6 hours ago
Welcome to the list.
permalinkparent

[ ]M00glemuffins 10 points 5 hours ago


Sign me up too. If they try to pull a fast one on the public I'm not standing fo
r their bullshit.
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]FadingEchoes11 26 points 6 hours ago
*rifle. No "combat" rifles are owned by citizens
permalinkparent
[ ]b-LE-z_it 39 points 6 hours ago
Did I mention I don't know anything about guns? I don't know anything about guns
.
Point is, force is not something only people in power should have.
permalinkparent
[ ]teefour 19 points 6 hours ago
You should go to a shooting range and take a class. You won't be so unnecessaril
y afraid of them after that.
permalinkparent
[ ]Pullo_T 27 points 6 hours ago
He's not afraid of guns. He's afraid of some gun owners. At least, as far as we
know.
permalinkparent
continue this thread
load more comments (3 replies)
[ ]Bootsncatsn4 5 points 5 hours ago
i understand where youre coming from, but what will a bunch of angry townsfolk d
o to a predator drone strike?
permalinkparent
[ ]Oeboues 18 points 4 hours ago
You should ask the angry townsfolk of Iraq and Afghanistan.
Once the US military is done slinking away in shame, I mean.
permalinkparent
continue this thread
[ ]nuesuh 1 point 1 hour ago
Remove them. Predator drones are being operated from the ground, and has to land
after a couple hours to refuel.
permalinkparent
[ ]joe_m107 4 points 6 hours ago
Maybe we should change that. Repeal the NFA.
permalinkparent
load more comments (2 replies)
[ ]4nco1j 0 points 2 hours ago
You don't know much about guns, do you now.
permalinkparent
load more comments (6 replies)
[ ]conquer69 15 points 4 hours ago
You can have all the guns you want. That won't stop them from labeling you a "su
spected school shooter, pedophile or terrorist".
A gun can't protect you from that. A gun can't teach your fellow countryman to t
hink by themselves or see through propaganda.
Good luck destroying a drone, plane or tank with a rifle. Not sure how useful a
gun is against your own trained military with even better guns and more.
People thinking they can start a revolution and win with a handgun don't realize
this isn't the 1700's anymore.
permalinkparent
[ ]JimmyBuffer 14 points 4 hours ago
Better tell the Middle East they haven't had a bout of revolutions then
permalinkparent
load more comments (2 replies)
[ ]b-LE-z_it 7 points 4 hours ago
Didn't say we would win, I said we could at least make it hurt. Assuming, of cou

rse, that the American people themselves aren't the ones willingly handing in th
eir freedoms, which would mean we're all fucked immediately.
permalinkparent
[ ]theothercoolfish 13 points 2 hours ago
Assuming, of course, that the American people themselves aren't the ones willing
ly handing in their freedoms, which would mean we're all fucked immediately.
Err, you guys gave up much of your freedoms long ago. And it isn't just the US politicians everywhere are taking as much as they can get, because it's simply
more power for them. More power, more money, more control. It's not a conspiracy
- this is just how an imperfect system with inadequate controls eventually goes
. We need to start re-examining our systems and look at alternatives that are no
w possible with the internet.
permalinkparent
[ ]vynusmagnus 3 points 2 hours ago
Tell that to the insurgents in Afghanistan. It seems to me that the US military
has been unable to defeat them in over a decade of war, despite its overwhelming
technological superiority. Tanks and fighter jets are nice, but they do little
against a small guerrilla force that can disappear into the woodwork.
permalinkparent
[ ]Qoix 3 points 3 hours ago
I think the main issue with that line of thinking is that the military would gun
down the civilians it pledges to protect. How many people in the armed forces d
o you know? Now, are any of them willing to murder innocent people? Probably not
.
permalinkparent
[ ]ihcn 6 points 2 hours ago
They're not innocent people, they're armed revolutionaries, suspected terrorists
permalinkparent
[ ]chance-- 4 points 3 hours ago
You say that as if there isn't insurmountable evidence to the contrary.
Military coups are thoroughly woven into the fabric of humanity's history.
permalinkparent
[ ]theothercoolfish 1 point 2 hours ago
gun down the civilians it pledges to protect.
Err, they don't pledge to protect civilians. They pledge to protect the constitu
tion. And if they are convinced that these people are attempting to "subvert" th
e constitution, then they are enemies. Nevermind that their leaders have shat al
l over the constitution - soldiers take their orders and follow 'em.
Now, are any of them willing to murder innocent people?
lol.
permalinkparent
load more comments (2 replies)
[ ]eloquentnemesis [score hidden] 33 minutes ago
Welcome to 4th generation warfare. You don't need a better gun, or the ability t
o kill a drone, or anything else like that. You just need A gun and more commitm
ent than the other side.
permalinkparent
[ ]homegrowncountryboy [score hidden] 16 minutes ago*
Good luck with those tanks, planes and drones when the American people stop supp
lying fuel and ammunition. My brother is in the Army and he will tell you about
75%, or more of the military will disband and fight to protect the American peop
le. All you have to do is look at New Orleans during Katrina, when they got the
order to start confiscating guns almost all of them refused, instead it was main
ly police stealing people's weapons.
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]Hermit_ 2 points 5 hours ago
Yeah but if it does happen all people would be doing is creating the chaos one o
f the armed and militarized militias needs to take power. For example, The KKK.
permalinkparent

[ ]b-LE-z_it 1 point 5 hours ago


Hopefully not the KKK.
permalinkparent
[ ]AussieArcher 1 point 3 hours ago
Fuck me there's always one of you. I'm starting to think the gun club spends mor
e time on reddit than anyone.
permalinkparent
[ ]astronautg117 1 point 1 hour ago
What's a combat rifle going to do against a drone?
permalinkparent
[ ]datbino 1 point 1 hour ago
i think thats where 2nd ammendment people miss the mark- you owning a rifle will
do nothing against the government.
you becoming an active participating member in that government can help fix it,
the goal is to make you a kony2012 fb sharer rather than a person who gets to wo
rk and fixes shit
permalinkparent
[ ]mpg1846 1 point 1 hour ago
You think 50 guys with hand guns are going to do anything to anyone? Gun laws ar
e a joke.
permalinkparent
[ ]Actionbuilding 1 point 1 hour ago
The founders of the United States of America WANTED the citizens to rise up and
overthrow the government if it approached the levels of corruption it is current
ly working toward.
permalinkparent
load more comments (11 replies)
[ ]nuesuh 1 point 1 hour ago
Ever seen "Das Leben der Anderen"? Imagine this, just with total corruption and
100 times better technology. This is what we are moving towards. Imagine this sy
stem getting in the hands of someone like Hitler or Stalin.. And it can happen.
Before Hitler came to power Germany was a modern, western, christian nation. We
need safety with this technology. And when i say safety, i don't mean surveillan
ce. I mean the opposite.
permalinkparent
[ ]know_comment [score hidden] 14 minutes ago
I agree, but I think the reason for the infrastructure development is because it
is going to get bad. As we are forced to compete more globally, quality of life
stagnates. Even the slightest hint of austerity is going to be very painful for
the lower classes in a society with a large income disparity.
That's why we see the race baiting and divisive rhetoric being used so much. Kee
p the poor and working classes quibbling at each other.
I want you to consider the daffodil. And while you're doing that, I'll be over h
ere, looking through your stuff.
permalinkparent
[ ]mzackler 19 points 7 hours ago
It takes a really complicated answer to truly understand but you often get into
the us vs them mentality in siloed areas of law enforcement. You also often get
frustrated with the levels of proof you need to put the bad guy in jail. Thus an
y method you can use you feel justified in using. Although I think there are a l
ot of issues with The Wire, it's a great starting off point for a discussion if
you want a serious answer.
permalinkparent
load more comments (2 replies)
[ ]hershmire 30 points 7 hours ago
Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts, absolutely.
permalinkparent
[ ]TheNewRavager 70 points 6 hours ago
"All governments suffer a recurring problem: Power attracts pathological persona
lities. It is not that power corrupts but that it is magnetic to the corruptible

. Such people have a tendency to become drunk on violence, a condition to which


they are quickly addicted."
permalinkparent
[ ]gee_iwonderwhy 22 points 6 hours ago
Oh shit, a Dune quote outside /r/dune not about spice.
permalinkparent
[ ]TheNumberMuncher 3 points 6 hours ago
This is pretty cool.
permalinkparent
[ ]YawnDogg 1 point 3 hours ago
Gene Hackman was so kinky in that movie.
permalinkparent
[ ]ThreeTimesUp 2 points 2 hours ago
From a Guardian article by Glenn Greenwald I came across recently:
Inside the mind of NSA chief Gen Keith Alexander
Any casual review of human history proves how deeply irrational it is to believe
that powerful factions can be trusted to exercise vast surveillance power with
little accountability or transparency.
But the more they proudly flaunt their warped imperial hubris, the more irration
al it becomes.
permalinkparent
[ ]Epsilox 3 points 2 hours ago
I'm going to take an unpopular stance here and argue that they get more effectiv
e investigations. Which isn't to say I have no reservations about this stuff, be
cause I do.
I've worked in a field tangential to law enforcement, and I've had the unpleasan
t experience of watching very bad people act with impunity because law enforceme
nt had to play by the rules and they didn't. Does that justify the modern trend
towards more invasive government? Maybe that's just the price we pay to live in
a free society. I don't know. I'm a fan of the H.L. Mencken quote:
"The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's ti
me defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are f
irst aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopp
ed at all."
On the other hand, it's very hard to watch members of organized crime and other
monsters literally get away with murder.
In part the difficulty the lies in the infrastructure of modern society. Communi
cations move at such speed and in such quantity that the sort of pinpoint accura
cy required for effective investigations and prosecutions becomes much more diff
icult.
None of which is to say that what we're doing is necessarily right. I've felt th
e fear of writing an opinion online and knowing that the NSA can see it and ever
ything else I've ever written if they so choose. I've had that feeling of always
being watched. I know exactly what is meant by the danger of chilling free spee
ch, because it's happened to me. But I do tend to trust (perhaps naively) that,
for the most part, most of the people making these decisions have good intention
s. I've worked with many of them, and I believe that it more than anything is th
e result of them trying to do their jobs well. Whether they are actually protect
ing the American people or simply paving the road to hell, only time will really
tell.
permalinkparent
[ ]eyeforgot 4 points 6 hours ago
Think of all the blackmail material they have for any future politicians. They w
ill firmly be in check by the powers that be.
permalinkparent
[ ]ademnus 3 points 7 hours ago
Total control.
permalinkparent
[ ]NotAnotherDecoy 4 points 7 hours ago
Total control?

permalinkparent
[ ]leamas666 2 points 5 hours ago
Why would you amass such a criminal energy to break constitutional laws just to
be able to see through everyone's communication?
It's the deep state attempting to preserve its own regime continuity in the even
t of violent revolution.
permalinkparent
[ ]sunbolts 3 points 6 hours ago
Because those in power try to keep it and in addition, there is always a lust fo
r more power. One who is wealthy seeks to increase his riches usually, right? Sa
me thing going on here. In terms of practicality, there's no reason for breaking
constitutional laws, but when you realize how human nature functions in regards
to ambitions and power, well, what we see going on explains itself.
permalinkparent
[ ]Martenz05 1 point 3 hours ago
So, in order to become a political leader who really does work for the benefit o
f the people, one would somehow have to lose every shred of their humanity so th
ey wouldn't have a human nature that could be corrupted by ambition and power?
That sounds ominous, when I put it like that
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]RuthlessDickTater 1 point 5 hours ago
but why.. I realize that these "zomg the terrorists!!!11" is only a PR-lie.
Well pretty soon they might have their terrorists, but they'll be the domestic k
ind.
permalinkparent
[ ]karadan100 1 point 4 hours ago
More money.
permalinkparent
[ ]cynoclast 1 point 3 hours ago
What do they really accomplish with this?
Get rich.
permalinkparent
load more comments (7 replies)
[ ]TGlucifer 50 points 10 hours ago
Criminals learned it's just way easier to do their lawbreaking with a government
salary.
permalinkparent
[ ]pete1729 22 points 9 hours ago
Well, the benefits package is far more attractive.
permalinkparent
[ ]__ghostpants 25 points 7 hours ago
and somehow snitches go to jail instead of the criminals
permalinkparent
[ ]iismitch55 1 point 3 hours ago
Snitches get stitches. Whistleblowers get their mouth sowed shut.
permalinkparent
[ ]HandsOffMyDitka 5 points 5 hours ago
Why break a law, when you can just change it.
permalinkparent
[ ]moresmarterthanyou 2 points 5 hours ago
except when they have to answer questions themselves...
permalinkparent
[ ]dontbullshityourself 1 point 5 hours ago
Well you know liberty is wasted on peasant swine 'eh?
permalinkparent
[ ]ButterflyAttack 1 point 4 hours ago
Sounds like the constitution doesn't mean much at this point. . .
permalinkparent
[ ]dontbullshityourself 1 point 3 hours ago

Sounds like the constitution doesn't mean much at this point. . .


All it means is that the scum who rule us have a legal contract that they say ba
cks up all their power. But their actions shit all over that document.
President Obama, a constitutional law professor ordered the deaths of two US cit
izens without trial in EXPRESS and DIRECT violation of the constitution.
permalinkparent
load more comments (4 replies)
[ ]Eurynom0s 68 points 9 hours ago
And on top of it, even if being in public was a justification for this, how the
fuck do you prevent the device from nabbing people who are inside their own hous
e or apartment as well?
Oh right, you can't, because that's not how radio waves work.
permalinkparent
[ ]Ioneos 18 points 8 hours ago
You can increase the noise gate to reduce range on purpose, but what good would
that do to keep the terrorists citizens under scrutiny.
permalinkparent
[ ]Eurynom0s 20 points 8 hours ago
Even if they were going to do that, I can't imagine that you could do it to a su
fficient degree in a place like NYC to not scoop up at least some people inside
of buildings.
permalinkparent
load more comments (5 replies)
[ ]Codoro 1 point 4 hours ago
I foresee turning your house into a Faraday Cage being the cop radar finder of t
omorrow.
permalinkparent
[ ]Kenny_Login 23 points 7 hours ago
Taxation without representation, an income far below what the productivity was v
alued at, government intrusion? The founding fathers (you know, those "heroes" o
f our nation) got much more pissed off for much less.
permalinkparent
[ ]Socialdem 8 points 5 hours ago
Can you really blame them? The Constitution was written when people were still r
iding on horses. There's no way the founding fathers could have anticipated the
advances in technology and the way people communicate. I think we're due for a f
irmware upgrade.
permalinkparent
[ ]upandrunning 11 points 3 hours ago
Yes, it's called 'replacing congress'. What we're seeing is a natural consequenc
e of career politicians. Most of the people in office have gotten so comfortable
with the idea that they'll get reelected that what they actually do during thei
r term is almost irrelevent.
permalinkparent
[ ]theothercoolfish 2 points 2 hours ago
Exactly. I think we should look at sortition - with an approval vote, and extrem
ely strict rules on what sort of laws can be passed (eg any law must apply equal
ly to everyone - protecting the minority), and a approval bonus for the randomly
selected representatives if the public approves. Fuck career politicians - they
've proven themselves wholly incapable, and the system that supports them is too
corruptible. I don't think campaign finance reform will 1) ever happen 2) adequ
ately deal with institutional corruption.
permalinkparent
[ ]NuclearWookiee 0 points 2 hours ago
All of this should be covered, in any reasonable interpretation, by the Fourth a
mendment. Rebooting who change anything if the limits on government are ignored.
permalinkparent
[ ]KalAl 1 point 1 hour ago
Do you update your firmware by smashing your bios chip with a hammer?
permalinkparent

[ ]FireFromTheWire 4 points 6 hours ago


You're just another Steve Irwin to them.
permalinkparent
[ ]iismitch55 2 points 3 hours ago
Too soon mate :'(
permalinkparent
[ ]Penguin_in_the_sand 1 point 1 hour ago*
I am curious to know what this comment means?... Oh! Steve Irwin was killed by a
stingray. I thought you may have been referring to some conspiracy relating the
Steve Irwin's death. He had an American wife and both were invited to Howard's
Bush BBQ. http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/10/27/1067233100397.html
permalinkparent
[ ]gloubenterder 2 points 1 hour ago
Steve Irwin was a wildlife documentary filmmaker who was well-known for getting
up close and personal with dangerous animals such as crocodiles and komodo drago
ns.
He was pierced through a heart by a stingray in 2006, while shooting footage for
a documentary called Ocean's Deadliest.
After his death, stingrays had a period of great infamy, and there were even rep
orts of people killing and mutilating stingrays as vengeance for Steve Irwin. ..
.which, of course, is the last thing Irwin would have wanted; he was a conservat
ionist, and whenever he was injured by an animal he was studying, he would alway
s clarify to the viewer that that was his own fault and a risk he was aware of.
permalinkparent
[ ]Agent-BurtMacklinFBI 1 point 5 hours ago
Don't worry I'm keeping a look out
permalinkparent
[ ]pion3435 1 point 3 hours ago
It's not a constitutional issue. It might be an FCC one, but they just do whatev
er they're told anyway.
permalinkparent
[ ]dntur 1 point 3 hours ago
theoretically, every cell tower is in a public place. Why not just attach a stin
gray to all of them? Think of the money mobile companies could make renting towe
r space! next comes google who wants to know who you are calling on your iphone
and windows phone for better directed advertising, followed by Bing. /s
permalinkparent
[ ]Brian3232 [score hidden] 46 minutes ago
Why are they wrong? You already can take pictures of people in public places wit
hout warrant
permalinkparent
[ ]GaltsGulchTouristInf [score hidden] 24 minutes ago
When the constitution, the supreme law of the land, the contract between the gov
ernment and the people, is violated, this violating it should be banned from 'pu
blic service' for life, should be personally liable to those whose rights they v
iolated, and should forfeit their government pension and benefits.
permalinkparent
[ ]wtfmuck [score hidden] 17 minutes ago
It's sad how they shirk doing what is right for what is easy.
permalinkparent
load more comments (8 replies)
[ ]quiteintriguing 127 points 12 hours ago
I think it's about time these fuckers provided some evidence that privacy invadi
ng is helping stop crime or terrorism. As far as I can see, there is an Islamic
army in the middle east right now filled with westerners that simply flew over a
nd caught a bus. Nice job government agencies, you sure showed us.
permalink
[ ]HappyAtavism 81 points 11 hours ago
I think it's about time these fuckers provided some evidence that privacy invadi
ng is helping stop crime or terrorism.

Even more importantly they should provide evidence that they're not violating th
e 4th Amendment. The Bill of Rights doesn't say it applies only when convenient.
P.S. I agree that repeated failures to demonstrate the effectiveness of these th
ings, or lies which get "corrected", is yet another reason why this stuff is BS,
but the Constitution is first and foremost. Don't like the 4th Amendment? Try t
o repeal it. Until then it's in force.
permalinkparent
[ ]7u5 3 points 5 hours ago
The "checks and balances" of the judiciary are a farce. They are free to "interp
ret" the Constitution as they see fit.
permalinkparent
load more comments (3 replies)
[ ]DiaperParty 9 points 3 hours ago
Fuck that. FUUUCK that. If this did stop terrorists, it would still not be worth
the violation of rights. We absolutely CANNOT start OKing this shit as long as
it "stops bad guys."
permalinkparent
[ ]quiteintriguing 1 point 3 hours ago
I think you misunderstood. I think they should have to back up their justificati
on, which they obviously can't.
permalinkparent
[ ]DiaperParty 4 points 3 hours ago
But if we ask them to, we lend legitimacy to that claim. We need to say from the
get go that no justification is needed because none will be sufficient.
permalinkparent
[ ]ebouwman 7 points 5 hours ago
In Canada we had the Ottawa shooting and that dude that ran over some soldiers.
Correct me if I'm wrong but both these guys had had their passports revoked.
I'm not a fan of letting them just go over and fight a dirty war but wtf.
permalinkparent
[ ]Ceejae 4 points 4 hours ago
But so what if it is? How successful the program is is irrelevant.
I'm sure if they set up a government camera in every home they'd stop plenty of
murders and rapes.
permalinkparent
load more comments (2 replies)
[ ]cassieloveseffie 5 points 2 hours ago
Well we all know that the FBI has followed people like John Lennon who believed
in radical peace, urged MLK to kill himself and was prepared to assassinate occu
py members. It is not about crime, it is about maintaining a status quo.
permalinkparent
[ ]monopixel 2 points 1 hour ago
was prepared to assassinate occupy members.
Interesting, where can I read up about this?
permalinkparent
[ ]wirepants 4 points 4 hours ago
Locking everyone in solitary could stop crime and terrorism too. That's not a go
od enough reason to violate our rights even if it was working.
permalinkparent
[ ]egodeath92 2 points 5 hours ago
Shh that's classified. This entire country would be a post-apocalyptic dirt-patc
h is not for the heroic NSA collecting dirt on most of the country.
permalinkparent
[ ]pion3435 1 point 3 hours ago
You had no privacy in the first place. That's not how cell phones work.
permalinkparent
load more comments (6 replies)
[ ]MashItMatt 143 points 13 hours ago
Obviously these are constitution free zones, citizen.
permalink

[ ]THANKS-FOR-THE-GOLD 22 points 7 hours ago


Embrace democracy or you will be eradicated
permalinkparent
[ ]jroddie4 14 points 5 hours ago
Citizen, pick up that can.
permalinkparent
[ ]douko 3 points 5 hours ago
This image won't even load (here's another one), but I still know what it is.
DEATH IS A PREFERABLE ALTERNATIVE TO COMMUNISM.
COMMUNISM IS THE VERY DEFINITION OF FAILURE!
permalinkparent
[ ]chewysquirrel 15 points 6 hours ago
Approximately 2/3 of Americans live in a "constitution free zone"
permalinkparent
[ ]newpolitics 50 points 10 hours ago
The Federal Bureau of Investigation is taking the position that court warrants a
re not required when deploying cell-site simulators in public places. Nicknamed
"stingrays," the devices are decoy cell towers that capture locations and identi
ties of mobile phone users and can intercept calls and texts.
So nobody has any expectation of privacy? Talking out of their asses. The implic
ation that a warrant shouldn't be needed to intercept someone's text messages, i
s outrageous.
permalink
[ ]acerplatanoides [score hidden] 16 minutes ago
The implication that a warrant shouldn't be needed to intercept someone's text m
essages, is outrageous.
The implication of intercepting a PRESS related text message, and thus also supp
ressing a free press.
I think many of these are used to stop uploading of images to social medial. You
ever tried that during a demonstration?
permalinkparent
[ ]dalasocatyemerc 67 points 9 hours ago
Hmm, I didn't realize the FBI had the authority to ignore the constitution of th
e United States of America.
Maybe this organization doesn't actually serve Americans. That's what I think
permalink
[ ]Jagoonder 17 points 2 hours ago
They don't. However, lets look at their 3rd criteria:
(3) cases in which the technology is used in public places or other locations at
which the FBI deems there is no reasonable expectation of privacy.
In public, noone has an expectation to privacy. SCOTUS has ruled on such. Theref
ore, it could be argued that phone conversations in public places forfeits at le
ast one party's rights to privacy.
There are a couple of problems with this. First, Stingray is indiscriminate. Sec
ond, the other party of the phone conversation may be in their own home thus hav
ing an expectation of privacy.
I don't know how law works in regards to phone tapping. But, I would assume that
any warrant to do so would provide the agency a waiver on a second party's priv
acy protections when conversing with the target of the warrant. Except in the ca
se of Stingray no warrant was ever obtained thus, no waiver, thus the second par
ty probably still has privacy protections.
So, I think it's bullshit. I'm no lawyer. I suspect the FBI also knows it's bull
shit. But, the more excuses they can come up with to bend the law around their w
ill the more time it takes to try to stop them since each instance requires anot
her court decision.
permalinkparent
[ ]punkrampant 13 points 1 hour ago
There's only "no expectation of privacy" in public in terms of video+camera surv
eillance. People still get disturbed if you look over their shoulder at their ph
one, or listen to a conversation.

Text messages, emails, phone calls, all of it, are the modern day written letter
s. What the FBI is trying to do is the equivalent of setting up a post office th
at opens everyone's envelopes and makes copies of all the contents.
permalinkparent
[ ]Jagoonder 5 points 1 hour ago
Text messages, emails, phone calls, all of it, are the modern day written letter
s. What the FBI is trying to do is the equivalent of setting up a post office th
at opens everyone's envelopes and makes copies of all the contents.
You're right. I was focusing on an actual phone conversation where one party cou
ld be overheard by others, thus no expectation to privacy.
permalinkparent
[ ]Cambodian_Drug_Mule 2 points 1 hour ago
Surely there are people with technical expertise that can just fuck their shit u
p. If I'm not mistaken the stingrays were detected with consumer grade electroni
cs. If everyone just looked out for them and pinned where they are at on a map,
couldn't some people with the technical know how take them offline?
permalinkparent
[ ]monopixel 1 point 1 hour ago
Hmm, I didn't realize the FBI had the authority to ignore the constitution of th
e United States of America.
The US government and its agencies has been doing it for ages.
permalinkparent
[ ]rtpg 40 points 6 hours ago
Surprised nobody's mentioned Kyllo v. United States yet.
This is fairly recent (2001) jurisprudence. The gov't used a thermal imager, and
saw that there were heat lamps inside of a house, and used that to get a search
warrant. The gov't argued that, well, the heat was outside, so pretty much publ
ic information.
The courts disagreed and ruled this an illegal search. Main reason being that no
t many people have thermal imagers, so there's a reasonable expectation of priva
cy. I think even less people have stingrays, so even from the "discovering that
someone has a cell phone" aspect, there's unreasonableness in the search.
Now to the wiretapping aspect... there's Katz v. United States. Here, somebody w
as in a phone booth, and the feds had set a microphone outside the phone booth w
ithout warrant (so not exactly a wiretap). Again, the courts ruled this an unrea
sonable search.
A part of the ruling:
Regardless of the location, a conversation is protected from unreasonable search
and seizure under the Fourth Amendment if it is made with a "reasonable expecta
tion of privacy".
Text messages definitely fall under this. I can't see this holding up for 2 seco
nds in court.
The article goes into it into detail, but few of the FBI's interpretations on pr
ivacy have been holding up in courts recently. The system is kind of working, an
d this interpretation will be shut down as well. Now, if only everyone had good
lawyers...
permalink
[ ]ryewheats 7 points 4 hours ago
But the biggest problem I see would be them not declaring how they gathered any
information they collected in the first place. It would be pretty easy to skirt
around the system and act like you caught the suspect red-handed (because you we
re tipped off by illegal searches). That is the really scary part.
permalinkparent
[ ]argv_minus_one 5 points 3 hours ago
This practice is known as "parallel construction".
permalinkparent
[ ]tughdffvdlfhegl 3 points 3 hours ago
Honestly, this is the biggest concern. The courts won't allow a challenge becaus
e no one will have standing, because the feds/police won't actively declare this
as evidence in a trial. Meanwhile, they'll continue to use it, having a chillin

g effect on the press and others (which the courts have not seen in recent histo
ry as sufficient to provide legal standing).
permalinkparent
[ ]JustaChimp 3 points 5 hours ago
With the Katz v US case, it took them 39 years to overturn the Olmstead v US rul
ing. Let's hope it takes a little less time for this medium.
The recent Romano v Steelcase Inc. court case could indicate how the courts will
rule in the short term with regards to "reasonable expectation of privacy" thou
gh this ruling was in the context of social media and not text messages. The ana
logy was made that much like a letter writer has no reasonable expectation of pr
ivacy once the recipient is in possession of the letter, neither does the post's
author. Same could be extended to text messages and would be equally as trouble
some.
permalinkparent
[ ]qdarius 1 point 3 hours ago
Damn, that doesn't seem right at all. If I send someone a letter I definitely ex
pect that only they will read it.
Could anyone expand on the logic that a letter writer has no reasonable expectat
ion of privacy?
permalinkparent
[ ]Boltaeg 1 point 3 hours ago
After that letter is given to the recipient, they can do whatever they want with
it without you knowing. They could copy it, show it to friends, frame it and pu
t it on their wall....etc. You have no control over that and must assume that an
ything you write in a letter can be disclosed in some manner, simply because you
have no control over that persons actions.
As to why that is the case, I have no idea. Especially considering it is illegal
to open someone elses mail, but perfectly legal to read someone else's letter o
nce they open it. At least that is my understanding of it.
permalinkparent
[ ]TheMightyBarbarian 1 point 3 hours ago
Its fairly simple, you sent a letter, until it is received by the intended recip
ient it has federal protections. Once the recipient receives it, they are free t
o do with it as they wish, even if you disagree with what they do, specifically
because the letter is now their property, even though you wrote it.
permalinkparent
[ ]qdarius 1 point 2 hours ago
I understand that. But if someone else intercepts my letter shouldn't that still
be illegal?
Maybe I'm misunderstanding how stingrays work but it seems like they're basicall
y designed to intercept hundreds of messages.
permalinkparent
[ ]TheMightyBarbarian 1 point 2 hours ago
Intercept isn't illegal, its sketchy but not illegal. As for reading it, it's a
grey area since texts are not encrypted and even if they were it would do shit i
f billions of devices can decrypt them. So unless you use something like a messe
nger system that can use basic encrypting. It won't stop the FBI from reading it
, but it does show you took steps to have a private conversation and that's what
matters to the court.
permalinkparent
[ ]coalbeeashi 1 point 3 hours ago
Re: Katz v. United States
Certain details, such as shutting the door on the telephone booth, help determin
e if a person intends for a conversation to be private. Thus, private conversati
ons can be made in public areas.
What steps is the average Joe taking to exhibit a reasonable expectation of priv
acy regarding his/her data usage? Honest question.
permalinkparent
[ ]TheMightyBarbarian 1 point 2 hours ago
Beyond using a VPN to mimic another location, not much really. Since there are m

any devices involved in the process of just looking up a website. Ex. You google
Microsoft. Here are all the parties involved: You, Your ISP, Google, Microsoft.
That's four parties involved and that's assuming you are not using a Phones Mob
ile Data plan and are using WiFi. Because then it can add a few more people invo
lved.
Sure you should have protection just the same, but currently the law doesn't rec
ognize that, because the people in charge dont understand how any of it works.
permalinkparent
[ ]rtpg [score hidden] 54 minutes ago
I would say that cultural norms kind of define that in that it is extremely rude
to look at another stranger's phone while they are using it to browse/look at t
heir emails/whatever. Not the most solid argument, I know.
permalinkparent
[ ]Sic_SemperTyrannis 1 point 2 hours ago
When the use of stingrays is challenged in court police have dropped the cases r
ather than explain their use of stingrays.
permalinkparent
[ ]cassieloveseffie 1 point 2 hours ago
I have seen a printed record of every one of someone's txt messages for 6 months
. Never assume txt messages are private.
permalinkparent
[ ]Ladderjack 29 points 12 hours ago
I'm sorry, have they gone ahead and combined the FBI and the Supreme Court of th
e United States of America? No? Well, we will see how long this lasts. . .
permalink
[ ]butitssnot 46 points 7 hours ago
Its ok. In 2016 we can vote for hope and change and transparency and fix all thi
s.
permalinkparent
[ ]CriticalThink 3 points 5 hours ago
yeah. I bet Hillary will fix this mess, right Reddit?
permalinkparent
[ ]TheMightyBarbarian 1 point 2 hours ago
We still got time before they can start promoting themselves for President, lega
lly actually, they can't start until a certain number of days from the election.
permalinkparent
[ ]looneybandito 5 points 6 hours ago
Haha. As if our votes matter.
permalinkparent
[ ]atomofconsumption 9 points 5 hours ago
thatsthejoke.jpg
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]dichroeyes 1 point 4 hours ago
You are right. I give up. Long live the hegemony.
permalinkparent
[ ]Pikaflu 1 point 3 hours ago
America is an irradiated wasteland. Within it lies a city. Outside the boundary
walls, a desert. A cursed earth. Inside the walls, a cursed city, stretching fro
m Boston to Washington D.C. An unbroken concrete landscape. 800 million people l
iving in the ruin of the old world and the mega structures of the new one. Mega
blocks. Mega highways. Mega City One. Convulsing. Choking. Breaking under its ow
n weight. Citizens in fear of the street. The gun. The gang. Only one thing figh
ting for order in the chaos: the men and women of the Hall of Justice. Juries. E
xecutioners. Judges.
permalinkparent
[ ]Ago_Solvo 36 points 9 hours ago
I'm sure that means that stingrays are also open for public hacking in that case
, because they're in a public place, and doing so can't be considered an intrusi
on on government properties or a violation of any Federal Law.

permalink
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]whysopositive 57 points 12 hours ago
Say whatever you want, you don't think big brother is going to find every way to
spy on you?
The thing is I bet every time we the people get upset about some "new" trespass
against our rights there's already something technologically beyond our knowledg
e being put to use to on us now.
permalink
[ ]I_SPLIT_INFINITIVES 16 points 7 hours ago
My dad always said, "If that's what they're telling us they have now, they proba
bly had it ten years ago. Just imagine what they really have."
permalinkparent
[ ]oOTHX1138Oo 28 points 9 hours ago
Thats why we need to add to the bill of rights, so that we continue to be protec
ted in the digital age.
permalinkparent
[ ]TheBlueWaffleHouse 18 points 8 hours ago
At this point in time the bill of rights only shrinks. It doesn't get bigger.
permalinkparent
[ ]tallerthanunicorngod 33 points 7 hours ago
Not with that attitude.
permalinkparent
[ ]mattacular2001 3 points 5 hours ago
Doesn't matter unless you're wealthy
permalinkparent
[ ]tallerthanunicorngod 1 point 2 hours ago
Wealthy people don't like to be spied on either. Honestly, they probably like it
even less.
permalinkparent
[ ]sockgorilla 1 point 5 hours ago
He's John Titor, he's watched it before.
permalinkparent
[ ]mastahslayah 1 point 4 hours ago
Well he isn't getting any of my Dr. Pepper.
permalinkparent
[ ]Poor__Yorick 1 point 2 hours ago
Wow that's a name I haven't heard in a while.
We've got a world war this year though.
3 billion dead by the end of it.
permalinkparent
load more comments (5 replies)
[ ]pion3435 1 point 3 hours ago
We already did. That's the point of laws like HIPAA. There's just no equivalent
for things like email or cell phones so it's legal to see whatever people are na
ively broadcasting.
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]ZomNomNomBeeZ 5 points 7 hours ago
This technology is not particularly new. The man-in-the-middle attack is a class
ic hacking technique. I remember reading an article after one of the security co
nventions detailing a small group of participants that used a remote control air
plane to do this exact thing to convention attendees. This was years ago.
permalinkparent
[ ]hershmire 4 points 7 hours ago
Which is why it's illegality could be successfully code into law.
permalinkparent
[ ]TheMightyBarbarian 1 point 3 hours ago
That's the problem, the people who make the laws don't understand how the techno
logy works, and the people making and using it are telling them its fine, so the

y don't feel like they need to make a law about.


And as such making a law about it would be bad, since the law would need specifi
c language to prevent certain technologies and usage of such. But the biggest is
sue is that some of the technology and uses are too general that it would never
work to stop anything. Since they can't just write a law preventing man in the m
iddle because they need to get a definitive wording on what that is exactly and
then word it so a slight variation doesn't just immediately skirt the new law.
Our technology grew faster than our laws did, but now it's grown faster than our
ability to properly define what it is we do. So controlling it is incredibly ha
rd and will take a long time, so for now we kinda have to suck it up and wait, b
ecause the worst possible thing is them putting out ineffective laws that do les
s than nothing to prevent stuff like that and hearing us complain and think we a
re whining when they just put out a law. I would rather wait a little longer to
make sure the law is proper and effective than to have a crap law screw everythi
ng up.
permalinkparent
[ ]ScorpionPool 1 point 6 hours ago
Serious question. What benefits does the government get from spying on us? Power
? Information for corporations? Shits and giggles? Some kind of profit?
permalinkparent
[ ]swingmemallet 2 points 5 hours ago
All of the above
permalinkparent
[ ]eyeforgot 1 point 5 hours ago*
What like complete access to what anyone posts/chats about on facebook/skype bei
ng dumped into a database? Anyone who work with cisco routers notice anything fu
nny like carefully crafted packets fucking w. the settings and not creating logs
. Maybe like there is a back door that someone has that doesn't require a passwo
rd.
permalinkparent
load more comments (3 replies)
[ ]philtech 26 points 10 hours ago
You can scan for stingray use.
Only works on rooted phones with Qualcomm chipset however. https://play.google.c
om/store/apps/details?id=de.srlabs.snoopsnitch&hl=en
permalink
[ ]vamper 2 points 6 hours ago
damn, no go for my nexus 5
permalinkparent
[ ]Ice_Pirate 1 point 5 hours ago
Should work on my 20 dollar ZTE's with dualies :). Overclocks to 1.8 like butta.
http://www.phonearena.com/phones/ZTE-N800_id8191
permalinkparent
[ ]willyboxc 1 point 2 hours ago
we need a version that will work without root :(
permalinkparent
[ ]networklackey 49 points 11 hours ago*
Bullshit... it's radio. They have no way of determining whether the person they
are monitoring is in public or not.
They shouldn't be able to use this without a warrant any more than they should b
e able to point a laser mic at your window.
The fact that they are in public is irrelevant... the subject they are monitorin
g has to be in public.
permalink
[ ]lll_1_lll 29 points 6 hours ago
Even if we are in public, what the fuck gives them the right to look through my
texts, phone calls, voicemails, emails, call history, etc?
permalinkparent
[ ]zoidbug 5 points 3 hours ago
It should be protected the level of paper mail. It is your private communication

s.
permalinkparent
[ ]networklackey 1 point 2 hours ago
Technically... because you are in public and are broadcasting. But I feel the sa
me way. None of this shit should be legal.
permalinkparent
load more comments (6 replies)
[ ]goatmagic 2 points 3 hours ago
laser mic
Well, TIL this exists :/
permalinkparent
[ ]networklackey 2 points 2 hours ago
They absolutely exist and they are freaking awesome. They should not however be
used by law enforcement without a warrant.
permalinkparent
[ ]makingupdumbnames 1 point 5 hours ago
I think it's that their airwaves cross public space. pls correct me if I'm wrong
, though
permalinkparent
[ ]networklackey 1 point 2 hours ago
That's certainly the argument they are making.
permalinkparent
[ ]wirepants 1 point 4 hours ago
Even assuming you are in public, who's to say the guy on the other side is too?
permalinkparent
[ ]networklackey 1 point 2 hours ago
Nothing but their log books but that doesn't really matter. It's your right to p
rivacy they are violating.
permalinkparent
[ ]Sarah_Connor 9 points 9 hours ago
We need a way to be able to identify, then jamm, stingrays.
permalink
[ ]cookie_nrk 8 points 7 hours ago
This Jammer made in sweden should do the trick. From what I have read it complet
ely blocks all signals, so using a phone wouldn't work at all, but if you were i
n a position to not want to be tracked during a certain time, you could use this
: http://www.jammer-store.com/monstro-10-all-frequencies-portable-jammer.html
permalinkparent
[ ]hershmire 10 points 7 hours ago
We're talking about blanket monitoring of civilians. It needs to be outlawed imm
ediately. Hoping each and every Joe Schmoe is going to buy an illegal cell phone
jammer to protect his identity is, well, ridiculous.
permalinkparent
[ ]davidverner 6 points 7 hours ago
Jammers are illegal in the US on the cellphone frequency. Good luck importing on
e.
permalinkparent
[ ]wicard 5 points 6 hours ago
had one from deal extreme i bought when i was younger to prank friends, was alot
of fun. But if you are worried about being tracked wouldn't just shutting your
phone off do the trick? If you are jamming your phone you arnt going to be talki
ng to anyone.
permalinkparent
[ ]RellenD 4 points 5 hours ago
You have to do more than just turn it off, unfortunately.
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]willyboxc 1 point 2 hours ago
we need the schematics so we can build one... also include 700 mhz jam for lte
permalinkparent

load more comments (1 reply)


[ ]ademnus 11 points 7 hours ago
That's nice but it's not up to the FBI if it is illegal or not.
permalink
[ ]MonitoredCitizen 21 points 7 hours ago
Come on Google and Apple, stop being so lame. Make the phones themselves defend
against this by always displaying the negotiated encryption level and allowing u
ser to configure the phone to refuse to connect if the GSM encryption level is A
5/0.
permalink
[ ]argv_minus_one 2 points 2 hours ago
If they do that, these same spooks will have some words with their CEOs. Otherwi
se, yeah, they likely would.
permalinkparent
[ ]vzzzbux 2 points 1 hour ago
Not sure on the technical specifics but my old Nokia from 10 years ago used to s
how a padlock if the call was "secure", which I guess meant it was encrypted in
some way.
Sounds like yet another way we've gone backwards with the rise of Google and App
le
permalinkparent
[ ]cryptovariable 180 points 12 hours ago
This seems icky, but anyone with a Raspberry Pi ($48.00), an RTL-SDR ($17.00), a
nd an ability to follow written step-by-step instructions on how to install and
configure some open source software ($0.00) can do this, albeit on a smaller sca
le.
That tutorial doesn't cover decrypting GSM traffic. This one does. You'll need s
omething faster than a Raspberry Pi, though. Maybe a $200 netbook.
And you can do it on the same scale as the police with a surplus commercial ante
nna and three or four friends.
I don't see how restricting the government's ability to do this would have any o
ther effect than to criminalize a private citizen's desire to experiment with GS
M.
permalink
[ ]HappyAtavism 113 points 11 hours ago
I don't see how restricting the government's ability to do this would have any o
ther effect than to criminalize a private citizen's desire to experiment with GS
M.
Experiment with GSM all you want, just don't eavesdrop or commit fraud by preten
ding to be part of a legitimate business.
I like to play with miniature cameras, microphones and transmitters. That's a fi
ne hobby as long as I don't use it to spy on my neighbors.
permalinkparent
load more comments (5 replies)
[ ]mr___ 50 points 12 hours ago
But theirs has a transmitter, and actively spoofs cell sites
permalinkparent
[ ]cryptovariable 55 points 12 hours ago
It you want to spoof rather than just eavesdrop all you have to do is buy any of
the SDR kits that are coming on to the market like a bladeRF or something and h
ave GNUradio (which hilariously autocorrects to FBI radio on my phone) pretend t
o be a tower, the credentials of which you sniffed with your Pi setup.
The reason the Feds spoof is so that they can target specific devices on a white
list and only have those connect. The size of the whitelist is unknown and up fo
r debate.
If you're capturing and decrypting all the GSM your antenna can receive you don'
t care if you're spoofing the tower unless you want to modify the traffic in som
e way. To quote Sir Patrick Stewart: "It's too late, I've seen everything."
If you just scoop up everything using cheap/free and publicly available tools yo
u don't really care about spoofing.

It should be noted that the Feds have a leg up with CDMA because of its smaller
global footprint and the scarcity of developers working on it, as well as UMTS (
3G) and LTE.
But people are poking at LTE every day: http://www.rtl-sdr.com/analyzing-td-ltertl-sdr/
permalinkparent
[ ]HappyAtavism 36 points 11 hours ago
The reason the Feds spoof is so that they can target specific devices on a white
list and only have those connect. The size of the whitelist is unknown and up fo
r debate.
We do know they don't have warrants. How many violations of the 4th Amendment do
es it take before it's considered a bad thing?
permalinkparent
load more comments (19 replies)
[ ]A530[??] 6 points 6 hours ago
I have to ask an honest question. Knowing what you know, do you live in a Farada
y cage or just eschew cell phones all together? I'm in InfoSec (I'm guessing you
are too) and with the shit I know, maintaining OPSec is just a never ending bat
tle. I can't imagine my paranoia if I went down the cellular rabbit hole (althou
gh I do know a lot about the shit happening with the carrier baseband MDM garbag
e).
Many thanks for the very informative post.
permalinkparent
[ ]tornadoRadar 1 point 1 hour ago
Gotta keep it segmented. Personal never mixes with biz
permalinkparent
[ ]the_nap_mutilator 1 point 5 hours ago
Spoofing the cell site also gives them access to the phone at something akin to
the hardware level... so unless you have rooted and or installed software to sec
ure the device, they can push new software onto your phone without your knowledg
e/consent in the same way that your carrier updates subscriber units say when th
ey make changes to the network or something. At that point your phone has been p
ermanently compromised.
permalinkparent
load more comments (13 replies)
[ ]mag17435 29 points 10 hours ago
I dont understand how people think the government can do things citizens can. Or
dering our government not to do something has no bearing on what citizens can do
.
permalinkparent
[ ]Golden-Fox 7 points 6 hours ago
Well when police are trying to visually collect evidence they can in general onl
y search from public areas. If a cop is looking for a certain car and they see i
t on the street, that's fine. If the car is parked in a closed garage and on pri
vate property, the cop wouldn't be able to see it without going onto private pro
perty and looking in a window. If the car is in the same garage and the garage d
oor is open, then anyone can see it, and the cop can legally use that informatio
n.
The FBI is trying to apply that same logic to these stingrays. Stingrays are a t
echnology that is available to the public. You could make your own and do exactl
y what the FBI does. The data being collected isn't encrypted, password protecte
d, or anything else. Everything is publicly available. You just have to have a c
ertain machine to be able to read it. The garage door has to be open.
permalinkparent
[ ]Wordygit 6 points 6 hours ago
The key word here is "public" whereas where there is the expectation of privacy,
I would think think that would carry some special considerations. That seems to
be some of what the courts are deciding about, where the expectation of privacy
holds sway over searches. Its already been determined that law enforcement cann
ot force you to unlock your phone. One such Supreme Court case, decided this pas

t summer, led to a sweeping victory for privacy rights advocates. In a rare unan
imous decision, the court found that police cannot search cellphones, and by ext
ension tablets and other digital communication devices, without first obtaining
a warrant. Smartphones, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote, hold the privacies of l
ife, and the fact that technology now allows an individual to carry such informati
on in his hand does not make the information any less worthy of the protection f
or which the Founders fought. I think, as well, that it has been established that
if there is encryption being used, that constitutes an acknowledgement that ste
ps have been taken to protect and maintain the sense of privacy, and so the expe
ctation carries onto the information being transmitted. Not sure if there is a l
egal precedent for that though.
permalinkparent
[ ]Golden-Fox 2 points 5 hours ago
Its already been determined that law enforcement cannot force you to unlock your
phone.
This is what I've heard, but to me it implies that police can access your phone
if you don't have it locked. Carrying that logic over to this argument, the poli
ce would be able to access your cell info as long as it isn't encrypted. It seem
s that you only have a "reasonable expectation to privacy" with your cell phone
if you've taken any steps to make your phone more private. If there were some wa
y to get your carrier to encrypt your data, then there'd be no question, but the
way cell providers are these days, that's not gonna happen.
permalinkparent
[ ]ThreeTimesUp 1 point 1 hour ago
Something that I have heard repeatedly (and I may yet have it wrong), is that if
your front door is closed, but unlocked, the police are free to enter without a
warrant.
This has always bothered me.
I could understand the mind-set of someone (i.e. a Justice of the Supreme court)
thinking that way if they grew up (or lived) in an area where they lived a life
always fearful of intruders and locking doors was a practical necessity.
But to me, a closed door means "Keep out, knock for admittance - no entry withou
t permission."
So, for naive, trusting, me, I would not expect the police (or anyone) to examin
e my phone (without a warrant) just to see what they could find.
permalinkparent
[ ]pion3435 1 point 3 hours ago
A technologically illiterate moron's expectation of privacy doesn't become a rea
sonable expectation of privacy just because the majority of the population is te
chnologically illiterate.
permalinkparent
[ ]F0sh 1 point 2 hours ago
This is totally wrong thinking. A private citizen can look for your car through
the garage window without legal repercussions, even though a police officer migh
t not be allowed. The police officer has to conduct his searches according to th
e expectation of privacy and you have every expectation that your private phone
conversations are private - even if you're sending your texts at the shopping ce
ntre.
This is a bullshit equivocation on the part of the FBI, who are claiming that si
nce any old person at the shops can see that you're also at the shops you have n
o expectation of privacy at all.
This logic, if extended, would also mean the FBI could clone your hard drive if
you took your laptop to a public place - after all, you have no expectation of p
rivacy there. No. Bullshit - just because you're in the park doesn't mean all yo
ur possessions and emails became public.
This has nothing to do with what an ordinary citizen is able to do in public or
in private.
permalinkparent
[ ]ThreeTimesUp 1 point 2 hours ago*
Well when police are trying to visually collect evidence they can in general onl

y search from public areas. If a cop is looking for a certain car and they see i
t on the street, that's fine.
To counterpoint this:
Infra-red light (heat) is just light that's at a lower frequency than humans can
detect.
Courts have ruled that the police using specialized equipment to detect heat sig
natures (Infra-red light) emanating from from houses for the purpose of snooping
for grow operations are an invasion of privacy.
The signals Stingray is picking up are just another frequency, even lower than I
nfra-red light, originating from inside your phone, that is your property, which
is in your possession.
Authorities are using all manner of logical distortions in an express attempt to
get around the ideals and principles expressed in the Constitution.
What law-abiding citizen would attempt such a thing?
What authority that the public has placed their trust in, would make continual a
ttempts to subvert the Constitution?
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
load more comments (2 replies)
[ ]kromem 2 points 3 hours ago
It is already criminal to capture and decrypt GSM traffic for citizens (Wiretap
Act), same as capturing and parsing WiFi data.
But I think I can point out the issue with your logic with a simple analogy:
Citizens can buy guns.
Law enforcement can be provided guns.
Citizens can practice shooting guns.
Law enforcement should do the same.
Citizens can't shoot other citizens with guns except in really specific exemptio
ns.
According to your logic, just because citizens can buy guns, and could possibly
go around shooting other people with them, law enforcement should not have any l
egal restrictions on their use of guns.
It is illegal for you to capture and decrypt anyone else's traffic, and it shoul
d be illegal for cops to do the same without a warrant. It's not that hard to ge
t a warrant when actually justified, creates a paper trail that can be examined
for abuses, and has been the case without serious issue for years now.
For what purpose does the law need to be changed to allow this? Because warrants
are inconvenient? Well then why not get rid of them for entering homes too? It'
s quite trivial to pick a lock, and even easier to smash a window and climb in.
Any citizen could do it. So why do we need to restrict the police from the same?
permalinkparent
[ ]dfioabnionjio 4 points 9 hours ago
I don't see how restricting the government's ability to do this would have any o
ther effect than to criminalize a private citizen's desire to experiment with GS
M.
Why not have it be illegal for government and legal for private citizens? Make i
t perfectly legal for private citizens to experiment with GSM, but don't let the
FBI do the same, like you can have a private citizen share something a defendan
t said in court while the police cannot do the same unless the suspect had been
told of their rights.
Of course, the problem here is not using GSM. It's tracking people who did not k
nowingly join your network. You could have it be legal to experiment with GSM an
d not legal to spoof a network, or make it so tracking someone on your network i
s illegal unless the person being tracked is aware they will be tracked and cons
ents to it.
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]confusiondiffusion 3 points 10 hours ago
Yeah, I really don't see the point in making laws against this, since they'll be
broken anyway. We need to fix the underlying technology. There is no excuse for

the sad state of cellphone security.


permalinkparent
[ ]HappyAtavism 18 points 10 hours ago
I really don't see the point in making laws against this
Then let's just flush the Constitution down the toilet. All laws get broken, the
question is what gets done about it.
since they'll be broken anyway
It's not very hard to break into my house either, but they're not supposed to do
it without a warrant.
permalinkparent
load more comments (4 replies)
[ ]HighMonster 1 point 7 hours ago
Wow that's intriguing
permalinkparent
[ ]lll_1_lll 1 point 6 hours ago
You act like this is realistically doable for the large majority of people and y
ou know that's BS.
permalinkparent
[+][deleted] 6 hours ago (1 child)
[ ]JabroniZamboni 1 point 5 hours ago
Are you suggesting that radar jammers should be legal? As well as cell phone or
wifi jammers? What if your neighbor wants to experiment with a jammer for the ne
xt 4 months? 6 years? I assume you wouldn't be too happy. There's experimentatio
n and then there's purposeful disruption and spying.
permalinkparent
[ ]egodeath92 1 point 5 hours ago
Yeah except "anyone with device X" can't prosecute people. It doesn't matter whe
n corporations do mass data collection because they are just trying to make mone
y/sell people shit. The government can create a database of people's private liv
es then prosecute them. You could even imagine a time where data collection is s
o widespread that this kind of info is used for political purposes rather then b
usting drug dealers/ other criminals which is what it's used for now.
permalinkparent
[ ]Kuusou 1 point 4 hours ago
What the people can do, and what the government can do, are no the same things,
nor should they.
permalinkparent
[ ]qdarius 1 point 4 hours ago
If a random person overhears my conversation I don't care. Even if they tell the
ir friends I'm still not too concerned.
If the government records my conversation and uses it to investigate or prosecut
e me that's clearly a different situation.
Just because someone can do something doesn't mean it should be legal. It defini
tely doesn't mean we should be okay with our government using it on us.
permalinkparent
load more comments (9 replies)
[ ]Sir_not_sir 52 points 13 hours ago
The main purpose of the stinger is to circumvent the need and time of acquiring
a warrant and getting the data from all the service providers.
Regardless of data retention plans, they should require a separate judicial warr
ant for each individual suspect in order to be deployed.
permalink
[ ]manoninternets 8 points 7 hours ago*
The time required to get a warrant is usually far less than what they make it ou
t to be, although cost is as factor. Phone companies make tons of money off poli
ce records requests.
To play devil's advocate (and I do think the STINGRAY arrangement is devilish):
once you request records from the phone companies, there's no guarantee that won
't get leaked to the people being investigated. The cartels have people everywhe

re.
permalinkparent
[ ]kevincreeperpants 6 points 6 hours ago
What if they are the cartels!?...dun dun dun
permalinkparent
[ ]tughdffvdlfhegl 1 point 3 hours ago
I don't think anyone here has a problem with STINGRAY being used, given that the
y have a warrant for the person's data they're monitoring. So in your situation,
that's easy to do.
permalinkparent
[ ]manoninternets 2 points 3 hours ago
Yeah it's the same concept as going through my private letters, or close enough
to it anyhow. (Even though letters are physically sealed and radio waves permeat
e the air freely, my intention is for my text messages to be as private as posta
l mail.)
Even a child could rip open an envelope with ease. That doesn't mean police don'
t need a warrant to do so.
permalinkparent
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[ ]turnthatfrown 9 points 7 hours ago
I think the FBI is conveniently forgetting that they are intercepting a communic
ation that is normally secured via encryption and carried privately by your wire
less provider then switched privately all the way to the party on the other end
who has similar expectations of the connection.
I mean, come on, the Stingrays themselves are impersonating the carrier that you
have a contract with and using techniques to avoid the strong encryption. The p
rove by their own design and implementation that the FBI's argument is bullshit.
permalink
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]dontbullshityourself 27 points 11 hours ago
I'm so sick of the ways these callous assholes use to crush our freedom.
What is the point of massive expensive law enforcement agencies if the law can't
protect our rights and freedoms? Hasn't the cart been put before the horse here
?
permalink
[ ]donottakethisserious 13 points 6 hours ago
If you are told you are free enough times, you start to believe it. You start at
a young age with a pledge every day and then when you grow up you attend sporti
ng events and stand for the national anthem and tear up at how free you are. Tha
t way nobody will ever question whether or not this is actually a free country.
permalinkparent
[ ]dontbullshityourself 10 points 5 hours ago
When I was a kid I started to sit during the pledge. Honestly I think I just wan
ted to test and see how free I was. I knew that saying the pledge etc wasn't in
the school handbook. I knew there was no rule saying I had to say it or stand or
anything. The powers that be at my school just used the herd instinct to keep t
his shit going.
So I started sitting down. This resulted in a lot of attention from gangs of bul
lies. My home room teacher didn't like it either and lectured/bitched about it e
very day. But she stopped short of anything more than shaming me unlike the bull
ies.
Anyway I just decided to drop out. Fuck it. Humans don't like new things that co
nfuse them and challenge them to think. How interesting that was to be the last
thing I learned in school. I found another kind of freedom. The freedom to leave
the assholes mired in their stupidity and find my own path in life.
permalinkparent
[ ]joshyfitzo90 4 points 5 hours ago
I like your style.
permalinkparent

[ ]Jack41096 3 points 4 hours ago


I applaud you. I stood but that's all I did. it was in our rulebook to stand but
fuck them if they thought I was gonna do more than that. I started a wave of pe
ople standing and doing nothing.
eventually my first period class was reduced to two people and the teacher actua
lly doing anything. they bitches about it but we all had our own reasons.
permalinkparent
[ ]dontbullshityourself 2 points 3 hours ago
eventually my first period class was reduced to two people and the teacher actua
lly doing anything. they bitches about it but we all had our own reasons.
There are lots of reasons to resist and only one reason to obey. Fear.
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]CriticalThink 3 points 5 hours ago
Government hasn't been interested in protecting our rights and freedoms in a lon
g time.
permalinkparent
[ ]jkeyser14 5 points 7 hours ago
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety
, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. - Benjamin Franklin
permalinkparent
[ ]dontbullshityourself 5 points 6 hours ago
We didn't give it up. They are taking it.
permalinkparent
[ ]jkeyser14 10 points 6 hours ago
Only because we aren't rioting. The first group of rioters to tar and feather a
politician again will bring about change very quickly.
permalinkparent
[ ]dontbullshityourself 4 points 5 hours ago
People are gonna have to get a lot more desperate. I reckon we'll get our riot s
oon enough.
permalinkparent
[ ]Jack41096 1 point 4 hours ago
take the food. that's the surefire way to cause a riot.
people will be content as long as they're fed. you take that away and suddenly t
hey have nothing to lose. they have to survive. that is the most primal response
we have. to fight tooth and nail for food. to eat no matter the cost.
permalinkparent
[ ]RamsNation 1 point 4 hours ago
America has a very stable food supply so I doubt that will happen.
permalinkparent
[ ]dontbullshityourself 1 point 3 hours ago
I don't think we have to take the food. I think that people today are a lot more
self entitled and will jump into a fit without their iphones. They can't even i
magine a world without abundant food.
permalinkparent
[ ]grungebucket 1 point 4 hours ago
bring about change very quickly. street executions very quickly.
there. Corrected that for you. After all. You wouldn't want to be mistaken for a
terrorist endorsing a terrorist act now, would you?
permalinkparent
[ ]pion3435 2 points 3 hours ago
You never had it. You're just now finding out.
permalinkparent
[ ]hershmire 7 points 7 hours ago
Ok, I get the FBI's argument. Technically, we are all choosing to carry a digita
l device around with us that uniquely identifies us via radio frequency. It's tr
ue that we could very well decide not to partake in the use of cell phones if we
're so worried about being tracked. And thus because we decide to carry these pa

rtially secure devices around with us, they FBI has every right to hack them and
track us.
But this argument is bogus. The FBI can't read our mail or tap our phones becaus
e legislators and judges at one time recognized that technology becomes indispen
sable, and therefore should be protected under privacy laws. Just because I choo
se to carry a cell phone around with me doesn't give the FBI to track my whereab
outs, or worse. That'd be like saying it's my fault for having my mail read by t
he FBI because I chose to write letters, or I chose to have my phones monitored
and recorded by the FBI because I chose to use telephones.
The FBI is part of the executive branch. They (supposedly) operate within the sc
ope of the law. If there's no specific law preventing their actions, they'll go
ahead and do it. So write your representatives and get shit like this regulated.
And use letters because they're obligated to at least open the envelope.
permalink
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]drakecherry 5 points 8 hours ago
we might as well get rid of warrants all together. they are gonna search if they
want to, and nothing will happen if they are wrong.
permalink
[ ]MeganNancySmith 6 points 6 hours ago
The FBI doesn't have the legal authority to make that determination.
It would be like if I said that murder is legal every other Sunday. I can say it
all I like, but it doesn't make it true.
permalink
[ ]Todda468 6 points 6 hours ago
Anything a private citizen can't do should require reasonable suspicion or a war
rent.
permalink
[ ]Sonotmethen 6 points 9 hours ago
Then signal jammers aren't either.
permalink
[ ]MrJDouble 4 points 9 hours ago
FBI tends to say a lot of things, doesn't mean it isn't a pile of horseshit.
permalink
[ ]blueiron0 4 points 6 hours ago
(3) cases in which the technology is used in public places or other locations at
which the FBI deems there is no reasonable expectation of privacy.
Love how the FBI gets to decide when it's ok for them to assume you shouldnt hav
e any expectation on privacy. "we saw a poop porn video on pornhub. you shouldnt
expect privacy when pooping then."
permalink
[ ]ragn4rok234 4 points 6 hours ago
Whoo! Now I don't need a warrant or sufficient reason to wire tap anyone and eve
ryone. Stalkers of the world rejoice! It's like Oprah is handing out privacy bre
aches in here
permalink
[ ]fourslaps 4 points 4 hours ago
This isn't what Steve Irwin would have wanted
permalink
[ ]knowyourbrain 7 points 8 hours ago
How sad is it that we have an R Senator trying to rein in a D president's FBI?
If Snowden et al have not been able to show the American people what a farce our
government is then I don't know how it can be demonstrated.
permalink
[ ]makingupdumbnames 1 point 5 hours ago
that's Chelsea to you, mister!
permalinkparent
[ ]StellarUsername 4 points 9 hours ago
Can someone ELI5 why my cell carrier lets this happen? Seems like it would be ea
sy enough for them to put a stop to it if they wanted.

permalink
[ ]giantgnat 13 points 8 hours ago
Because if you don't play nice with them, they don't play nice with you like wha
t happened to the CEO of quest after he refused to cooperate.
permalinkparent
[ ]lll_1_lll 6 points 6 hours ago
CEO of quest
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/09/30/a-ceo-who-resistednsa-spying-is-out-of-prison-and-he-feels-vindicated-by-snowden-leaks/
permalinkparent
[ ]WatchoutItsAllan 1 point 4 hours ago
Looks like the only way to be out of the eyes of the NSA is to go back to using
these http://imgur.com/JEFUt4h
permalinkparent
[ ]jkeyser14 4 points 7 hours ago
The cell and internet companies get paid millions by the government for direct a
ccess to their lines. This was one of the things Snowden blew the whistle on.
permalinkparent
[ ]MadPooter 2 points 7 hours ago
I believe that the technology behind our current cell phone towers needs to allo
w for widespread access to said cell phone towers from a wide array of technolog
ical devices.
The Stingray makes the cell phone tower believe that it's a cell phone--I don't
know that it's as easy as you might think to re-design all cell phone models to
differentiate themselves from what Stingrays currently are.
TL;DR: This might be a better issue for cell phone designers to solve rather the
n cell phone carriers.
permalinkparent
[ ]egalroc 2 points 6 hours ago
Maybe design a Falcon drone that homes in and locks on fake Stingray towers. Wou
ldn't the FBI just shit to see a couple sparrows zooming down on them?
permalinkparent
[ ]A530[??] 1 point 6 hours ago
Cell carriers couldn't care less. They're also packaging backdoors in their base
band software to do all kinds of functional crap, like over the air updates and
remote access.
permalinkparent
[ ]here4DaBacon 3 points 7 hours ago
So it's a honey pot for cell phones. This same method is used to intercept WiFi
internet traffic. The world is becoming a hackers paradise.
permalink
[ ]CapAnson 4 points 6 hours ago
I don't even think of the FBI's exceptions two and three are valid. And as for i
mminent danger to public safety I can't imagine when that safety hinges on inter
cepting a cell call right now this very second without a warrant
permalink
[ ]SquidwardSnowden1 3 points 6 hours ago
Let it be noted, I love big brother.
permalink
[ ]ryanknapper 3 points 6 hours ago
There was a comment asking what prevents private citizens from doing this. My re
ply was: Absolutely nothing. In fact, there are legal ways of doing exactly this
.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xKihq1fClQg
permalink
[ ]lll_1_lll 2 points 6 hours ago
inb4 this thread gets removed by the mods and/or shadowbanned
permalink
[ ]doctorshady[S] 3 points 6 hours ago
I was almost sure it was going to be removed when I submitted it.

permalinkparent
[ ]grtwatkins 1 point 3 hours ago
Wait, so mods = FBI?
permalinkparent
[ ]doctorshady[S] 2 points 2 hours ago
The mods here are quite restrictive about what is allowed to be submitted. Wheth
er or not they're under someone's influence is a question I can't answer (though
I'd honestly like to know), but you'll occasionally see high profile topics rem
oved, like the Snowden leaks back when PRISM was first pointed out.
permalinkparent
[ ]tomcat23 3 points 6 hours ago
If I had a hundred dollars for every time the FBI said it could do something une
thical or unconstitutional I'd be shooting rockets into space like Elon Musk rig
ht now.
permalink
[ ]leafygreenstuff 3 points 6 hours ago
Oh, well if they said....
permalink
[ ]wlxr 3 points 5 hours ago
Is this implying that they are going to repeatedly kill Steve Irwin?
permalink
[ ]Bulldog65 3 points 2 hours ago
Can I Use my Stingray in public places to intercept communications ?
If the answer is no, then the FBI needs a warrant.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effec
ts, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Wa
rrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, a
nd particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things t
o be seized.
This can only be changed by super majority votes in Congress and the States, not
treasonous opinions of mouthpiece lawyers in Department of Justice. This is why
prosecutions of torture memo writers is important. If they want to try and make
up laws they need to be held accountable under the law.
permalink
[ ]Do_Em_Till_They_Derp 13 points 12 hours ago
I don't think that is a good idea considering what happened to Steve Irwin.
permalink
[ ]Smgth 1 point 4 hours ago
I can't believe how far down I had to scroll to find this joke. I was worried I'
d have to make it myself. This thread is WAY too serious for my taste...
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]go1dfish 10 points 10 hours ago
This is what happens when you give a group of people authority over all else.
They use that authority to extort funds from you to pay for your own oppression.
But reddit still cheers it on. It seems to some; the concepts of roads or compas
sion cannot exist without specially anointed jack boot thugs.
permalink
[ ]Arael15th 3 points 6 hours ago
Do you see anyone in this post cheering this on? Moreover is this your first tim
e here?
permalinkparent
[ ]Flight_MH370 2 points 9 hours ago
Can the cell providers see every time this happens? If so, they could alert peop
le of fake towers or something. Alas, I'm pretty sure all the cell providers are
in bed with the feds already anyway.
permalink
[ ]leftnotracks 1 point 8 hours ago
This is why it s a good thing the FBI are not the people in charge of what is lega
l.

permalink
[ ]iluvmilfs420 3 points 7 hours ago
Ohh cool more of my taxes wasted on stupid shit...
permalink
[ ]fuzzycuffs 3 points 7 hours ago
Then I can do the same thing with wifi and not be charged with hacking, right?
permalink
[ ]endprism 2 points 7 hours ago
Use of Stringray in America: https://www.aclu.org/maps/stingray-tracking-devices
-whos-got-them
http://rt.com/usa/215735-sandiego-police-phone-tracking/
http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/First-Amendment-Coalition-Files-Lawsuit-Ab
out-Stingray-Surveillance--286092741.html
http://www.miaminewtimes.com/2012-02-16/news/cell-phone-tracking-miami-cops-know
-where-you-are/
http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/Fort-Worth-Cellphone-Tracking-Rings-Controversy
-140796693.html
http://www.wgrz.com/story/news/investigations/2014/02/13/are-local-police-spying
-on-your-cell-phone/5462273/
Tick tock...
permalink
[ ]johnnybiggs15 2 points 7 hours ago
didnt know they had that type of power
permalink
[ ]jwyche008 2 points 6 hours ago
They would fucking say that wouldn't they? The thing is it isn't supposed to be
their damn decision to make!
permalink
[ ]ICEClownfishWok 1 point 6 hours ago
Did the US government learn nothing from Nazi Germany? I honestly won't be surpr
ised if WWIII occurs when the rest of the world gets tired of our governments bu
llshit
permalink
[ ]frankenstilskin 3 points 6 hours ago
America, for the corporations by the corporations
permalink
[ ]Elephant_rhino_tiger 3 points 5 hours ago
It sounds like a 6 year old coming up with a superhero. "This is FBI man, and he
can fly and like punch through the earth, and he can y'know like intercept cell
traffic if he thinks it's important. But he is weak against himself though, so
like if he punched himself he would die."
permalink
[ ]Banana_blanket 2 points 4 hours ago
Hey who wants to just sit around and let it happen? Oh, everyone? Perfect. Ready
? Go.
permalink
[ ]poopinbutt2014 3 points 4 hours ago
Ah yes, the cops deciding what laws they are and aren't subject to.
permalink
[ ]burnerthrown 2 points 2 hours ago
Has anyone else notied a pattern of more and more laws that protect enforcement
operations from civilians, and fewer nd fewer laws protecting civilians from enf
orcement?
permalink
[ ]siquisiudices 2 points 2 hours ago
Increasingly I am astonished by the state of democracy in the developed western
countries. What has happened and how? I realise that there have always been infr
ingements of liberties by the state - always. But it seems to me that what has c
hanged is the blatent nature of the compromise of democratic norms. I'm not a hi
storian but my impression is that the origins of our current situation lie in tw

o iconic regimes in the UK and US - Reagan and Thatcher (and those that followed
) - and in the fall of the soviet regimes.
The economic philosophy that Reagan and Thatcher promoted reduced liberty to pro
perty rights while at the same time it condemned (rightly) the soviet regimes fo
r their lack of respect for democratic norms. The appeal of this economic ideolo
gy to capital, to the corporations, was obvious especially as during the 1970s t
here had been intermittent but recurring periods when profitability had fallen.
In the context of declining profitability, a roll back of the state and public e
xpenditure was a quick win.
For the rest of society, the implication that growth in personal, individual wea
lth was being held back by public spending and that the welfare state eroded ind
ividual responsibility also won the day. A key element in this process was the d
efeat and denigration of trade unionism: Thatcher going so far as to suggest tha
t trade unions (in the person of the National Union of Miners) were dangerous tr
aitors. People bought into the arguments for radical individualism ("there is no
such thing as society") because, in part, the concrete experience of collectivi
sm in trade unions declined in the face a massive anti-trade union assault.
The fall of the corrupt and totalitarian soviet regimes underpinned this all by
giving concrete expression to the notion that there is no alternative.
Economically the result has been massive widening of the discrepancy in wealth i
n many western countries and increased immiseration of labour across the world a
nd no force to counterbalance the power of the corporations and the state that t
hey (quite naturally) control. The state is the central committee of capital.
In all of this, the oft misnamed "libertarian" tendencies were accompanied by an
increasingly authoritarian and intrusive state apparatus which was promoted and
defended around quite classical nationalist ideas but recast often as the defen
se of western democracy against various external enemies.
And so, little by little, we have allowed our civil liberties to be chipped away
. Even the radical libertarians have been sidelined and fooled into irrelevant s
truggles around gun control in the US. Really, if an armed citizenry were the gu
arantee of liberty then one wold have hoped it would have done a better job. But
overall anti-welfare, anti-European and anti-immigrant rhetoric in the UK and,
for example, religious manipulation of public discourse in the US have allowed t
he authoritarian, pro-corporate state to gradually encroach on political and per
sonal freedoms. And here we are.
We can't say we didn't know - we were warned but the ruling class managed to def
ame the messengers and in other ways render us impotent.
One can only hope that we wake up in time and that our new disdain for collectiv
ism is overcome by the necessity of taking collective action.
permalink
[ ]DinglebellRock [score hidden] 49 minutes ago
You have a right to privacy according to the Constitution. Except for maybe your
cell phone calls. Or email. Or handwritten or typed letters. Or what you read f
rom the library and Amazon. Or maybe your colon and lower intestine if you are i
n New Mexico. What a fucked up nation this has become...
permalink
[ ]nstalker91 [score hidden] 38 minutes ago
Oh sure, when they do it, it's "protecting" and "morally right", but when I do i
t, it's a "federal crime" and "the FCC watches me"
permalink
[ ]The_Media_Collector 3 points 9 hours ago
This is why my phone has an app to continually report IMSI changes to me. I swit
ch one tower to another, I get a warning.
permalink
[ ]Redd575 1 point 7 hours ago
How is that helpful? Not being an ass, just curious. Seems if a Stingray can spo
of a tower then the app does little unless you are standing absolutely still.
permalinkparent
[ ]The_Media_Collector 3 points 7 hours ago
it's my understanding that Stingray "towers" do not encrypt traffic. anytime I a

m connected to an unencrypted "tower" the IMSI detector goes red and lets me kno
w.
permalinkparent
[ ]Redd575 1 point 6 hours ago
Wow. Whomever figured that out was clever.
permalinkparent
[ ]ExReverie93 1 point 7 hours ago
Which app? And would a normal person (not meaning you're not normal. You know wh
at I mean.) be able to use it?
permalinkparent
[ ]The_Media_Collector 1 point 7 hours ago
Requires Root. It's just caeld "Adnroid IMSI-Catchter"
permalinkparent
[ ]egalroc 1 point 6 hours ago
Makes a person want to be a criminal or spy just for the fun of it.
permalinkparent
[ ]Effo 3 points 7 hours ago
Goodbye America the Great, hello police state. :-[
permalink
[ ]Casemods 2 points 7 hours ago
Another reason why I don't have a cell phone.
permalink
[ ]GiveMe_TreeFiddy 3 points 7 hours ago
Things libertarians have been screaming about and offering solutions to for 500$
, Alex...
permalink
[ ]ilovesellinblow 1 point 9 hours ago
police and marshals have been running these for years.
permalink
[ ]bbelt16ag 1 point 8 hours ago
so FBI lets see what the Supreme court has to say to that. I am sure once they r
ule on this you will be going home with your tails between your legs.
permalink
[ ]Banana_blanket 1 point 4 hours ago
Do you people really have that much faith in our Supreme Court? Really?
permalinkparent
[ ]bbelt16ag 1 point 3 hours ago
gotta have some faith, other wise its just anarchy, or revolution. I am not read
y to give up quite yet.
permalinkparent
[ ]bonyponyride 1 point 8 hours ago
If digital communication in a public (and private) space is fair game, there's n
othing to stop an FBI tech specialist from stealing things like knowledge that w
ould be considered insider trading. There's an extreme potential for abuse.
permalink
[ ]jkeyser14 2 points 7 hours ago
If was fair game then hacking into wireless signals by private citizens wouldn't
be illegal.
permalinkparent
[ ]egalroc 1 point 6 hours ago
Just waiting for Anonymous to set up shop in a public park and hack into police
communications then dispatch them to bogus locations throughout the city. If any
thing goes wrong, they could always blame North Korea.
permalinkparent
[ ]coalbeeashi 1 point 3 hours ago
Aren't government agencies encrypting their digital communication - thus exhibit
ing an expectation of privacy?
I'm not sure what steps the "reasonable person" is taking to exhibit an expectat
ion of privacy over their data, tbh.
permalinkparent

[ ]hmmwhatsthisdo 1 point 8 hours ago


If you used RedPhone, Whisperpush/TextSecure, and a VPN, this wouldn't be of con
cern to you, right?
permalink
[ ]LucifersCounselNZ 1 point 7 hours ago
Wrong.
In other cases, the IMSI or equivalent identifier of a target is not known to th
e StingRay operator and the goal of the surveillance operation is to identify on
e or more cellular devices being used in a known area.[16] For example, if visua
l surveillance is being conducted on a group of protestors,[17] a StingRay can b
e used to download the IMSI or equivalent identifier from each phone within the
protest area. After identifying the phones, locating and tracking operations can
be conducted, and service providers can be forced to turn over account informat
ion identifying the phone users.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stingray_phone_tracker#Extracting_Data_From_Interna
l_Storage
Before any of that shit you're talking about comes into play, the IMSI number is
used when establishing the connection. It is uniquely identifying. With your IM
SI number and a court order (or cooperative telco) they will know who you are an
d who you were communicating with.
Then they can use that information to punish you for participating in legal prot
ests, associating with the wrong people, or simply because some Fed didn't like
the look of you.
permalinkparent
[ ]hmmwhatsthisdo 1 point 6 hours ago
So, the only way is to modify your IMEI (which is questionably legal) and use a
prepaid SIM?
permalinkparent
[ ]facepalmdude 1 point 5 hours ago
The IMSI part makes sense, but by using the mentioned tools authorities are very
unlikely to find out who you communicated with, or what the content was. All th
ey know is that you're the end point of an encrypted data connection.
permalinkparent
[ ]coalbeeashi 1 point 3 hours ago
I would assume that a court would view this as an individual exhibiting an expec
tation of privacy over their data.
permalinkparent
[ ]mambotangohandala 1 point 7 hours ago
Law?
We don't need no stinkin' law...
permalink
[ ]smilesbot 1 point 7 hours ago
You've just used a double negative! :P
permalinkparent
[ ]mambotangohandala 1 point 7 hours ago
no i did not, never would i do such a thing, nope, i don't think i ever did...
Ever see the movie 'blazing saddles'? Context kid, context
permalinkparent
[ ]smilesbot 1 point 7 hours ago
yup yup yup!
permalinkparent
[ ]mambotangohandala 1 point 7 hours ago
oh no a triple positive,what a stupendous faux pas!
permalinkparent
[ ]smilesbot 1 point 7 hours ago
yup yup yup!
permalinkparent
[ ]mambotangohandala 1 point 7 hours ago
Did mom give you too many sodas tonight?
permalinkparent

[ ]mambotangohandala 1 point 7 hours ago


Now where are those kiddy downers?
permalinkparent
[ ]mambotangohandala 1 point 7 hours ago
Remember tomorrow is a school day
permalinkparent
[ ]BigTex8900 1 point 7 hours ago
The Federal Bureau of Investigation is taking the position that court warrants a
re not required when deploying cell-site simulators in public places.
Wait so can I take the position that it's not actually illegal to suck dick for
money in public places?
permalink
[ ]AssOrca 1 point 6 hours ago
Well thank god there not doing it in my home!
permalinkparent
[ ]Drunken_Economist 1 point 7 hours ago
The FCC says they are needed, FWIW
permalink
[ ]FadingEchoes11 0 points 6 hours ago
100% true, power to the people
You should learn about and try to understand firearms more, they are just tools
after all.
permalink
[ ]winstrol 1 point 6 hours ago
Can i use a stingray? Al stick to my snoopsnitch.
permalink
[ ]fatscat84 2 points 6 hours ago
Big fucking surprise, 4th amendment=toilet paper anymore. The rights of the citi
zens arent even considered anymore since we dont have lobbyists. Maybe ill start
a kickstarter campaign to make a lobbyist group to give americans a voice in d.
c.
permalink
[ ]urbn 2 points 6 hours ago
The Obama Administration has repeatedly maintained that the public has no privac
y in public places.
And yet the excuse always used when someone records a police officer breaking th
e law and is arrested, detained and has his property stolen is that it violates
their privacy.
permalink
[ ]Vigilias 1 point 6 hours ago
If it's stealing signals being send from private residences it sure should fucki
ng be wtf.
permalink
[ ]2013palmtreepam 1 point 6 hours ago
Because stingrays automatically stop working at private property lines? Don't re
call the part of the 4th Amendment that exempts the requirement for probable cau
se and a search warrant when one happens to be in a public place.
permalink
[ ]makingupdumbnames 2 points 6 hours ago
I don't think it would be too hard to develop a stingray jammer, something that
just floods their equipment with a bunch of useless/fake cell phone numbers...I'
m in favor of a more strategic response to these types of infringements of our r
ights. We actually have a right and responsibility to fight tyranny...
permalink
[ ]ghotiaroma 1 point 3 hours ago
It's possible, but you wouldn't know where and when to use it. And it would be d
etectable you are using a jammer and anyone using one would find themselves fill
ed with SWAT bullets in no time.
permalinkparent
[ ]ononewheel 1 point 2 hours ago

Cant you rent bot net time and do this?


permalinkparent
[ ]psilontech 1 point 5 hours ago
I think that's for the courts to decide, FBI.
permalink
[ ]coalbeeashi 1 point 4 hours ago
...the only way the courts could decide is if it were practiced and a lawsuit wa
s brought against those practices.
Of course the FBI is going to finagle ways to flirt with obscure, outdated laws
for the purpose of investigating, thus practice it. Of course some group or orga
nization is going to take issue with it, thus taking it to court.
permalinkparent
[ ]cynoclast 2 points 5 hours ago
And the 4th Amendment says the FBI is wrong. And to the idea that subsequent law
s or that prededence says otherwise, I say that lawyers who make those interpret
ations were paid to do so by people with a vested interest in saying otherwise.
The constitution and amendments were intended to be read and interpreted by ever
yone, not just lawyers and judges so it matters not at all what lawyers and judg
es say.
permalink
[ ]coalbeeashi 1 point 5 hours ago
The constitution and amendments were intended to be read and interpreted by ever
yone
Uhh...interpreted by everyone? Do you know how fucked up that would be? There's
a reason for the judicial branch.
permalinkparent
[ ]cynoclast 2 points 4 hours ago
More fucked up than corporations as people? The 4th Amendment being ignored by t
he DHS, Homeland Security, and the NSA? More fucked up than than all the ridicul
ous, unconstitutional restrictions on cosmetic features of firearms that all vio
late the 2nd amendment? More fucked up than justices appointed by war criminals
refusing to recuse themselves where they have a clear conflict of interest?
The judicial branch is staffed by people, just as fallible as the rest of us. Th
e judicial branch was nly ever an attempt to reign in the other two. It was alwa
ys intended that it was the right of the people to alter or abolish the governme
nt if it gets out of hand and it has.
permalinkparent
[ ]coalbeeashi 1 point 4 hours ago
I would still rather have the fate of laws be in the hands of individuals who sp
ecifically studied the very nature of their professional practice than leave it
up to a mass of people with little-to-no understanding of the law, outside of wh
at is force-fed to them by media (comparable to your assertion of less-than-idea
l practices by lawyer/judges)
I fully agree that laws should be written in ways that the public can understand
and interpret (however, you're never going to reach a consensus on laws written
200+ years ago). And I believe that, reading most supreme court decisions, the
justices advocate for specifics in laws and understand that outdated or vague la
ws is a main reason cases are brought before them. Laws aren't concrete or stati
c. It's a court of public opinion.
permalinkparent
[ ]cynoclast 1 point 4 hours ago
I would still rather have the fate of laws be in the hands of individuals who sp
ecifically studied the very nature of their professional practice than leave it
up to a mass of people with little-to-no understanding of the law, outside of wh
at is force-fed to them by media (comparable to your assertion of less-than-idea
l practices by lawyer/judges)
I think there's balance between the two. It's similar to the balance between IT
and the user. While the IT guy is more knowledgeable about the field than most o
f the users he's supposed to facilitate, he often forgets that his purpose is to
facilitate, not to rule, and what the users are doing is what keeps the lights

on. People in congress and the senate are mislabelled when called 'lawmakers' th
eir job is representative of their constituency. And lawyers face a conflict of
interest between simplifying the law and representing people fairly and seeing a
fter their own welfare and ensuring their own job security. Simple, clear, and u
nambiguous laws have little value to the professional attorney at law. But the p
eople at large have no interest, and in fact a reason to despise laws they don't
understand, especially ones decided by decades old case law they know nothing a
bout. But for too long the balance has been swinging in favor of the lawyer seek
ing payment for services from the rich instead of the poor seeking freedom from
those with the resources to hire teams of lawyers for years to drain them of res
ources. The day a rich man could sue an innocent poor man under false pretenses
and crush him is the day the justice department ceased to function as intended.
I fully agree that laws should be written in ways that the public can understand
and interpret (however, you're never going to reach a consensus on laws written
200+ years ago). And I believe that, reading most supreme court decisions, the
justices advocate for specifics in laws and understand that outdated or vague la
ws is a main reason cases are brought before them. Laws aren't concrete or stati
c. It's a court of public opinion.
Lawyers like to pretend that they are concrete or static. Just imagine the phras
e "settled case law" coming out of their mouths and you need go no further. It's
like they forget that eventually given the dynamic equilibrium of the poor vs.
the rich that sometimes words written on paper in a dusty library somewhere mean
absolutely nothing when the pitchforks and guillotines come out, the old laws t
hrown out, and new ones written even more strongly against tyrants. You're right
, sometimes, it's a court of public opinion. But sometimes the court is brutal,
but not unjustly so:
There were two Reigns of Terror, if we would but remember it and consider it; the
one wrought murder in hot passion, the other in heartless cold blood; the one la
sted mere months, the other had lasted a thousand years; the one inflicted death
upon ten thousand persons, the other upon a hundred millions; but our shudders
are all for the horrors of the minor Terror, the momentary Terror, so to speak; wh
ereas, what is the horror of swift death by the axe, compared with lifelong deat
h from hunger, cold, insult, cruelty, and heart-break? What is swift death by li
ghtning compared with death by slow fire at the stake? A city cemetery could con
tain the coffins filled by that brief Terror which we have all been so diligentl
y taught to shiver at and mourn over; but all France could hardly contain the co
ffins filled by that older and real Terror that unspeakably bitter and awful Terro
r which none of us has been taught to see in its vastness or pity as it deserves
.
permalinkparent
[ ]DongleNocker 2 points 5 hours ago
Don't you wish government organizations would get permission from congress prior
to assuming they have the authority?
permalink
[ ]Euracil 1 point 5 hours ago
Whoops! Someone just happened to spill wine all over the Bill of Rights! Well, a
t least the Second Amendment survived!
permalink
[ ]ripvannwinkler 1 point 5 hours ago
What is the practical operational radius of one of these things?
If my place of business or residence falls in this radius of an operating device
, is my phone subject to interception by the device?
If so, you require a warrant. Period. No equivocation.
permalink
[ ]bittopia 1 point 5 hours ago
What is going to be interesting is when systems and encryptions becomes so resil
ient and powerful that nothing can be spied on AT ALL. What will they do then?
permalink
[ ]johnnybullet 1 point 5 hours ago
I thought only God was listening to me... This changes everything!

permalink
[ ]TronicTonic 2 points 5 hours ago
Thank god the FBI is in charge of the judicial branch and gets to decide what is
right vs wrong.
permalink
[ ]Vinven 1 point 5 hours ago
They can say whatever they want, it doesn't make it legal.
permalink
[ ]coffeethulhu 2 points 5 hours ago
Under this theory anybody could buy one of these devices and use it in "public s
paces" without fear of falling foul of the law....Who wants to start a kickstart
er campaign to buy one?
permalink
[ ]redditezmode 1 point 5 hours ago
Based on what, exactly? Why would they think search warrants aren't necessary?
permalink
[ ]Fucksfuturefatchicks 1 point 4 hours ago
If it stops me from downloading porn, it's a dead giveaway. If it doesn't, thank
s for the government funded and sanctioned porn.
permalink
[ ]egalroc 1 point 4 hours ago
I wonder if the FBI can upload unsanctioned porn to your computer using a stingr
ay? Interesting thought isn't it?
permalinkparent
[ ]winsomecowboy 1 point 4 hours ago
So my clandestine FBI staff list shouldn't be an issue.
permalink
[ ]Heisenpurrrrg 1 point 4 hours ago
Those guys can fuck right off, eh?
permalink
[ ]cerealcable 1 point 4 hours ago
Every time an invasion of our rights & privacy especially related to our establi
shed forms of communications happens it just terrifies me. Not because our gover
nment is throwing wind to established laws but because of what the future could
bring.
The reason why most of us are upset today over this is because we have an expect
ation of privacy when we pick up our cell phones. We expect our text messages, p
hone calls and data to be private thus protected by law requiring a warrant to "
tap" it only for Law Enforcement. Telecoms (wired, wireless, voip) will only com
ply to requests when required by law, but when it comes to the public air waves
using technology to just listen in we're starting a terrible precedent.
Essentially what I'm concerned about is that eventually it'll be so commonly acc
epted that these communications are not private (after all the government can sn
oop in on those conversations, and everyone already expects it) and thus we no l
onger have the expectation of privacy and thus no warrant is actually acquired.
The terrifying process is how it all started, with the government over stepping
their legal abilities with little to no repercussions.
Now that I'm reading that paragraph again, I honestly wouldn't be surprised if t
hat exact argument is/was/will be used in a secret court of which none of us wil
l be able to hold accountable.
It's scary to see what the future will hold for privacy related to technology. O
ur government is doing anything and everything they want and if people aren't sc
ared they need to get some tinfoil and make some hats because they're going to n
eed them.
Obligatory point: As the government snoops more and more, technology will just e
ncrypt more and more making it nearly pointless for the snooping, but it won't c
hange the expectation of privacy after say a decade of common knowledge that the
se communications are not private. Then Law Enforcement Agencies will just subpo
ena records instead of following due process of getting a warrant.
tl;dr It's a very slippery slope and I'm just watching us slowly sliding further

and further into the trap. :-(


permalink
[ ]coalbeeashi 1 point 4 hours ago
Honest question - in the eyes of laws, is our view on "expectation of privacy" i
gnorant or misguided? When I send a text - even though I don't think about it I gave permission to Apple, AT&T, my friend, their carrier, their phone, and pro
bably countless others that I don't even realize. When I download an app I give
them all sorts of permissions to access my information.
Also, what's stopping the government from creating an app, let's say some crazed
game like Trivia Crack, hide a bunch of permissions that no one looks at and do
it that way. They could have access to my photos, access to my microphone, acce
ss to my location, etc. (obviously I understand that you can retract most of tho
se permissions, but I doubt many people do)
So, I guess my question is, using multiple third parties, do I really have the r
ight to expect complete privacy?
permalinkparent
[ ]Rockerofboats 2 points 4 hours ago
I do what I wants to.
permalink
[ ]Gymshortsboner55 2 points 4 hours ago
I'm not trying to sound like the uncle that's always bitchin' at family reunions
but man is this country going down the shitter. I'm almost ashamed to live here
anymore.
permalink
[ ]kazuri85 2 points 4 hours ago
The government has no right to make your property do something you do not want i
t to do.
permalink
[ ]SpacemanLurker 2 points 3 hours ago
Crikey! Australian accent
Too soon?
permalink
[ ]Undisclosed-dopeness 1 point 3 hours ago
Really wish this was about actual stingrays
permalink
[ ]k-h 1 point 3 hours ago
Is that the "stingrays" that don't exist?
Of course they don't need a warrant on equipment that doesn't exist.
permalink
[ ]PhorTwenny 2 points 3 hours ago
if it picks up all cells text/call/info how do they know your not inside a house
or anyother private area? Either way this is disgusting!
permalink
[ ]MarxIzalias 2 points 3 hours ago
The more of these that get posted, the harder I laugh at America's freedoms.
You pretty much have the same as everybody else.
It seems as though the constitution is like bog roll to your law enforcement. Co
vered in meaningless shit that doesn't even stick to them.
What a joke.
The FBI stating that 'stingrays' don't apply to privacy laws because you're in a
public place makes no sense, otherwise you could walk around butt naked and arg
ue that "According to the FBI, personal privacy is not required in public".
Of course, they could say, what any deceitful peice of trash could say. "If you
weren't doing anything illegal then you have nothing to worry about."
Unless you were talking to you solicitor about a patent. In which case it would
be worthless the moment a third party heard about the invention.
Talking to your doctor about a condition that could prejudice a group against yo
u.
Talking to a solicitor about the details of a case.
Talking to fellow jurors over the phone about a details of a case, that's always

good to be spied on.


Talk about family history and possible ties you might have to foreign nations, w
hich could put you on a watch list.
Give personal details to bankers about foreign business accounts which have diff
erent protection laws.
Discuss plans you may have that they could interfere with.
Or just miscellaneous emails to and from your employer that could be damaging to
the companies reputation if published and could be used against them as leverag
e with a false flag operation LOOKING AT YOU SONY!
This isn't even a comprehensive list of things that you could do, but hey, it's
America, the land where freedom is a lie and the constitution is apparently wort
h less and less with each new government. XFD
permalink
[ ]NightOfTheLivingHam 1 point 3 hours ago
while we're declaring bullshit, I declare I'm owed a million dollars.
permalink
[ ]ZedOud 1 point 3 hours ago
Most warrant-less law enforcement surveillance techniques are legal because they
can be performed by members of the public, in public. (ex. tailing)
So can we also legally operate a stingray?
Yes we can!
permalink
[ ]Wulfgar_RIP 1 point 3 hours ago
FBI protecting freedoms and constitution from terrorists
permalink
[ ]CantHugEveryCat 2 points 3 hours ago
I'm surprised the FBI still feel they have to justify their actions.
permalink
[ ]bazingabrain 0 points 3 hours ago
Here I am thinking the FBI is going to be throwing real stingrays around without
a search warrant. Can't have that
permalink
[ ]tobsn 1 point 3 hours ago
and whoever said that should be immediately terminated.
permalink
[ ]joshladd 1 point 3 hours ago
Didn't the supreme court just say that searching cell phones requires a warrant?
Is this different than searching cell phones? I might be uninformed but it seem
s like a blatant disregard for court rulings.
permalink
[ ]birdington1 1 point 3 hours ago
Can anybody explain what a 'stingray' is?
permalink
[ ]one_love_silvia 1 point 2 hours ago
the article explains it in literally the first paragraph.
permalinkparent
[ ]IllegalOperator 0 points 2 hours ago
Yeah right, dropping the case rather than reveal their methods says otherwise. I
f there weren't doing anything wrong they would have nothing to hide.
permalink
[ ]HauntedBeepers 1 point 2 hours ago
FBI says FBI can do what it wants
permalink
[ ]Fig1024 1 point 2 hours ago
does that mean I, as private citizen, can also use them? After all, there are no
laws against it
permalink
[ ]Monkeibusiness 1 point 2 hours ago
"FBI - out if control since 2001" -Simpsons
permalink

[ ]skztr 1 point 2 hours ago


good test for whether or not you need a warrant:
If any random person off the street did it, would that be legal? If not, you nee
d a fucking warrant.
permalink
[ ]Rusky82 1 point 2 hours ago
Land of the free eh......
permalink
[ ]WECGEWHYAAIORTNU 1 point 2 hours ago
So in some states its "wiretapping" to record with a microphone a conversation b
etween two people happening at a table, but pretending to be a cell tower is a-o
k?
permalink
[ ]Amanoo 1 point 2 hours ago
"concerned about whether the FBI and other law enforcement agencies have adequat
ely considered the privacy interests" of Americans
Privacy interests of Americans? Is that supposed to still be a thing? I thought
that privacy interests were considered something for terrorists in the US, by no
w.
permalink
[ ]raviddadford 1 point 2 hours ago
Stingray got Steve Irwin
permalink
[ ]Homarus_Americanus 1 point 2 hours ago
It's all good 'cause I can by me all guns I want.
permalink
[ ]anshu1234 0 points 2 hours ago
This is non-news if you are not a drug-peddler. Next please.
permalink
[ ]bubbafat1155 1 point 2 hours ago
It's over. "They" have won. The only hope now is for individuals, society is los
t. Get off the grid, or join the sheep. http://imgur.com/W7CdURh
permalink
[ ]Targun 1 point 2 hours ago
And how are they going to filter out cellphones of all the people who live next
to public places where stingray is located?
permalink
[ ]riderer 1 point 2 hours ago
So can i do the same in public place? just stingray everyone?
permalink
[ ]Neker 1 point 1 hour ago
There are blueprints and tutorials out there that put "stingrays" within reach o
f an hobbyist. Law-breaking hobbyist, that is, but still : mobile phones essenti
aly broadcast your conversations.
permalink
[ ]mindwandering 1 point 1 hour ago
The flying DRT box.
permalink
[ ]SilenceGivesConsent [score hidden] 48 minutes ago
In other words, FBI says it does not need search warrants to warrant a search.
permalink
[ ]Formally_Nightman [score hidden] 46 minutes ago
FBI: "Senator we have been monitoring your calls and your exact geographical loc
ation for years ... You shouldn't find that unconstitutional or the public and y
our wife will learn how unconstitutional you've been"
permalink
[ ]ActuallyNotSparticus [score hidden] 40 minutes ago
Fuck this shit. Stingrays killed the crocodile hunter. Are we ready for the gove
rnment to use these stingrays?
permalink

[ ]Rayhueston [score hidden] 38 minutes ago


The article says the Obama administration consistently maintains that people hav
e no privacy in public. Is that true or is that hyperbole?
If I'm walking down the street, do I have the right to keep the contents of my w
allet private? My blood type? My thoughts?
If I have no privacy with regard to these and many other sensitive things, who d
oes have the right to them?
permalink
[ ]swollennode [score hidden] 37 minutes ago
People don't have privacy in public places..hmmm, I think that people are entitl
ed to privacy if something private belongs to them. Sure, people's faces aren't
private when they're in public places. But people's phone calls and texts should
be.
permalink
[ ]pomod [score hidden] 18 minutes ago
Well if the FBI says they are not needed...
Seriously, this should be a court decision not a cop one. Cops, even a fancy cop
s like the FBI, should not make the laws just enforce them.
permalink
[ ]CJ59 [score hidden] 18 minutes ago
In other news, the FBI says, "You know what, screw it. There are no more laws. W
e'll do whatever the hell we want. Not like you're going to do anything about it
."
permalink
[ ]gkiltz [score hidden] 15 minutes ago
Just because the FBI says it, that does not mean it's true!
I don't envy the poor schmuck who has to stan in front of the Supreme Court and
argue that!!
permalink
load more comments (48 replies)
about
blog
about
team
source code
advertise
jobs
help
wiki
FAQ
reddiquette
rules
contact us
tools
mobile
firefox extension
chrome extension
buttons
widget
<3
reddit gold
store
redditgifts
reddit AMA app
reddit.tv
radio reddit
Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy
. 2015 reddit inc. All rights reserved.
REDDIT and the ALIEN Logo are registered trademarks of reddit inc.

p jump to content
MY SUBREDDITS
FRONT-ALL-RANDOM | PHOTOSHOPBATTLES-HISTORY-GIFS-FOOD-PHILOSOPHY-TELEVISION-WORL
DNEWS-SHOWERTHOUGHTS-LIFEPROTIPS-ART-SPACE-NOTTHEONION-DOCUMENTARIES-NOSLEEP-GAM
ING-GADGETS-EARTHPORN-ASKREDDIT-FUNNY-MOVIES-DIY-FUTUROLOGY-FITNESS-BOOKS-LISTEN
TOTHIS-INTERNETISBEAUTIFUL-MUSIC-EXPLAINLIKEIMFIVE-UPLIFTINGNEWS-SPORTS-PICS-TOD
AYILEARNED-PERSONALFINANCE-DATAISBEAUTIFUL-IAMA-OLDSCHOOLCOOL-EUROPE-CREEPY-TWOX
CHROMOSOMES-AWW-NEWS-WRITINGPROMPTS-GETMOTIVATED-VIDEOS-TIFU-ASKSCIENCE-JOKES-MI
LDLYINTERESTING-SCIENCE
MORE
news newscommentsrelatedother discussions (15)
want to join? sign in or create an account in seconds|English
this post was submitted on 05 Jan 2015
3,152 points (95% upvoted)
shortlink:
remember mereset passwordlogin
news
unsubscribe4,562,294 readers
2,631 users here now
/r/inthenews
/r/worldnews
new submissions
new comments
Post analysis/opinion articles to /r/inthenews
Want to talk?
Chat with us on IRC
Follow @rslashnews on Twitter
See a post that violates the rules below? Had your post stuck in the spam filter
? Have a question about policy? Just want to give feedback? Send the mod team a
message.
Please post news items only, with the exception of meta posts about /r/news itse
lf. Self-posts aggregating news data and "independent reporting" each count as n
ews, but are not an excuse to editorialize.
Your post will likely be removed if it:
is not news (or a meta post).
is an opinion/analysis or advocacy piece.
primarily concerns politics.
has a title not taken from the article.
has a pay wall or steals content.
covers an already-submitted story.
violates reddit's site-wide rules, especially regarding personal info.
Your comment will likely be removed if it:
is racist, sexist, vitriolic, or overly crude.
is unnecessarily rude or provocative.
is a cheap and distracting joke or meme.
is responding to spam.
violates reddit's site-wide rules.
Extreme or repeat offenders will be banned.
Expanded Rules
If your post doesn't fit, consider finding an appropriate news article on that s
tory to submit instead, or submitting yours to lower moderation subreddits:
/r/inthenews - all news-related content
/r/AnythingGoesNews - unrestricted news
/r/truereddit - insightful articles
/r/self - any self-post
/r/misc, /r/redditdotcom - anything
or other news subreddits:
/r/worldnews - from outside the USA only
/r/SyrianCivilWar - about the conflict in Syria

/r/MidEastRegionalWar - on MidEast conflict /r/UpliftingNews - uplifting


/r/mediaquotes - the things they say
or subreddits for other topics:
/r/FoodForThought - discussion-worthy long form articles about interesting subje
cts
/r/politics - for shouting about politics
/r/moderatepolitics - less shouting
/r/politicaldiscussion - even less shouting
/r/geopolitics - intl. politics and geography
/r/entertainment - Justin Bieber updates, etc.
/r/europe - news from Europe
or check out the 200 most active subreddits, categorized by content and the full
list of subreddits by subscribers.
Recommendations:
/r/redactedcharts
/r/patriots
/r/personalfinance
/r/restorethefourth
reddit is fun for Android and its subreddit /r/redditisfun
submit analysis/opinion article
submit news article
submit something else
submit analysis/opinion article
a community for 6 years
message the moderators
moderators
douglasmacarthur
KyldeThe Janitor
AyeMatey
CandyManCan
Elderthedog
LuckyBdx4
NickWasHere09
ani625
pomosexuality
IKingJeremy
...and 1 more
3152
FBI says search warrants not needed to use stingrays in public places (arstechnica
.com)
submitted 13 hours ago by doctorshady
731 commentsshare
top 500 comments
sorted by: best
[ ]peaceshark 654 points 11 hours ago
If only there were some branch of government that would keep the FBI in check, o
ne that judged people and organizations supremely...
permalink
[ ]misogichan 641 points 8 hours ago
Unfortunately the Catholic church has its hands full dealing with its own intern
al reforms and recasting its vision and mission.
permalinkparent
[ ]wutshappening 93 points 7 hours ago
And looking at cat photos that's why they're Cat-holic. Alco-holics are addicted
to alcohol and catholics well you get the idea.
permalinkparent
[ ]TuffLuffJimmy 142 points 6 hours ago
Omg dad you're embarrassing me in front of my friends
permalinkparent
[ ]okmkz 27 points 4 hours ago

We ain't your friends, bruh


permalinkparent
[ ]Corruptionss 4 points 2 hours ago
We ain't your bruh, friends
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
load more comments (2 replies)
[ ]ROLLINGtemple 9 points 5 hours ago
What's their Dogma?
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
load more comments (9 replies)
[ ]hershmire 73 points 7 hours ago
The courts gave up about ten years ago.
permalinkparent
[ ]endprism 50 points 7 hours ago
The courts are pwned by the surveillance state.
permalinkparent
[ ]sushisection 41 points 6 hours ago
This is what I'm afraid of. Nsa is collecting data from all citizens including p
oliticians and supreme court judges.
permalinkparent
[ ]dutchguilder2 19 points 5 hours ago
Whistleblower confirms: http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=d6m1XbWOfVk
permalinkparent
[ ]TwitchTV_Subbort 1 point 3 hours ago
D.C. is Hollywood for ugly people. best line ever!!
permalinkparent
[ ]sklite 1 point 1 hour ago
Charles Augustus Magnussen approves
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]CriticalThink 1 point 6 hours ago
Skeletons in the closet are easy to find with intelligence infrastructure.
permalinkparent
[ ]HurricaneSandyHook 1 point 5 hours ago
The 10th circuit a few days ago sided with the government saying the cops use of
doppler radar to see if anyone was inside a house was legal. They did say it is
a troubling tactic that needs further review and just left it at that....
permalinkparent
[ ]-_--___-_--_--___--_ 27 points 6 hours ago
One major problem with judicial review is that there must be a case for the cour
t to review. I guess the other avenue would be to sue the government, but I'm no
t an attorney so I don't know how that would work.
permalinkparent
[ ]downvotesmakemehard 14 points 4 hours ago
I believe the current court has taken the stance that to take up a case someone
has to show they've been harmed in some way.
The police will never say that stingray is the source of the evidence. This woul
d open stingray to be scrutinized. They will use stingray to go after phone comp
any records which they will claim they requested on a hunch or some other bullsh
it excuse.
permalinkparent
[ ]great_gape [score hidden] 29 minutes ago
Anonymous tip.
permalinkparent
load more comments (2 replies)
[ ]dissonance07 8 points 6 hours ago
With is wide a latitude as the current SCOTUS seems to give to individual libert
y, this seems like the one kind of thing that they could actually usefully addre

ss, right?
permalinkparent
[ ]MrBojangles528 1 point 5 hours ago
Scalia and the rest of the SCOTUS is bought and sold just like the rest of our g
overnment. They answer first and foremost to the parties that nominated them as
well as the corporations that own them.
permalinkparent
[ ]psilontech 12 points 5 hours ago
See, I don't get that. You get into the Supreme Court and you're golden. Unless
you are actively breaking the law and can be impeached, you're untouchable. Why
not, you know, do what's best for your country instead of remaining beholden to
the parasites that leveraged you into that position?
permalinkparent
[ ]Ratbasher88 14 points 4 hours ago
Yep, Supreme Court justices have a well established history of turning out way d
ifferent than their supporters thought they'd be. For whatever reason this curre
nt batch of justices seems more comfortable with the security state than their p
redecessors, however that's true for most Americans in general so I suppose it s
houldn't be shocking.
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]MrBojangles528 2 points 4 hours ago
Good question, but you'd have to ask them about it.
permalinkparent
[ ]cynoclast 0 points 3 hours ago
Unless you are actively breaking the law and can be impeached, you're untouchabl
e.
But you can get richer. Or have your personal communications made public.
permalinkparent
[ ]tughdffvdlfhegl 1 point 3 hours ago
Honestly? Because they run in those social circles. They're friends with the peo
ple at the top. They don't actively associate with "regular folk" that much.
They've been ingratiated into the upper echelons of society long before ever rea
ching the supreme court through lifetimes spent at the forefront of the legal pr
ofession. This insulates them from others, and leaves them in an echo chamber of
their peers.
Now, when a case comes up that pits one of their friends, or friends' friends ag
ainst some random angry dude who's only making 50k a year, who do you think they
automatically side with, when the case isn't cut and dried? I'm not even saying
it's conscious, but prejudices come in all kinds and run deep. Tribalism happen
s all the time in subtle ways.
Plus there's Scalia taking paid for hunting trips with people who are directly a
ffected by cases in front of him, all of them getting invited to dinners and fun
ctions of the DC elite, etc.
permalinkparent
[ ]pion3435 1 point 3 hours ago
They do. It's possible to disagree with you without being corrupt.
permalinkparent
[ ]Jagoonder 1 point 2 hours ago
Not in an omnipotent surveillance state, however.
permalinkparent
[ ]DownFromYesBad 1 point 2 hours ago
Money, bribery.
permalinkparent
[ ]neotropic9 1 point 1 hour ago
Because they are selected to be the type of people who think whats "best for the
ir country" is serving the parasites, the corporate oligarchs, and the surveilla
nce state. They support the status quo, and the status quo supports them. It wou
ld be a miracle if someone with real principles was actually brought into the Su
preme Court, let alone enough of them to form a majority.

permalinkparent
[ ]isprobablyatwork 1 point 1 hour ago
This does happen, sometimes. Good examples would be Justices Warren and Stevens.
They played along with the GOP right up until they were put on the Court, then
immediately started voting their actual conscience (or if not their conscience,
then at least not as their political backers wanted).
permalinkparent
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[ ]cynoclast 2 points 3 hours ago
You mean the press?
permalinkparent
[ ]scrapinpeg 3 points 6 hours ago*
Obligatory link to illustrated law.
EDIT: fixed link
permalinkparent
[ ]ducttapejedi 3 points 6 hours ago*
error 404, check the link.
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[+][deleted] 13 hours ago (56 children)
[ ]sunbolts 701 points 12 hours ago
Glad to see the FBI is tearing up the constitution to increase their own powers
and authority. /s
permalink
[ ]dontbullshityourself 325 points 11 hours ago
Glad to see the FBI is tearing up the constitution to increase their own powers
and authority
I wish this was just the FBI. Pretty much everybody in the federal, state and lo
cals are doing this. Have been doing for this quite some time too.
permalinkparent
[ ]sunbolts 136 points 10 hours ago
Precisely, and that's what makes this very frightening. The whole club's in on i
t.
permalinkparent
[ ]radonthetyrant 75 points 7 hours ago
but why.. I realize that these "zomg the terrorists!!!11" is only a PR-lie. What
do they really accomplish with this? Industry espionage? Bribes from the indust
ries which create the espionage hardware? Feeling of total control? Control the
masses so it all stays as conservative and corrupt as possible?
Why would you amass such a criminal energy to break constitutional laws just to
be able to see through everyone's communication?
permalinkparent
[ ]BettyRubbleIsHot 151 points 7 hours ago
Total control.
That way when the state has it, they can really put the boot on our necks. Think
they treat us poorly now? Just wait until they have the infrastructure in place
where they feel confident there are absolutely zero threats to their power. Tha
t's when shit is going to get BAD.
permalinkparent
[ ]b-LE-z_it 106 points 6 hours ago
And that's why, despite being terrified of some gun owners, despite being terrif
ied of mass shootings, I don't think we should ban guns, even combat rifles. It
can happen here, and we should at least make it hurt if and when it happens.
permalinkparent
[ ]7V3N 47 points 6 hours ago
Welcome to the list.
permalinkparent

[ ]M00glemuffins 10 points 5 hours ago


Sign me up too. If they try to pull a fast one on the public I'm not standing fo
r their bullshit.
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]FadingEchoes11 26 points 6 hours ago
*rifle. No "combat" rifles are owned by citizens
permalinkparent
[ ]b-LE-z_it 39 points 6 hours ago
Did I mention I don't know anything about guns? I don't know anything about guns
.
Point is, force is not something only people in power should have.
permalinkparent
[ ]teefour 19 points 6 hours ago
You should go to a shooting range and take a class. You won't be so unnecessaril
y afraid of them after that.
permalinkparent
[ ]Pullo_T 27 points 6 hours ago
He's not afraid of guns. He's afraid of some gun owners. At least, as far as we
know.
permalinkparent
continue this thread
load more comments (3 replies)
[ ]Bootsncatsn4 5 points 5 hours ago
i understand where youre coming from, but what will a bunch of angry townsfolk d
o to a predator drone strike?
permalinkparent
[ ]Oeboues 18 points 4 hours ago
You should ask the angry townsfolk of Iraq and Afghanistan.
Once the US military is done slinking away in shame, I mean.
permalinkparent
continue this thread
[ ]nuesuh 1 point 1 hour ago
Remove them. Predator drones are being operated from the ground, and has to land
after a couple hours to refuel.
permalinkparent
[ ]joe_m107 4 points 6 hours ago
Maybe we should change that. Repeal the NFA.
permalinkparent
load more comments (2 replies)
[ ]4nco1j 0 points 2 hours ago
You don't know much about guns, do you now.
permalinkparent
load more comments (6 replies)
[ ]conquer69 15 points 4 hours ago
You can have all the guns you want. That won't stop them from labeling you a "su
spected school shooter, pedophile or terrorist".
A gun can't protect you from that. A gun can't teach your fellow countryman to t
hink by themselves or see through propaganda.
Good luck destroying a drone, plane or tank with a rifle. Not sure how useful a
gun is against your own trained military with even better guns and more.
People thinking they can start a revolution and win with a handgun don't realize
this isn't the 1700's anymore.
permalinkparent
[ ]JimmyBuffer 14 points 4 hours ago
Better tell the Middle East they haven't had a bout of revolutions then
permalinkparent
load more comments (2 replies)
[ ]b-LE-z_it 7 points 4 hours ago
Didn't say we would win, I said we could at least make it hurt. Assuming, of cou

rse, that the American people themselves aren't the ones willingly handing in th
eir freedoms, which would mean we're all fucked immediately.
permalinkparent
[ ]theothercoolfish 13 points 2 hours ago
Assuming, of course, that the American people themselves aren't the ones willing
ly handing in their freedoms, which would mean we're all fucked immediately.
Err, you guys gave up much of your freedoms long ago. And it isn't just the US politicians everywhere are taking as much as they can get, because it's simply
more power for them. More power, more money, more control. It's not a conspiracy
- this is just how an imperfect system with inadequate controls eventually goes
. We need to start re-examining our systems and look at alternatives that are no
w possible with the internet.
permalinkparent
[ ]vynusmagnus 3 points 2 hours ago
Tell that to the insurgents in Afghanistan. It seems to me that the US military
has been unable to defeat them in over a decade of war, despite its overwhelming
technological superiority. Tanks and fighter jets are nice, but they do little
against a small guerrilla force that can disappear into the woodwork.
permalinkparent
[ ]Qoix 3 points 3 hours ago
I think the main issue with that line of thinking is that the military would gun
down the civilians it pledges to protect. How many people in the armed forces d
o you know? Now, are any of them willing to murder innocent people? Probably not
.
permalinkparent
[ ]ihcn 6 points 2 hours ago
They're not innocent people, they're armed revolutionaries, suspected terrorists
permalinkparent
[ ]chance-- 4 points 3 hours ago
You say that as if there isn't insurmountable evidence to the contrary.
Military coups are thoroughly woven into the fabric of humanity's history.
permalinkparent
[ ]theothercoolfish 1 point 2 hours ago
gun down the civilians it pledges to protect.
Err, they don't pledge to protect civilians. They pledge to protect the constitu
tion. And if they are convinced that these people are attempting to "subvert" th
e constitution, then they are enemies. Nevermind that their leaders have shat al
l over the constitution - soldiers take their orders and follow 'em.
Now, are any of them willing to murder innocent people?
lol.
permalinkparent
load more comments (2 replies)
[ ]eloquentnemesis [score hidden] 33 minutes ago
Welcome to 4th generation warfare. You don't need a better gun, or the ability t
o kill a drone, or anything else like that. You just need A gun and more commitm
ent than the other side.
permalinkparent
[ ]homegrowncountryboy [score hidden] 16 minutes ago*
Good luck with those tanks, planes and drones when the American people stop supp
lying fuel and ammunition. My brother is in the Army and he will tell you about
75%, or more of the military will disband and fight to protect the American peop
le. All you have to do is look at New Orleans during Katrina, when they got the
order to start confiscating guns almost all of them refused, instead it was main
ly police stealing people's weapons.
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]Hermit_ 2 points 5 hours ago
Yeah but if it does happen all people would be doing is creating the chaos one o
f the armed and militarized militias needs to take power. For example, The KKK.
permalinkparent

[ ]b-LE-z_it 1 point 5 hours ago


Hopefully not the KKK.
permalinkparent
[ ]AussieArcher 1 point 3 hours ago
Fuck me there's always one of you. I'm starting to think the gun club spends mor
e time on reddit than anyone.
permalinkparent
[ ]astronautg117 1 point 1 hour ago
What's a combat rifle going to do against a drone?
permalinkparent
[ ]datbino 1 point 1 hour ago
i think thats where 2nd ammendment people miss the mark- you owning a rifle will
do nothing against the government.
you becoming an active participating member in that government can help fix it,
the goal is to make you a kony2012 fb sharer rather than a person who gets to wo
rk and fixes shit
permalinkparent
[ ]mpg1846 1 point 1 hour ago
You think 50 guys with hand guns are going to do anything to anyone? Gun laws ar
e a joke.
permalinkparent
[ ]Actionbuilding 1 point 1 hour ago
The founders of the United States of America WANTED the citizens to rise up and
overthrow the government if it approached the levels of corruption it is current
ly working toward.
permalinkparent
load more comments (11 replies)
[ ]nuesuh 1 point 1 hour ago
Ever seen "Das Leben der Anderen"? Imagine this, just with total corruption and
100 times better technology. This is what we are moving towards. Imagine this sy
stem getting in the hands of someone like Hitler or Stalin.. And it can happen.
Before Hitler came to power Germany was a modern, western, christian nation. We
need safety with this technology. And when i say safety, i don't mean surveillan
ce. I mean the opposite.
permalinkparent
[ ]know_comment [score hidden] 14 minutes ago
I agree, but I think the reason for the infrastructure development is because it
is going to get bad. As we are forced to compete more globally, quality of life
stagnates. Even the slightest hint of austerity is going to be very painful for
the lower classes in a society with a large income disparity.
That's why we see the race baiting and divisive rhetoric being used so much. Kee
p the poor and working classes quibbling at each other.
I want you to consider the daffodil. And while you're doing that, I'll be over h
ere, looking through your stuff.
permalinkparent
[ ]mzackler 19 points 7 hours ago
It takes a really complicated answer to truly understand but you often get into
the us vs them mentality in siloed areas of law enforcement. You also often get
frustrated with the levels of proof you need to put the bad guy in jail. Thus an
y method you can use you feel justified in using. Although I think there are a l
ot of issues with The Wire, it's a great starting off point for a discussion if
you want a serious answer.
permalinkparent
load more comments (2 replies)
[ ]hershmire 30 points 7 hours ago
Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts, absolutely.
permalinkparent
[ ]TheNewRavager 70 points 6 hours ago
"All governments suffer a recurring problem: Power attracts pathological persona
lities. It is not that power corrupts but that it is magnetic to the corruptible

. Such people have a tendency to become drunk on violence, a condition to which


they are quickly addicted."
permalinkparent
[ ]gee_iwonderwhy 22 points 6 hours ago
Oh shit, a Dune quote outside /r/dune not about spice.
permalinkparent
[ ]TheNumberMuncher 3 points 6 hours ago
This is pretty cool.
permalinkparent
[ ]YawnDogg 1 point 3 hours ago
Gene Hackman was so kinky in that movie.
permalinkparent
[ ]ThreeTimesUp 2 points 2 hours ago
From a Guardian article by Glenn Greenwald I came across recently:
Inside the mind of NSA chief Gen Keith Alexander
Any casual review of human history proves how deeply irrational it is to believe
that powerful factions can be trusted to exercise vast surveillance power with
little accountability or transparency.
But the more they proudly flaunt their warped imperial hubris, the more irration
al it becomes.
permalinkparent
[ ]Epsilox 3 points 2 hours ago
I'm going to take an unpopular stance here and argue that they get more effectiv
e investigations. Which isn't to say I have no reservations about this stuff, be
cause I do.
I've worked in a field tangential to law enforcement, and I've had the unpleasan
t experience of watching very bad people act with impunity because law enforceme
nt had to play by the rules and they didn't. Does that justify the modern trend
towards more invasive government? Maybe that's just the price we pay to live in
a free society. I don't know. I'm a fan of the H.L. Mencken quote:
"The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's ti
me defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are f
irst aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopp
ed at all."
On the other hand, it's very hard to watch members of organized crime and other
monsters literally get away with murder.
In part the difficulty the lies in the infrastructure of modern society. Communi
cations move at such speed and in such quantity that the sort of pinpoint accura
cy required for effective investigations and prosecutions becomes much more diff
icult.
None of which is to say that what we're doing is necessarily right. I've felt th
e fear of writing an opinion online and knowing that the NSA can see it and ever
ything else I've ever written if they so choose. I've had that feeling of always
being watched. I know exactly what is meant by the danger of chilling free spee
ch, because it's happened to me. But I do tend to trust (perhaps naively) that,
for the most part, most of the people making these decisions have good intention
s. I've worked with many of them, and I believe that it more than anything is th
e result of them trying to do their jobs well. Whether they are actually protect
ing the American people or simply paving the road to hell, only time will really
tell.
permalinkparent
[ ]eyeforgot 4 points 6 hours ago
Think of all the blackmail material they have for any future politicians. They w
ill firmly be in check by the powers that be.
permalinkparent
[ ]ademnus 3 points 7 hours ago
Total control.
permalinkparent
[ ]NotAnotherDecoy 4 points 7 hours ago
Total control?

permalinkparent
[ ]leamas666 2 points 5 hours ago
Why would you amass such a criminal energy to break constitutional laws just to
be able to see through everyone's communication?
It's the deep state attempting to preserve its own regime continuity in the even
t of violent revolution.
permalinkparent
[ ]sunbolts 3 points 6 hours ago
Because those in power try to keep it and in addition, there is always a lust fo
r more power. One who is wealthy seeks to increase his riches usually, right? Sa
me thing going on here. In terms of practicality, there's no reason for breaking
constitutional laws, but when you realize how human nature functions in regards
to ambitions and power, well, what we see going on explains itself.
permalinkparent
[ ]Martenz05 1 point 3 hours ago
So, in order to become a political leader who really does work for the benefit o
f the people, one would somehow have to lose every shred of their humanity so th
ey wouldn't have a human nature that could be corrupted by ambition and power?
That sounds ominous, when I put it like that
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]RuthlessDickTater 1 point 5 hours ago
but why.. I realize that these "zomg the terrorists!!!11" is only a PR-lie.
Well pretty soon they might have their terrorists, but they'll be the domestic k
ind.
permalinkparent
[ ]karadan100 1 point 4 hours ago
More money.
permalinkparent
[ ]cynoclast 1 point 3 hours ago
What do they really accomplish with this?
Get rich.
permalinkparent
load more comments (7 replies)
[ ]TGlucifer 50 points 10 hours ago
Criminals learned it's just way easier to do their lawbreaking with a government
salary.
permalinkparent
[ ]pete1729 22 points 9 hours ago
Well, the benefits package is far more attractive.
permalinkparent
[ ]__ghostpants 25 points 7 hours ago
and somehow snitches go to jail instead of the criminals
permalinkparent
[ ]iismitch55 1 point 3 hours ago
Snitches get stitches. Whistleblowers get their mouth sowed shut.
permalinkparent
[ ]HandsOffMyDitka 5 points 5 hours ago
Why break a law, when you can just change it.
permalinkparent
[ ]moresmarterthanyou 2 points 5 hours ago
except when they have to answer questions themselves...
permalinkparent
[ ]dontbullshityourself 1 point 5 hours ago
Well you know liberty is wasted on peasant swine 'eh?
permalinkparent
[ ]ButterflyAttack 1 point 4 hours ago
Sounds like the constitution doesn't mean much at this point. . .
permalinkparent
[ ]dontbullshityourself 1 point 3 hours ago

Sounds like the constitution doesn't mean much at this point. . .


All it means is that the scum who rule us have a legal contract that they say ba
cks up all their power. But their actions shit all over that document.
President Obama, a constitutional law professor ordered the deaths of two US cit
izens without trial in EXPRESS and DIRECT violation of the constitution.
permalinkparent
load more comments (4 replies)
[ ]Eurynom0s 68 points 9 hours ago
And on top of it, even if being in public was a justification for this, how the
fuck do you prevent the device from nabbing people who are inside their own hous
e or apartment as well?
Oh right, you can't, because that's not how radio waves work.
permalinkparent
[ ]Ioneos 18 points 8 hours ago
You can increase the noise gate to reduce range on purpose, but what good would
that do to keep the terrorists citizens under scrutiny.
permalinkparent
[ ]Eurynom0s 20 points 8 hours ago
Even if they were going to do that, I can't imagine that you could do it to a su
fficient degree in a place like NYC to not scoop up at least some people inside
of buildings.
permalinkparent
load more comments (5 replies)
[ ]Codoro 1 point 4 hours ago
I foresee turning your house into a Faraday Cage being the cop radar finder of t
omorrow.
permalinkparent
[ ]Kenny_Login 23 points 7 hours ago
Taxation without representation, an income far below what the productivity was v
alued at, government intrusion? The founding fathers (you know, those "heroes" o
f our nation) got much more pissed off for much less.
permalinkparent
[ ]Socialdem 8 points 5 hours ago
Can you really blame them? The Constitution was written when people were still r
iding on horses. There's no way the founding fathers could have anticipated the
advances in technology and the way people communicate. I think we're due for a f
irmware upgrade.
permalinkparent
[ ]upandrunning 11 points 3 hours ago
Yes, it's called 'replacing congress'. What we're seeing is a natural consequenc
e of career politicians. Most of the people in office have gotten so comfortable
with the idea that they'll get reelected that what they actually do during thei
r term is almost irrelevent.
permalinkparent
[ ]theothercoolfish 2 points 2 hours ago
Exactly. I think we should look at sortition - with an approval vote, and extrem
ely strict rules on what sort of laws can be passed (eg any law must apply equal
ly to everyone - protecting the minority), and a approval bonus for the randomly
selected representatives if the public approves. Fuck career politicians - they
've proven themselves wholly incapable, and the system that supports them is too
corruptible. I don't think campaign finance reform will 1) ever happen 2) adequ
ately deal with institutional corruption.
permalinkparent
[ ]NuclearWookiee 0 points 2 hours ago
All of this should be covered, in any reasonable interpretation, by the Fourth a
mendment. Rebooting who change anything if the limits on government are ignored.
permalinkparent
[ ]KalAl 1 point 1 hour ago
Do you update your firmware by smashing your bios chip with a hammer?
permalinkparent

[ ]FireFromTheWire 4 points 6 hours ago


You're just another Steve Irwin to them.
permalinkparent
[ ]iismitch55 2 points 3 hours ago
Too soon mate :'(
permalinkparent
[ ]Penguin_in_the_sand 1 point 1 hour ago*
I am curious to know what this comment means?... Oh! Steve Irwin was killed by a
stingray. I thought you may have been referring to some conspiracy relating the
Steve Irwin's death. He had an American wife and both were invited to Howard's
Bush BBQ. http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/10/27/1067233100397.html
permalinkparent
[ ]gloubenterder 2 points 1 hour ago
Steve Irwin was a wildlife documentary filmmaker who was well-known for getting
up close and personal with dangerous animals such as crocodiles and komodo drago
ns.
He was pierced through a heart by a stingray in 2006, while shooting footage for
a documentary called Ocean's Deadliest.
After his death, stingrays had a period of great infamy, and there were even rep
orts of people killing and mutilating stingrays as vengeance for Steve Irwin. ..
.which, of course, is the last thing Irwin would have wanted; he was a conservat
ionist, and whenever he was injured by an animal he was studying, he would alway
s clarify to the viewer that that was his own fault and a risk he was aware of.
permalinkparent
[ ]Agent-BurtMacklinFBI 1 point 5 hours ago
Don't worry I'm keeping a look out
permalinkparent
[ ]pion3435 1 point 3 hours ago
It's not a constitutional issue. It might be an FCC one, but they just do whatev
er they're told anyway.
permalinkparent
[ ]dntur 1 point 3 hours ago
theoretically, every cell tower is in a public place. Why not just attach a stin
gray to all of them? Think of the money mobile companies could make renting towe
r space! next comes google who wants to know who you are calling on your iphone
and windows phone for better directed advertising, followed by Bing. /s
permalinkparent
[ ]Brian3232 [score hidden] 46 minutes ago
Why are they wrong? You already can take pictures of people in public places wit
hout warrant
permalinkparent
[ ]GaltsGulchTouristInf [score hidden] 24 minutes ago
When the constitution, the supreme law of the land, the contract between the gov
ernment and the people, is violated, this violating it should be banned from 'pu
blic service' for life, should be personally liable to those whose rights they v
iolated, and should forfeit their government pension and benefits.
permalinkparent
[ ]wtfmuck [score hidden] 17 minutes ago
It's sad how they shirk doing what is right for what is easy.
permalinkparent
load more comments (8 replies)
[ ]quiteintriguing 127 points 12 hours ago
I think it's about time these fuckers provided some evidence that privacy invadi
ng is helping stop crime or terrorism. As far as I can see, there is an Islamic
army in the middle east right now filled with westerners that simply flew over a
nd caught a bus. Nice job government agencies, you sure showed us.
permalink
[ ]HappyAtavism 81 points 11 hours ago
I think it's about time these fuckers provided some evidence that privacy invadi
ng is helping stop crime or terrorism.

Even more importantly they should provide evidence that they're not violating th
e 4th Amendment. The Bill of Rights doesn't say it applies only when convenient.
P.S. I agree that repeated failures to demonstrate the effectiveness of these th
ings, or lies which get "corrected", is yet another reason why this stuff is BS,
but the Constitution is first and foremost. Don't like the 4th Amendment? Try t
o repeal it. Until then it's in force.
permalinkparent
[ ]7u5 3 points 5 hours ago
The "checks and balances" of the judiciary are a farce. They are free to "interp
ret" the Constitution as they see fit.
permalinkparent
load more comments (3 replies)
[ ]DiaperParty 9 points 3 hours ago
Fuck that. FUUUCK that. If this did stop terrorists, it would still not be worth
the violation of rights. We absolutely CANNOT start OKing this shit as long as
it "stops bad guys."
permalinkparent
[ ]quiteintriguing 1 point 3 hours ago
I think you misunderstood. I think they should have to back up their justificati
on, which they obviously can't.
permalinkparent
[ ]DiaperParty 4 points 3 hours ago
But if we ask them to, we lend legitimacy to that claim. We need to say from the
get go that no justification is needed because none will be sufficient.
permalinkparent
[ ]ebouwman 7 points 5 hours ago
In Canada we had the Ottawa shooting and that dude that ran over some soldiers.
Correct me if I'm wrong but both these guys had had their passports revoked.
I'm not a fan of letting them just go over and fight a dirty war but wtf.
permalinkparent
[ ]Ceejae 4 points 4 hours ago
But so what if it is? How successful the program is is irrelevant.
I'm sure if they set up a government camera in every home they'd stop plenty of
murders and rapes.
permalinkparent
load more comments (2 replies)
[ ]cassieloveseffie 5 points 2 hours ago
Well we all know that the FBI has followed people like John Lennon who believed
in radical peace, urged MLK to kill himself and was prepared to assassinate occu
py members. It is not about crime, it is about maintaining a status quo.
permalinkparent
[ ]monopixel 2 points 1 hour ago
was prepared to assassinate occupy members.
Interesting, where can I read up about this?
permalinkparent
[ ]wirepants 4 points 4 hours ago
Locking everyone in solitary could stop crime and terrorism too. That's not a go
od enough reason to violate our rights even if it was working.
permalinkparent
[ ]egodeath92 2 points 5 hours ago
Shh that's classified. This entire country would be a post-apocalyptic dirt-patc
h is not for the heroic NSA collecting dirt on most of the country.
permalinkparent
[ ]pion3435 1 point 3 hours ago
You had no privacy in the first place. That's not how cell phones work.
permalinkparent
load more comments (6 replies)
[ ]MashItMatt 143 points 13 hours ago
Obviously these are constitution free zones, citizen.
permalink

[ ]THANKS-FOR-THE-GOLD 22 points 7 hours ago


Embrace democracy or you will be eradicated
permalinkparent
[ ]jroddie4 14 points 5 hours ago
Citizen, pick up that can.
permalinkparent
[ ]douko 3 points 5 hours ago
This image won't even load (here's another one), but I still know what it is.
DEATH IS A PREFERABLE ALTERNATIVE TO COMMUNISM.
COMMUNISM IS THE VERY DEFINITION OF FAILURE!
permalinkparent
[ ]chewysquirrel 15 points 6 hours ago
Approximately 2/3 of Americans live in a "constitution free zone"
permalinkparent
[ ]newpolitics 50 points 10 hours ago
The Federal Bureau of Investigation is taking the position that court warrants a
re not required when deploying cell-site simulators in public places. Nicknamed
"stingrays," the devices are decoy cell towers that capture locations and identi
ties of mobile phone users and can intercept calls and texts.
So nobody has any expectation of privacy? Talking out of their asses. The implic
ation that a warrant shouldn't be needed to intercept someone's text messages, i
s outrageous.
permalink
[ ]acerplatanoides [score hidden] 16 minutes ago
The implication that a warrant shouldn't be needed to intercept someone's text m
essages, is outrageous.
The implication of intercepting a PRESS related text message, and thus also supp
ressing a free press.
I think many of these are used to stop uploading of images to social medial. You
ever tried that during a demonstration?
permalinkparent
[ ]dalasocatyemerc 67 points 9 hours ago
Hmm, I didn't realize the FBI had the authority to ignore the constitution of th
e United States of America.
Maybe this organization doesn't actually serve Americans. That's what I think
permalink
[ ]Jagoonder 17 points 2 hours ago
They don't. However, lets look at their 3rd criteria:
(3) cases in which the technology is used in public places or other locations at
which the FBI deems there is no reasonable expectation of privacy.
In public, noone has an expectation to privacy. SCOTUS has ruled on such. Theref
ore, it could be argued that phone conversations in public places forfeits at le
ast one party's rights to privacy.
There are a couple of problems with this. First, Stingray is indiscriminate. Sec
ond, the other party of the phone conversation may be in their own home thus hav
ing an expectation of privacy.
I don't know how law works in regards to phone tapping. But, I would assume that
any warrant to do so would provide the agency a waiver on a second party's priv
acy protections when conversing with the target of the warrant. Except in the ca
se of Stingray no warrant was ever obtained thus, no waiver, thus the second par
ty probably still has privacy protections.
So, I think it's bullshit. I'm no lawyer. I suspect the FBI also knows it's bull
shit. But, the more excuses they can come up with to bend the law around their w
ill the more time it takes to try to stop them since each instance requires anot
her court decision.
permalinkparent
[ ]punkrampant 13 points 1 hour ago
There's only "no expectation of privacy" in public in terms of video+camera surv
eillance. People still get disturbed if you look over their shoulder at their ph
one, or listen to a conversation.

Text messages, emails, phone calls, all of it, are the modern day written letter
s. What the FBI is trying to do is the equivalent of setting up a post office th
at opens everyone's envelopes and makes copies of all the contents.
permalinkparent
[ ]Jagoonder 5 points 1 hour ago
Text messages, emails, phone calls, all of it, are the modern day written letter
s. What the FBI is trying to do is the equivalent of setting up a post office th
at opens everyone's envelopes and makes copies of all the contents.
You're right. I was focusing on an actual phone conversation where one party cou
ld be overheard by others, thus no expectation to privacy.
permalinkparent
[ ]Cambodian_Drug_Mule 2 points 1 hour ago
Surely there are people with technical expertise that can just fuck their shit u
p. If I'm not mistaken the stingrays were detected with consumer grade electroni
cs. If everyone just looked out for them and pinned where they are at on a map,
couldn't some people with the technical know how take them offline?
permalinkparent
[ ]monopixel 1 point 1 hour ago
Hmm, I didn't realize the FBI had the authority to ignore the constitution of th
e United States of America.
The US government and its agencies has been doing it for ages.
permalinkparent
[ ]rtpg 40 points 6 hours ago
Surprised nobody's mentioned Kyllo v. United States yet.
This is fairly recent (2001) jurisprudence. The gov't used a thermal imager, and
saw that there were heat lamps inside of a house, and used that to get a search
warrant. The gov't argued that, well, the heat was outside, so pretty much publ
ic information.
The courts disagreed and ruled this an illegal search. Main reason being that no
t many people have thermal imagers, so there's a reasonable expectation of priva
cy. I think even less people have stingrays, so even from the "discovering that
someone has a cell phone" aspect, there's unreasonableness in the search.
Now to the wiretapping aspect... there's Katz v. United States. Here, somebody w
as in a phone booth, and the feds had set a microphone outside the phone booth w
ithout warrant (so not exactly a wiretap). Again, the courts ruled this an unrea
sonable search.
A part of the ruling:
Regardless of the location, a conversation is protected from unreasonable search
and seizure under the Fourth Amendment if it is made with a "reasonable expecta
tion of privacy".
Text messages definitely fall under this. I can't see this holding up for 2 seco
nds in court.
The article goes into it into detail, but few of the FBI's interpretations on pr
ivacy have been holding up in courts recently. The system is kind of working, an
d this interpretation will be shut down as well. Now, if only everyone had good
lawyers...
permalink
[ ]ryewheats 7 points 4 hours ago
But the biggest problem I see would be them not declaring how they gathered any
information they collected in the first place. It would be pretty easy to skirt
around the system and act like you caught the suspect red-handed (because you we
re tipped off by illegal searches). That is the really scary part.
permalinkparent
[ ]argv_minus_one 5 points 3 hours ago
This practice is known as "parallel construction".
permalinkparent
[ ]tughdffvdlfhegl 3 points 3 hours ago
Honestly, this is the biggest concern. The courts won't allow a challenge becaus
e no one will have standing, because the feds/police won't actively declare this
as evidence in a trial. Meanwhile, they'll continue to use it, having a chillin

g effect on the press and others (which the courts have not seen in recent histo
ry as sufficient to provide legal standing).
permalinkparent
[ ]JustaChimp 3 points 5 hours ago
With the Katz v US case, it took them 39 years to overturn the Olmstead v US rul
ing. Let's hope it takes a little less time for this medium.
The recent Romano v Steelcase Inc. court case could indicate how the courts will
rule in the short term with regards to "reasonable expectation of privacy" thou
gh this ruling was in the context of social media and not text messages. The ana
logy was made that much like a letter writer has no reasonable expectation of pr
ivacy once the recipient is in possession of the letter, neither does the post's
author. Same could be extended to text messages and would be equally as trouble
some.
permalinkparent
[ ]qdarius 1 point 3 hours ago
Damn, that doesn't seem right at all. If I send someone a letter I definitely ex
pect that only they will read it.
Could anyone expand on the logic that a letter writer has no reasonable expectat
ion of privacy?
permalinkparent
[ ]Boltaeg 1 point 3 hours ago
After that letter is given to the recipient, they can do whatever they want with
it without you knowing. They could copy it, show it to friends, frame it and pu
t it on their wall....etc. You have no control over that and must assume that an
ything you write in a letter can be disclosed in some manner, simply because you
have no control over that persons actions.
As to why that is the case, I have no idea. Especially considering it is illegal
to open someone elses mail, but perfectly legal to read someone else's letter o
nce they open it. At least that is my understanding of it.
permalinkparent
[ ]TheMightyBarbarian 1 point 3 hours ago
Its fairly simple, you sent a letter, until it is received by the intended recip
ient it has federal protections. Once the recipient receives it, they are free t
o do with it as they wish, even if you disagree with what they do, specifically
because the letter is now their property, even though you wrote it.
permalinkparent
[ ]qdarius 1 point 2 hours ago
I understand that. But if someone else intercepts my letter shouldn't that still
be illegal?
Maybe I'm misunderstanding how stingrays work but it seems like they're basicall
y designed to intercept hundreds of messages.
permalinkparent
[ ]TheMightyBarbarian 1 point 2 hours ago
Intercept isn't illegal, its sketchy but not illegal. As for reading it, it's a
grey area since texts are not encrypted and even if they were it would do shit i
f billions of devices can decrypt them. So unless you use something like a messe
nger system that can use basic encrypting. It won't stop the FBI from reading it
, but it does show you took steps to have a private conversation and that's what
matters to the court.
permalinkparent
[ ]coalbeeashi 1 point 3 hours ago
Re: Katz v. United States
Certain details, such as shutting the door on the telephone booth, help determin
e if a person intends for a conversation to be private. Thus, private conversati
ons can be made in public areas.
What steps is the average Joe taking to exhibit a reasonable expectation of priv
acy regarding his/her data usage? Honest question.
permalinkparent
[ ]TheMightyBarbarian 1 point 2 hours ago
Beyond using a VPN to mimic another location, not much really. Since there are m

any devices involved in the process of just looking up a website. Ex. You google
Microsoft. Here are all the parties involved: You, Your ISP, Google, Microsoft.
That's four parties involved and that's assuming you are not using a Phones Mob
ile Data plan and are using WiFi. Because then it can add a few more people invo
lved.
Sure you should have protection just the same, but currently the law doesn't rec
ognize that, because the people in charge dont understand how any of it works.
permalinkparent
[ ]rtpg [score hidden] 54 minutes ago
I would say that cultural norms kind of define that in that it is extremely rude
to look at another stranger's phone while they are using it to browse/look at t
heir emails/whatever. Not the most solid argument, I know.
permalinkparent
[ ]Sic_SemperTyrannis 1 point 2 hours ago
When the use of stingrays is challenged in court police have dropped the cases r
ather than explain their use of stingrays.
permalinkparent
[ ]cassieloveseffie 1 point 2 hours ago
I have seen a printed record of every one of someone's txt messages for 6 months
. Never assume txt messages are private.
permalinkparent
[ ]Ladderjack 29 points 12 hours ago
I'm sorry, have they gone ahead and combined the FBI and the Supreme Court of th
e United States of America? No? Well, we will see how long this lasts. . .
permalink
[ ]butitssnot 46 points 7 hours ago
Its ok. In 2016 we can vote for hope and change and transparency and fix all thi
s.
permalinkparent
[ ]CriticalThink 3 points 5 hours ago
yeah. I bet Hillary will fix this mess, right Reddit?
permalinkparent
[ ]TheMightyBarbarian 1 point 2 hours ago
We still got time before they can start promoting themselves for President, lega
lly actually, they can't start until a certain number of days from the election.
permalinkparent
[ ]looneybandito 5 points 6 hours ago
Haha. As if our votes matter.
permalinkparent
[ ]atomofconsumption 9 points 5 hours ago
thatsthejoke.jpg
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]dichroeyes 1 point 4 hours ago
You are right. I give up. Long live the hegemony.
permalinkparent
[ ]Pikaflu 1 point 3 hours ago
America is an irradiated wasteland. Within it lies a city. Outside the boundary
walls, a desert. A cursed earth. Inside the walls, a cursed city, stretching fro
m Boston to Washington D.C. An unbroken concrete landscape. 800 million people l
iving in the ruin of the old world and the mega structures of the new one. Mega
blocks. Mega highways. Mega City One. Convulsing. Choking. Breaking under its ow
n weight. Citizens in fear of the street. The gun. The gang. Only one thing figh
ting for order in the chaos: the men and women of the Hall of Justice. Juries. E
xecutioners. Judges.
permalinkparent
[ ]Ago_Solvo 36 points 9 hours ago
I'm sure that means that stingrays are also open for public hacking in that case
, because they're in a public place, and doing so can't be considered an intrusi
on on government properties or a violation of any Federal Law.

permalink
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]whysopositive 57 points 12 hours ago
Say whatever you want, you don't think big brother is going to find every way to
spy on you?
The thing is I bet every time we the people get upset about some "new" trespass
against our rights there's already something technologically beyond our knowledg
e being put to use to on us now.
permalink
[ ]I_SPLIT_INFINITIVES 16 points 7 hours ago
My dad always said, "If that's what they're telling us they have now, they proba
bly had it ten years ago. Just imagine what they really have."
permalinkparent
[ ]oOTHX1138Oo 28 points 9 hours ago
Thats why we need to add to the bill of rights, so that we continue to be protec
ted in the digital age.
permalinkparent
[ ]TheBlueWaffleHouse 18 points 8 hours ago
At this point in time the bill of rights only shrinks. It doesn't get bigger.
permalinkparent
[ ]tallerthanunicorngod 33 points 7 hours ago
Not with that attitude.
permalinkparent
[ ]mattacular2001 3 points 5 hours ago
Doesn't matter unless you're wealthy
permalinkparent
[ ]tallerthanunicorngod 1 point 2 hours ago
Wealthy people don't like to be spied on either. Honestly, they probably like it
even less.
permalinkparent
[ ]sockgorilla 1 point 5 hours ago
He's John Titor, he's watched it before.
permalinkparent
[ ]mastahslayah 1 point 4 hours ago
Well he isn't getting any of my Dr. Pepper.
permalinkparent
[ ]Poor__Yorick 1 point 2 hours ago
Wow that's a name I haven't heard in a while.
We've got a world war this year though.
3 billion dead by the end of it.
permalinkparent
load more comments (5 replies)
[ ]pion3435 1 point 3 hours ago
We already did. That's the point of laws like HIPAA. There's just no equivalent
for things like email or cell phones so it's legal to see whatever people are na
ively broadcasting.
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]ZomNomNomBeeZ 5 points 7 hours ago
This technology is not particularly new. The man-in-the-middle attack is a class
ic hacking technique. I remember reading an article after one of the security co
nventions detailing a small group of participants that used a remote control air
plane to do this exact thing to convention attendees. This was years ago.
permalinkparent
[ ]hershmire 4 points 7 hours ago
Which is why it's illegality could be successfully code into law.
permalinkparent
[ ]TheMightyBarbarian 1 point 3 hours ago
That's the problem, the people who make the laws don't understand how the techno
logy works, and the people making and using it are telling them its fine, so the

y don't feel like they need to make a law about.


And as such making a law about it would be bad, since the law would need specifi
c language to prevent certain technologies and usage of such. But the biggest is
sue is that some of the technology and uses are too general that it would never
work to stop anything. Since they can't just write a law preventing man in the m
iddle because they need to get a definitive wording on what that is exactly and
then word it so a slight variation doesn't just immediately skirt the new law.
Our technology grew faster than our laws did, but now it's grown faster than our
ability to properly define what it is we do. So controlling it is incredibly ha
rd and will take a long time, so for now we kinda have to suck it up and wait, b
ecause the worst possible thing is them putting out ineffective laws that do les
s than nothing to prevent stuff like that and hearing us complain and think we a
re whining when they just put out a law. I would rather wait a little longer to
make sure the law is proper and effective than to have a crap law screw everythi
ng up.
permalinkparent
[ ]ScorpionPool 1 point 6 hours ago
Serious question. What benefits does the government get from spying on us? Power
? Information for corporations? Shits and giggles? Some kind of profit?
permalinkparent
[ ]swingmemallet 2 points 5 hours ago
All of the above
permalinkparent
[ ]eyeforgot 1 point 5 hours ago*
What like complete access to what anyone posts/chats about on facebook/skype bei
ng dumped into a database? Anyone who work with cisco routers notice anything fu
nny like carefully crafted packets fucking w. the settings and not creating logs
. Maybe like there is a back door that someone has that doesn't require a passwo
rd.
permalinkparent
load more comments (3 replies)
[ ]philtech 26 points 10 hours ago
You can scan for stingray use.
Only works on rooted phones with Qualcomm chipset however. https://play.google.c
om/store/apps/details?id=de.srlabs.snoopsnitch&hl=en
permalink
[ ]vamper 2 points 6 hours ago
damn, no go for my nexus 5
permalinkparent
[ ]Ice_Pirate 1 point 5 hours ago
Should work on my 20 dollar ZTE's with dualies :). Overclocks to 1.8 like butta.
http://www.phonearena.com/phones/ZTE-N800_id8191
permalinkparent
[ ]willyboxc 1 point 2 hours ago
we need a version that will work without root :(
permalinkparent
[ ]networklackey 49 points 11 hours ago*
Bullshit... it's radio. They have no way of determining whether the person they
are monitoring is in public or not.
They shouldn't be able to use this without a warrant any more than they should b
e able to point a laser mic at your window.
The fact that they are in public is irrelevant... the subject they are monitorin
g has to be in public.
permalink
[ ]lll_1_lll 29 points 6 hours ago
Even if we are in public, what the fuck gives them the right to look through my
texts, phone calls, voicemails, emails, call history, etc?
permalinkparent
[ ]zoidbug 5 points 3 hours ago
It should be protected the level of paper mail. It is your private communication

s.
permalinkparent
[ ]networklackey 1 point 2 hours ago
Technically... because you are in public and are broadcasting. But I feel the sa
me way. None of this shit should be legal.
permalinkparent
load more comments (6 replies)
[ ]goatmagic 2 points 3 hours ago
laser mic
Well, TIL this exists :/
permalinkparent
[ ]networklackey 2 points 2 hours ago
They absolutely exist and they are freaking awesome. They should not however be
used by law enforcement without a warrant.
permalinkparent
[ ]makingupdumbnames 1 point 5 hours ago
I think it's that their airwaves cross public space. pls correct me if I'm wrong
, though
permalinkparent
[ ]networklackey 1 point 2 hours ago
That's certainly the argument they are making.
permalinkparent
[ ]wirepants 1 point 4 hours ago
Even assuming you are in public, who's to say the guy on the other side is too?
permalinkparent
[ ]networklackey 1 point 2 hours ago
Nothing but their log books but that doesn't really matter. It's your right to p
rivacy they are violating.
permalinkparent
[ ]Sarah_Connor 9 points 9 hours ago
We need a way to be able to identify, then jamm, stingrays.
permalink
[ ]cookie_nrk 8 points 7 hours ago
This Jammer made in sweden should do the trick. From what I have read it complet
ely blocks all signals, so using a phone wouldn't work at all, but if you were i
n a position to not want to be tracked during a certain time, you could use this
: http://www.jammer-store.com/monstro-10-all-frequencies-portable-jammer.html
permalinkparent
[ ]hershmire 10 points 7 hours ago
We're talking about blanket monitoring of civilians. It needs to be outlawed imm
ediately. Hoping each and every Joe Schmoe is going to buy an illegal cell phone
jammer to protect his identity is, well, ridiculous.
permalinkparent
[ ]davidverner 6 points 7 hours ago
Jammers are illegal in the US on the cellphone frequency. Good luck importing on
e.
permalinkparent
[ ]wicard 5 points 6 hours ago
had one from deal extreme i bought when i was younger to prank friends, was alot
of fun. But if you are worried about being tracked wouldn't just shutting your
phone off do the trick? If you are jamming your phone you arnt going to be talki
ng to anyone.
permalinkparent
[ ]RellenD 4 points 5 hours ago
You have to do more than just turn it off, unfortunately.
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]willyboxc 1 point 2 hours ago
we need the schematics so we can build one... also include 700 mhz jam for lte
permalinkparent

load more comments (1 reply)


[ ]ademnus 11 points 7 hours ago
That's nice but it's not up to the FBI if it is illegal or not.
permalink
[ ]MonitoredCitizen 21 points 7 hours ago
Come on Google and Apple, stop being so lame. Make the phones themselves defend
against this by always displaying the negotiated encryption level and allowing u
ser to configure the phone to refuse to connect if the GSM encryption level is A
5/0.
permalink
[ ]argv_minus_one 2 points 2 hours ago
If they do that, these same spooks will have some words with their CEOs. Otherwi
se, yeah, they likely would.
permalinkparent
[ ]vzzzbux 2 points 1 hour ago
Not sure on the technical specifics but my old Nokia from 10 years ago used to s
how a padlock if the call was "secure", which I guess meant it was encrypted in
some way.
Sounds like yet another way we've gone backwards with the rise of Google and App
le
permalinkparent
[ ]cryptovariable 180 points 12 hours ago
This seems icky, but anyone with a Raspberry Pi ($48.00), an RTL-SDR ($17.00), a
nd an ability to follow written step-by-step instructions on how to install and
configure some open source software ($0.00) can do this, albeit on a smaller sca
le.
That tutorial doesn't cover decrypting GSM traffic. This one does. You'll need s
omething faster than a Raspberry Pi, though. Maybe a $200 netbook.
And you can do it on the same scale as the police with a surplus commercial ante
nna and three or four friends.
I don't see how restricting the government's ability to do this would have any o
ther effect than to criminalize a private citizen's desire to experiment with GS
M.
permalink
[ ]HappyAtavism 113 points 11 hours ago
I don't see how restricting the government's ability to do this would have any o
ther effect than to criminalize a private citizen's desire to experiment with GS
M.
Experiment with GSM all you want, just don't eavesdrop or commit fraud by preten
ding to be part of a legitimate business.
I like to play with miniature cameras, microphones and transmitters. That's a fi
ne hobby as long as I don't use it to spy on my neighbors.
permalinkparent
load more comments (5 replies)
[ ]mr___ 50 points 12 hours ago
But theirs has a transmitter, and actively spoofs cell sites
permalinkparent
[ ]cryptovariable 55 points 12 hours ago
It you want to spoof rather than just eavesdrop all you have to do is buy any of
the SDR kits that are coming on to the market like a bladeRF or something and h
ave GNUradio (which hilariously autocorrects to FBI radio on my phone) pretend t
o be a tower, the credentials of which you sniffed with your Pi setup.
The reason the Feds spoof is so that they can target specific devices on a white
list and only have those connect. The size of the whitelist is unknown and up fo
r debate.
If you're capturing and decrypting all the GSM your antenna can receive you don'
t care if you're spoofing the tower unless you want to modify the traffic in som
e way. To quote Sir Patrick Stewart: "It's too late, I've seen everything."
If you just scoop up everything using cheap/free and publicly available tools yo
u don't really care about spoofing.

It should be noted that the Feds have a leg up with CDMA because of its smaller
global footprint and the scarcity of developers working on it, as well as UMTS (
3G) and LTE.
But people are poking at LTE every day: http://www.rtl-sdr.com/analyzing-td-ltertl-sdr/
permalinkparent
[ ]HappyAtavism 36 points 11 hours ago
The reason the Feds spoof is so that they can target specific devices on a white
list and only have those connect. The size of the whitelist is unknown and up fo
r debate.
We do know they don't have warrants. How many violations of the 4th Amendment do
es it take before it's considered a bad thing?
permalinkparent
load more comments (19 replies)
[ ]A530[??] 6 points 6 hours ago
I have to ask an honest question. Knowing what you know, do you live in a Farada
y cage or just eschew cell phones all together? I'm in InfoSec (I'm guessing you
are too) and with the shit I know, maintaining OPSec is just a never ending bat
tle. I can't imagine my paranoia if I went down the cellular rabbit hole (althou
gh I do know a lot about the shit happening with the carrier baseband MDM garbag
e).
Many thanks for the very informative post.
permalinkparent
[ ]tornadoRadar 1 point 1 hour ago
Gotta keep it segmented. Personal never mixes with biz
permalinkparent
[ ]the_nap_mutilator 1 point 5 hours ago
Spoofing the cell site also gives them access to the phone at something akin to
the hardware level... so unless you have rooted and or installed software to sec
ure the device, they can push new software onto your phone without your knowledg
e/consent in the same way that your carrier updates subscriber units say when th
ey make changes to the network or something. At that point your phone has been p
ermanently compromised.
permalinkparent
load more comments (13 replies)
[ ]mag17435 29 points 10 hours ago
I dont understand how people think the government can do things citizens can. Or
dering our government not to do something has no bearing on what citizens can do
.
permalinkparent
[ ]Golden-Fox 7 points 6 hours ago
Well when police are trying to visually collect evidence they can in general onl
y search from public areas. If a cop is looking for a certain car and they see i
t on the street, that's fine. If the car is parked in a closed garage and on pri
vate property, the cop wouldn't be able to see it without going onto private pro
perty and looking in a window. If the car is in the same garage and the garage d
oor is open, then anyone can see it, and the cop can legally use that informatio
n.
The FBI is trying to apply that same logic to these stingrays. Stingrays are a t
echnology that is available to the public. You could make your own and do exactl
y what the FBI does. The data being collected isn't encrypted, password protecte
d, or anything else. Everything is publicly available. You just have to have a c
ertain machine to be able to read it. The garage door has to be open.
permalinkparent
[ ]Wordygit 6 points 6 hours ago
The key word here is "public" whereas where there is the expectation of privacy,
I would think think that would carry some special considerations. That seems to
be some of what the courts are deciding about, where the expectation of privacy
holds sway over searches. Its already been determined that law enforcement cann
ot force you to unlock your phone. One such Supreme Court case, decided this pas

t summer, led to a sweeping victory for privacy rights advocates. In a rare unan
imous decision, the court found that police cannot search cellphones, and by ext
ension tablets and other digital communication devices, without first obtaining
a warrant. Smartphones, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote, hold the privacies of l
ife, and the fact that technology now allows an individual to carry such informati
on in his hand does not make the information any less worthy of the protection f
or which the Founders fought. I think, as well, that it has been established that
if there is encryption being used, that constitutes an acknowledgement that ste
ps have been taken to protect and maintain the sense of privacy, and so the expe
ctation carries onto the information being transmitted. Not sure if there is a l
egal precedent for that though.
permalinkparent
[ ]Golden-Fox 2 points 5 hours ago
Its already been determined that law enforcement cannot force you to unlock your
phone.
This is what I've heard, but to me it implies that police can access your phone
if you don't have it locked. Carrying that logic over to this argument, the poli
ce would be able to access your cell info as long as it isn't encrypted. It seem
s that you only have a "reasonable expectation to privacy" with your cell phone
if you've taken any steps to make your phone more private. If there were some wa
y to get your carrier to encrypt your data, then there'd be no question, but the
way cell providers are these days, that's not gonna happen.
permalinkparent
[ ]ThreeTimesUp 1 point 1 hour ago
Something that I have heard repeatedly (and I may yet have it wrong), is that if
your front door is closed, but unlocked, the police are free to enter without a
warrant.
This has always bothered me.
I could understand the mind-set of someone (i.e. a Justice of the Supreme court)
thinking that way if they grew up (or lived) in an area where they lived a life
always fearful of intruders and locking doors was a practical necessity.
But to me, a closed door means "Keep out, knock for admittance - no entry withou
t permission."
So, for naive, trusting, me, I would not expect the police (or anyone) to examin
e my phone (without a warrant) just to see what they could find.
permalinkparent
[ ]pion3435 1 point 3 hours ago
A technologically illiterate moron's expectation of privacy doesn't become a rea
sonable expectation of privacy just because the majority of the population is te
chnologically illiterate.
permalinkparent
[ ]F0sh 1 point 2 hours ago
This is totally wrong thinking. A private citizen can look for your car through
the garage window without legal repercussions, even though a police officer migh
t not be allowed. The police officer has to conduct his searches according to th
e expectation of privacy and you have every expectation that your private phone
conversations are private - even if you're sending your texts at the shopping ce
ntre.
This is a bullshit equivocation on the part of the FBI, who are claiming that si
nce any old person at the shops can see that you're also at the shops you have n
o expectation of privacy at all.
This logic, if extended, would also mean the FBI could clone your hard drive if
you took your laptop to a public place - after all, you have no expectation of p
rivacy there. No. Bullshit - just because you're in the park doesn't mean all yo
ur possessions and emails became public.
This has nothing to do with what an ordinary citizen is able to do in public or
in private.
permalinkparent
[ ]ThreeTimesUp 1 point 2 hours ago*
Well when police are trying to visually collect evidence they can in general onl

y search from public areas. If a cop is looking for a certain car and they see i
t on the street, that's fine.
To counterpoint this:
Infra-red light (heat) is just light that's at a lower frequency than humans can
detect.
Courts have ruled that the police using specialized equipment to detect heat sig
natures (Infra-red light) emanating from from houses for the purpose of snooping
for grow operations are an invasion of privacy.
The signals Stingray is picking up are just another frequency, even lower than I
nfra-red light, originating from inside your phone, that is your property, which
is in your possession.
Authorities are using all manner of logical distortions in an express attempt to
get around the ideals and principles expressed in the Constitution.
What law-abiding citizen would attempt such a thing?
What authority that the public has placed their trust in, would make continual a
ttempts to subvert the Constitution?
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
load more comments (2 replies)
[ ]kromem 2 points 3 hours ago
It is already criminal to capture and decrypt GSM traffic for citizens (Wiretap
Act), same as capturing and parsing WiFi data.
But I think I can point out the issue with your logic with a simple analogy:
Citizens can buy guns.
Law enforcement can be provided guns.
Citizens can practice shooting guns.
Law enforcement should do the same.
Citizens can't shoot other citizens with guns except in really specific exemptio
ns.
According to your logic, just because citizens can buy guns, and could possibly
go around shooting other people with them, law enforcement should not have any l
egal restrictions on their use of guns.
It is illegal for you to capture and decrypt anyone else's traffic, and it shoul
d be illegal for cops to do the same without a warrant. It's not that hard to ge
t a warrant when actually justified, creates a paper trail that can be examined
for abuses, and has been the case without serious issue for years now.
For what purpose does the law need to be changed to allow this? Because warrants
are inconvenient? Well then why not get rid of them for entering homes too? It'
s quite trivial to pick a lock, and even easier to smash a window and climb in.
Any citizen could do it. So why do we need to restrict the police from the same?
permalinkparent
[ ]dfioabnionjio 4 points 9 hours ago
I don't see how restricting the government's ability to do this would have any o
ther effect than to criminalize a private citizen's desire to experiment with GS
M.
Why not have it be illegal for government and legal for private citizens? Make i
t perfectly legal for private citizens to experiment with GSM, but don't let the
FBI do the same, like you can have a private citizen share something a defendan
t said in court while the police cannot do the same unless the suspect had been
told of their rights.
Of course, the problem here is not using GSM. It's tracking people who did not k
nowingly join your network. You could have it be legal to experiment with GSM an
d not legal to spoof a network, or make it so tracking someone on your network i
s illegal unless the person being tracked is aware they will be tracked and cons
ents to it.
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]confusiondiffusion 3 points 10 hours ago
Yeah, I really don't see the point in making laws against this, since they'll be
broken anyway. We need to fix the underlying technology. There is no excuse for

the sad state of cellphone security.


permalinkparent
[ ]HappyAtavism 18 points 10 hours ago
I really don't see the point in making laws against this
Then let's just flush the Constitution down the toilet. All laws get broken, the
question is what gets done about it.
since they'll be broken anyway
It's not very hard to break into my house either, but they're not supposed to do
it without a warrant.
permalinkparent
load more comments (4 replies)
[ ]HighMonster 1 point 7 hours ago
Wow that's intriguing
permalinkparent
[ ]lll_1_lll 1 point 6 hours ago
You act like this is realistically doable for the large majority of people and y
ou know that's BS.
permalinkparent
[+][deleted] 6 hours ago (1 child)
[ ]JabroniZamboni 1 point 5 hours ago
Are you suggesting that radar jammers should be legal? As well as cell phone or
wifi jammers? What if your neighbor wants to experiment with a jammer for the ne
xt 4 months? 6 years? I assume you wouldn't be too happy. There's experimentatio
n and then there's purposeful disruption and spying.
permalinkparent
[ ]egodeath92 1 point 5 hours ago
Yeah except "anyone with device X" can't prosecute people. It doesn't matter whe
n corporations do mass data collection because they are just trying to make mone
y/sell people shit. The government can create a database of people's private liv
es then prosecute them. You could even imagine a time where data collection is s
o widespread that this kind of info is used for political purposes rather then b
usting drug dealers/ other criminals which is what it's used for now.
permalinkparent
[ ]Kuusou 1 point 4 hours ago
What the people can do, and what the government can do, are no the same things,
nor should they.
permalinkparent
[ ]qdarius 1 point 4 hours ago
If a random person overhears my conversation I don't care. Even if they tell the
ir friends I'm still not too concerned.
If the government records my conversation and uses it to investigate or prosecut
e me that's clearly a different situation.
Just because someone can do something doesn't mean it should be legal. It defini
tely doesn't mean we should be okay with our government using it on us.
permalinkparent
load more comments (9 replies)
[ ]Sir_not_sir 52 points 13 hours ago
The main purpose of the stinger is to circumvent the need and time of acquiring
a warrant and getting the data from all the service providers.
Regardless of data retention plans, they should require a separate judicial warr
ant for each individual suspect in order to be deployed.
permalink
[ ]manoninternets 8 points 7 hours ago*
The time required to get a warrant is usually far less than what they make it ou
t to be, although cost is as factor. Phone companies make tons of money off poli
ce records requests.
To play devil's advocate (and I do think the STINGRAY arrangement is devilish):
once you request records from the phone companies, there's no guarantee that won
't get leaked to the people being investigated. The cartels have people everywhe

re.
permalinkparent
[ ]kevincreeperpants 6 points 6 hours ago
What if they are the cartels!?...dun dun dun
permalinkparent
[ ]tughdffvdlfhegl 1 point 3 hours ago
I don't think anyone here has a problem with STINGRAY being used, given that the
y have a warrant for the person's data they're monitoring. So in your situation,
that's easy to do.
permalinkparent
[ ]manoninternets 2 points 3 hours ago
Yeah it's the same concept as going through my private letters, or close enough
to it anyhow. (Even though letters are physically sealed and radio waves permeat
e the air freely, my intention is for my text messages to be as private as posta
l mail.)
Even a child could rip open an envelope with ease. That doesn't mean police don'
t need a warrant to do so.
permalinkparent
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[ ]turnthatfrown 9 points 7 hours ago
I think the FBI is conveniently forgetting that they are intercepting a communic
ation that is normally secured via encryption and carried privately by your wire
less provider then switched privately all the way to the party on the other end
who has similar expectations of the connection.
I mean, come on, the Stingrays themselves are impersonating the carrier that you
have a contract with and using techniques to avoid the strong encryption. The p
rove by their own design and implementation that the FBI's argument is bullshit.
permalink
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]dontbullshityourself 27 points 11 hours ago
I'm so sick of the ways these callous assholes use to crush our freedom.
What is the point of massive expensive law enforcement agencies if the law can't
protect our rights and freedoms? Hasn't the cart been put before the horse here
?
permalink
[ ]donottakethisserious 13 points 6 hours ago
If you are told you are free enough times, you start to believe it. You start at
a young age with a pledge every day and then when you grow up you attend sporti
ng events and stand for the national anthem and tear up at how free you are. Tha
t way nobody will ever question whether or not this is actually a free country.
permalinkparent
[ ]dontbullshityourself 10 points 5 hours ago
When I was a kid I started to sit during the pledge. Honestly I think I just wan
ted to test and see how free I was. I knew that saying the pledge etc wasn't in
the school handbook. I knew there was no rule saying I had to say it or stand or
anything. The powers that be at my school just used the herd instinct to keep t
his shit going.
So I started sitting down. This resulted in a lot of attention from gangs of bul
lies. My home room teacher didn't like it either and lectured/bitched about it e
very day. But she stopped short of anything more than shaming me unlike the bull
ies.
Anyway I just decided to drop out. Fuck it. Humans don't like new things that co
nfuse them and challenge them to think. How interesting that was to be the last
thing I learned in school. I found another kind of freedom. The freedom to leave
the assholes mired in their stupidity and find my own path in life.
permalinkparent
[ ]joshyfitzo90 4 points 5 hours ago
I like your style.
permalinkparent

[ ]Jack41096 3 points 4 hours ago


I applaud you. I stood but that's all I did. it was in our rulebook to stand but
fuck them if they thought I was gonna do more than that. I started a wave of pe
ople standing and doing nothing.
eventually my first period class was reduced to two people and the teacher actua
lly doing anything. they bitches about it but we all had our own reasons.
permalinkparent
[ ]dontbullshityourself 2 points 3 hours ago
eventually my first period class was reduced to two people and the teacher actua
lly doing anything. they bitches about it but we all had our own reasons.
There are lots of reasons to resist and only one reason to obey. Fear.
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]CriticalThink 3 points 5 hours ago
Government hasn't been interested in protecting our rights and freedoms in a lon
g time.
permalinkparent
[ ]jkeyser14 5 points 7 hours ago
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety
, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. - Benjamin Franklin
permalinkparent
[ ]dontbullshityourself 5 points 6 hours ago
We didn't give it up. They are taking it.
permalinkparent
[ ]jkeyser14 10 points 6 hours ago
Only because we aren't rioting. The first group of rioters to tar and feather a
politician again will bring about change very quickly.
permalinkparent
[ ]dontbullshityourself 4 points 5 hours ago
People are gonna have to get a lot more desperate. I reckon we'll get our riot s
oon enough.
permalinkparent
[ ]Jack41096 1 point 4 hours ago
take the food. that's the surefire way to cause a riot.
people will be content as long as they're fed. you take that away and suddenly t
hey have nothing to lose. they have to survive. that is the most primal response
we have. to fight tooth and nail for food. to eat no matter the cost.
permalinkparent
[ ]RamsNation 1 point 4 hours ago
America has a very stable food supply so I doubt that will happen.
permalinkparent
[ ]dontbullshityourself 1 point 3 hours ago
I don't think we have to take the food. I think that people today are a lot more
self entitled and will jump into a fit without their iphones. They can't even i
magine a world without abundant food.
permalinkparent
[ ]grungebucket 1 point 4 hours ago
bring about change very quickly. street executions very quickly.
there. Corrected that for you. After all. You wouldn't want to be mistaken for a
terrorist endorsing a terrorist act now, would you?
permalinkparent
[ ]pion3435 2 points 3 hours ago
You never had it. You're just now finding out.
permalinkparent
[ ]hershmire 7 points 7 hours ago
Ok, I get the FBI's argument. Technically, we are all choosing to carry a digita
l device around with us that uniquely identifies us via radio frequency. It's tr
ue that we could very well decide not to partake in the use of cell phones if we
're so worried about being tracked. And thus because we decide to carry these pa

rtially secure devices around with us, they FBI has every right to hack them and
track us.
But this argument is bogus. The FBI can't read our mail or tap our phones becaus
e legislators and judges at one time recognized that technology becomes indispen
sable, and therefore should be protected under privacy laws. Just because I choo
se to carry a cell phone around with me doesn't give the FBI to track my whereab
outs, or worse. That'd be like saying it's my fault for having my mail read by t
he FBI because I chose to write letters, or I chose to have my phones monitored
and recorded by the FBI because I chose to use telephones.
The FBI is part of the executive branch. They (supposedly) operate within the sc
ope of the law. If there's no specific law preventing their actions, they'll go
ahead and do it. So write your representatives and get shit like this regulated.
And use letters because they're obligated to at least open the envelope.
permalink
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]drakecherry 5 points 8 hours ago
we might as well get rid of warrants all together. they are gonna search if they
want to, and nothing will happen if they are wrong.
permalink
[ ]MeganNancySmith 6 points 6 hours ago
The FBI doesn't have the legal authority to make that determination.
It would be like if I said that murder is legal every other Sunday. I can say it
all I like, but it doesn't make it true.
permalink
[ ]Todda468 6 points 6 hours ago
Anything a private citizen can't do should require reasonable suspicion or a war
rent.
permalink
[ ]Sonotmethen 6 points 9 hours ago
Then signal jammers aren't either.
permalink
[ ]MrJDouble 4 points 9 hours ago
FBI tends to say a lot of things, doesn't mean it isn't a pile of horseshit.
permalink
[ ]blueiron0 4 points 6 hours ago
(3) cases in which the technology is used in public places or other locations at
which the FBI deems there is no reasonable expectation of privacy.
Love how the FBI gets to decide when it's ok for them to assume you shouldnt hav
e any expectation on privacy. "we saw a poop porn video on pornhub. you shouldnt
expect privacy when pooping then."
permalink
[ ]ragn4rok234 4 points 6 hours ago
Whoo! Now I don't need a warrant or sufficient reason to wire tap anyone and eve
ryone. Stalkers of the world rejoice! It's like Oprah is handing out privacy bre
aches in here
permalink
[ ]fourslaps 4 points 4 hours ago
This isn't what Steve Irwin would have wanted
permalink
[ ]knowyourbrain 7 points 8 hours ago
How sad is it that we have an R Senator trying to rein in a D president's FBI?
If Snowden et al have not been able to show the American people what a farce our
government is then I don't know how it can be demonstrated.
permalink
[ ]makingupdumbnames 1 point 5 hours ago
that's Chelsea to you, mister!
permalinkparent
[ ]StellarUsername 4 points 9 hours ago
Can someone ELI5 why my cell carrier lets this happen? Seems like it would be ea
sy enough for them to put a stop to it if they wanted.

permalink
[ ]giantgnat 13 points 8 hours ago
Because if you don't play nice with them, they don't play nice with you like wha
t happened to the CEO of quest after he refused to cooperate.
permalinkparent
[ ]lll_1_lll 6 points 6 hours ago
CEO of quest
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/09/30/a-ceo-who-resistednsa-spying-is-out-of-prison-and-he-feels-vindicated-by-snowden-leaks/
permalinkparent
[ ]WatchoutItsAllan 1 point 4 hours ago
Looks like the only way to be out of the eyes of the NSA is to go back to using
these http://imgur.com/JEFUt4h
permalinkparent
[ ]jkeyser14 4 points 7 hours ago
The cell and internet companies get paid millions by the government for direct a
ccess to their lines. This was one of the things Snowden blew the whistle on.
permalinkparent
[ ]MadPooter 2 points 7 hours ago
I believe that the technology behind our current cell phone towers needs to allo
w for widespread access to said cell phone towers from a wide array of technolog
ical devices.
The Stingray makes the cell phone tower believe that it's a cell phone--I don't
know that it's as easy as you might think to re-design all cell phone models to
differentiate themselves from what Stingrays currently are.
TL;DR: This might be a better issue for cell phone designers to solve rather the
n cell phone carriers.
permalinkparent
[ ]egalroc 2 points 6 hours ago
Maybe design a Falcon drone that homes in and locks on fake Stingray towers. Wou
ldn't the FBI just shit to see a couple sparrows zooming down on them?
permalinkparent
[ ]A530[??] 1 point 6 hours ago
Cell carriers couldn't care less. They're also packaging backdoors in their base
band software to do all kinds of functional crap, like over the air updates and
remote access.
permalinkparent
[ ]here4DaBacon 3 points 7 hours ago
So it's a honey pot for cell phones. This same method is used to intercept WiFi
internet traffic. The world is becoming a hackers paradise.
permalink
[ ]CapAnson 4 points 6 hours ago
I don't even think of the FBI's exceptions two and three are valid. And as for i
mminent danger to public safety I can't imagine when that safety hinges on inter
cepting a cell call right now this very second without a warrant
permalink
[ ]SquidwardSnowden1 3 points 6 hours ago
Let it be noted, I love big brother.
permalink
[ ]ryanknapper 3 points 6 hours ago
There was a comment asking what prevents private citizens from doing this. My re
ply was: Absolutely nothing. In fact, there are legal ways of doing exactly this
.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xKihq1fClQg
permalink
[ ]lll_1_lll 2 points 6 hours ago
inb4 this thread gets removed by the mods and/or shadowbanned
permalink
[ ]doctorshady[S] 3 points 6 hours ago
I was almost sure it was going to be removed when I submitted it.

permalinkparent
[ ]grtwatkins 1 point 3 hours ago
Wait, so mods = FBI?
permalinkparent
[ ]doctorshady[S] 2 points 2 hours ago
The mods here are quite restrictive about what is allowed to be submitted. Wheth
er or not they're under someone's influence is a question I can't answer (though
I'd honestly like to know), but you'll occasionally see high profile topics rem
oved, like the Snowden leaks back when PRISM was first pointed out.
permalinkparent
[ ]tomcat23 3 points 6 hours ago
If I had a hundred dollars for every time the FBI said it could do something une
thical or unconstitutional I'd be shooting rockets into space like Elon Musk rig
ht now.
permalink
[ ]leafygreenstuff 3 points 6 hours ago
Oh, well if they said....
permalink
[ ]wlxr 3 points 5 hours ago
Is this implying that they are going to repeatedly kill Steve Irwin?
permalink
[ ]Bulldog65 3 points 2 hours ago
Can I Use my Stingray in public places to intercept communications ?
If the answer is no, then the FBI needs a warrant.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effec
ts, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Wa
rrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, a
nd particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things t
o be seized.
This can only be changed by super majority votes in Congress and the States, not
treasonous opinions of mouthpiece lawyers in Department of Justice. This is why
prosecutions of torture memo writers is important. If they want to try and make
up laws they need to be held accountable under the law.
permalink
[ ]Do_Em_Till_They_Derp 13 points 12 hours ago
I don't think that is a good idea considering what happened to Steve Irwin.
permalink
[ ]Smgth 1 point 4 hours ago
I can't believe how far down I had to scroll to find this joke. I was worried I'
d have to make it myself. This thread is WAY too serious for my taste...
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]go1dfish 10 points 10 hours ago
This is what happens when you give a group of people authority over all else.
They use that authority to extort funds from you to pay for your own oppression.
But reddit still cheers it on. It seems to some; the concepts of roads or compas
sion cannot exist without specially anointed jack boot thugs.
permalink
[ ]Arael15th 3 points 6 hours ago
Do you see anyone in this post cheering this on? Moreover is this your first tim
e here?
permalinkparent
[ ]Flight_MH370 2 points 9 hours ago
Can the cell providers see every time this happens? If so, they could alert peop
le of fake towers or something. Alas, I'm pretty sure all the cell providers are
in bed with the feds already anyway.
permalink
[ ]leftnotracks 1 point 8 hours ago
This is why it s a good thing the FBI are not the people in charge of what is lega
l.

permalink
[ ]iluvmilfs420 3 points 7 hours ago
Ohh cool more of my taxes wasted on stupid shit...
permalink
[ ]fuzzycuffs 3 points 7 hours ago
Then I can do the same thing with wifi and not be charged with hacking, right?
permalink
[ ]endprism 2 points 7 hours ago
Use of Stringray in America: https://www.aclu.org/maps/stingray-tracking-devices
-whos-got-them
http://rt.com/usa/215735-sandiego-police-phone-tracking/
http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/First-Amendment-Coalition-Files-Lawsuit-Ab
out-Stingray-Surveillance--286092741.html
http://www.miaminewtimes.com/2012-02-16/news/cell-phone-tracking-miami-cops-know
-where-you-are/
http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/Fort-Worth-Cellphone-Tracking-Rings-Controversy
-140796693.html
http://www.wgrz.com/story/news/investigations/2014/02/13/are-local-police-spying
-on-your-cell-phone/5462273/
Tick tock...
permalink
[ ]johnnybiggs15 2 points 7 hours ago
didnt know they had that type of power
permalink
[ ]jwyche008 2 points 6 hours ago
They would fucking say that wouldn't they? The thing is it isn't supposed to be
their damn decision to make!
permalink
[ ]ICEClownfishWok 1 point 6 hours ago
Did the US government learn nothing from Nazi Germany? I honestly won't be surpr
ised if WWIII occurs when the rest of the world gets tired of our governments bu
llshit
permalink
[ ]frankenstilskin 3 points 6 hours ago
America, for the corporations by the corporations
permalink
[ ]Elephant_rhino_tiger 3 points 5 hours ago
It sounds like a 6 year old coming up with a superhero. "This is FBI man, and he
can fly and like punch through the earth, and he can y'know like intercept cell
traffic if he thinks it's important. But he is weak against himself though, so
like if he punched himself he would die."
permalink
[ ]Banana_blanket 2 points 4 hours ago
Hey who wants to just sit around and let it happen? Oh, everyone? Perfect. Ready
? Go.
permalink
[ ]poopinbutt2014 3 points 4 hours ago
Ah yes, the cops deciding what laws they are and aren't subject to.
permalink
[ ]burnerthrown 2 points 2 hours ago
Has anyone else notied a pattern of more and more laws that protect enforcement
operations from civilians, and fewer nd fewer laws protecting civilians from enf
orcement?
permalink
[ ]siquisiudices 2 points 2 hours ago
Increasingly I am astonished by the state of democracy in the developed western
countries. What has happened and how? I realise that there have always been infr
ingements of liberties by the state - always. But it seems to me that what has c
hanged is the blatent nature of the compromise of democratic norms. I'm not a hi
storian but my impression is that the origins of our current situation lie in tw

o iconic regimes in the UK and US - Reagan and Thatcher (and those that followed
) - and in the fall of the soviet regimes.
The economic philosophy that Reagan and Thatcher promoted reduced liberty to pro
perty rights while at the same time it condemned (rightly) the soviet regimes fo
r their lack of respect for democratic norms. The appeal of this economic ideolo
gy to capital, to the corporations, was obvious especially as during the 1970s t
here had been intermittent but recurring periods when profitability had fallen.
In the context of declining profitability, a roll back of the state and public e
xpenditure was a quick win.
For the rest of society, the implication that growth in personal, individual wea
lth was being held back by public spending and that the welfare state eroded ind
ividual responsibility also won the day. A key element in this process was the d
efeat and denigration of trade unionism: Thatcher going so far as to suggest tha
t trade unions (in the person of the National Union of Miners) were dangerous tr
aitors. People bought into the arguments for radical individualism ("there is no
such thing as society") because, in part, the concrete experience of collectivi
sm in trade unions declined in the face a massive anti-trade union assault.
The fall of the corrupt and totalitarian soviet regimes underpinned this all by
giving concrete expression to the notion that there is no alternative.
Economically the result has been massive widening of the discrepancy in wealth i
n many western countries and increased immiseration of labour across the world a
nd no force to counterbalance the power of the corporations and the state that t
hey (quite naturally) control. The state is the central committee of capital.
In all of this, the oft misnamed "libertarian" tendencies were accompanied by an
increasingly authoritarian and intrusive state apparatus which was promoted and
defended around quite classical nationalist ideas but recast often as the defen
se of western democracy against various external enemies.
And so, little by little, we have allowed our civil liberties to be chipped away
. Even the radical libertarians have been sidelined and fooled into irrelevant s
truggles around gun control in the US. Really, if an armed citizenry were the gu
arantee of liberty then one wold have hoped it would have done a better job. But
overall anti-welfare, anti-European and anti-immigrant rhetoric in the UK and,
for example, religious manipulation of public discourse in the US have allowed t
he authoritarian, pro-corporate state to gradually encroach on political and per
sonal freedoms. And here we are.
We can't say we didn't know - we were warned but the ruling class managed to def
ame the messengers and in other ways render us impotent.
One can only hope that we wake up in time and that our new disdain for collectiv
ism is overcome by the necessity of taking collective action.
permalink
[ ]DinglebellRock [score hidden] 49 minutes ago
You have a right to privacy according to the Constitution. Except for maybe your
cell phone calls. Or email. Or handwritten or typed letters. Or what you read f
rom the library and Amazon. Or maybe your colon and lower intestine if you are i
n New Mexico. What a fucked up nation this has become...
permalink
[ ]nstalker91 [score hidden] 38 minutes ago
Oh sure, when they do it, it's "protecting" and "morally right", but when I do i
t, it's a "federal crime" and "the FCC watches me"
permalink
[ ]The_Media_Collector 3 points 9 hours ago
This is why my phone has an app to continually report IMSI changes to me. I swit
ch one tower to another, I get a warning.
permalink
[ ]Redd575 1 point 7 hours ago
How is that helpful? Not being an ass, just curious. Seems if a Stingray can spo
of a tower then the app does little unless you are standing absolutely still.
permalinkparent
[ ]The_Media_Collector 3 points 7 hours ago
it's my understanding that Stingray "towers" do not encrypt traffic. anytime I a

m connected to an unencrypted "tower" the IMSI detector goes red and lets me kno
w.
permalinkparent
[ ]Redd575 1 point 6 hours ago
Wow. Whomever figured that out was clever.
permalinkparent
[ ]ExReverie93 1 point 7 hours ago
Which app? And would a normal person (not meaning you're not normal. You know wh
at I mean.) be able to use it?
permalinkparent
[ ]The_Media_Collector 1 point 7 hours ago
Requires Root. It's just caeld "Adnroid IMSI-Catchter"
permalinkparent
[ ]egalroc 1 point 6 hours ago
Makes a person want to be a criminal or spy just for the fun of it.
permalinkparent
[ ]Effo 3 points 7 hours ago
Goodbye America the Great, hello police state. :-[
permalink
[ ]Casemods 2 points 7 hours ago
Another reason why I don't have a cell phone.
permalink
[ ]GiveMe_TreeFiddy 3 points 7 hours ago
Things libertarians have been screaming about and offering solutions to for 500$
, Alex...
permalink
[ ]ilovesellinblow 1 point 9 hours ago
police and marshals have been running these for years.
permalink
[ ]bbelt16ag 1 point 8 hours ago
so FBI lets see what the Supreme court has to say to that. I am sure once they r
ule on this you will be going home with your tails between your legs.
permalink
[ ]Banana_blanket 1 point 4 hours ago
Do you people really have that much faith in our Supreme Court? Really?
permalinkparent
[ ]bbelt16ag 1 point 3 hours ago
gotta have some faith, other wise its just anarchy, or revolution. I am not read
y to give up quite yet.
permalinkparent
[ ]bonyponyride 1 point 8 hours ago
If digital communication in a public (and private) space is fair game, there's n
othing to stop an FBI tech specialist from stealing things like knowledge that w
ould be considered insider trading. There's an extreme potential for abuse.
permalink
[ ]jkeyser14 2 points 7 hours ago
If was fair game then hacking into wireless signals by private citizens wouldn't
be illegal.
permalinkparent
[ ]egalroc 1 point 6 hours ago
Just waiting for Anonymous to set up shop in a public park and hack into police
communications then dispatch them to bogus locations throughout the city. If any
thing goes wrong, they could always blame North Korea.
permalinkparent
[ ]coalbeeashi 1 point 3 hours ago
Aren't government agencies encrypting their digital communication - thus exhibit
ing an expectation of privacy?
I'm not sure what steps the "reasonable person" is taking to exhibit an expectat
ion of privacy over their data, tbh.
permalinkparent

[ ]hmmwhatsthisdo 1 point 8 hours ago


If you used RedPhone, Whisperpush/TextSecure, and a VPN, this wouldn't be of con
cern to you, right?
permalink
[ ]LucifersCounselNZ 1 point 7 hours ago
Wrong.
In other cases, the IMSI or equivalent identifier of a target is not known to th
e StingRay operator and the goal of the surveillance operation is to identify on
e or more cellular devices being used in a known area.[16] For example, if visua
l surveillance is being conducted on a group of protestors,[17] a StingRay can b
e used to download the IMSI or equivalent identifier from each phone within the
protest area. After identifying the phones, locating and tracking operations can
be conducted, and service providers can be forced to turn over account informat
ion identifying the phone users.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stingray_phone_tracker#Extracting_Data_From_Interna
l_Storage
Before any of that shit you're talking about comes into play, the IMSI number is
used when establishing the connection. It is uniquely identifying. With your IM
SI number and a court order (or cooperative telco) they will know who you are an
d who you were communicating with.
Then they can use that information to punish you for participating in legal prot
ests, associating with the wrong people, or simply because some Fed didn't like
the look of you.
permalinkparent
[ ]hmmwhatsthisdo 1 point 6 hours ago
So, the only way is to modify your IMEI (which is questionably legal) and use a
prepaid SIM?
permalinkparent
[ ]facepalmdude 1 point 5 hours ago
The IMSI part makes sense, but by using the mentioned tools authorities are very
unlikely to find out who you communicated with, or what the content was. All th
ey know is that you're the end point of an encrypted data connection.
permalinkparent
[ ]coalbeeashi 1 point 3 hours ago
I would assume that a court would view this as an individual exhibiting an expec
tation of privacy over their data.
permalinkparent
[ ]mambotangohandala 1 point 7 hours ago
Law?
We don't need no stinkin' law...
permalink
[ ]smilesbot 1 point 7 hours ago
You've just used a double negative! :P
permalinkparent
[ ]mambotangohandala 1 point 7 hours ago
no i did not, never would i do such a thing, nope, i don't think i ever did...
Ever see the movie 'blazing saddles'? Context kid, context
permalinkparent
[ ]smilesbot 1 point 7 hours ago
yup yup yup!
permalinkparent
[ ]mambotangohandala 1 point 7 hours ago
oh no a triple positive,what a stupendous faux pas!
permalinkparent
[ ]smilesbot 1 point 7 hours ago
yup yup yup!
permalinkparent
[ ]mambotangohandala 1 point 7 hours ago
Did mom give you too many sodas tonight?
permalinkparent

[ ]mambotangohandala 1 point 7 hours ago


Now where are those kiddy downers?
permalinkparent
[ ]mambotangohandala 1 point 7 hours ago
Remember tomorrow is a school day
permalinkparent
[ ]BigTex8900 1 point 7 hours ago
The Federal Bureau of Investigation is taking the position that court warrants a
re not required when deploying cell-site simulators in public places.
Wait so can I take the position that it's not actually illegal to suck dick for
money in public places?
permalink
[ ]AssOrca 1 point 6 hours ago
Well thank god there not doing it in my home!
permalinkparent
[ ]Drunken_Economist 1 point 7 hours ago
The FCC says they are needed, FWIW
permalink
[ ]FadingEchoes11 0 points 6 hours ago
100% true, power to the people
You should learn about and try to understand firearms more, they are just tools
after all.
permalink
[ ]winstrol 1 point 6 hours ago
Can i use a stingray? Al stick to my snoopsnitch.
permalink
[ ]fatscat84 2 points 6 hours ago
Big fucking surprise, 4th amendment=toilet paper anymore. The rights of the citi
zens arent even considered anymore since we dont have lobbyists. Maybe ill start
a kickstarter campaign to make a lobbyist group to give americans a voice in d.
c.
permalink
[ ]urbn 2 points 6 hours ago
The Obama Administration has repeatedly maintained that the public has no privac
y in public places.
And yet the excuse always used when someone records a police officer breaking th
e law and is arrested, detained and has his property stolen is that it violates
their privacy.
permalink
[ ]Vigilias 1 point 6 hours ago
If it's stealing signals being send from private residences it sure should fucki
ng be wtf.
permalink
[ ]2013palmtreepam 1 point 6 hours ago
Because stingrays automatically stop working at private property lines? Don't re
call the part of the 4th Amendment that exempts the requirement for probable cau
se and a search warrant when one happens to be in a public place.
permalink
[ ]makingupdumbnames 2 points 6 hours ago
I don't think it would be too hard to develop a stingray jammer, something that
just floods their equipment with a bunch of useless/fake cell phone numbers...I'
m in favor of a more strategic response to these types of infringements of our r
ights. We actually have a right and responsibility to fight tyranny...
permalink
[ ]ghotiaroma 1 point 3 hours ago
It's possible, but you wouldn't know where and when to use it. And it would be d
etectable you are using a jammer and anyone using one would find themselves fill
ed with SWAT bullets in no time.
permalinkparent
[ ]ononewheel 1 point 2 hours ago

Cant you rent bot net time and do this?


permalinkparent
[ ]psilontech 1 point 5 hours ago
I think that's for the courts to decide, FBI.
permalink
[ ]coalbeeashi 1 point 4 hours ago
...the only way the courts could decide is if it were practiced and a lawsuit wa
s brought against those practices.
Of course the FBI is going to finagle ways to flirt with obscure, outdated laws
for the purpose of investigating, thus practice it. Of course some group or orga
nization is going to take issue with it, thus taking it to court.
permalinkparent
[ ]cynoclast 2 points 5 hours ago
And the 4th Amendment says the FBI is wrong. And to the idea that subsequent law
s or that prededence says otherwise, I say that lawyers who make those interpret
ations were paid to do so by people with a vested interest in saying otherwise.
The constitution and amendments were intended to be read and interpreted by ever
yone, not just lawyers and judges so it matters not at all what lawyers and judg
es say.
permalink
[ ]coalbeeashi 1 point 5 hours ago
The constitution and amendments were intended to be read and interpreted by ever
yone
Uhh...interpreted by everyone? Do you know how fucked up that would be? There's
a reason for the judicial branch.
permalinkparent
[ ]cynoclast 2 points 4 hours ago
More fucked up than corporations as people? The 4th Amendment being ignored by t
he DHS, Homeland Security, and the NSA? More fucked up than than all the ridicul
ous, unconstitutional restrictions on cosmetic features of firearms that all vio
late the 2nd amendment? More fucked up than justices appointed by war criminals
refusing to recuse themselves where they have a clear conflict of interest?
The judicial branch is staffed by people, just as fallible as the rest of us. Th
e judicial branch was nly ever an attempt to reign in the other two. It was alwa
ys intended that it was the right of the people to alter or abolish the governme
nt if it gets out of hand and it has.
permalinkparent
[ ]coalbeeashi 1 point 4 hours ago
I would still rather have the fate of laws be in the hands of individuals who sp
ecifically studied the very nature of their professional practice than leave it
up to a mass of people with little-to-no understanding of the law, outside of wh
at is force-fed to them by media (comparable to your assertion of less-than-idea
l practices by lawyer/judges)
I fully agree that laws should be written in ways that the public can understand
and interpret (however, you're never going to reach a consensus on laws written
200+ years ago). And I believe that, reading most supreme court decisions, the
justices advocate for specifics in laws and understand that outdated or vague la
ws is a main reason cases are brought before them. Laws aren't concrete or stati
c. It's a court of public opinion.
permalinkparent
[ ]cynoclast 1 point 4 hours ago
I would still rather have the fate of laws be in the hands of individuals who sp
ecifically studied the very nature of their professional practice than leave it
up to a mass of people with little-to-no understanding of the law, outside of wh
at is force-fed to them by media (comparable to your assertion of less-than-idea
l practices by lawyer/judges)
I think there's balance between the two. It's similar to the balance between IT
and the user. While the IT guy is more knowledgeable about the field than most o
f the users he's supposed to facilitate, he often forgets that his purpose is to
facilitate, not to rule, and what the users are doing is what keeps the lights

on. People in congress and the senate are mislabelled when called 'lawmakers' th
eir job is representative of their constituency. And lawyers face a conflict of
interest between simplifying the law and representing people fairly and seeing a
fter their own welfare and ensuring their own job security. Simple, clear, and u
nambiguous laws have little value to the professional attorney at law. But the p
eople at large have no interest, and in fact a reason to despise laws they don't
understand, especially ones decided by decades old case law they know nothing a
bout. But for too long the balance has been swinging in favor of the lawyer seek
ing payment for services from the rich instead of the poor seeking freedom from
those with the resources to hire teams of lawyers for years to drain them of res
ources. The day a rich man could sue an innocent poor man under false pretenses
and crush him is the day the justice department ceased to function as intended.
I fully agree that laws should be written in ways that the public can understand
and interpret (however, you're never going to reach a consensus on laws written
200+ years ago). And I believe that, reading most supreme court decisions, the
justices advocate for specifics in laws and understand that outdated or vague la
ws is a main reason cases are brought before them. Laws aren't concrete or stati
c. It's a court of public opinion.
Lawyers like to pretend that they are concrete or static. Just imagine the phras
e "settled case law" coming out of their mouths and you need go no further. It's
like they forget that eventually given the dynamic equilibrium of the poor vs.
the rich that sometimes words written on paper in a dusty library somewhere mean
absolutely nothing when the pitchforks and guillotines come out, the old laws t
hrown out, and new ones written even more strongly against tyrants. You're right
, sometimes, it's a court of public opinion. But sometimes the court is brutal,
but not unjustly so:
There were two Reigns of Terror, if we would but remember it and consider it; the
one wrought murder in hot passion, the other in heartless cold blood; the one la
sted mere months, the other had lasted a thousand years; the one inflicted death
upon ten thousand persons, the other upon a hundred millions; but our shudders
are all for the horrors of the minor Terror, the momentary Terror, so to speak; wh
ereas, what is the horror of swift death by the axe, compared with lifelong deat
h from hunger, cold, insult, cruelty, and heart-break? What is swift death by li
ghtning compared with death by slow fire at the stake? A city cemetery could con
tain the coffins filled by that brief Terror which we have all been so diligentl
y taught to shiver at and mourn over; but all France could hardly contain the co
ffins filled by that older and real Terror that unspeakably bitter and awful Terro
r which none of us has been taught to see in its vastness or pity as it deserves
.
permalinkparent
[ ]DongleNocker 2 points 5 hours ago
Don't you wish government organizations would get permission from congress prior
to assuming they have the authority?
permalink
[ ]Euracil 1 point 5 hours ago
Whoops! Someone just happened to spill wine all over the Bill of Rights! Well, a
t least the Second Amendment survived!
permalink
[ ]ripvannwinkler 1 point 5 hours ago
What is the practical operational radius of one of these things?
If my place of business or residence falls in this radius of an operating device
, is my phone subject to interception by the device?
If so, you require a warrant. Period. No equivocation.
permalink
[ ]bittopia 1 point 5 hours ago
What is going to be interesting is when systems and encryptions becomes so resil
ient and powerful that nothing can be spied on AT ALL. What will they do then?
permalink
[ ]johnnybullet 1 point 5 hours ago
I thought only God was listening to me... This changes everything!

permalink
[ ]TronicTonic 2 points 5 hours ago
Thank god the FBI is in charge of the judicial branch and gets to decide what is
right vs wrong.
permalink
[ ]Vinven 1 point 5 hours ago
They can say whatever they want, it doesn't make it legal.
permalink
[ ]coffeethulhu 2 points 5 hours ago
Under this theory anybody could buy one of these devices and use it in "public s
paces" without fear of falling foul of the law....Who wants to start a kickstart
er campaign to buy one?
permalink
[ ]redditezmode 1 point 5 hours ago
Based on what, exactly? Why would they think search warrants aren't necessary?
permalink
[ ]Fucksfuturefatchicks 1 point 4 hours ago
If it stops me from downloading porn, it's a dead giveaway. If it doesn't, thank
s for the government funded and sanctioned porn.
permalink
[ ]egalroc 1 point 4 hours ago
I wonder if the FBI can upload unsanctioned porn to your computer using a stingr
ay? Interesting thought isn't it?
permalinkparent
[ ]winsomecowboy 1 point 4 hours ago
So my clandestine FBI staff list shouldn't be an issue.
permalink
[ ]Heisenpurrrrg 1 point 4 hours ago
Those guys can fuck right off, eh?
permalink
[ ]cerealcable 1 point 4 hours ago
Every time an invasion of our rights & privacy especially related to our establi
shed forms of communications happens it just terrifies me. Not because our gover
nment is throwing wind to established laws but because of what the future could
bring.
The reason why most of us are upset today over this is because we have an expect
ation of privacy when we pick up our cell phones. We expect our text messages, p
hone calls and data to be private thus protected by law requiring a warrant to "
tap" it only for Law Enforcement. Telecoms (wired, wireless, voip) will only com
ply to requests when required by law, but when it comes to the public air waves
using technology to just listen in we're starting a terrible precedent.
Essentially what I'm concerned about is that eventually it'll be so commonly acc
epted that these communications are not private (after all the government can sn
oop in on those conversations, and everyone already expects it) and thus we no l
onger have the expectation of privacy and thus no warrant is actually acquired.
The terrifying process is how it all started, with the government over stepping
their legal abilities with little to no repercussions.
Now that I'm reading that paragraph again, I honestly wouldn't be surprised if t
hat exact argument is/was/will be used in a secret court of which none of us wil
l be able to hold accountable.
It's scary to see what the future will hold for privacy related to technology. O
ur government is doing anything and everything they want and if people aren't sc
ared they need to get some tinfoil and make some hats because they're going to n
eed them.
Obligatory point: As the government snoops more and more, technology will just e
ncrypt more and more making it nearly pointless for the snooping, but it won't c
hange the expectation of privacy after say a decade of common knowledge that the
se communications are not private. Then Law Enforcement Agencies will just subpo
ena records instead of following due process of getting a warrant.
tl;dr It's a very slippery slope and I'm just watching us slowly sliding further

and further into the trap. :-(


permalink
[ ]coalbeeashi 1 point 4 hours ago
Honest question - in the eyes of laws, is our view on "expectation of privacy" i
gnorant or misguided? When I send a text - even though I don't think about it I gave permission to Apple, AT&T, my friend, their carrier, their phone, and pro
bably countless others that I don't even realize. When I download an app I give
them all sorts of permissions to access my information.
Also, what's stopping the government from creating an app, let's say some crazed
game like Trivia Crack, hide a bunch of permissions that no one looks at and do
it that way. They could have access to my photos, access to my microphone, acce
ss to my location, etc. (obviously I understand that you can retract most of tho
se permissions, but I doubt many people do)
So, I guess my question is, using multiple third parties, do I really have the r
ight to expect complete privacy?
permalinkparent
[ ]Rockerofboats 2 points 4 hours ago
I do what I wants to.
permalink
[ ]Gymshortsboner55 2 points 4 hours ago
I'm not trying to sound like the uncle that's always bitchin' at family reunions
but man is this country going down the shitter. I'm almost ashamed to live here
anymore.
permalink
[ ]kazuri85 2 points 4 hours ago
The government has no right to make your property do something you do not want i
t to do.
permalink
[ ]SpacemanLurker 2 points 3 hours ago
Crikey! Australian accent
Too soon?
permalink
[ ]Undisclosed-dopeness 1 point 3 hours ago
Really wish this was about actual stingrays
permalink
[ ]k-h 1 point 3 hours ago
Is that the "stingrays" that don't exist?
Of course they don't need a warrant on equipment that doesn't exist.
permalink
[ ]PhorTwenny 2 points 3 hours ago
if it picks up all cells text/call/info how do they know your not inside a house
or anyother private area? Either way this is disgusting!
permalink
[ ]MarxIzalias 2 points 3 hours ago
The more of these that get posted, the harder I laugh at America's freedoms.
You pretty much have the same as everybody else.
It seems as though the constitution is like bog roll to your law enforcement. Co
vered in meaningless shit that doesn't even stick to them.
What a joke.
The FBI stating that 'stingrays' don't apply to privacy laws because you're in a
public place makes no sense, otherwise you could walk around butt naked and arg
ue that "According to the FBI, personal privacy is not required in public".
Of course, they could say, what any deceitful peice of trash could say. "If you
weren't doing anything illegal then you have nothing to worry about."
Unless you were talking to you solicitor about a patent. In which case it would
be worthless the moment a third party heard about the invention.
Talking to your doctor about a condition that could prejudice a group against yo
u.
Talking to a solicitor about the details of a case.
Talking to fellow jurors over the phone about a details of a case, that's always

good to be spied on.


Talk about family history and possible ties you might have to foreign nations, w
hich could put you on a watch list.
Give personal details to bankers about foreign business accounts which have diff
erent protection laws.
Discuss plans you may have that they could interfere with.
Or just miscellaneous emails to and from your employer that could be damaging to
the companies reputation if published and could be used against them as leverag
e with a false flag operation LOOKING AT YOU SONY!
This isn't even a comprehensive list of things that you could do, but hey, it's
America, the land where freedom is a lie and the constitution is apparently wort
h less and less with each new government. XFD
permalink
[ ]NightOfTheLivingHam 1 point 3 hours ago
while we're declaring bullshit, I declare I'm owed a million dollars.
permalink
[ ]ZedOud 1 point 3 hours ago
Most warrant-less law enforcement surveillance techniques are legal because they
can be performed by members of the public, in public. (ex. tailing)
So can we also legally operate a stingray?
Yes we can!
permalink
[ ]Wulfgar_RIP 1 point 3 hours ago
FBI protecting freedoms and constitution from terrorists
permalink
[ ]CantHugEveryCat 2 points 3 hours ago
I'm surprised the FBI still feel they have to justify their actions.
permalink
[ ]bazingabrain 0 points 3 hours ago
Here I am thinking the FBI is going to be throwing real stingrays around without
a search warrant. Can't have that
permalink
[ ]tobsn 1 point 3 hours ago
and whoever said that should be immediately terminated.
permalink
[ ]joshladd 1 point 3 hours ago
Didn't the supreme court just say that searching cell phones requires a warrant?
Is this different than searching cell phones? I might be uninformed but it seem
s like a blatant disregard for court rulings.
permalink
[ ]birdington1 1 point 3 hours ago
Can anybody explain what a 'stingray' is?
permalink
[ ]one_love_silvia 1 point 2 hours ago
the article explains it in literally the first paragraph.
permalinkparent
[ ]IllegalOperator 0 points 2 hours ago
Yeah right, dropping the case rather than reveal their methods says otherwise. I
f there weren't doing anything wrong they would have nothing to hide.
permalink
[ ]HauntedBeepers 1 point 2 hours ago
FBI says FBI can do what it wants
permalink
[ ]Fig1024 1 point 2 hours ago
does that mean I, as private citizen, can also use them? After all, there are no
laws against it
permalink
[ ]Monkeibusiness 1 point 2 hours ago
"FBI - out if control since 2001" -Simpsons
permalink

[ ]skztr 1 point 2 hours ago


good test for whether or not you need a warrant:
If any random person off the street did it, would that be legal? If not, you nee
d a fucking warrant.
permalink
[ ]Rusky82 1 point 2 hours ago
Land of the free eh......
permalink
[ ]WECGEWHYAAIORTNU 1 point 2 hours ago
So in some states its "wiretapping" to record with a microphone a conversation b
etween two people happening at a table, but pretending to be a cell tower is a-o
k?
permalink
[ ]Amanoo 1 point 2 hours ago
"concerned about whether the FBI and other law enforcement agencies have adequat
ely considered the privacy interests" of Americans
Privacy interests of Americans? Is that supposed to still be a thing? I thought
that privacy interests were considered something for terrorists in the US, by no
w.
permalink
[ ]raviddadford 1 point 2 hours ago
Stingray got Steve Irwin
permalink
[ ]Homarus_Americanus 1 point 2 hours ago
It's all good 'cause I can by me all guns I want.
permalink
[ ]anshu1234 0 points 2 hours ago
This is non-news if you are not a drug-peddler. Next please.
permalink
[ ]bubbafat1155 1 point 2 hours ago
It's over. "They" have won. The only hope now is for individuals, society is los
t. Get off the grid, or join the sheep. http://imgur.com/W7CdURh
permalink
[ ]Targun 1 point 2 hours ago
And how are they going to filter out cellphones of all the people who live next
to public places where stingray is located?
permalink
[ ]riderer 1 point 2 hours ago
So can i do the same in public place? just stingray everyone?
permalink
[ ]Neker 1 point 1 hour ago
There are blueprints and tutorials out there that put "stingrays" within reach o
f an hobbyist. Law-breaking hobbyist, that is, but still : mobile phones essenti
aly broadcast your conversations.
permalink
[ ]mindwandering 1 point 1 hour ago
The flying DRT box.
permalink
[ ]SilenceGivesConsent [score hidden] 48 minutes ago
In other words, FBI says it does not need search warrants to warrant a search.
permalink
[ ]Formally_Nightman [score hidden] 46 minutes ago
FBI: "Senator we have been monitoring your calls and your exact geographical loc
ation for years ... You shouldn't find that unconstitutional or the public and y
our wife will learn how unconstitutional you've been"
permalink
[ ]ActuallyNotSparticus [score hidden] 40 minutes ago
Fuck this shit. Stingrays killed the crocodile hunter. Are we ready for the gove
rnment to use these stingrays?
permalink

[ ]Rayhueston [score hidden] 38 minutes ago


The article says the Obama administration consistently maintains that people hav
e no privacy in public. Is that true or is that hyperbole?
If I'm walking down the street, do I have the right to keep the contents of my w
allet private? My blood type? My thoughts?
If I have no privacy with regard to these and many other sensitive things, who d
oes have the right to them?
permalink
[ ]swollennode [score hidden] 37 minutes ago
People don't have privacy in public places..hmmm, I think that people are entitl
ed to privacy if something private belongs to them. Sure, people's faces aren't
private when they're in public places. But people's phone calls and texts should
be.
permalink
[ ]pomod [score hidden] 18 minutes ago
Well if the FBI says they are not needed...
Seriously, this should be a court decision not a cop one. Cops, even a fancy cop
s like the FBI, should not make the laws just enforce them.
permalink
[ ]CJ59 [score hidden] 18 minutes ago
In other news, the FBI says, "You know what, screw it. There are no more laws. W
e'll do whatever the hell we want. Not like you're going to do anything about it
."
permalink
[ ]gkiltz [score hidden] 15 minutes ago
Just because the FBI says it, that does not mean it's true!
I don't envy the poor schmuck who has to stan in front of the Supreme Court and
argue that!!
permalink
load more comments (48 replies)
about
blog
about
team
source code
advertise
jobs
help
wiki
FAQ
reddiquette
rules
contact us
tools
mobile
firefox extension
chrome extension
buttons
widget
<3
reddit gold
store
redditgifts
reddit AMA app
reddit.tv
radio reddit
Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy
. 2015 reddit inc. All rights reserved.
REDDIT and the ALIEN Logo are registered trademarks of reddit inc.

p jump to content
MY SUBREDDITS
FRONT-ALL-RANDOM | PHOTOSHOPBATTLES-HISTORY-GIFS-FOOD-PHILOSOPHY-TELEVISION-WORL
DNEWS-SHOWERTHOUGHTS-LIFEPROTIPS-ART-SPACE-NOTTHEONION-DOCUMENTARIES-NOSLEEP-GAM
ING-GADGETS-EARTHPORN-ASKREDDIT-FUNNY-MOVIES-DIY-FUTUROLOGY-FITNESS-BOOKS-LISTEN
TOTHIS-INTERNETISBEAUTIFUL-MUSIC-EXPLAINLIKEIMFIVE-UPLIFTINGNEWS-SPORTS-PICS-TOD
AYILEARNED-PERSONALFINANCE-DATAISBEAUTIFUL-IAMA-OLDSCHOOLCOOL-EUROPE-CREEPY-TWOX
CHROMOSOMES-AWW-NEWS-WRITINGPROMPTS-GETMOTIVATED-VIDEOS-TIFU-ASKSCIENCE-JOKES-MI
LDLYINTERESTING-SCIENCE
MORE
news newscommentsrelatedother discussions (15)
want to join? sign in or create an account in seconds|English
this post was submitted on 05 Jan 2015
3,152 points (95% upvoted)
shortlink:
remember mereset passwordlogin
news
unsubscribe4,562,294 readers
2,631 users here now
/r/inthenews
/r/worldnews
new submissions
new comments
Post analysis/opinion articles to /r/inthenews
Want to talk?
Chat with us on IRC
Follow @rslashnews on Twitter
See a post that violates the rules below? Had your post stuck in the spam filter
? Have a question about policy? Just want to give feedback? Send the mod team a
message.
Please post news items only, with the exception of meta posts about /r/news itse
lf. Self-posts aggregating news data and "independent reporting" each count as n
ews, but are not an excuse to editorialize.
Your post will likely be removed if it:
is not news (or a meta post).
is an opinion/analysis or advocacy piece.
primarily concerns politics.
has a title not taken from the article.
has a pay wall or steals content.
covers an already-submitted story.
violates reddit's site-wide rules, especially regarding personal info.
Your comment will likely be removed if it:
is racist, sexist, vitriolic, or overly crude.
is unnecessarily rude or provocative.
is a cheap and distracting joke or meme.
is responding to spam.
violates reddit's site-wide rules.
Extreme or repeat offenders will be banned.
Expanded Rules
If your post doesn't fit, consider finding an appropriate news article on that s
tory to submit instead, or submitting yours to lower moderation subreddits:
/r/inthenews - all news-related content
/r/AnythingGoesNews - unrestricted news
/r/truereddit - insightful articles
/r/self - any self-post
/r/misc, /r/redditdotcom - anything
or other news subreddits:
/r/worldnews - from outside the USA only
/r/SyrianCivilWar - about the conflict in Syria

/r/MidEastRegionalWar - on MidEast conflict /r/UpliftingNews - uplifting


/r/mediaquotes - the things they say
or subreddits for other topics:
/r/FoodForThought - discussion-worthy long form articles about interesting subje
cts
/r/politics - for shouting about politics
/r/moderatepolitics - less shouting
/r/politicaldiscussion - even less shouting
/r/geopolitics - intl. politics and geography
/r/entertainment - Justin Bieber updates, etc.
/r/europe - news from Europe
or check out the 200 most active subreddits, categorized by content and the full
list of subreddits by subscribers.
Recommendations:
/r/redactedcharts
/r/patriots
/r/personalfinance
/r/restorethefourth
reddit is fun for Android and its subreddit /r/redditisfun
submit analysis/opinion article
submit news article
submit something else
submit analysis/opinion article
a community for 6 years
message the moderators
moderators
douglasmacarthur
KyldeThe Janitor
AyeMatey
CandyManCan
Elderthedog
LuckyBdx4
NickWasHere09
ani625
pomosexuality
IKingJeremy
...and 1 more
3152
FBI says search warrants not needed to use stingrays in public places (arstechnica
.com)
submitted 13 hours ago by doctorshady
731 commentsshare
top 500 comments
sorted by: best
[ ]peaceshark 654 points 11 hours ago
If only there were some branch of government that would keep the FBI in check, o
ne that judged people and organizations supremely...
permalink
[ ]misogichan 641 points 8 hours ago
Unfortunately the Catholic church has its hands full dealing with its own intern
al reforms and recasting its vision and mission.
permalinkparent
[ ]wutshappening 93 points 7 hours ago
And looking at cat photos that's why they're Cat-holic. Alco-holics are addicted
to alcohol and catholics well you get the idea.
permalinkparent
[ ]TuffLuffJimmy 142 points 6 hours ago
Omg dad you're embarrassing me in front of my friends
permalinkparent
[ ]okmkz 27 points 4 hours ago

We ain't your friends, bruh


permalinkparent
[ ]Corruptionss 4 points 2 hours ago
We ain't your bruh, friends
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
load more comments (2 replies)
[ ]ROLLINGtemple 9 points 5 hours ago
What's their Dogma?
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
load more comments (9 replies)
[ ]hershmire 73 points 7 hours ago
The courts gave up about ten years ago.
permalinkparent
[ ]endprism 50 points 7 hours ago
The courts are pwned by the surveillance state.
permalinkparent
[ ]sushisection 41 points 6 hours ago
This is what I'm afraid of. Nsa is collecting data from all citizens including p
oliticians and supreme court judges.
permalinkparent
[ ]dutchguilder2 19 points 5 hours ago
Whistleblower confirms: http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=d6m1XbWOfVk
permalinkparent
[ ]TwitchTV_Subbort 1 point 3 hours ago
D.C. is Hollywood for ugly people. best line ever!!
permalinkparent
[ ]sklite 1 point 1 hour ago
Charles Augustus Magnussen approves
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]CriticalThink 1 point 6 hours ago
Skeletons in the closet are easy to find with intelligence infrastructure.
permalinkparent
[ ]HurricaneSandyHook 1 point 5 hours ago
The 10th circuit a few days ago sided with the government saying the cops use of
doppler radar to see if anyone was inside a house was legal. They did say it is
a troubling tactic that needs further review and just left it at that....
permalinkparent
[ ]-_--___-_--_--___--_ 27 points 6 hours ago
One major problem with judicial review is that there must be a case for the cour
t to review. I guess the other avenue would be to sue the government, but I'm no
t an attorney so I don't know how that would work.
permalinkparent
[ ]downvotesmakemehard 14 points 4 hours ago
I believe the current court has taken the stance that to take up a case someone
has to show they've been harmed in some way.
The police will never say that stingray is the source of the evidence. This woul
d open stingray to be scrutinized. They will use stingray to go after phone comp
any records which they will claim they requested on a hunch or some other bullsh
it excuse.
permalinkparent
[ ]great_gape [score hidden] 29 minutes ago
Anonymous tip.
permalinkparent
load more comments (2 replies)
[ ]dissonance07 8 points 6 hours ago
With is wide a latitude as the current SCOTUS seems to give to individual libert
y, this seems like the one kind of thing that they could actually usefully addre

ss, right?
permalinkparent
[ ]MrBojangles528 1 point 5 hours ago
Scalia and the rest of the SCOTUS is bought and sold just like the rest of our g
overnment. They answer first and foremost to the parties that nominated them as
well as the corporations that own them.
permalinkparent
[ ]psilontech 12 points 5 hours ago
See, I don't get that. You get into the Supreme Court and you're golden. Unless
you are actively breaking the law and can be impeached, you're untouchable. Why
not, you know, do what's best for your country instead of remaining beholden to
the parasites that leveraged you into that position?
permalinkparent
[ ]Ratbasher88 14 points 4 hours ago
Yep, Supreme Court justices have a well established history of turning out way d
ifferent than their supporters thought they'd be. For whatever reason this curre
nt batch of justices seems more comfortable with the security state than their p
redecessors, however that's true for most Americans in general so I suppose it s
houldn't be shocking.
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]MrBojangles528 2 points 4 hours ago
Good question, but you'd have to ask them about it.
permalinkparent
[ ]cynoclast 0 points 3 hours ago
Unless you are actively breaking the law and can be impeached, you're untouchabl
e.
But you can get richer. Or have your personal communications made public.
permalinkparent
[ ]tughdffvdlfhegl 1 point 3 hours ago
Honestly? Because they run in those social circles. They're friends with the peo
ple at the top. They don't actively associate with "regular folk" that much.
They've been ingratiated into the upper echelons of society long before ever rea
ching the supreme court through lifetimes spent at the forefront of the legal pr
ofession. This insulates them from others, and leaves them in an echo chamber of
their peers.
Now, when a case comes up that pits one of their friends, or friends' friends ag
ainst some random angry dude who's only making 50k a year, who do you think they
automatically side with, when the case isn't cut and dried? I'm not even saying
it's conscious, but prejudices come in all kinds and run deep. Tribalism happen
s all the time in subtle ways.
Plus there's Scalia taking paid for hunting trips with people who are directly a
ffected by cases in front of him, all of them getting invited to dinners and fun
ctions of the DC elite, etc.
permalinkparent
[ ]pion3435 1 point 3 hours ago
They do. It's possible to disagree with you without being corrupt.
permalinkparent
[ ]Jagoonder 1 point 2 hours ago
Not in an omnipotent surveillance state, however.
permalinkparent
[ ]DownFromYesBad 1 point 2 hours ago
Money, bribery.
permalinkparent
[ ]neotropic9 1 point 1 hour ago
Because they are selected to be the type of people who think whats "best for the
ir country" is serving the parasites, the corporate oligarchs, and the surveilla
nce state. They support the status quo, and the status quo supports them. It wou
ld be a miracle if someone with real principles was actually brought into the Su
preme Court, let alone enough of them to form a majority.

permalinkparent
[ ]isprobablyatwork 1 point 1 hour ago
This does happen, sometimes. Good examples would be Justices Warren and Stevens.
They played along with the GOP right up until they were put on the Court, then
immediately started voting their actual conscience (or if not their conscience,
then at least not as their political backers wanted).
permalinkparent
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[ ]cynoclast 2 points 3 hours ago
You mean the press?
permalinkparent
[ ]scrapinpeg 3 points 6 hours ago*
Obligatory link to illustrated law.
EDIT: fixed link
permalinkparent
[ ]ducttapejedi 3 points 6 hours ago*
error 404, check the link.
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[+][deleted] 13 hours ago (56 children)
[ ]sunbolts 701 points 12 hours ago
Glad to see the FBI is tearing up the constitution to increase their own powers
and authority. /s
permalink
[ ]dontbullshityourself 325 points 11 hours ago
Glad to see the FBI is tearing up the constitution to increase their own powers
and authority
I wish this was just the FBI. Pretty much everybody in the federal, state and lo
cals are doing this. Have been doing for this quite some time too.
permalinkparent
[ ]sunbolts 136 points 10 hours ago
Precisely, and that's what makes this very frightening. The whole club's in on i
t.
permalinkparent
[ ]radonthetyrant 75 points 7 hours ago
but why.. I realize that these "zomg the terrorists!!!11" is only a PR-lie. What
do they really accomplish with this? Industry espionage? Bribes from the indust
ries which create the espionage hardware? Feeling of total control? Control the
masses so it all stays as conservative and corrupt as possible?
Why would you amass such a criminal energy to break constitutional laws just to
be able to see through everyone's communication?
permalinkparent
[ ]BettyRubbleIsHot 151 points 7 hours ago
Total control.
That way when the state has it, they can really put the boot on our necks. Think
they treat us poorly now? Just wait until they have the infrastructure in place
where they feel confident there are absolutely zero threats to their power. Tha
t's when shit is going to get BAD.
permalinkparent
[ ]b-LE-z_it 106 points 6 hours ago
And that's why, despite being terrified of some gun owners, despite being terrif
ied of mass shootings, I don't think we should ban guns, even combat rifles. It
can happen here, and we should at least make it hurt if and when it happens.
permalinkparent
[ ]7V3N 47 points 6 hours ago
Welcome to the list.
permalinkparent

[ ]M00glemuffins 10 points 5 hours ago


Sign me up too. If they try to pull a fast one on the public I'm not standing fo
r their bullshit.
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]FadingEchoes11 26 points 6 hours ago
*rifle. No "combat" rifles are owned by citizens
permalinkparent
[ ]b-LE-z_it 39 points 6 hours ago
Did I mention I don't know anything about guns? I don't know anything about guns
.
Point is, force is not something only people in power should have.
permalinkparent
[ ]teefour 19 points 6 hours ago
You should go to a shooting range and take a class. You won't be so unnecessaril
y afraid of them after that.
permalinkparent
[ ]Pullo_T 27 points 6 hours ago
He's not afraid of guns. He's afraid of some gun owners. At least, as far as we
know.
permalinkparent
continue this thread
load more comments (3 replies)
[ ]Bootsncatsn4 5 points 5 hours ago
i understand where youre coming from, but what will a bunch of angry townsfolk d
o to a predator drone strike?
permalinkparent
[ ]Oeboues 18 points 4 hours ago
You should ask the angry townsfolk of Iraq and Afghanistan.
Once the US military is done slinking away in shame, I mean.
permalinkparent
continue this thread
[ ]nuesuh 1 point 1 hour ago
Remove them. Predator drones are being operated from the ground, and has to land
after a couple hours to refuel.
permalinkparent
[ ]joe_m107 4 points 6 hours ago
Maybe we should change that. Repeal the NFA.
permalinkparent
load more comments (2 replies)
[ ]4nco1j 0 points 2 hours ago
You don't know much about guns, do you now.
permalinkparent
load more comments (6 replies)
[ ]conquer69 15 points 4 hours ago
You can have all the guns you want. That won't stop them from labeling you a "su
spected school shooter, pedophile or terrorist".
A gun can't protect you from that. A gun can't teach your fellow countryman to t
hink by themselves or see through propaganda.
Good luck destroying a drone, plane or tank with a rifle. Not sure how useful a
gun is against your own trained military with even better guns and more.
People thinking they can start a revolution and win with a handgun don't realize
this isn't the 1700's anymore.
permalinkparent
[ ]JimmyBuffer 14 points 4 hours ago
Better tell the Middle East they haven't had a bout of revolutions then
permalinkparent
load more comments (2 replies)
[ ]b-LE-z_it 7 points 4 hours ago
Didn't say we would win, I said we could at least make it hurt. Assuming, of cou

rse, that the American people themselves aren't the ones willingly handing in th
eir freedoms, which would mean we're all fucked immediately.
permalinkparent
[ ]theothercoolfish 13 points 2 hours ago
Assuming, of course, that the American people themselves aren't the ones willing
ly handing in their freedoms, which would mean we're all fucked immediately.
Err, you guys gave up much of your freedoms long ago. And it isn't just the US politicians everywhere are taking as much as they can get, because it's simply
more power for them. More power, more money, more control. It's not a conspiracy
- this is just how an imperfect system with inadequate controls eventually goes
. We need to start re-examining our systems and look at alternatives that are no
w possible with the internet.
permalinkparent
[ ]vynusmagnus 3 points 2 hours ago
Tell that to the insurgents in Afghanistan. It seems to me that the US military
has been unable to defeat them in over a decade of war, despite its overwhelming
technological superiority. Tanks and fighter jets are nice, but they do little
against a small guerrilla force that can disappear into the woodwork.
permalinkparent
[ ]Qoix 3 points 3 hours ago
I think the main issue with that line of thinking is that the military would gun
down the civilians it pledges to protect. How many people in the armed forces d
o you know? Now, are any of them willing to murder innocent people? Probably not
.
permalinkparent
[ ]ihcn 6 points 2 hours ago
They're not innocent people, they're armed revolutionaries, suspected terrorists
permalinkparent
[ ]chance-- 4 points 3 hours ago
You say that as if there isn't insurmountable evidence to the contrary.
Military coups are thoroughly woven into the fabric of humanity's history.
permalinkparent
[ ]theothercoolfish 1 point 2 hours ago
gun down the civilians it pledges to protect.
Err, they don't pledge to protect civilians. They pledge to protect the constitu
tion. And if they are convinced that these people are attempting to "subvert" th
e constitution, then they are enemies. Nevermind that their leaders have shat al
l over the constitution - soldiers take their orders and follow 'em.
Now, are any of them willing to murder innocent people?
lol.
permalinkparent
load more comments (2 replies)
[ ]eloquentnemesis [score hidden] 33 minutes ago
Welcome to 4th generation warfare. You don't need a better gun, or the ability t
o kill a drone, or anything else like that. You just need A gun and more commitm
ent than the other side.
permalinkparent
[ ]homegrowncountryboy [score hidden] 16 minutes ago*
Good luck with those tanks, planes and drones when the American people stop supp
lying fuel and ammunition. My brother is in the Army and he will tell you about
75%, or more of the military will disband and fight to protect the American peop
le. All you have to do is look at New Orleans during Katrina, when they got the
order to start confiscating guns almost all of them refused, instead it was main
ly police stealing people's weapons.
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]Hermit_ 2 points 5 hours ago
Yeah but if it does happen all people would be doing is creating the chaos one o
f the armed and militarized militias needs to take power. For example, The KKK.
permalinkparent

[ ]b-LE-z_it 1 point 5 hours ago


Hopefully not the KKK.
permalinkparent
[ ]AussieArcher 1 point 3 hours ago
Fuck me there's always one of you. I'm starting to think the gun club spends mor
e time on reddit than anyone.
permalinkparent
[ ]astronautg117 1 point 1 hour ago
What's a combat rifle going to do against a drone?
permalinkparent
[ ]datbino 1 point 1 hour ago
i think thats where 2nd ammendment people miss the mark- you owning a rifle will
do nothing against the government.
you becoming an active participating member in that government can help fix it,
the goal is to make you a kony2012 fb sharer rather than a person who gets to wo
rk and fixes shit
permalinkparent
[ ]mpg1846 1 point 1 hour ago
You think 50 guys with hand guns are going to do anything to anyone? Gun laws ar
e a joke.
permalinkparent
[ ]Actionbuilding 1 point 1 hour ago
The founders of the United States of America WANTED the citizens to rise up and
overthrow the government if it approached the levels of corruption it is current
ly working toward.
permalinkparent
load more comments (11 replies)
[ ]nuesuh 1 point 1 hour ago
Ever seen "Das Leben der Anderen"? Imagine this, just with total corruption and
100 times better technology. This is what we are moving towards. Imagine this sy
stem getting in the hands of someone like Hitler or Stalin.. And it can happen.
Before Hitler came to power Germany was a modern, western, christian nation. We
need safety with this technology. And when i say safety, i don't mean surveillan
ce. I mean the opposite.
permalinkparent
[ ]know_comment [score hidden] 14 minutes ago
I agree, but I think the reason for the infrastructure development is because it
is going to get bad. As we are forced to compete more globally, quality of life
stagnates. Even the slightest hint of austerity is going to be very painful for
the lower classes in a society with a large income disparity.
That's why we see the race baiting and divisive rhetoric being used so much. Kee
p the poor and working classes quibbling at each other.
I want you to consider the daffodil. And while you're doing that, I'll be over h
ere, looking through your stuff.
permalinkparent
[ ]mzackler 19 points 7 hours ago
It takes a really complicated answer to truly understand but you often get into
the us vs them mentality in siloed areas of law enforcement. You also often get
frustrated with the levels of proof you need to put the bad guy in jail. Thus an
y method you can use you feel justified in using. Although I think there are a l
ot of issues with The Wire, it's a great starting off point for a discussion if
you want a serious answer.
permalinkparent
load more comments (2 replies)
[ ]hershmire 30 points 7 hours ago
Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts, absolutely.
permalinkparent
[ ]TheNewRavager 70 points 6 hours ago
"All governments suffer a recurring problem: Power attracts pathological persona
lities. It is not that power corrupts but that it is magnetic to the corruptible

. Such people have a tendency to become drunk on violence, a condition to which


they are quickly addicted."
permalinkparent
[ ]gee_iwonderwhy 22 points 6 hours ago
Oh shit, a Dune quote outside /r/dune not about spice.
permalinkparent
[ ]TheNumberMuncher 3 points 6 hours ago
This is pretty cool.
permalinkparent
[ ]YawnDogg 1 point 3 hours ago
Gene Hackman was so kinky in that movie.
permalinkparent
[ ]ThreeTimesUp 2 points 2 hours ago
From a Guardian article by Glenn Greenwald I came across recently:
Inside the mind of NSA chief Gen Keith Alexander
Any casual review of human history proves how deeply irrational it is to believe
that powerful factions can be trusted to exercise vast surveillance power with
little accountability or transparency.
But the more they proudly flaunt their warped imperial hubris, the more irration
al it becomes.
permalinkparent
[ ]Epsilox 3 points 2 hours ago
I'm going to take an unpopular stance here and argue that they get more effectiv
e investigations. Which isn't to say I have no reservations about this stuff, be
cause I do.
I've worked in a field tangential to law enforcement, and I've had the unpleasan
t experience of watching very bad people act with impunity because law enforceme
nt had to play by the rules and they didn't. Does that justify the modern trend
towards more invasive government? Maybe that's just the price we pay to live in
a free society. I don't know. I'm a fan of the H.L. Mencken quote:
"The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's ti
me defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are f
irst aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopp
ed at all."
On the other hand, it's very hard to watch members of organized crime and other
monsters literally get away with murder.
In part the difficulty the lies in the infrastructure of modern society. Communi
cations move at such speed and in such quantity that the sort of pinpoint accura
cy required for effective investigations and prosecutions becomes much more diff
icult.
None of which is to say that what we're doing is necessarily right. I've felt th
e fear of writing an opinion online and knowing that the NSA can see it and ever
ything else I've ever written if they so choose. I've had that feeling of always
being watched. I know exactly what is meant by the danger of chilling free spee
ch, because it's happened to me. But I do tend to trust (perhaps naively) that,
for the most part, most of the people making these decisions have good intention
s. I've worked with many of them, and I believe that it more than anything is th
e result of them trying to do their jobs well. Whether they are actually protect
ing the American people or simply paving the road to hell, only time will really
tell.
permalinkparent
[ ]eyeforgot 4 points 6 hours ago
Think of all the blackmail material they have for any future politicians. They w
ill firmly be in check by the powers that be.
permalinkparent
[ ]ademnus 3 points 7 hours ago
Total control.
permalinkparent
[ ]NotAnotherDecoy 4 points 7 hours ago
Total control?

permalinkparent
[ ]leamas666 2 points 5 hours ago
Why would you amass such a criminal energy to break constitutional laws just to
be able to see through everyone's communication?
It's the deep state attempting to preserve its own regime continuity in the even
t of violent revolution.
permalinkparent
[ ]sunbolts 3 points 6 hours ago
Because those in power try to keep it and in addition, there is always a lust fo
r more power. One who is wealthy seeks to increase his riches usually, right? Sa
me thing going on here. In terms of practicality, there's no reason for breaking
constitutional laws, but when you realize how human nature functions in regards
to ambitions and power, well, what we see going on explains itself.
permalinkparent
[ ]Martenz05 1 point 3 hours ago
So, in order to become a political leader who really does work for the benefit o
f the people, one would somehow have to lose every shred of their humanity so th
ey wouldn't have a human nature that could be corrupted by ambition and power?
That sounds ominous, when I put it like that
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]RuthlessDickTater 1 point 5 hours ago
but why.. I realize that these "zomg the terrorists!!!11" is only a PR-lie.
Well pretty soon they might have their terrorists, but they'll be the domestic k
ind.
permalinkparent
[ ]karadan100 1 point 4 hours ago
More money.
permalinkparent
[ ]cynoclast 1 point 3 hours ago
What do they really accomplish with this?
Get rich.
permalinkparent
load more comments (7 replies)
[ ]TGlucifer 50 points 10 hours ago
Criminals learned it's just way easier to do their lawbreaking with a government
salary.
permalinkparent
[ ]pete1729 22 points 9 hours ago
Well, the benefits package is far more attractive.
permalinkparent
[ ]__ghostpants 25 points 7 hours ago
and somehow snitches go to jail instead of the criminals
permalinkparent
[ ]iismitch55 1 point 3 hours ago
Snitches get stitches. Whistleblowers get their mouth sowed shut.
permalinkparent
[ ]HandsOffMyDitka 5 points 5 hours ago
Why break a law, when you can just change it.
permalinkparent
[ ]moresmarterthanyou 2 points 5 hours ago
except when they have to answer questions themselves...
permalinkparent
[ ]dontbullshityourself 1 point 5 hours ago
Well you know liberty is wasted on peasant swine 'eh?
permalinkparent
[ ]ButterflyAttack 1 point 4 hours ago
Sounds like the constitution doesn't mean much at this point. . .
permalinkparent
[ ]dontbullshityourself 1 point 3 hours ago

Sounds like the constitution doesn't mean much at this point. . .


All it means is that the scum who rule us have a legal contract that they say ba
cks up all their power. But their actions shit all over that document.
President Obama, a constitutional law professor ordered the deaths of two US cit
izens without trial in EXPRESS and DIRECT violation of the constitution.
permalinkparent
load more comments (4 replies)
[ ]Eurynom0s 68 points 9 hours ago
And on top of it, even if being in public was a justification for this, how the
fuck do you prevent the device from nabbing people who are inside their own hous
e or apartment as well?
Oh right, you can't, because that's not how radio waves work.
permalinkparent
[ ]Ioneos 18 points 8 hours ago
You can increase the noise gate to reduce range on purpose, but what good would
that do to keep the terrorists citizens under scrutiny.
permalinkparent
[ ]Eurynom0s 20 points 8 hours ago
Even if they were going to do that, I can't imagine that you could do it to a su
fficient degree in a place like NYC to not scoop up at least some people inside
of buildings.
permalinkparent
load more comments (5 replies)
[ ]Codoro 1 point 4 hours ago
I foresee turning your house into a Faraday Cage being the cop radar finder of t
omorrow.
permalinkparent
[ ]Kenny_Login 23 points 7 hours ago
Taxation without representation, an income far below what the productivity was v
alued at, government intrusion? The founding fathers (you know, those "heroes" o
f our nation) got much more pissed off for much less.
permalinkparent
[ ]Socialdem 8 points 5 hours ago
Can you really blame them? The Constitution was written when people were still r
iding on horses. There's no way the founding fathers could have anticipated the
advances in technology and the way people communicate. I think we're due for a f
irmware upgrade.
permalinkparent
[ ]upandrunning 11 points 3 hours ago
Yes, it's called 'replacing congress'. What we're seeing is a natural consequenc
e of career politicians. Most of the people in office have gotten so comfortable
with the idea that they'll get reelected that what they actually do during thei
r term is almost irrelevent.
permalinkparent
[ ]theothercoolfish 2 points 2 hours ago
Exactly. I think we should look at sortition - with an approval vote, and extrem
ely strict rules on what sort of laws can be passed (eg any law must apply equal
ly to everyone - protecting the minority), and a approval bonus for the randomly
selected representatives if the public approves. Fuck career politicians - they
've proven themselves wholly incapable, and the system that supports them is too
corruptible. I don't think campaign finance reform will 1) ever happen 2) adequ
ately deal with institutional corruption.
permalinkparent
[ ]NuclearWookiee 0 points 2 hours ago
All of this should be covered, in any reasonable interpretation, by the Fourth a
mendment. Rebooting who change anything if the limits on government are ignored.
permalinkparent
[ ]KalAl 1 point 1 hour ago
Do you update your firmware by smashing your bios chip with a hammer?
permalinkparent

[ ]FireFromTheWire 4 points 6 hours ago


You're just another Steve Irwin to them.
permalinkparent
[ ]iismitch55 2 points 3 hours ago
Too soon mate :'(
permalinkparent
[ ]Penguin_in_the_sand 1 point 1 hour ago*
I am curious to know what this comment means?... Oh! Steve Irwin was killed by a
stingray. I thought you may have been referring to some conspiracy relating the
Steve Irwin's death. He had an American wife and both were invited to Howard's
Bush BBQ. http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/10/27/1067233100397.html
permalinkparent
[ ]gloubenterder 2 points 1 hour ago
Steve Irwin was a wildlife documentary filmmaker who was well-known for getting
up close and personal with dangerous animals such as crocodiles and komodo drago
ns.
He was pierced through a heart by a stingray in 2006, while shooting footage for
a documentary called Ocean's Deadliest.
After his death, stingrays had a period of great infamy, and there were even rep
orts of people killing and mutilating stingrays as vengeance for Steve Irwin. ..
.which, of course, is the last thing Irwin would have wanted; he was a conservat
ionist, and whenever he was injured by an animal he was studying, he would alway
s clarify to the viewer that that was his own fault and a risk he was aware of.
permalinkparent
[ ]Agent-BurtMacklinFBI 1 point 5 hours ago
Don't worry I'm keeping a look out
permalinkparent
[ ]pion3435 1 point 3 hours ago
It's not a constitutional issue. It might be an FCC one, but they just do whatev
er they're told anyway.
permalinkparent
[ ]dntur 1 point 3 hours ago
theoretically, every cell tower is in a public place. Why not just attach a stin
gray to all of them? Think of the money mobile companies could make renting towe
r space! next comes google who wants to know who you are calling on your iphone
and windows phone for better directed advertising, followed by Bing. /s
permalinkparent
[ ]Brian3232 [score hidden] 46 minutes ago
Why are they wrong? You already can take pictures of people in public places wit
hout warrant
permalinkparent
[ ]GaltsGulchTouristInf [score hidden] 24 minutes ago
When the constitution, the supreme law of the land, the contract between the gov
ernment and the people, is violated, this violating it should be banned from 'pu
blic service' for life, should be personally liable to those whose rights they v
iolated, and should forfeit their government pension and benefits.
permalinkparent
[ ]wtfmuck [score hidden] 17 minutes ago
It's sad how they shirk doing what is right for what is easy.
permalinkparent
load more comments (8 replies)
[ ]quiteintriguing 127 points 12 hours ago
I think it's about time these fuckers provided some evidence that privacy invadi
ng is helping stop crime or terrorism. As far as I can see, there is an Islamic
army in the middle east right now filled with westerners that simply flew over a
nd caught a bus. Nice job government agencies, you sure showed us.
permalink
[ ]HappyAtavism 81 points 11 hours ago
I think it's about time these fuckers provided some evidence that privacy invadi
ng is helping stop crime or terrorism.

Even more importantly they should provide evidence that they're not violating th
e 4th Amendment. The Bill of Rights doesn't say it applies only when convenient.
P.S. I agree that repeated failures to demonstrate the effectiveness of these th
ings, or lies which get "corrected", is yet another reason why this stuff is BS,
but the Constitution is first and foremost. Don't like the 4th Amendment? Try t
o repeal it. Until then it's in force.
permalinkparent
[ ]7u5 3 points 5 hours ago
The "checks and balances" of the judiciary are a farce. They are free to "interp
ret" the Constitution as they see fit.
permalinkparent
load more comments (3 replies)
[ ]DiaperParty 9 points 3 hours ago
Fuck that. FUUUCK that. If this did stop terrorists, it would still not be worth
the violation of rights. We absolutely CANNOT start OKing this shit as long as
it "stops bad guys."
permalinkparent
[ ]quiteintriguing 1 point 3 hours ago
I think you misunderstood. I think they should have to back up their justificati
on, which they obviously can't.
permalinkparent
[ ]DiaperParty 4 points 3 hours ago
But if we ask them to, we lend legitimacy to that claim. We need to say from the
get go that no justification is needed because none will be sufficient.
permalinkparent
[ ]ebouwman 7 points 5 hours ago
In Canada we had the Ottawa shooting and that dude that ran over some soldiers.
Correct me if I'm wrong but both these guys had had their passports revoked.
I'm not a fan of letting them just go over and fight a dirty war but wtf.
permalinkparent
[ ]Ceejae 4 points 4 hours ago
But so what if it is? How successful the program is is irrelevant.
I'm sure if they set up a government camera in every home they'd stop plenty of
murders and rapes.
permalinkparent
load more comments (2 replies)
[ ]cassieloveseffie 5 points 2 hours ago
Well we all know that the FBI has followed people like John Lennon who believed
in radical peace, urged MLK to kill himself and was prepared to assassinate occu
py members. It is not about crime, it is about maintaining a status quo.
permalinkparent
[ ]monopixel 2 points 1 hour ago
was prepared to assassinate occupy members.
Interesting, where can I read up about this?
permalinkparent
[ ]wirepants 4 points 4 hours ago
Locking everyone in solitary could stop crime and terrorism too. That's not a go
od enough reason to violate our rights even if it was working.
permalinkparent
[ ]egodeath92 2 points 5 hours ago
Shh that's classified. This entire country would be a post-apocalyptic dirt-patc
h is not for the heroic NSA collecting dirt on most of the country.
permalinkparent
[ ]pion3435 1 point 3 hours ago
You had no privacy in the first place. That's not how cell phones work.
permalinkparent
load more comments (6 replies)
[ ]MashItMatt 143 points 13 hours ago
Obviously these are constitution free zones, citizen.
permalink

[ ]THANKS-FOR-THE-GOLD 22 points 7 hours ago


Embrace democracy or you will be eradicated
permalinkparent
[ ]jroddie4 14 points 5 hours ago
Citizen, pick up that can.
permalinkparent
[ ]douko 3 points 5 hours ago
This image won't even load (here's another one), but I still know what it is.
DEATH IS A PREFERABLE ALTERNATIVE TO COMMUNISM.
COMMUNISM IS THE VERY DEFINITION OF FAILURE!
permalinkparent
[ ]chewysquirrel 15 points 6 hours ago
Approximately 2/3 of Americans live in a "constitution free zone"
permalinkparent
[ ]newpolitics 50 points 10 hours ago
The Federal Bureau of Investigation is taking the position that court warrants a
re not required when deploying cell-site simulators in public places. Nicknamed
"stingrays," the devices are decoy cell towers that capture locations and identi
ties of mobile phone users and can intercept calls and texts.
So nobody has any expectation of privacy? Talking out of their asses. The implic
ation that a warrant shouldn't be needed to intercept someone's text messages, i
s outrageous.
permalink
[ ]acerplatanoides [score hidden] 16 minutes ago
The implication that a warrant shouldn't be needed to intercept someone's text m
essages, is outrageous.
The implication of intercepting a PRESS related text message, and thus also supp
ressing a free press.
I think many of these are used to stop uploading of images to social medial. You
ever tried that during a demonstration?
permalinkparent
[ ]dalasocatyemerc 67 points 9 hours ago
Hmm, I didn't realize the FBI had the authority to ignore the constitution of th
e United States of America.
Maybe this organization doesn't actually serve Americans. That's what I think
permalink
[ ]Jagoonder 17 points 2 hours ago
They don't. However, lets look at their 3rd criteria:
(3) cases in which the technology is used in public places or other locations at
which the FBI deems there is no reasonable expectation of privacy.
In public, noone has an expectation to privacy. SCOTUS has ruled on such. Theref
ore, it could be argued that phone conversations in public places forfeits at le
ast one party's rights to privacy.
There are a couple of problems with this. First, Stingray is indiscriminate. Sec
ond, the other party of the phone conversation may be in their own home thus hav
ing an expectation of privacy.
I don't know how law works in regards to phone tapping. But, I would assume that
any warrant to do so would provide the agency a waiver on a second party's priv
acy protections when conversing with the target of the warrant. Except in the ca
se of Stingray no warrant was ever obtained thus, no waiver, thus the second par
ty probably still has privacy protections.
So, I think it's bullshit. I'm no lawyer. I suspect the FBI also knows it's bull
shit. But, the more excuses they can come up with to bend the law around their w
ill the more time it takes to try to stop them since each instance requires anot
her court decision.
permalinkparent
[ ]punkrampant 13 points 1 hour ago
There's only "no expectation of privacy" in public in terms of video+camera surv
eillance. People still get disturbed if you look over their shoulder at their ph
one, or listen to a conversation.

Text messages, emails, phone calls, all of it, are the modern day written letter
s. What the FBI is trying to do is the equivalent of setting up a post office th
at opens everyone's envelopes and makes copies of all the contents.
permalinkparent
[ ]Jagoonder 5 points 1 hour ago
Text messages, emails, phone calls, all of it, are the modern day written letter
s. What the FBI is trying to do is the equivalent of setting up a post office th
at opens everyone's envelopes and makes copies of all the contents.
You're right. I was focusing on an actual phone conversation where one party cou
ld be overheard by others, thus no expectation to privacy.
permalinkparent
[ ]Cambodian_Drug_Mule 2 points 1 hour ago
Surely there are people with technical expertise that can just fuck their shit u
p. If I'm not mistaken the stingrays were detected with consumer grade electroni
cs. If everyone just looked out for them and pinned where they are at on a map,
couldn't some people with the technical know how take them offline?
permalinkparent
[ ]monopixel 1 point 1 hour ago
Hmm, I didn't realize the FBI had the authority to ignore the constitution of th
e United States of America.
The US government and its agencies has been doing it for ages.
permalinkparent
[ ]rtpg 40 points 6 hours ago
Surprised nobody's mentioned Kyllo v. United States yet.
This is fairly recent (2001) jurisprudence. The gov't used a thermal imager, and
saw that there were heat lamps inside of a house, and used that to get a search
warrant. The gov't argued that, well, the heat was outside, so pretty much publ
ic information.
The courts disagreed and ruled this an illegal search. Main reason being that no
t many people have thermal imagers, so there's a reasonable expectation of priva
cy. I think even less people have stingrays, so even from the "discovering that
someone has a cell phone" aspect, there's unreasonableness in the search.
Now to the wiretapping aspect... there's Katz v. United States. Here, somebody w
as in a phone booth, and the feds had set a microphone outside the phone booth w
ithout warrant (so not exactly a wiretap). Again, the courts ruled this an unrea
sonable search.
A part of the ruling:
Regardless of the location, a conversation is protected from unreasonable search
and seizure under the Fourth Amendment if it is made with a "reasonable expecta
tion of privacy".
Text messages definitely fall under this. I can't see this holding up for 2 seco
nds in court.
The article goes into it into detail, but few of the FBI's interpretations on pr
ivacy have been holding up in courts recently. The system is kind of working, an
d this interpretation will be shut down as well. Now, if only everyone had good
lawyers...
permalink
[ ]ryewheats 7 points 4 hours ago
But the biggest problem I see would be them not declaring how they gathered any
information they collected in the first place. It would be pretty easy to skirt
around the system and act like you caught the suspect red-handed (because you we
re tipped off by illegal searches). That is the really scary part.
permalinkparent
[ ]argv_minus_one 5 points 3 hours ago
This practice is known as "parallel construction".
permalinkparent
[ ]tughdffvdlfhegl 3 points 3 hours ago
Honestly, this is the biggest concern. The courts won't allow a challenge becaus
e no one will have standing, because the feds/police won't actively declare this
as evidence in a trial. Meanwhile, they'll continue to use it, having a chillin

g effect on the press and others (which the courts have not seen in recent histo
ry as sufficient to provide legal standing).
permalinkparent
[ ]JustaChimp 3 points 5 hours ago
With the Katz v US case, it took them 39 years to overturn the Olmstead v US rul
ing. Let's hope it takes a little less time for this medium.
The recent Romano v Steelcase Inc. court case could indicate how the courts will
rule in the short term with regards to "reasonable expectation of privacy" thou
gh this ruling was in the context of social media and not text messages. The ana
logy was made that much like a letter writer has no reasonable expectation of pr
ivacy once the recipient is in possession of the letter, neither does the post's
author. Same could be extended to text messages and would be equally as trouble
some.
permalinkparent
[ ]qdarius 1 point 3 hours ago
Damn, that doesn't seem right at all. If I send someone a letter I definitely ex
pect that only they will read it.
Could anyone expand on the logic that a letter writer has no reasonable expectat
ion of privacy?
permalinkparent
[ ]Boltaeg 1 point 3 hours ago
After that letter is given to the recipient, they can do whatever they want with
it without you knowing. They could copy it, show it to friends, frame it and pu
t it on their wall....etc. You have no control over that and must assume that an
ything you write in a letter can be disclosed in some manner, simply because you
have no control over that persons actions.
As to why that is the case, I have no idea. Especially considering it is illegal
to open someone elses mail, but perfectly legal to read someone else's letter o
nce they open it. At least that is my understanding of it.
permalinkparent
[ ]TheMightyBarbarian 1 point 3 hours ago
Its fairly simple, you sent a letter, until it is received by the intended recip
ient it has federal protections. Once the recipient receives it, they are free t
o do with it as they wish, even if you disagree with what they do, specifically
because the letter is now their property, even though you wrote it.
permalinkparent
[ ]qdarius 1 point 2 hours ago
I understand that. But if someone else intercepts my letter shouldn't that still
be illegal?
Maybe I'm misunderstanding how stingrays work but it seems like they're basicall
y designed to intercept hundreds of messages.
permalinkparent
[ ]TheMightyBarbarian 1 point 2 hours ago
Intercept isn't illegal, its sketchy but not illegal. As for reading it, it's a
grey area since texts are not encrypted and even if they were it would do shit i
f billions of devices can decrypt them. So unless you use something like a messe
nger system that can use basic encrypting. It won't stop the FBI from reading it
, but it does show you took steps to have a private conversation and that's what
matters to the court.
permalinkparent
[ ]coalbeeashi 1 point 3 hours ago
Re: Katz v. United States
Certain details, such as shutting the door on the telephone booth, help determin
e if a person intends for a conversation to be private. Thus, private conversati
ons can be made in public areas.
What steps is the average Joe taking to exhibit a reasonable expectation of priv
acy regarding his/her data usage? Honest question.
permalinkparent
[ ]TheMightyBarbarian 1 point 2 hours ago
Beyond using a VPN to mimic another location, not much really. Since there are m

any devices involved in the process of just looking up a website. Ex. You google
Microsoft. Here are all the parties involved: You, Your ISP, Google, Microsoft.
That's four parties involved and that's assuming you are not using a Phones Mob
ile Data plan and are using WiFi. Because then it can add a few more people invo
lved.
Sure you should have protection just the same, but currently the law doesn't rec
ognize that, because the people in charge dont understand how any of it works.
permalinkparent
[ ]rtpg [score hidden] 54 minutes ago
I would say that cultural norms kind of define that in that it is extremely rude
to look at another stranger's phone while they are using it to browse/look at t
heir emails/whatever. Not the most solid argument, I know.
permalinkparent
[ ]Sic_SemperTyrannis 1 point 2 hours ago
When the use of stingrays is challenged in court police have dropped the cases r
ather than explain their use of stingrays.
permalinkparent
[ ]cassieloveseffie 1 point 2 hours ago
I have seen a printed record of every one of someone's txt messages for 6 months
. Never assume txt messages are private.
permalinkparent
[ ]Ladderjack 29 points 12 hours ago
I'm sorry, have they gone ahead and combined the FBI and the Supreme Court of th
e United States of America? No? Well, we will see how long this lasts. . .
permalink
[ ]butitssnot 46 points 7 hours ago
Its ok. In 2016 we can vote for hope and change and transparency and fix all thi
s.
permalinkparent
[ ]CriticalThink 3 points 5 hours ago
yeah. I bet Hillary will fix this mess, right Reddit?
permalinkparent
[ ]TheMightyBarbarian 1 point 2 hours ago
We still got time before they can start promoting themselves for President, lega
lly actually, they can't start until a certain number of days from the election.
permalinkparent
[ ]looneybandito 5 points 6 hours ago
Haha. As if our votes matter.
permalinkparent
[ ]atomofconsumption 9 points 5 hours ago
thatsthejoke.jpg
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]dichroeyes 1 point 4 hours ago
You are right. I give up. Long live the hegemony.
permalinkparent
[ ]Pikaflu 1 point 3 hours ago
America is an irradiated wasteland. Within it lies a city. Outside the boundary
walls, a desert. A cursed earth. Inside the walls, a cursed city, stretching fro
m Boston to Washington D.C. An unbroken concrete landscape. 800 million people l
iving in the ruin of the old world and the mega structures of the new one. Mega
blocks. Mega highways. Mega City One. Convulsing. Choking. Breaking under its ow
n weight. Citizens in fear of the street. The gun. The gang. Only one thing figh
ting for order in the chaos: the men and women of the Hall of Justice. Juries. E
xecutioners. Judges.
permalinkparent
[ ]Ago_Solvo 36 points 9 hours ago
I'm sure that means that stingrays are also open for public hacking in that case
, because they're in a public place, and doing so can't be considered an intrusi
on on government properties or a violation of any Federal Law.

permalink
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]whysopositive 57 points 12 hours ago
Say whatever you want, you don't think big brother is going to find every way to
spy on you?
The thing is I bet every time we the people get upset about some "new" trespass
against our rights there's already something technologically beyond our knowledg
e being put to use to on us now.
permalink
[ ]I_SPLIT_INFINITIVES 16 points 7 hours ago
My dad always said, "If that's what they're telling us they have now, they proba
bly had it ten years ago. Just imagine what they really have."
permalinkparent
[ ]oOTHX1138Oo 28 points 9 hours ago
Thats why we need to add to the bill of rights, so that we continue to be protec
ted in the digital age.
permalinkparent
[ ]TheBlueWaffleHouse 18 points 8 hours ago
At this point in time the bill of rights only shrinks. It doesn't get bigger.
permalinkparent
[ ]tallerthanunicorngod 33 points 7 hours ago
Not with that attitude.
permalinkparent
[ ]mattacular2001 3 points 5 hours ago
Doesn't matter unless you're wealthy
permalinkparent
[ ]tallerthanunicorngod 1 point 2 hours ago
Wealthy people don't like to be spied on either. Honestly, they probably like it
even less.
permalinkparent
[ ]sockgorilla 1 point 5 hours ago
He's John Titor, he's watched it before.
permalinkparent
[ ]mastahslayah 1 point 4 hours ago
Well he isn't getting any of my Dr. Pepper.
permalinkparent
[ ]Poor__Yorick 1 point 2 hours ago
Wow that's a name I haven't heard in a while.
We've got a world war this year though.
3 billion dead by the end of it.
permalinkparent
load more comments (5 replies)
[ ]pion3435 1 point 3 hours ago
We already did. That's the point of laws like HIPAA. There's just no equivalent
for things like email or cell phones so it's legal to see whatever people are na
ively broadcasting.
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]ZomNomNomBeeZ 5 points 7 hours ago
This technology is not particularly new. The man-in-the-middle attack is a class
ic hacking technique. I remember reading an article after one of the security co
nventions detailing a small group of participants that used a remote control air
plane to do this exact thing to convention attendees. This was years ago.
permalinkparent
[ ]hershmire 4 points 7 hours ago
Which is why it's illegality could be successfully code into law.
permalinkparent
[ ]TheMightyBarbarian 1 point 3 hours ago
That's the problem, the people who make the laws don't understand how the techno
logy works, and the people making and using it are telling them its fine, so the

y don't feel like they need to make a law about.


And as such making a law about it would be bad, since the law would need specifi
c language to prevent certain technologies and usage of such. But the biggest is
sue is that some of the technology and uses are too general that it would never
work to stop anything. Since they can't just write a law preventing man in the m
iddle because they need to get a definitive wording on what that is exactly and
then word it so a slight variation doesn't just immediately skirt the new law.
Our technology grew faster than our laws did, but now it's grown faster than our
ability to properly define what it is we do. So controlling it is incredibly ha
rd and will take a long time, so for now we kinda have to suck it up and wait, b
ecause the worst possible thing is them putting out ineffective laws that do les
s than nothing to prevent stuff like that and hearing us complain and think we a
re whining when they just put out a law. I would rather wait a little longer to
make sure the law is proper and effective than to have a crap law screw everythi
ng up.
permalinkparent
[ ]ScorpionPool 1 point 6 hours ago
Serious question. What benefits does the government get from spying on us? Power
? Information for corporations? Shits and giggles? Some kind of profit?
permalinkparent
[ ]swingmemallet 2 points 5 hours ago
All of the above
permalinkparent
[ ]eyeforgot 1 point 5 hours ago*
What like complete access to what anyone posts/chats about on facebook/skype bei
ng dumped into a database? Anyone who work with cisco routers notice anything fu
nny like carefully crafted packets fucking w. the settings and not creating logs
. Maybe like there is a back door that someone has that doesn't require a passwo
rd.
permalinkparent
load more comments (3 replies)
[ ]philtech 26 points 10 hours ago
You can scan for stingray use.
Only works on rooted phones with Qualcomm chipset however. https://play.google.c
om/store/apps/details?id=de.srlabs.snoopsnitch&hl=en
permalink
[ ]vamper 2 points 6 hours ago
damn, no go for my nexus 5
permalinkparent
[ ]Ice_Pirate 1 point 5 hours ago
Should work on my 20 dollar ZTE's with dualies :). Overclocks to 1.8 like butta.
http://www.phonearena.com/phones/ZTE-N800_id8191
permalinkparent
[ ]willyboxc 1 point 2 hours ago
we need a version that will work without root :(
permalinkparent
[ ]networklackey 49 points 11 hours ago*
Bullshit... it's radio. They have no way of determining whether the person they
are monitoring is in public or not.
They shouldn't be able to use this without a warrant any more than they should b
e able to point a laser mic at your window.
The fact that they are in public is irrelevant... the subject they are monitorin
g has to be in public.
permalink
[ ]lll_1_lll 29 points 6 hours ago
Even if we are in public, what the fuck gives them the right to look through my
texts, phone calls, voicemails, emails, call history, etc?
permalinkparent
[ ]zoidbug 5 points 3 hours ago
It should be protected the level of paper mail. It is your private communication

s.
permalinkparent
[ ]networklackey 1 point 2 hours ago
Technically... because you are in public and are broadcasting. But I feel the sa
me way. None of this shit should be legal.
permalinkparent
load more comments (6 replies)
[ ]goatmagic 2 points 3 hours ago
laser mic
Well, TIL this exists :/
permalinkparent
[ ]networklackey 2 points 2 hours ago
They absolutely exist and they are freaking awesome. They should not however be
used by law enforcement without a warrant.
permalinkparent
[ ]makingupdumbnames 1 point 5 hours ago
I think it's that their airwaves cross public space. pls correct me if I'm wrong
, though
permalinkparent
[ ]networklackey 1 point 2 hours ago
That's certainly the argument they are making.
permalinkparent
[ ]wirepants 1 point 4 hours ago
Even assuming you are in public, who's to say the guy on the other side is too?
permalinkparent
[ ]networklackey 1 point 2 hours ago
Nothing but their log books but that doesn't really matter. It's your right to p
rivacy they are violating.
permalinkparent
[ ]Sarah_Connor 9 points 9 hours ago
We need a way to be able to identify, then jamm, stingrays.
permalink
[ ]cookie_nrk 8 points 7 hours ago
This Jammer made in sweden should do the trick. From what I have read it complet
ely blocks all signals, so using a phone wouldn't work at all, but if you were i
n a position to not want to be tracked during a certain time, you could use this
: http://www.jammer-store.com/monstro-10-all-frequencies-portable-jammer.html
permalinkparent
[ ]hershmire 10 points 7 hours ago
We're talking about blanket monitoring of civilians. It needs to be outlawed imm
ediately. Hoping each and every Joe Schmoe is going to buy an illegal cell phone
jammer to protect his identity is, well, ridiculous.
permalinkparent
[ ]davidverner 6 points 7 hours ago
Jammers are illegal in the US on the cellphone frequency. Good luck importing on
e.
permalinkparent
[ ]wicard 5 points 6 hours ago
had one from deal extreme i bought when i was younger to prank friends, was alot
of fun. But if you are worried about being tracked wouldn't just shutting your
phone off do the trick? If you are jamming your phone you arnt going to be talki
ng to anyone.
permalinkparent
[ ]RellenD 4 points 5 hours ago
You have to do more than just turn it off, unfortunately.
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]willyboxc 1 point 2 hours ago
we need the schematics so we can build one... also include 700 mhz jam for lte
permalinkparent

load more comments (1 reply)


[ ]ademnus 11 points 7 hours ago
That's nice but it's not up to the FBI if it is illegal or not.
permalink
[ ]MonitoredCitizen 21 points 7 hours ago
Come on Google and Apple, stop being so lame. Make the phones themselves defend
against this by always displaying the negotiated encryption level and allowing u
ser to configure the phone to refuse to connect if the GSM encryption level is A
5/0.
permalink
[ ]argv_minus_one 2 points 2 hours ago
If they do that, these same spooks will have some words with their CEOs. Otherwi
se, yeah, they likely would.
permalinkparent
[ ]vzzzbux 2 points 1 hour ago
Not sure on the technical specifics but my old Nokia from 10 years ago used to s
how a padlock if the call was "secure", which I guess meant it was encrypted in
some way.
Sounds like yet another way we've gone backwards with the rise of Google and App
le
permalinkparent
[ ]cryptovariable 180 points 12 hours ago
This seems icky, but anyone with a Raspberry Pi ($48.00), an RTL-SDR ($17.00), a
nd an ability to follow written step-by-step instructions on how to install and
configure some open source software ($0.00) can do this, albeit on a smaller sca
le.
That tutorial doesn't cover decrypting GSM traffic. This one does. You'll need s
omething faster than a Raspberry Pi, though. Maybe a $200 netbook.
And you can do it on the same scale as the police with a surplus commercial ante
nna and three or four friends.
I don't see how restricting the government's ability to do this would have any o
ther effect than to criminalize a private citizen's desire to experiment with GS
M.
permalink
[ ]HappyAtavism 113 points 11 hours ago
I don't see how restricting the government's ability to do this would have any o
ther effect than to criminalize a private citizen's desire to experiment with GS
M.
Experiment with GSM all you want, just don't eavesdrop or commit fraud by preten
ding to be part of a legitimate business.
I like to play with miniature cameras, microphones and transmitters. That's a fi
ne hobby as long as I don't use it to spy on my neighbors.
permalinkparent
load more comments (5 replies)
[ ]mr___ 50 points 12 hours ago
But theirs has a transmitter, and actively spoofs cell sites
permalinkparent
[ ]cryptovariable 55 points 12 hours ago
It you want to spoof rather than just eavesdrop all you have to do is buy any of
the SDR kits that are coming on to the market like a bladeRF or something and h
ave GNUradio (which hilariously autocorrects to FBI radio on my phone) pretend t
o be a tower, the credentials of which you sniffed with your Pi setup.
The reason the Feds spoof is so that they can target specific devices on a white
list and only have those connect. The size of the whitelist is unknown and up fo
r debate.
If you're capturing and decrypting all the GSM your antenna can receive you don'
t care if you're spoofing the tower unless you want to modify the traffic in som
e way. To quote Sir Patrick Stewart: "It's too late, I've seen everything."
If you just scoop up everything using cheap/free and publicly available tools yo
u don't really care about spoofing.

It should be noted that the Feds have a leg up with CDMA because of its smaller
global footprint and the scarcity of developers working on it, as well as UMTS (
3G) and LTE.
But people are poking at LTE every day: http://www.rtl-sdr.com/analyzing-td-ltertl-sdr/
permalinkparent
[ ]HappyAtavism 36 points 11 hours ago
The reason the Feds spoof is so that they can target specific devices on a white
list and only have those connect. The size of the whitelist is unknown and up fo
r debate.
We do know they don't have warrants. How many violations of the 4th Amendment do
es it take before it's considered a bad thing?
permalinkparent
load more comments (19 replies)
[ ]A530[??] 6 points 6 hours ago
I have to ask an honest question. Knowing what you know, do you live in a Farada
y cage or just eschew cell phones all together? I'm in InfoSec (I'm guessing you
are too) and with the shit I know, maintaining OPSec is just a never ending bat
tle. I can't imagine my paranoia if I went down the cellular rabbit hole (althou
gh I do know a lot about the shit happening with the carrier baseband MDM garbag
e).
Many thanks for the very informative post.
permalinkparent
[ ]tornadoRadar 1 point 1 hour ago
Gotta keep it segmented. Personal never mixes with biz
permalinkparent
[ ]the_nap_mutilator 1 point 5 hours ago
Spoofing the cell site also gives them access to the phone at something akin to
the hardware level... so unless you have rooted and or installed software to sec
ure the device, they can push new software onto your phone without your knowledg
e/consent in the same way that your carrier updates subscriber units say when th
ey make changes to the network or something. At that point your phone has been p
ermanently compromised.
permalinkparent
load more comments (13 replies)
[ ]mag17435 29 points 10 hours ago
I dont understand how people think the government can do things citizens can. Or
dering our government not to do something has no bearing on what citizens can do
.
permalinkparent
[ ]Golden-Fox 7 points 6 hours ago
Well when police are trying to visually collect evidence they can in general onl
y search from public areas. If a cop is looking for a certain car and they see i
t on the street, that's fine. If the car is parked in a closed garage and on pri
vate property, the cop wouldn't be able to see it without going onto private pro
perty and looking in a window. If the car is in the same garage and the garage d
oor is open, then anyone can see it, and the cop can legally use that informatio
n.
The FBI is trying to apply that same logic to these stingrays. Stingrays are a t
echnology that is available to the public. You could make your own and do exactl
y what the FBI does. The data being collected isn't encrypted, password protecte
d, or anything else. Everything is publicly available. You just have to have a c
ertain machine to be able to read it. The garage door has to be open.
permalinkparent
[ ]Wordygit 6 points 6 hours ago
The key word here is "public" whereas where there is the expectation of privacy,
I would think think that would carry some special considerations. That seems to
be some of what the courts are deciding about, where the expectation of privacy
holds sway over searches. Its already been determined that law enforcement cann
ot force you to unlock your phone. One such Supreme Court case, decided this pas

t summer, led to a sweeping victory for privacy rights advocates. In a rare unan
imous decision, the court found that police cannot search cellphones, and by ext
ension tablets and other digital communication devices, without first obtaining
a warrant. Smartphones, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote, hold the privacies of l
ife, and the fact that technology now allows an individual to carry such informati
on in his hand does not make the information any less worthy of the protection f
or which the Founders fought. I think, as well, that it has been established that
if there is encryption being used, that constitutes an acknowledgement that ste
ps have been taken to protect and maintain the sense of privacy, and so the expe
ctation carries onto the information being transmitted. Not sure if there is a l
egal precedent for that though.
permalinkparent
[ ]Golden-Fox 2 points 5 hours ago
Its already been determined that law enforcement cannot force you to unlock your
phone.
This is what I've heard, but to me it implies that police can access your phone
if you don't have it locked. Carrying that logic over to this argument, the poli
ce would be able to access your cell info as long as it isn't encrypted. It seem
s that you only have a "reasonable expectation to privacy" with your cell phone
if you've taken any steps to make your phone more private. If there were some wa
y to get your carrier to encrypt your data, then there'd be no question, but the
way cell providers are these days, that's not gonna happen.
permalinkparent
[ ]ThreeTimesUp 1 point 1 hour ago
Something that I have heard repeatedly (and I may yet have it wrong), is that if
your front door is closed, but unlocked, the police are free to enter without a
warrant.
This has always bothered me.
I could understand the mind-set of someone (i.e. a Justice of the Supreme court)
thinking that way if they grew up (or lived) in an area where they lived a life
always fearful of intruders and locking doors was a practical necessity.
But to me, a closed door means "Keep out, knock for admittance - no entry withou
t permission."
So, for naive, trusting, me, I would not expect the police (or anyone) to examin
e my phone (without a warrant) just to see what they could find.
permalinkparent
[ ]pion3435 1 point 3 hours ago
A technologically illiterate moron's expectation of privacy doesn't become a rea
sonable expectation of privacy just because the majority of the population is te
chnologically illiterate.
permalinkparent
[ ]F0sh 1 point 2 hours ago
This is totally wrong thinking. A private citizen can look for your car through
the garage window without legal repercussions, even though a police officer migh
t not be allowed. The police officer has to conduct his searches according to th
e expectation of privacy and you have every expectation that your private phone
conversations are private - even if you're sending your texts at the shopping ce
ntre.
This is a bullshit equivocation on the part of the FBI, who are claiming that si
nce any old person at the shops can see that you're also at the shops you have n
o expectation of privacy at all.
This logic, if extended, would also mean the FBI could clone your hard drive if
you took your laptop to a public place - after all, you have no expectation of p
rivacy there. No. Bullshit - just because you're in the park doesn't mean all yo
ur possessions and emails became public.
This has nothing to do with what an ordinary citizen is able to do in public or
in private.
permalinkparent
[ ]ThreeTimesUp 1 point 2 hours ago*
Well when police are trying to visually collect evidence they can in general onl

y search from public areas. If a cop is looking for a certain car and they see i
t on the street, that's fine.
To counterpoint this:
Infra-red light (heat) is just light that's at a lower frequency than humans can
detect.
Courts have ruled that the police using specialized equipment to detect heat sig
natures (Infra-red light) emanating from from houses for the purpose of snooping
for grow operations are an invasion of privacy.
The signals Stingray is picking up are just another frequency, even lower than I
nfra-red light, originating from inside your phone, that is your property, which
is in your possession.
Authorities are using all manner of logical distortions in an express attempt to
get around the ideals and principles expressed in the Constitution.
What law-abiding citizen would attempt such a thing?
What authority that the public has placed their trust in, would make continual a
ttempts to subvert the Constitution?
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
load more comments (2 replies)
[ ]kromem 2 points 3 hours ago
It is already criminal to capture and decrypt GSM traffic for citizens (Wiretap
Act), same as capturing and parsing WiFi data.
But I think I can point out the issue with your logic with a simple analogy:
Citizens can buy guns.
Law enforcement can be provided guns.
Citizens can practice shooting guns.
Law enforcement should do the same.
Citizens can't shoot other citizens with guns except in really specific exemptio
ns.
According to your logic, just because citizens can buy guns, and could possibly
go around shooting other people with them, law enforcement should not have any l
egal restrictions on their use of guns.
It is illegal for you to capture and decrypt anyone else's traffic, and it shoul
d be illegal for cops to do the same without a warrant. It's not that hard to ge
t a warrant when actually justified, creates a paper trail that can be examined
for abuses, and has been the case without serious issue for years now.
For what purpose does the law need to be changed to allow this? Because warrants
are inconvenient? Well then why not get rid of them for entering homes too? It'
s quite trivial to pick a lock, and even easier to smash a window and climb in.
Any citizen could do it. So why do we need to restrict the police from the same?
permalinkparent
[ ]dfioabnionjio 4 points 9 hours ago
I don't see how restricting the government's ability to do this would have any o
ther effect than to criminalize a private citizen's desire to experiment with GS
M.
Why not have it be illegal for government and legal for private citizens? Make i
t perfectly legal for private citizens to experiment with GSM, but don't let the
FBI do the same, like you can have a private citizen share something a defendan
t said in court while the police cannot do the same unless the suspect had been
told of their rights.
Of course, the problem here is not using GSM. It's tracking people who did not k
nowingly join your network. You could have it be legal to experiment with GSM an
d not legal to spoof a network, or make it so tracking someone on your network i
s illegal unless the person being tracked is aware they will be tracked and cons
ents to it.
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]confusiondiffusion 3 points 10 hours ago
Yeah, I really don't see the point in making laws against this, since they'll be
broken anyway. We need to fix the underlying technology. There is no excuse for

the sad state of cellphone security.


permalinkparent
[ ]HappyAtavism 18 points 10 hours ago
I really don't see the point in making laws against this
Then let's just flush the Constitution down the toilet. All laws get broken, the
question is what gets done about it.
since they'll be broken anyway
It's not very hard to break into my house either, but they're not supposed to do
it without a warrant.
permalinkparent
load more comments (4 replies)
[ ]HighMonster 1 point 7 hours ago
Wow that's intriguing
permalinkparent
[ ]lll_1_lll 1 point 6 hours ago
You act like this is realistically doable for the large majority of people and y
ou know that's BS.
permalinkparent
[+][deleted] 6 hours ago (1 child)
[ ]JabroniZamboni 1 point 5 hours ago
Are you suggesting that radar jammers should be legal? As well as cell phone or
wifi jammers? What if your neighbor wants to experiment with a jammer for the ne
xt 4 months? 6 years? I assume you wouldn't be too happy. There's experimentatio
n and then there's purposeful disruption and spying.
permalinkparent
[ ]egodeath92 1 point 5 hours ago
Yeah except "anyone with device X" can't prosecute people. It doesn't matter whe
n corporations do mass data collection because they are just trying to make mone
y/sell people shit. The government can create a database of people's private liv
es then prosecute them. You could even imagine a time where data collection is s
o widespread that this kind of info is used for political purposes rather then b
usting drug dealers/ other criminals which is what it's used for now.
permalinkparent
[ ]Kuusou 1 point 4 hours ago
What the people can do, and what the government can do, are no the same things,
nor should they.
permalinkparent
[ ]qdarius 1 point 4 hours ago
If a random person overhears my conversation I don't care. Even if they tell the
ir friends I'm still not too concerned.
If the government records my conversation and uses it to investigate or prosecut
e me that's clearly a different situation.
Just because someone can do something doesn't mean it should be legal. It defini
tely doesn't mean we should be okay with our government using it on us.
permalinkparent
load more comments (9 replies)
[ ]Sir_not_sir 52 points 13 hours ago
The main purpose of the stinger is to circumvent the need and time of acquiring
a warrant and getting the data from all the service providers.
Regardless of data retention plans, they should require a separate judicial warr
ant for each individual suspect in order to be deployed.
permalink
[ ]manoninternets 8 points 7 hours ago*
The time required to get a warrant is usually far less than what they make it ou
t to be, although cost is as factor. Phone companies make tons of money off poli
ce records requests.
To play devil's advocate (and I do think the STINGRAY arrangement is devilish):
once you request records from the phone companies, there's no guarantee that won
't get leaked to the people being investigated. The cartels have people everywhe

re.
permalinkparent
[ ]kevincreeperpants 6 points 6 hours ago
What if they are the cartels!?...dun dun dun
permalinkparent
[ ]tughdffvdlfhegl 1 point 3 hours ago
I don't think anyone here has a problem with STINGRAY being used, given that the
y have a warrant for the person's data they're monitoring. So in your situation,
that's easy to do.
permalinkparent
[ ]manoninternets 2 points 3 hours ago
Yeah it's the same concept as going through my private letters, or close enough
to it anyhow. (Even though letters are physically sealed and radio waves permeat
e the air freely, my intention is for my text messages to be as private as posta
l mail.)
Even a child could rip open an envelope with ease. That doesn't mean police don'
t need a warrant to do so.
permalinkparent
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[ ]turnthatfrown 9 points 7 hours ago
I think the FBI is conveniently forgetting that they are intercepting a communic
ation that is normally secured via encryption and carried privately by your wire
less provider then switched privately all the way to the party on the other end
who has similar expectations of the connection.
I mean, come on, the Stingrays themselves are impersonating the carrier that you
have a contract with and using techniques to avoid the strong encryption. The p
rove by their own design and implementation that the FBI's argument is bullshit.
permalink
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]dontbullshityourself 27 points 11 hours ago
I'm so sick of the ways these callous assholes use to crush our freedom.
What is the point of massive expensive law enforcement agencies if the law can't
protect our rights and freedoms? Hasn't the cart been put before the horse here
?
permalink
[ ]donottakethisserious 13 points 6 hours ago
If you are told you are free enough times, you start to believe it. You start at
a young age with a pledge every day and then when you grow up you attend sporti
ng events and stand for the national anthem and tear up at how free you are. Tha
t way nobody will ever question whether or not this is actually a free country.
permalinkparent
[ ]dontbullshityourself 10 points 5 hours ago
When I was a kid I started to sit during the pledge. Honestly I think I just wan
ted to test and see how free I was. I knew that saying the pledge etc wasn't in
the school handbook. I knew there was no rule saying I had to say it or stand or
anything. The powers that be at my school just used the herd instinct to keep t
his shit going.
So I started sitting down. This resulted in a lot of attention from gangs of bul
lies. My home room teacher didn't like it either and lectured/bitched about it e
very day. But she stopped short of anything more than shaming me unlike the bull
ies.
Anyway I just decided to drop out. Fuck it. Humans don't like new things that co
nfuse them and challenge them to think. How interesting that was to be the last
thing I learned in school. I found another kind of freedom. The freedom to leave
the assholes mired in their stupidity and find my own path in life.
permalinkparent
[ ]joshyfitzo90 4 points 5 hours ago
I like your style.
permalinkparent

[ ]Jack41096 3 points 4 hours ago


I applaud you. I stood but that's all I did. it was in our rulebook to stand but
fuck them if they thought I was gonna do more than that. I started a wave of pe
ople standing and doing nothing.
eventually my first period class was reduced to two people and the teacher actua
lly doing anything. they bitches about it but we all had our own reasons.
permalinkparent
[ ]dontbullshityourself 2 points 3 hours ago
eventually my first period class was reduced to two people and the teacher actua
lly doing anything. they bitches about it but we all had our own reasons.
There are lots of reasons to resist and only one reason to obey. Fear.
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]CriticalThink 3 points 5 hours ago
Government hasn't been interested in protecting our rights and freedoms in a lon
g time.
permalinkparent
[ ]jkeyser14 5 points 7 hours ago
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety
, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. - Benjamin Franklin
permalinkparent
[ ]dontbullshityourself 5 points 6 hours ago
We didn't give it up. They are taking it.
permalinkparent
[ ]jkeyser14 10 points 6 hours ago
Only because we aren't rioting. The first group of rioters to tar and feather a
politician again will bring about change very quickly.
permalinkparent
[ ]dontbullshityourself 4 points 5 hours ago
People are gonna have to get a lot more desperate. I reckon we'll get our riot s
oon enough.
permalinkparent
[ ]Jack41096 1 point 4 hours ago
take the food. that's the surefire way to cause a riot.
people will be content as long as they're fed. you take that away and suddenly t
hey have nothing to lose. they have to survive. that is the most primal response
we have. to fight tooth and nail for food. to eat no matter the cost.
permalinkparent
[ ]RamsNation 1 point 4 hours ago
America has a very stable food supply so I doubt that will happen.
permalinkparent
[ ]dontbullshityourself 1 point 3 hours ago
I don't think we have to take the food. I think that people today are a lot more
self entitled and will jump into a fit without their iphones. They can't even i
magine a world without abundant food.
permalinkparent
[ ]grungebucket 1 point 4 hours ago
bring about change very quickly. street executions very quickly.
there. Corrected that for you. After all. You wouldn't want to be mistaken for a
terrorist endorsing a terrorist act now, would you?
permalinkparent
[ ]pion3435 2 points 3 hours ago
You never had it. You're just now finding out.
permalinkparent
[ ]hershmire 7 points 7 hours ago
Ok, I get the FBI's argument. Technically, we are all choosing to carry a digita
l device around with us that uniquely identifies us via radio frequency. It's tr
ue that we could very well decide not to partake in the use of cell phones if we
're so worried about being tracked. And thus because we decide to carry these pa

rtially secure devices around with us, they FBI has every right to hack them and
track us.
But this argument is bogus. The FBI can't read our mail or tap our phones becaus
e legislators and judges at one time recognized that technology becomes indispen
sable, and therefore should be protected under privacy laws. Just because I choo
se to carry a cell phone around with me doesn't give the FBI to track my whereab
outs, or worse. That'd be like saying it's my fault for having my mail read by t
he FBI because I chose to write letters, or I chose to have my phones monitored
and recorded by the FBI because I chose to use telephones.
The FBI is part of the executive branch. They (supposedly) operate within the sc
ope of the law. If there's no specific law preventing their actions, they'll go
ahead and do it. So write your representatives and get shit like this regulated.
And use letters because they're obligated to at least open the envelope.
permalink
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]drakecherry 5 points 8 hours ago
we might as well get rid of warrants all together. they are gonna search if they
want to, and nothing will happen if they are wrong.
permalink
[ ]MeganNancySmith 6 points 6 hours ago
The FBI doesn't have the legal authority to make that determination.
It would be like if I said that murder is legal every other Sunday. I can say it
all I like, but it doesn't make it true.
permalink
[ ]Todda468 6 points 6 hours ago
Anything a private citizen can't do should require reasonable suspicion or a war
rent.
permalink
[ ]Sonotmethen 6 points 9 hours ago
Then signal jammers aren't either.
permalink
[ ]MrJDouble 4 points 9 hours ago
FBI tends to say a lot of things, doesn't mean it isn't a pile of horseshit.
permalink
[ ]blueiron0 4 points 6 hours ago
(3) cases in which the technology is used in public places or other locations at
which the FBI deems there is no reasonable expectation of privacy.
Love how the FBI gets to decide when it's ok for them to assume you shouldnt hav
e any expectation on privacy. "we saw a poop porn video on pornhub. you shouldnt
expect privacy when pooping then."
permalink
[ ]ragn4rok234 4 points 6 hours ago
Whoo! Now I don't need a warrant or sufficient reason to wire tap anyone and eve
ryone. Stalkers of the world rejoice! It's like Oprah is handing out privacy bre
aches in here
permalink
[ ]fourslaps 4 points 4 hours ago
This isn't what Steve Irwin would have wanted
permalink
[ ]knowyourbrain 7 points 8 hours ago
How sad is it that we have an R Senator trying to rein in a D president's FBI?
If Snowden et al have not been able to show the American people what a farce our
government is then I don't know how it can be demonstrated.
permalink
[ ]makingupdumbnames 1 point 5 hours ago
that's Chelsea to you, mister!
permalinkparent
[ ]StellarUsername 4 points 9 hours ago
Can someone ELI5 why my cell carrier lets this happen? Seems like it would be ea
sy enough for them to put a stop to it if they wanted.

permalink
[ ]giantgnat 13 points 8 hours ago
Because if you don't play nice with them, they don't play nice with you like wha
t happened to the CEO of quest after he refused to cooperate.
permalinkparent
[ ]lll_1_lll 6 points 6 hours ago
CEO of quest
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/09/30/a-ceo-who-resistednsa-spying-is-out-of-prison-and-he-feels-vindicated-by-snowden-leaks/
permalinkparent
[ ]WatchoutItsAllan 1 point 4 hours ago
Looks like the only way to be out of the eyes of the NSA is to go back to using
these http://imgur.com/JEFUt4h
permalinkparent
[ ]jkeyser14 4 points 7 hours ago
The cell and internet companies get paid millions by the government for direct a
ccess to their lines. This was one of the things Snowden blew the whistle on.
permalinkparent
[ ]MadPooter 2 points 7 hours ago
I believe that the technology behind our current cell phone towers needs to allo
w for widespread access to said cell phone towers from a wide array of technolog
ical devices.
The Stingray makes the cell phone tower believe that it's a cell phone--I don't
know that it's as easy as you might think to re-design all cell phone models to
differentiate themselves from what Stingrays currently are.
TL;DR: This might be a better issue for cell phone designers to solve rather the
n cell phone carriers.
permalinkparent
[ ]egalroc 2 points 6 hours ago
Maybe design a Falcon drone that homes in and locks on fake Stingray towers. Wou
ldn't the FBI just shit to see a couple sparrows zooming down on them?
permalinkparent
[ ]A530[??] 1 point 6 hours ago
Cell carriers couldn't care less. They're also packaging backdoors in their base
band software to do all kinds of functional crap, like over the air updates and
remote access.
permalinkparent
[ ]here4DaBacon 3 points 7 hours ago
So it's a honey pot for cell phones. This same method is used to intercept WiFi
internet traffic. The world is becoming a hackers paradise.
permalink
[ ]CapAnson 4 points 6 hours ago
I don't even think of the FBI's exceptions two and three are valid. And as for i
mminent danger to public safety I can't imagine when that safety hinges on inter
cepting a cell call right now this very second without a warrant
permalink
[ ]SquidwardSnowden1 3 points 6 hours ago
Let it be noted, I love big brother.
permalink
[ ]ryanknapper 3 points 6 hours ago
There was a comment asking what prevents private citizens from doing this. My re
ply was: Absolutely nothing. In fact, there are legal ways of doing exactly this
.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xKihq1fClQg
permalink
[ ]lll_1_lll 2 points 6 hours ago
inb4 this thread gets removed by the mods and/or shadowbanned
permalink
[ ]doctorshady[S] 3 points 6 hours ago
I was almost sure it was going to be removed when I submitted it.

permalinkparent
[ ]grtwatkins 1 point 3 hours ago
Wait, so mods = FBI?
permalinkparent
[ ]doctorshady[S] 2 points 2 hours ago
The mods here are quite restrictive about what is allowed to be submitted. Wheth
er or not they're under someone's influence is a question I can't answer (though
I'd honestly like to know), but you'll occasionally see high profile topics rem
oved, like the Snowden leaks back when PRISM was first pointed out.
permalinkparent
[ ]tomcat23 3 points 6 hours ago
If I had a hundred dollars for every time the FBI said it could do something une
thical or unconstitutional I'd be shooting rockets into space like Elon Musk rig
ht now.
permalink
[ ]leafygreenstuff 3 points 6 hours ago
Oh, well if they said....
permalink
[ ]wlxr 3 points 5 hours ago
Is this implying that they are going to repeatedly kill Steve Irwin?
permalink
[ ]Bulldog65 3 points 2 hours ago
Can I Use my Stingray in public places to intercept communications ?
If the answer is no, then the FBI needs a warrant.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effec
ts, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Wa
rrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, a
nd particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things t
o be seized.
This can only be changed by super majority votes in Congress and the States, not
treasonous opinions of mouthpiece lawyers in Department of Justice. This is why
prosecutions of torture memo writers is important. If they want to try and make
up laws they need to be held accountable under the law.
permalink
[ ]Do_Em_Till_They_Derp 13 points 12 hours ago
I don't think that is a good idea considering what happened to Steve Irwin.
permalink
[ ]Smgth 1 point 4 hours ago
I can't believe how far down I had to scroll to find this joke. I was worried I'
d have to make it myself. This thread is WAY too serious for my taste...
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]go1dfish 10 points 10 hours ago
This is what happens when you give a group of people authority over all else.
They use that authority to extort funds from you to pay for your own oppression.
But reddit still cheers it on. It seems to some; the concepts of roads or compas
sion cannot exist without specially anointed jack boot thugs.
permalink
[ ]Arael15th 3 points 6 hours ago
Do you see anyone in this post cheering this on? Moreover is this your first tim
e here?
permalinkparent
[ ]Flight_MH370 2 points 9 hours ago
Can the cell providers see every time this happens? If so, they could alert peop
le of fake towers or something. Alas, I'm pretty sure all the cell providers are
in bed with the feds already anyway.
permalink
[ ]leftnotracks 1 point 8 hours ago
This is why it s a good thing the FBI are not the people in charge of what is lega
l.

permalink
[ ]iluvmilfs420 3 points 7 hours ago
Ohh cool more of my taxes wasted on stupid shit...
permalink
[ ]fuzzycuffs 3 points 7 hours ago
Then I can do the same thing with wifi and not be charged with hacking, right?
permalink
[ ]endprism 2 points 7 hours ago
Use of Stringray in America: https://www.aclu.org/maps/stingray-tracking-devices
-whos-got-them
http://rt.com/usa/215735-sandiego-police-phone-tracking/
http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/First-Amendment-Coalition-Files-Lawsuit-Ab
out-Stingray-Surveillance--286092741.html
http://www.miaminewtimes.com/2012-02-16/news/cell-phone-tracking-miami-cops-know
-where-you-are/
http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/Fort-Worth-Cellphone-Tracking-Rings-Controversy
-140796693.html
http://www.wgrz.com/story/news/investigations/2014/02/13/are-local-police-spying
-on-your-cell-phone/5462273/
Tick tock...
permalink
[ ]johnnybiggs15 2 points 7 hours ago
didnt know they had that type of power
permalink
[ ]jwyche008 2 points 6 hours ago
They would fucking say that wouldn't they? The thing is it isn't supposed to be
their damn decision to make!
permalink
[ ]ICEClownfishWok 1 point 6 hours ago
Did the US government learn nothing from Nazi Germany? I honestly won't be surpr
ised if WWIII occurs when the rest of the world gets tired of our governments bu
llshit
permalink
[ ]frankenstilskin 3 points 6 hours ago
America, for the corporations by the corporations
permalink
[ ]Elephant_rhino_tiger 3 points 5 hours ago
It sounds like a 6 year old coming up with a superhero. "This is FBI man, and he
can fly and like punch through the earth, and he can y'know like intercept cell
traffic if he thinks it's important. But he is weak against himself though, so
like if he punched himself he would die."
permalink
[ ]Banana_blanket 2 points 4 hours ago
Hey who wants to just sit around and let it happen? Oh, everyone? Perfect. Ready
? Go.
permalink
[ ]poopinbutt2014 3 points 4 hours ago
Ah yes, the cops deciding what laws they are and aren't subject to.
permalink
[ ]burnerthrown 2 points 2 hours ago
Has anyone else notied a pattern of more and more laws that protect enforcement
operations from civilians, and fewer nd fewer laws protecting civilians from enf
orcement?
permalink
[ ]siquisiudices 2 points 2 hours ago
Increasingly I am astonished by the state of democracy in the developed western
countries. What has happened and how? I realise that there have always been infr
ingements of liberties by the state - always. But it seems to me that what has c
hanged is the blatent nature of the compromise of democratic norms. I'm not a hi
storian but my impression is that the origins of our current situation lie in tw

o iconic regimes in the UK and US - Reagan and Thatcher (and those that followed
) - and in the fall of the soviet regimes.
The economic philosophy that Reagan and Thatcher promoted reduced liberty to pro
perty rights while at the same time it condemned (rightly) the soviet regimes fo
r their lack of respect for democratic norms. The appeal of this economic ideolo
gy to capital, to the corporations, was obvious especially as during the 1970s t
here had been intermittent but recurring periods when profitability had fallen.
In the context of declining profitability, a roll back of the state and public e
xpenditure was a quick win.
For the rest of society, the implication that growth in personal, individual wea
lth was being held back by public spending and that the welfare state eroded ind
ividual responsibility also won the day. A key element in this process was the d
efeat and denigration of trade unionism: Thatcher going so far as to suggest tha
t trade unions (in the person of the National Union of Miners) were dangerous tr
aitors. People bought into the arguments for radical individualism ("there is no
such thing as society") because, in part, the concrete experience of collectivi
sm in trade unions declined in the face a massive anti-trade union assault.
The fall of the corrupt and totalitarian soviet regimes underpinned this all by
giving concrete expression to the notion that there is no alternative.
Economically the result has been massive widening of the discrepancy in wealth i
n many western countries and increased immiseration of labour across the world a
nd no force to counterbalance the power of the corporations and the state that t
hey (quite naturally) control. The state is the central committee of capital.
In all of this, the oft misnamed "libertarian" tendencies were accompanied by an
increasingly authoritarian and intrusive state apparatus which was promoted and
defended around quite classical nationalist ideas but recast often as the defen
se of western democracy against various external enemies.
And so, little by little, we have allowed our civil liberties to be chipped away
. Even the radical libertarians have been sidelined and fooled into irrelevant s
truggles around gun control in the US. Really, if an armed citizenry were the gu
arantee of liberty then one wold have hoped it would have done a better job. But
overall anti-welfare, anti-European and anti-immigrant rhetoric in the UK and,
for example, religious manipulation of public discourse in the US have allowed t
he authoritarian, pro-corporate state to gradually encroach on political and per
sonal freedoms. And here we are.
We can't say we didn't know - we were warned but the ruling class managed to def
ame the messengers and in other ways render us impotent.
One can only hope that we wake up in time and that our new disdain for collectiv
ism is overcome by the necessity of taking collective action.
permalink
[ ]DinglebellRock [score hidden] 49 minutes ago
You have a right to privacy according to the Constitution. Except for maybe your
cell phone calls. Or email. Or handwritten or typed letters. Or what you read f
rom the library and Amazon. Or maybe your colon and lower intestine if you are i
n New Mexico. What a fucked up nation this has become...
permalink
[ ]nstalker91 [score hidden] 38 minutes ago
Oh sure, when they do it, it's "protecting" and "morally right", but when I do i
t, it's a "federal crime" and "the FCC watches me"
permalink
[ ]The_Media_Collector 3 points 9 hours ago
This is why my phone has an app to continually report IMSI changes to me. I swit
ch one tower to another, I get a warning.
permalink
[ ]Redd575 1 point 7 hours ago
How is that helpful? Not being an ass, just curious. Seems if a Stingray can spo
of a tower then the app does little unless you are standing absolutely still.
permalinkparent
[ ]The_Media_Collector 3 points 7 hours ago
it's my understanding that Stingray "towers" do not encrypt traffic. anytime I a

m connected to an unencrypted "tower" the IMSI detector goes red and lets me kno
w.
permalinkparent
[ ]Redd575 1 point 6 hours ago
Wow. Whomever figured that out was clever.
permalinkparent
[ ]ExReverie93 1 point 7 hours ago
Which app? And would a normal person (not meaning you're not normal. You know wh
at I mean.) be able to use it?
permalinkparent
[ ]The_Media_Collector 1 point 7 hours ago
Requires Root. It's just caeld "Adnroid IMSI-Catchter"
permalinkparent
[ ]egalroc 1 point 6 hours ago
Makes a person want to be a criminal or spy just for the fun of it.
permalinkparent
[ ]Effo 3 points 7 hours ago
Goodbye America the Great, hello police state. :-[
permalink
[ ]Casemods 2 points 7 hours ago
Another reason why I don't have a cell phone.
permalink
[ ]GiveMe_TreeFiddy 3 points 7 hours ago
Things libertarians have been screaming about and offering solutions to for 500$
, Alex...
permalink
[ ]ilovesellinblow 1 point 9 hours ago
police and marshals have been running these for years.
permalink
[ ]bbelt16ag 1 point 8 hours ago
so FBI lets see what the Supreme court has to say to that. I am sure once they r
ule on this you will be going home with your tails between your legs.
permalink
[ ]Banana_blanket 1 point 4 hours ago
Do you people really have that much faith in our Supreme Court? Really?
permalinkparent
[ ]bbelt16ag 1 point 3 hours ago
gotta have some faith, other wise its just anarchy, or revolution. I am not read
y to give up quite yet.
permalinkparent
[ ]bonyponyride 1 point 8 hours ago
If digital communication in a public (and private) space is fair game, there's n
othing to stop an FBI tech specialist from stealing things like knowledge that w
ould be considered insider trading. There's an extreme potential for abuse.
permalink
[ ]jkeyser14 2 points 7 hours ago
If was fair game then hacking into wireless signals by private citizens wouldn't
be illegal.
permalinkparent
[ ]egalroc 1 point 6 hours ago
Just waiting for Anonymous to set up shop in a public park and hack into police
communications then dispatch them to bogus locations throughout the city. If any
thing goes wrong, they could always blame North Korea.
permalinkparent
[ ]coalbeeashi 1 point 3 hours ago
Aren't government agencies encrypting their digital communication - thus exhibit
ing an expectation of privacy?
I'm not sure what steps the "reasonable person" is taking to exhibit an expectat
ion of privacy over their data, tbh.
permalinkparent

[ ]hmmwhatsthisdo 1 point 8 hours ago


If you used RedPhone, Whisperpush/TextSecure, and a VPN, this wouldn't be of con
cern to you, right?
permalink
[ ]LucifersCounselNZ 1 point 7 hours ago
Wrong.
In other cases, the IMSI or equivalent identifier of a target is not known to th
e StingRay operator and the goal of the surveillance operation is to identify on
e or more cellular devices being used in a known area.[16] For example, if visua
l surveillance is being conducted on a group of protestors,[17] a StingRay can b
e used to download the IMSI or equivalent identifier from each phone within the
protest area. After identifying the phones, locating and tracking operations can
be conducted, and service providers can be forced to turn over account informat
ion identifying the phone users.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stingray_phone_tracker#Extracting_Data_From_Interna
l_Storage
Before any of that shit you're talking about comes into play, the IMSI number is
used when establishing the connection. It is uniquely identifying. With your IM
SI number and a court order (or cooperative telco) they will know who you are an
d who you were communicating with.
Then they can use that information to punish you for participating in legal prot
ests, associating with the wrong people, or simply because some Fed didn't like
the look of you.
permalinkparent
[ ]hmmwhatsthisdo 1 point 6 hours ago
So, the only way is to modify your IMEI (which is questionably legal) and use a
prepaid SIM?
permalinkparent
[ ]facepalmdude 1 point 5 hours ago
The IMSI part makes sense, but by using the mentioned tools authorities are very
unlikely to find out who you communicated with, or what the content was. All th
ey know is that you're the end point of an encrypted data connection.
permalinkparent
[ ]coalbeeashi 1 point 3 hours ago
I would assume that a court would view this as an individual exhibiting an expec
tation of privacy over their data.
permalinkparent
[ ]mambotangohandala 1 point 7 hours ago
Law?
We don't need no stinkin' law...
permalink
[ ]smilesbot 1 point 7 hours ago
You've just used a double negative! :P
permalinkparent
[ ]mambotangohandala 1 point 7 hours ago
no i did not, never would i do such a thing, nope, i don't think i ever did...
Ever see the movie 'blazing saddles'? Context kid, context
permalinkparent
[ ]smilesbot 1 point 7 hours ago
yup yup yup!
permalinkparent
[ ]mambotangohandala 1 point 7 hours ago
oh no a triple positive,what a stupendous faux pas!
permalinkparent
[ ]smilesbot 1 point 7 hours ago
yup yup yup!
permalinkparent
[ ]mambotangohandala 1 point 7 hours ago
Did mom give you too many sodas tonight?
permalinkparent

[ ]mambotangohandala 1 point 7 hours ago


Now where are those kiddy downers?
permalinkparent
[ ]mambotangohandala 1 point 7 hours ago
Remember tomorrow is a school day
permalinkparent
[ ]BigTex8900 1 point 7 hours ago
The Federal Bureau of Investigation is taking the position that court warrants a
re not required when deploying cell-site simulators in public places.
Wait so can I take the position that it's not actually illegal to suck dick for
money in public places?
permalink
[ ]AssOrca 1 point 6 hours ago
Well thank god there not doing it in my home!
permalinkparent
[ ]Drunken_Economist 1 point 7 hours ago
The FCC says they are needed, FWIW
permalink
[ ]FadingEchoes11 0 points 6 hours ago
100% true, power to the people
You should learn about and try to understand firearms more, they are just tools
after all.
permalink
[ ]winstrol 1 point 6 hours ago
Can i use a stingray? Al stick to my snoopsnitch.
permalink
[ ]fatscat84 2 points 6 hours ago
Big fucking surprise, 4th amendment=toilet paper anymore. The rights of the citi
zens arent even considered anymore since we dont have lobbyists. Maybe ill start
a kickstarter campaign to make a lobbyist group to give americans a voice in d.
c.
permalink
[ ]urbn 2 points 6 hours ago
The Obama Administration has repeatedly maintained that the public has no privac
y in public places.
And yet the excuse always used when someone records a police officer breaking th
e law and is arrested, detained and has his property stolen is that it violates
their privacy.
permalink
[ ]Vigilias 1 point 6 hours ago
If it's stealing signals being send from private residences it sure should fucki
ng be wtf.
permalink
[ ]2013palmtreepam 1 point 6 hours ago
Because stingrays automatically stop working at private property lines? Don't re
call the part of the 4th Amendment that exempts the requirement for probable cau
se and a search warrant when one happens to be in a public place.
permalink
[ ]makingupdumbnames 2 points 6 hours ago
I don't think it would be too hard to develop a stingray jammer, something that
just floods their equipment with a bunch of useless/fake cell phone numbers...I'
m in favor of a more strategic response to these types of infringements of our r
ights. We actually have a right and responsibility to fight tyranny...
permalink
[ ]ghotiaroma 1 point 3 hours ago
It's possible, but you wouldn't know where and when to use it. And it would be d
etectable you are using a jammer and anyone using one would find themselves fill
ed with SWAT bullets in no time.
permalinkparent
[ ]ononewheel 1 point 2 hours ago

Cant you rent bot net time and do this?


permalinkparent
[ ]psilontech 1 point 5 hours ago
I think that's for the courts to decide, FBI.
permalink
[ ]coalbeeashi 1 point 4 hours ago
...the only way the courts could decide is if it were practiced and a lawsuit wa
s brought against those practices.
Of course the FBI is going to finagle ways to flirt with obscure, outdated laws
for the purpose of investigating, thus practice it. Of course some group or orga
nization is going to take issue with it, thus taking it to court.
permalinkparent
[ ]cynoclast 2 points 5 hours ago
And the 4th Amendment says the FBI is wrong. And to the idea that subsequent law
s or that prededence says otherwise, I say that lawyers who make those interpret
ations were paid to do so by people with a vested interest in saying otherwise.
The constitution and amendments were intended to be read and interpreted by ever
yone, not just lawyers and judges so it matters not at all what lawyers and judg
es say.
permalink
[ ]coalbeeashi 1 point 5 hours ago
The constitution and amendments were intended to be read and interpreted by ever
yone
Uhh...interpreted by everyone? Do you know how fucked up that would be? There's
a reason for the judicial branch.
permalinkparent
[ ]cynoclast 2 points 4 hours ago
More fucked up than corporations as people? The 4th Amendment being ignored by t
he DHS, Homeland Security, and the NSA? More fucked up than than all the ridicul
ous, unconstitutional restrictions on cosmetic features of firearms that all vio
late the 2nd amendment? More fucked up than justices appointed by war criminals
refusing to recuse themselves where they have a clear conflict of interest?
The judicial branch is staffed by people, just as fallible as the rest of us. Th
e judicial branch was nly ever an attempt to reign in the other two. It was alwa
ys intended that it was the right of the people to alter or abolish the governme
nt if it gets out of hand and it has.
permalinkparent
[ ]coalbeeashi 1 point 4 hours ago
I would still rather have the fate of laws be in the hands of individuals who sp
ecifically studied the very nature of their professional practice than leave it
up to a mass of people with little-to-no understanding of the law, outside of wh
at is force-fed to them by media (comparable to your assertion of less-than-idea
l practices by lawyer/judges)
I fully agree that laws should be written in ways that the public can understand
and interpret (however, you're never going to reach a consensus on laws written
200+ years ago). And I believe that, reading most supreme court decisions, the
justices advocate for specifics in laws and understand that outdated or vague la
ws is a main reason cases are brought before them. Laws aren't concrete or stati
c. It's a court of public opinion.
permalinkparent
[ ]cynoclast 1 point 4 hours ago
I would still rather have the fate of laws be in the hands of individuals who sp
ecifically studied the very nature of their professional practice than leave it
up to a mass of people with little-to-no understanding of the law, outside of wh
at is force-fed to them by media (comparable to your assertion of less-than-idea
l practices by lawyer/judges)
I think there's balance between the two. It's similar to the balance between IT
and the user. While the IT guy is more knowledgeable about the field than most o
f the users he's supposed to facilitate, he often forgets that his purpose is to
facilitate, not to rule, and what the users are doing is what keeps the lights

on. People in congress and the senate are mislabelled when called 'lawmakers' th
eir job is representative of their constituency. And lawyers face a conflict of
interest between simplifying the law and representing people fairly and seeing a
fter their own welfare and ensuring their own job security. Simple, clear, and u
nambiguous laws have little value to the professional attorney at law. But the p
eople at large have no interest, and in fact a reason to despise laws they don't
understand, especially ones decided by decades old case law they know nothing a
bout. But for too long the balance has been swinging in favor of the lawyer seek
ing payment for services from the rich instead of the poor seeking freedom from
those with the resources to hire teams of lawyers for years to drain them of res
ources. The day a rich man could sue an innocent poor man under false pretenses
and crush him is the day the justice department ceased to function as intended.
I fully agree that laws should be written in ways that the public can understand
and interpret (however, you're never going to reach a consensus on laws written
200+ years ago). And I believe that, reading most supreme court decisions, the
justices advocate for specifics in laws and understand that outdated or vague la
ws is a main reason cases are brought before them. Laws aren't concrete or stati
c. It's a court of public opinion.
Lawyers like to pretend that they are concrete or static. Just imagine the phras
e "settled case law" coming out of their mouths and you need go no further. It's
like they forget that eventually given the dynamic equilibrium of the poor vs.
the rich that sometimes words written on paper in a dusty library somewhere mean
absolutely nothing when the pitchforks and guillotines come out, the old laws t
hrown out, and new ones written even more strongly against tyrants. You're right
, sometimes, it's a court of public opinion. But sometimes the court is brutal,
but not unjustly so:
There were two Reigns of Terror, if we would but remember it and consider it; the
one wrought murder in hot passion, the other in heartless cold blood; the one la
sted mere months, the other had lasted a thousand years; the one inflicted death
upon ten thousand persons, the other upon a hundred millions; but our shudders
are all for the horrors of the minor Terror, the momentary Terror, so to speak; wh
ereas, what is the horror of swift death by the axe, compared with lifelong deat
h from hunger, cold, insult, cruelty, and heart-break? What is swift death by li
ghtning compared with death by slow fire at the stake? A city cemetery could con
tain the coffins filled by that brief Terror which we have all been so diligentl
y taught to shiver at and mourn over; but all France could hardly contain the co
ffins filled by that older and real Terror that unspeakably bitter and awful Terro
r which none of us has been taught to see in its vastness or pity as it deserves
.
permalinkparent
[ ]DongleNocker 2 points 5 hours ago
Don't you wish government organizations would get permission from congress prior
to assuming they have the authority?
permalink
[ ]Euracil 1 point 5 hours ago
Whoops! Someone just happened to spill wine all over the Bill of Rights! Well, a
t least the Second Amendment survived!
permalink
[ ]ripvannwinkler 1 point 5 hours ago
What is the practical operational radius of one of these things?
If my place of business or residence falls in this radius of an operating device
, is my phone subject to interception by the device?
If so, you require a warrant. Period. No equivocation.
permalink
[ ]bittopia 1 point 5 hours ago
What is going to be interesting is when systems and encryptions becomes so resil
ient and powerful that nothing can be spied on AT ALL. What will they do then?
permalink
[ ]johnnybullet 1 point 5 hours ago
I thought only God was listening to me... This changes everything!

permalink
[ ]TronicTonic 2 points 5 hours ago
Thank god the FBI is in charge of the judicial branch and gets to decide what is
right vs wrong.
permalink
[ ]Vinven 1 point 5 hours ago
They can say whatever they want, it doesn't make it legal.
permalink
[ ]coffeethulhu 2 points 5 hours ago
Under this theory anybody could buy one of these devices and use it in "public s
paces" without fear of falling foul of the law....Who wants to start a kickstart
er campaign to buy one?
permalink
[ ]redditezmode 1 point 5 hours ago
Based on what, exactly? Why would they think search warrants aren't necessary?
permalink
[ ]Fucksfuturefatchicks 1 point 4 hours ago
If it stops me from downloading porn, it's a dead giveaway. If it doesn't, thank
s for the government funded and sanctioned porn.
permalink
[ ]egalroc 1 point 4 hours ago
I wonder if the FBI can upload unsanctioned porn to your computer using a stingr
ay? Interesting thought isn't it?
permalinkparent
[ ]winsomecowboy 1 point 4 hours ago
So my clandestine FBI staff list shouldn't be an issue.
permalink
[ ]Heisenpurrrrg 1 point 4 hours ago
Those guys can fuck right off, eh?
permalink
[ ]cerealcable 1 point 4 hours ago
Every time an invasion of our rights & privacy especially related to our establi
shed forms of communications happens it just terrifies me. Not because our gover
nment is throwing wind to established laws but because of what the future could
bring.
The reason why most of us are upset today over this is because we have an expect
ation of privacy when we pick up our cell phones. We expect our text messages, p
hone calls and data to be private thus protected by law requiring a warrant to "
tap" it only for Law Enforcement. Telecoms (wired, wireless, voip) will only com
ply to requests when required by law, but when it comes to the public air waves
using technology to just listen in we're starting a terrible precedent.
Essentially what I'm concerned about is that eventually it'll be so commonly acc
epted that these communications are not private (after all the government can sn
oop in on those conversations, and everyone already expects it) and thus we no l
onger have the expectation of privacy and thus no warrant is actually acquired.
The terrifying process is how it all started, with the government over stepping
their legal abilities with little to no repercussions.
Now that I'm reading that paragraph again, I honestly wouldn't be surprised if t
hat exact argument is/was/will be used in a secret court of which none of us wil
l be able to hold accountable.
It's scary to see what the future will hold for privacy related to technology. O
ur government is doing anything and everything they want and if people aren't sc
ared they need to get some tinfoil and make some hats because they're going to n
eed them.
Obligatory point: As the government snoops more and more, technology will just e
ncrypt more and more making it nearly pointless for the snooping, but it won't c
hange the expectation of privacy after say a decade of common knowledge that the
se communications are not private. Then Law Enforcement Agencies will just subpo
ena records instead of following due process of getting a warrant.
tl;dr It's a very slippery slope and I'm just watching us slowly sliding further

and further into the trap. :-(


permalink
[ ]coalbeeashi 1 point 4 hours ago
Honest question - in the eyes of laws, is our view on "expectation of privacy" i
gnorant or misguided? When I send a text - even though I don't think about it I gave permission to Apple, AT&T, my friend, their carrier, their phone, and pro
bably countless others that I don't even realize. When I download an app I give
them all sorts of permissions to access my information.
Also, what's stopping the government from creating an app, let's say some crazed
game like Trivia Crack, hide a bunch of permissions that no one looks at and do
it that way. They could have access to my photos, access to my microphone, acce
ss to my location, etc. (obviously I understand that you can retract most of tho
se permissions, but I doubt many people do)
So, I guess my question is, using multiple third parties, do I really have the r
ight to expect complete privacy?
permalinkparent
[ ]Rockerofboats 2 points 4 hours ago
I do what I wants to.
permalink
[ ]Gymshortsboner55 2 points 4 hours ago
I'm not trying to sound like the uncle that's always bitchin' at family reunions
but man is this country going down the shitter. I'm almost ashamed to live here
anymore.
permalink
[ ]kazuri85 2 points 4 hours ago
The government has no right to make your property do something you do not want i
t to do.
permalink
[ ]SpacemanLurker 2 points 3 hours ago
Crikey! Australian accent
Too soon?
permalink
[ ]Undisclosed-dopeness 1 point 3 hours ago
Really wish this was about actual stingrays
permalink
[ ]k-h 1 point 3 hours ago
Is that the "stingrays" that don't exist?
Of course they don't need a warrant on equipment that doesn't exist.
permalink
[ ]PhorTwenny 2 points 3 hours ago
if it picks up all cells text/call/info how do they know your not inside a house
or anyother private area? Either way this is disgusting!
permalink
[ ]MarxIzalias 2 points 3 hours ago
The more of these that get posted, the harder I laugh at America's freedoms.
You pretty much have the same as everybody else.
It seems as though the constitution is like bog roll to your law enforcement. Co
vered in meaningless shit that doesn't even stick to them.
What a joke.
The FBI stating that 'stingrays' don't apply to privacy laws because you're in a
public place makes no sense, otherwise you could walk around butt naked and arg
ue that "According to the FBI, personal privacy is not required in public".
Of course, they could say, what any deceitful peice of trash could say. "If you
weren't doing anything illegal then you have nothing to worry about."
Unless you were talking to you solicitor about a patent. In which case it would
be worthless the moment a third party heard about the invention.
Talking to your doctor about a condition that could prejudice a group against yo
u.
Talking to a solicitor about the details of a case.
Talking to fellow jurors over the phone about a details of a case, that's always

good to be spied on.


Talk about family history and possible ties you might have to foreign nations, w
hich could put you on a watch list.
Give personal details to bankers about foreign business accounts which have diff
erent protection laws.
Discuss plans you may have that they could interfere with.
Or just miscellaneous emails to and from your employer that could be damaging to
the companies reputation if published and could be used against them as leverag
e with a false flag operation LOOKING AT YOU SONY!
This isn't even a comprehensive list of things that you could do, but hey, it's
America, the land where freedom is a lie and the constitution is apparently wort
h less and less with each new government. XFD
permalink
[ ]NightOfTheLivingHam 1 point 3 hours ago
while we're declaring bullshit, I declare I'm owed a million dollars.
permalink
[ ]ZedOud 1 point 3 hours ago
Most warrant-less law enforcement surveillance techniques are legal because they
can be performed by members of the public, in public. (ex. tailing)
So can we also legally operate a stingray?
Yes we can!
permalink
[ ]Wulfgar_RIP 1 point 3 hours ago
FBI protecting freedoms and constitution from terrorists
permalink
[ ]CantHugEveryCat 2 points 3 hours ago
I'm surprised the FBI still feel they have to justify their actions.
permalink
[ ]bazingabrain 0 points 3 hours ago
Here I am thinking the FBI is going to be throwing real stingrays around without
a search warrant. Can't have that
permalink
[ ]tobsn 1 point 3 hours ago
and whoever said that should be immediately terminated.
permalink
[ ]joshladd 1 point 3 hours ago
Didn't the supreme court just say that searching cell phones requires a warrant?
Is this different than searching cell phones? I might be uninformed but it seem
s like a blatant disregard for court rulings.
permalink
[ ]birdington1 1 point 3 hours ago
Can anybody explain what a 'stingray' is?
permalink
[ ]one_love_silvia 1 point 2 hours ago
the article explains it in literally the first paragraph.
permalinkparent
[ ]IllegalOperator 0 points 2 hours ago
Yeah right, dropping the case rather than reveal their methods says otherwise. I
f there weren't doing anything wrong they would have nothing to hide.
permalink
[ ]HauntedBeepers 1 point 2 hours ago
FBI says FBI can do what it wants
permalink
[ ]Fig1024 1 point 2 hours ago
does that mean I, as private citizen, can also use them? After all, there are no
laws against it
permalink
[ ]Monkeibusiness 1 point 2 hours ago
"FBI - out if control since 2001" -Simpsons
permalink

[ ]skztr 1 point 2 hours ago


good test for whether or not you need a warrant:
If any random person off the street did it, would that be legal? If not, you nee
d a fucking warrant.
permalink
[ ]Rusky82 1 point 2 hours ago
Land of the free eh......
permalink
[ ]WECGEWHYAAIORTNU 1 point 2 hours ago
So in some states its "wiretapping" to record with a microphone a conversation b
etween two people happening at a table, but pretending to be a cell tower is a-o
k?
permalink
[ ]Amanoo 1 point 2 hours ago
"concerned about whether the FBI and other law enforcement agencies have adequat
ely considered the privacy interests" of Americans
Privacy interests of Americans? Is that supposed to still be a thing? I thought
that privacy interests were considered something for terrorists in the US, by no
w.
permalink
[ ]raviddadford 1 point 2 hours ago
Stingray got Steve Irwin
permalink
[ ]Homarus_Americanus 1 point 2 hours ago
It's all good 'cause I can by me all guns I want.
permalink
[ ]anshu1234 0 points 2 hours ago
This is non-news if you are not a drug-peddler. Next please.
permalink
[ ]bubbafat1155 1 point 2 hours ago
It's over. "They" have won. The only hope now is for individuals, society is los
t. Get off the grid, or join the sheep. http://imgur.com/W7CdURh
permalink
[ ]Targun 1 point 2 hours ago
And how are they going to filter out cellphones of all the people who live next
to public places where stingray is located?
permalink
[ ]riderer 1 point 2 hours ago
So can i do the same in public place? just stingray everyone?
permalink
[ ]Neker 1 point 1 hour ago
There are blueprints and tutorials out there that put "stingrays" within reach o
f an hobbyist. Law-breaking hobbyist, that is, but still : mobile phones essenti
aly broadcast your conversations.
permalink
[ ]mindwandering 1 point 1 hour ago
The flying DRT box.
permalink
[ ]SilenceGivesConsent [score hidden] 48 minutes ago
In other words, FBI says it does not need search warrants to warrant a search.
permalink
[ ]Formally_Nightman [score hidden] 46 minutes ago
FBI: "Senator we have been monitoring your calls and your exact geographical loc
ation for years ... You shouldn't find that unconstitutional or the public and y
our wife will learn how unconstitutional you've been"
permalink
[ ]ActuallyNotSparticus [score hidden] 40 minutes ago
Fuck this shit. Stingrays killed the crocodile hunter. Are we ready for the gove
rnment to use these stingrays?
permalink

[ ]Rayhueston [score hidden] 38 minutes ago


The article says the Obama administration consistently maintains that people hav
e no privacy in public. Is that true or is that hyperbole?
If I'm walking down the street, do I have the right to keep the contents of my w
allet private? My blood type? My thoughts?
If I have no privacy with regard to these and many other sensitive things, who d
oes have the right to them?
permalink
[ ]swollennode [score hidden] 37 minutes ago
People don't have privacy in public places..hmmm, I think that people are entitl
ed to privacy if something private belongs to them. Sure, people's faces aren't
private when they're in public places. But people's phone calls and texts should
be.
permalink
[ ]pomod [score hidden] 18 minutes ago
Well if the FBI says they are not needed...
Seriously, this should be a court decision not a cop one. Cops, even a fancy cop
s like the FBI, should not make the laws just enforce them.
permalink
[ ]CJ59 [score hidden] 18 minutes ago
In other news, the FBI says, "You know what, screw it. There are no more laws. W
e'll do whatever the hell we want. Not like you're going to do anything about it
."
permalink
[ ]gkiltz [score hidden] 15 minutes ago
Just because the FBI says it, that does not mean it's true!
I don't envy the poor schmuck who has to stan in front of the Supreme Court and
argue that!!
permalink
load more comments (48 replies)
about
blog
about
team
source code
advertise
jobs
help
wiki
FAQ
reddiquette
rules
contact us
tools
mobile
firefox extension
chrome extension
buttons
widget
<3
reddit gold
store
redditgifts
reddit AMA app
reddit.tv
radio reddit
Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy
. 2015 reddit inc. All rights reserved.
REDDIT and the ALIEN Logo are registered trademarks of reddit inc.

p jump to content
MY SUBREDDITS
FRONT-ALL-RANDOM | PHOTOSHOPBATTLES-HISTORY-GIFS-FOOD-PHILOSOPHY-TELEVISION-WORL
DNEWS-SHOWERTHOUGHTS-LIFEPROTIPS-ART-SPACE-NOTTHEONION-DOCUMENTARIES-NOSLEEP-GAM
ING-GADGETS-EARTHPORN-ASKREDDIT-FUNNY-MOVIES-DIY-FUTUROLOGY-FITNESS-BOOKS-LISTEN
TOTHIS-INTERNETISBEAUTIFUL-MUSIC-EXPLAINLIKEIMFIVE-UPLIFTINGNEWS-SPORTS-PICS-TOD
AYILEARNED-PERSONALFINANCE-DATAISBEAUTIFUL-IAMA-OLDSCHOOLCOOL-EUROPE-CREEPY-TWOX
CHROMOSOMES-AWW-NEWS-WRITINGPROMPTS-GETMOTIVATED-VIDEOS-TIFU-ASKSCIENCE-JOKES-MI
LDLYINTERESTING-SCIENCE
MORE
news newscommentsrelatedother discussions (15)
want to join? sign in or create an account in seconds|English
this post was submitted on 05 Jan 2015
3,152 points (95% upvoted)
shortlink:
remember mereset passwordlogin
news
unsubscribe4,562,294 readers
2,631 users here now
/r/inthenews
/r/worldnews
new submissions
new comments
Post analysis/opinion articles to /r/inthenews
Want to talk?
Chat with us on IRC
Follow @rslashnews on Twitter
See a post that violates the rules below? Had your post stuck in the spam filter
? Have a question about policy? Just want to give feedback? Send the mod team a
message.
Please post news items only, with the exception of meta posts about /r/news itse
lf. Self-posts aggregating news data and "independent reporting" each count as n
ews, but are not an excuse to editorialize.
Your post will likely be removed if it:
is not news (or a meta post).
is an opinion/analysis or advocacy piece.
primarily concerns politics.
has a title not taken from the article.
has a pay wall or steals content.
covers an already-submitted story.
violates reddit's site-wide rules, especially regarding personal info.
Your comment will likely be removed if it:
is racist, sexist, vitriolic, or overly crude.
is unnecessarily rude or provocative.
is a cheap and distracting joke or meme.
is responding to spam.
violates reddit's site-wide rules.
Extreme or repeat offenders will be banned.
Expanded Rules
If your post doesn't fit, consider finding an appropriate news article on that s
tory to submit instead, or submitting yours to lower moderation subreddits:
/r/inthenews - all news-related content
/r/AnythingGoesNews - unrestricted news
/r/truereddit - insightful articles
/r/self - any self-post
/r/misc, /r/redditdotcom - anything
or other news subreddits:
/r/worldnews - from outside the USA only
/r/SyrianCivilWar - about the conflict in Syria

/r/MidEastRegionalWar - on MidEast conflict /r/UpliftingNews - uplifting


/r/mediaquotes - the things they say
or subreddits for other topics:
/r/FoodForThought - discussion-worthy long form articles about interesting subje
cts
/r/politics - for shouting about politics
/r/moderatepolitics - less shouting
/r/politicaldiscussion - even less shouting
/r/geopolitics - intl. politics and geography
/r/entertainment - Justin Bieber updates, etc.
/r/europe - news from Europe
or check out the 200 most active subreddits, categorized by content and the full
list of subreddits by subscribers.
Recommendations:
/r/redactedcharts
/r/patriots
/r/personalfinance
/r/restorethefourth
reddit is fun for Android and its subreddit /r/redditisfun
submit analysis/opinion article
submit news article
submit something else
submit analysis/opinion article
a community for 6 years
message the moderators
moderators
douglasmacarthur
KyldeThe Janitor
AyeMatey
CandyManCan
Elderthedog
LuckyBdx4
NickWasHere09
ani625
pomosexuality
IKingJeremy
...and 1 more
3152
FBI says search warrants not needed to use stingrays in public places (arstechnica
.com)
submitted 13 hours ago by doctorshady
731 commentsshare
top 500 comments
sorted by: best
[ ]peaceshark 654 points 11 hours ago
If only there were some branch of government that would keep the FBI in check, o
ne that judged people and organizations supremely...
permalink
[ ]misogichan 641 points 8 hours ago
Unfortunately the Catholic church has its hands full dealing with its own intern
al reforms and recasting its vision and mission.
permalinkparent
[ ]wutshappening 93 points 7 hours ago
And looking at cat photos that's why they're Cat-holic. Alco-holics are addicted
to alcohol and catholics well you get the idea.
permalinkparent
[ ]TuffLuffJimmy 142 points 6 hours ago
Omg dad you're embarrassing me in front of my friends
permalinkparent
[ ]okmkz 27 points 4 hours ago

We ain't your friends, bruh


permalinkparent
[ ]Corruptionss 4 points 2 hours ago
We ain't your bruh, friends
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
load more comments (2 replies)
[ ]ROLLINGtemple 9 points 5 hours ago
What's their Dogma?
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
load more comments (9 replies)
[ ]hershmire 73 points 7 hours ago
The courts gave up about ten years ago.
permalinkparent
[ ]endprism 50 points 7 hours ago
The courts are pwned by the surveillance state.
permalinkparent
[ ]sushisection 41 points 6 hours ago
This is what I'm afraid of. Nsa is collecting data from all citizens including p
oliticians and supreme court judges.
permalinkparent
[ ]dutchguilder2 19 points 5 hours ago
Whistleblower confirms: http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=d6m1XbWOfVk
permalinkparent
[ ]TwitchTV_Subbort 1 point 3 hours ago
D.C. is Hollywood for ugly people. best line ever!!
permalinkparent
[ ]sklite 1 point 1 hour ago
Charles Augustus Magnussen approves
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]CriticalThink 1 point 6 hours ago
Skeletons in the closet are easy to find with intelligence infrastructure.
permalinkparent
[ ]HurricaneSandyHook 1 point 5 hours ago
The 10th circuit a few days ago sided with the government saying the cops use of
doppler radar to see if anyone was inside a house was legal. They did say it is
a troubling tactic that needs further review and just left it at that....
permalinkparent
[ ]-_--___-_--_--___--_ 27 points 6 hours ago
One major problem with judicial review is that there must be a case for the cour
t to review. I guess the other avenue would be to sue the government, but I'm no
t an attorney so I don't know how that would work.
permalinkparent
[ ]downvotesmakemehard 14 points 4 hours ago
I believe the current court has taken the stance that to take up a case someone
has to show they've been harmed in some way.
The police will never say that stingray is the source of the evidence. This woul
d open stingray to be scrutinized. They will use stingray to go after phone comp
any records which they will claim they requested on a hunch or some other bullsh
it excuse.
permalinkparent
[ ]great_gape [score hidden] 29 minutes ago
Anonymous tip.
permalinkparent
load more comments (2 replies)
[ ]dissonance07 8 points 6 hours ago
With is wide a latitude as the current SCOTUS seems to give to individual libert
y, this seems like the one kind of thing that they could actually usefully addre

ss, right?
permalinkparent
[ ]MrBojangles528 1 point 5 hours ago
Scalia and the rest of the SCOTUS is bought and sold just like the rest of our g
overnment. They answer first and foremost to the parties that nominated them as
well as the corporations that own them.
permalinkparent
[ ]psilontech 12 points 5 hours ago
See, I don't get that. You get into the Supreme Court and you're golden. Unless
you are actively breaking the law and can be impeached, you're untouchable. Why
not, you know, do what's best for your country instead of remaining beholden to
the parasites that leveraged you into that position?
permalinkparent
[ ]Ratbasher88 14 points 4 hours ago
Yep, Supreme Court justices have a well established history of turning out way d
ifferent than their supporters thought they'd be. For whatever reason this curre
nt batch of justices seems more comfortable with the security state than their p
redecessors, however that's true for most Americans in general so I suppose it s
houldn't be shocking.
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]MrBojangles528 2 points 4 hours ago
Good question, but you'd have to ask them about it.
permalinkparent
[ ]cynoclast 0 points 3 hours ago
Unless you are actively breaking the law and can be impeached, you're untouchabl
e.
But you can get richer. Or have your personal communications made public.
permalinkparent
[ ]tughdffvdlfhegl 1 point 3 hours ago
Honestly? Because they run in those social circles. They're friends with the peo
ple at the top. They don't actively associate with "regular folk" that much.
They've been ingratiated into the upper echelons of society long before ever rea
ching the supreme court through lifetimes spent at the forefront of the legal pr
ofession. This insulates them from others, and leaves them in an echo chamber of
their peers.
Now, when a case comes up that pits one of their friends, or friends' friends ag
ainst some random angry dude who's only making 50k a year, who do you think they
automatically side with, when the case isn't cut and dried? I'm not even saying
it's conscious, but prejudices come in all kinds and run deep. Tribalism happen
s all the time in subtle ways.
Plus there's Scalia taking paid for hunting trips with people who are directly a
ffected by cases in front of him, all of them getting invited to dinners and fun
ctions of the DC elite, etc.
permalinkparent
[ ]pion3435 1 point 3 hours ago
They do. It's possible to disagree with you without being corrupt.
permalinkparent
[ ]Jagoonder 1 point 2 hours ago
Not in an omnipotent surveillance state, however.
permalinkparent
[ ]DownFromYesBad 1 point 2 hours ago
Money, bribery.
permalinkparent
[ ]neotropic9 1 point 1 hour ago
Because they are selected to be the type of people who think whats "best for the
ir country" is serving the parasites, the corporate oligarchs, and the surveilla
nce state. They support the status quo, and the status quo supports them. It wou
ld be a miracle if someone with real principles was actually brought into the Su
preme Court, let alone enough of them to form a majority.

permalinkparent
[ ]isprobablyatwork 1 point 1 hour ago
This does happen, sometimes. Good examples would be Justices Warren and Stevens.
They played along with the GOP right up until they were put on the Court, then
immediately started voting their actual conscience (or if not their conscience,
then at least not as their political backers wanted).
permalinkparent
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[ ]cynoclast 2 points 3 hours ago
You mean the press?
permalinkparent
[ ]scrapinpeg 3 points 6 hours ago*
Obligatory link to illustrated law.
EDIT: fixed link
permalinkparent
[ ]ducttapejedi 3 points 6 hours ago*
error 404, check the link.
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[+][deleted] 13 hours ago (56 children)
[ ]sunbolts 701 points 12 hours ago
Glad to see the FBI is tearing up the constitution to increase their own powers
and authority. /s
permalink
[ ]dontbullshityourself 325 points 11 hours ago
Glad to see the FBI is tearing up the constitution to increase their own powers
and authority
I wish this was just the FBI. Pretty much everybody in the federal, state and lo
cals are doing this. Have been doing for this quite some time too.
permalinkparent
[ ]sunbolts 136 points 10 hours ago
Precisely, and that's what makes this very frightening. The whole club's in on i
t.
permalinkparent
[ ]radonthetyrant 75 points 7 hours ago
but why.. I realize that these "zomg the terrorists!!!11" is only a PR-lie. What
do they really accomplish with this? Industry espionage? Bribes from the indust
ries which create the espionage hardware? Feeling of total control? Control the
masses so it all stays as conservative and corrupt as possible?
Why would you amass such a criminal energy to break constitutional laws just to
be able to see through everyone's communication?
permalinkparent
[ ]BettyRubbleIsHot 151 points 7 hours ago
Total control.
That way when the state has it, they can really put the boot on our necks. Think
they treat us poorly now? Just wait until they have the infrastructure in place
where they feel confident there are absolutely zero threats to their power. Tha
t's when shit is going to get BAD.
permalinkparent
[ ]b-LE-z_it 106 points 6 hours ago
And that's why, despite being terrified of some gun owners, despite being terrif
ied of mass shootings, I don't think we should ban guns, even combat rifles. It
can happen here, and we should at least make it hurt if and when it happens.
permalinkparent
[ ]7V3N 47 points 6 hours ago
Welcome to the list.
permalinkparent

[ ]M00glemuffins 10 points 5 hours ago


Sign me up too. If they try to pull a fast one on the public I'm not standing fo
r their bullshit.
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]FadingEchoes11 26 points 6 hours ago
*rifle. No "combat" rifles are owned by citizens
permalinkparent
[ ]b-LE-z_it 39 points 6 hours ago
Did I mention I don't know anything about guns? I don't know anything about guns
.
Point is, force is not something only people in power should have.
permalinkparent
[ ]teefour 19 points 6 hours ago
You should go to a shooting range and take a class. You won't be so unnecessaril
y afraid of them after that.
permalinkparent
[ ]Pullo_T 27 points 6 hours ago
He's not afraid of guns. He's afraid of some gun owners. At least, as far as we
know.
permalinkparent
continue this thread
load more comments (3 replies)
[ ]Bootsncatsn4 5 points 5 hours ago
i understand where youre coming from, but what will a bunch of angry townsfolk d
o to a predator drone strike?
permalinkparent
[ ]Oeboues 18 points 4 hours ago
You should ask the angry townsfolk of Iraq and Afghanistan.
Once the US military is done slinking away in shame, I mean.
permalinkparent
continue this thread
[ ]nuesuh 1 point 1 hour ago
Remove them. Predator drones are being operated from the ground, and has to land
after a couple hours to refuel.
permalinkparent
[ ]joe_m107 4 points 6 hours ago
Maybe we should change that. Repeal the NFA.
permalinkparent
load more comments (2 replies)
[ ]4nco1j 0 points 2 hours ago
You don't know much about guns, do you now.
permalinkparent
load more comments (6 replies)
[ ]conquer69 15 points 4 hours ago
You can have all the guns you want. That won't stop them from labeling you a "su
spected school shooter, pedophile or terrorist".
A gun can't protect you from that. A gun can't teach your fellow countryman to t
hink by themselves or see through propaganda.
Good luck destroying a drone, plane or tank with a rifle. Not sure how useful a
gun is against your own trained military with even better guns and more.
People thinking they can start a revolution and win with a handgun don't realize
this isn't the 1700's anymore.
permalinkparent
[ ]JimmyBuffer 14 points 4 hours ago
Better tell the Middle East they haven't had a bout of revolutions then
permalinkparent
load more comments (2 replies)
[ ]b-LE-z_it 7 points 4 hours ago
Didn't say we would win, I said we could at least make it hurt. Assuming, of cou

rse, that the American people themselves aren't the ones willingly handing in th
eir freedoms, which would mean we're all fucked immediately.
permalinkparent
[ ]theothercoolfish 13 points 2 hours ago
Assuming, of course, that the American people themselves aren't the ones willing
ly handing in their freedoms, which would mean we're all fucked immediately.
Err, you guys gave up much of your freedoms long ago. And it isn't just the US politicians everywhere are taking as much as they can get, because it's simply
more power for them. More power, more money, more control. It's not a conspiracy
- this is just how an imperfect system with inadequate controls eventually goes
. We need to start re-examining our systems and look at alternatives that are no
w possible with the internet.
permalinkparent
[ ]vynusmagnus 3 points 2 hours ago
Tell that to the insurgents in Afghanistan. It seems to me that the US military
has been unable to defeat them in over a decade of war, despite its overwhelming
technological superiority. Tanks and fighter jets are nice, but they do little
against a small guerrilla force that can disappear into the woodwork.
permalinkparent
[ ]Qoix 3 points 3 hours ago
I think the main issue with that line of thinking is that the military would gun
down the civilians it pledges to protect. How many people in the armed forces d
o you know? Now, are any of them willing to murder innocent people? Probably not
.
permalinkparent
[ ]ihcn 6 points 2 hours ago
They're not innocent people, they're armed revolutionaries, suspected terrorists
permalinkparent
[ ]chance-- 4 points 3 hours ago
You say that as if there isn't insurmountable evidence to the contrary.
Military coups are thoroughly woven into the fabric of humanity's history.
permalinkparent
[ ]theothercoolfish 1 point 2 hours ago
gun down the civilians it pledges to protect.
Err, they don't pledge to protect civilians. They pledge to protect the constitu
tion. And if they are convinced that these people are attempting to "subvert" th
e constitution, then they are enemies. Nevermind that their leaders have shat al
l over the constitution - soldiers take their orders and follow 'em.
Now, are any of them willing to murder innocent people?
lol.
permalinkparent
load more comments (2 replies)
[ ]eloquentnemesis [score hidden] 33 minutes ago
Welcome to 4th generation warfare. You don't need a better gun, or the ability t
o kill a drone, or anything else like that. You just need A gun and more commitm
ent than the other side.
permalinkparent
[ ]homegrowncountryboy [score hidden] 16 minutes ago*
Good luck with those tanks, planes and drones when the American people stop supp
lying fuel and ammunition. My brother is in the Army and he will tell you about
75%, or more of the military will disband and fight to protect the American peop
le. All you have to do is look at New Orleans during Katrina, when they got the
order to start confiscating guns almost all of them refused, instead it was main
ly police stealing people's weapons.
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]Hermit_ 2 points 5 hours ago
Yeah but if it does happen all people would be doing is creating the chaos one o
f the armed and militarized militias needs to take power. For example, The KKK.
permalinkparent

[ ]b-LE-z_it 1 point 5 hours ago


Hopefully not the KKK.
permalinkparent
[ ]AussieArcher 1 point 3 hours ago
Fuck me there's always one of you. I'm starting to think the gun club spends mor
e time on reddit than anyone.
permalinkparent
[ ]astronautg117 1 point 1 hour ago
What's a combat rifle going to do against a drone?
permalinkparent
[ ]datbino 1 point 1 hour ago
i think thats where 2nd ammendment people miss the mark- you owning a rifle will
do nothing against the government.
you becoming an active participating member in that government can help fix it,
the goal is to make you a kony2012 fb sharer rather than a person who gets to wo
rk and fixes shit
permalinkparent
[ ]mpg1846 1 point 1 hour ago
You think 50 guys with hand guns are going to do anything to anyone? Gun laws ar
e a joke.
permalinkparent
[ ]Actionbuilding 1 point 1 hour ago
The founders of the United States of America WANTED the citizens to rise up and
overthrow the government if it approached the levels of corruption it is current
ly working toward.
permalinkparent
load more comments (11 replies)
[ ]nuesuh 1 point 1 hour ago
Ever seen "Das Leben der Anderen"? Imagine this, just with total corruption and
100 times better technology. This is what we are moving towards. Imagine this sy
stem getting in the hands of someone like Hitler or Stalin.. And it can happen.
Before Hitler came to power Germany was a modern, western, christian nation. We
need safety with this technology. And when i say safety, i don't mean surveillan
ce. I mean the opposite.
permalinkparent
[ ]know_comment [score hidden] 14 minutes ago
I agree, but I think the reason for the infrastructure development is because it
is going to get bad. As we are forced to compete more globally, quality of life
stagnates. Even the slightest hint of austerity is going to be very painful for
the lower classes in a society with a large income disparity.
That's why we see the race baiting and divisive rhetoric being used so much. Kee
p the poor and working classes quibbling at each other.
I want you to consider the daffodil. And while you're doing that, I'll be over h
ere, looking through your stuff.
permalinkparent
[ ]mzackler 19 points 7 hours ago
It takes a really complicated answer to truly understand but you often get into
the us vs them mentality in siloed areas of law enforcement. You also often get
frustrated with the levels of proof you need to put the bad guy in jail. Thus an
y method you can use you feel justified in using. Although I think there are a l
ot of issues with The Wire, it's a great starting off point for a discussion if
you want a serious answer.
permalinkparent
load more comments (2 replies)
[ ]hershmire 30 points 7 hours ago
Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts, absolutely.
permalinkparent
[ ]TheNewRavager 70 points 6 hours ago
"All governments suffer a recurring problem: Power attracts pathological persona
lities. It is not that power corrupts but that it is magnetic to the corruptible

. Such people have a tendency to become drunk on violence, a condition to which


they are quickly addicted."
permalinkparent
[ ]gee_iwonderwhy 22 points 6 hours ago
Oh shit, a Dune quote outside /r/dune not about spice.
permalinkparent
[ ]TheNumberMuncher 3 points 6 hours ago
This is pretty cool.
permalinkparent
[ ]YawnDogg 1 point 3 hours ago
Gene Hackman was so kinky in that movie.
permalinkparent
[ ]ThreeTimesUp 2 points 2 hours ago
From a Guardian article by Glenn Greenwald I came across recently:
Inside the mind of NSA chief Gen Keith Alexander
Any casual review of human history proves how deeply irrational it is to believe
that powerful factions can be trusted to exercise vast surveillance power with
little accountability or transparency.
But the more they proudly flaunt their warped imperial hubris, the more irration
al it becomes.
permalinkparent
[ ]Epsilox 3 points 2 hours ago
I'm going to take an unpopular stance here and argue that they get more effectiv
e investigations. Which isn't to say I have no reservations about this stuff, be
cause I do.
I've worked in a field tangential to law enforcement, and I've had the unpleasan
t experience of watching very bad people act with impunity because law enforceme
nt had to play by the rules and they didn't. Does that justify the modern trend
towards more invasive government? Maybe that's just the price we pay to live in
a free society. I don't know. I'm a fan of the H.L. Mencken quote:
"The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's ti
me defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are f
irst aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopp
ed at all."
On the other hand, it's very hard to watch members of organized crime and other
monsters literally get away with murder.
In part the difficulty the lies in the infrastructure of modern society. Communi
cations move at such speed and in such quantity that the sort of pinpoint accura
cy required for effective investigations and prosecutions becomes much more diff
icult.
None of which is to say that what we're doing is necessarily right. I've felt th
e fear of writing an opinion online and knowing that the NSA can see it and ever
ything else I've ever written if they so choose. I've had that feeling of always
being watched. I know exactly what is meant by the danger of chilling free spee
ch, because it's happened to me. But I do tend to trust (perhaps naively) that,
for the most part, most of the people making these decisions have good intention
s. I've worked with many of them, and I believe that it more than anything is th
e result of them trying to do their jobs well. Whether they are actually protect
ing the American people or simply paving the road to hell, only time will really
tell.
permalinkparent
[ ]eyeforgot 4 points 6 hours ago
Think of all the blackmail material they have for any future politicians. They w
ill firmly be in check by the powers that be.
permalinkparent
[ ]ademnus 3 points 7 hours ago
Total control.
permalinkparent
[ ]NotAnotherDecoy 4 points 7 hours ago
Total control?

permalinkparent
[ ]leamas666 2 points 5 hours ago
Why would you amass such a criminal energy to break constitutional laws just to
be able to see through everyone's communication?
It's the deep state attempting to preserve its own regime continuity in the even
t of violent revolution.
permalinkparent
[ ]sunbolts 3 points 6 hours ago
Because those in power try to keep it and in addition, there is always a lust fo
r more power. One who is wealthy seeks to increase his riches usually, right? Sa
me thing going on here. In terms of practicality, there's no reason for breaking
constitutional laws, but when you realize how human nature functions in regards
to ambitions and power, well, what we see going on explains itself.
permalinkparent
[ ]Martenz05 1 point 3 hours ago
So, in order to become a political leader who really does work for the benefit o
f the people, one would somehow have to lose every shred of their humanity so th
ey wouldn't have a human nature that could be corrupted by ambition and power?
That sounds ominous, when I put it like that
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]RuthlessDickTater 1 point 5 hours ago
but why.. I realize that these "zomg the terrorists!!!11" is only a PR-lie.
Well pretty soon they might have their terrorists, but they'll be the domestic k
ind.
permalinkparent
[ ]karadan100 1 point 4 hours ago
More money.
permalinkparent
[ ]cynoclast 1 point 3 hours ago
What do they really accomplish with this?
Get rich.
permalinkparent
load more comments (7 replies)
[ ]TGlucifer 50 points 10 hours ago
Criminals learned it's just way easier to do their lawbreaking with a government
salary.
permalinkparent
[ ]pete1729 22 points 9 hours ago
Well, the benefits package is far more attractive.
permalinkparent
[ ]__ghostpants 25 points 7 hours ago
and somehow snitches go to jail instead of the criminals
permalinkparent
[ ]iismitch55 1 point 3 hours ago
Snitches get stitches. Whistleblowers get their mouth sowed shut.
permalinkparent
[ ]HandsOffMyDitka 5 points 5 hours ago
Why break a law, when you can just change it.
permalinkparent
[ ]moresmarterthanyou 2 points 5 hours ago
except when they have to answer questions themselves...
permalinkparent
[ ]dontbullshityourself 1 point 5 hours ago
Well you know liberty is wasted on peasant swine 'eh?
permalinkparent
[ ]ButterflyAttack 1 point 4 hours ago
Sounds like the constitution doesn't mean much at this point. . .
permalinkparent
[ ]dontbullshityourself 1 point 3 hours ago

Sounds like the constitution doesn't mean much at this point. . .


All it means is that the scum who rule us have a legal contract that they say ba
cks up all their power. But their actions shit all over that document.
President Obama, a constitutional law professor ordered the deaths of two US cit
izens without trial in EXPRESS and DIRECT violation of the constitution.
permalinkparent
load more comments (4 replies)
[ ]Eurynom0s 68 points 9 hours ago
And on top of it, even if being in public was a justification for this, how the
fuck do you prevent the device from nabbing people who are inside their own hous
e or apartment as well?
Oh right, you can't, because that's not how radio waves work.
permalinkparent
[ ]Ioneos 18 points 8 hours ago
You can increase the noise gate to reduce range on purpose, but what good would
that do to keep the terrorists citizens under scrutiny.
permalinkparent
[ ]Eurynom0s 20 points 8 hours ago
Even if they were going to do that, I can't imagine that you could do it to a su
fficient degree in a place like NYC to not scoop up at least some people inside
of buildings.
permalinkparent
load more comments (5 replies)
[ ]Codoro 1 point 4 hours ago
I foresee turning your house into a Faraday Cage being the cop radar finder of t
omorrow.
permalinkparent
[ ]Kenny_Login 23 points 7 hours ago
Taxation without representation, an income far below what the productivity was v
alued at, government intrusion? The founding fathers (you know, those "heroes" o
f our nation) got much more pissed off for much less.
permalinkparent
[ ]Socialdem 8 points 5 hours ago
Can you really blame them? The Constitution was written when people were still r
iding on horses. There's no way the founding fathers could have anticipated the
advances in technology and the way people communicate. I think we're due for a f
irmware upgrade.
permalinkparent
[ ]upandrunning 11 points 3 hours ago
Yes, it's called 'replacing congress'. What we're seeing is a natural consequenc
e of career politicians. Most of the people in office have gotten so comfortable
with the idea that they'll get reelected that what they actually do during thei
r term is almost irrelevent.
permalinkparent
[ ]theothercoolfish 2 points 2 hours ago
Exactly. I think we should look at sortition - with an approval vote, and extrem
ely strict rules on what sort of laws can be passed (eg any law must apply equal
ly to everyone - protecting the minority), and a approval bonus for the randomly
selected representatives if the public approves. Fuck career politicians - they
've proven themselves wholly incapable, and the system that supports them is too
corruptible. I don't think campaign finance reform will 1) ever happen 2) adequ
ately deal with institutional corruption.
permalinkparent
[ ]NuclearWookiee 0 points 2 hours ago
All of this should be covered, in any reasonable interpretation, by the Fourth a
mendment. Rebooting who change anything if the limits on government are ignored.
permalinkparent
[ ]KalAl 1 point 1 hour ago
Do you update your firmware by smashing your bios chip with a hammer?
permalinkparent

[ ]FireFromTheWire 4 points 6 hours ago


You're just another Steve Irwin to them.
permalinkparent
[ ]iismitch55 2 points 3 hours ago
Too soon mate :'(
permalinkparent
[ ]Penguin_in_the_sand 1 point 1 hour ago*
I am curious to know what this comment means?... Oh! Steve Irwin was killed by a
stingray. I thought you may have been referring to some conspiracy relating the
Steve Irwin's death. He had an American wife and both were invited to Howard's
Bush BBQ. http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/10/27/1067233100397.html
permalinkparent
[ ]gloubenterder 2 points 1 hour ago
Steve Irwin was a wildlife documentary filmmaker who was well-known for getting
up close and personal with dangerous animals such as crocodiles and komodo drago
ns.
He was pierced through a heart by a stingray in 2006, while shooting footage for
a documentary called Ocean's Deadliest.
After his death, stingrays had a period of great infamy, and there were even rep
orts of people killing and mutilating stingrays as vengeance for Steve Irwin. ..
.which, of course, is the last thing Irwin would have wanted; he was a conservat
ionist, and whenever he was injured by an animal he was studying, he would alway
s clarify to the viewer that that was his own fault and a risk he was aware of.
permalinkparent
[ ]Agent-BurtMacklinFBI 1 point 5 hours ago
Don't worry I'm keeping a look out
permalinkparent
[ ]pion3435 1 point 3 hours ago
It's not a constitutional issue. It might be an FCC one, but they just do whatev
er they're told anyway.
permalinkparent
[ ]dntur 1 point 3 hours ago
theoretically, every cell tower is in a public place. Why not just attach a stin
gray to all of them? Think of the money mobile companies could make renting towe
r space! next comes google who wants to know who you are calling on your iphone
and windows phone for better directed advertising, followed by Bing. /s
permalinkparent
[ ]Brian3232 [score hidden] 46 minutes ago
Why are they wrong? You already can take pictures of people in public places wit
hout warrant
permalinkparent
[ ]GaltsGulchTouristInf [score hidden] 24 minutes ago
When the constitution, the supreme law of the land, the contract between the gov
ernment and the people, is violated, this violating it should be banned from 'pu
blic service' for life, should be personally liable to those whose rights they v
iolated, and should forfeit their government pension and benefits.
permalinkparent
[ ]wtfmuck [score hidden] 17 minutes ago
It's sad how they shirk doing what is right for what is easy.
permalinkparent
load more comments (8 replies)
[ ]quiteintriguing 127 points 12 hours ago
I think it's about time these fuckers provided some evidence that privacy invadi
ng is helping stop crime or terrorism. As far as I can see, there is an Islamic
army in the middle east right now filled with westerners that simply flew over a
nd caught a bus. Nice job government agencies, you sure showed us.
permalink
[ ]HappyAtavism 81 points 11 hours ago
I think it's about time these fuckers provided some evidence that privacy invadi
ng is helping stop crime or terrorism.

Even more importantly they should provide evidence that they're not violating th
e 4th Amendment. The Bill of Rights doesn't say it applies only when convenient.
P.S. I agree that repeated failures to demonstrate the effectiveness of these th
ings, or lies which get "corrected", is yet another reason why this stuff is BS,
but the Constitution is first and foremost. Don't like the 4th Amendment? Try t
o repeal it. Until then it's in force.
permalinkparent
[ ]7u5 3 points 5 hours ago
The "checks and balances" of the judiciary are a farce. They are free to "interp
ret" the Constitution as they see fit.
permalinkparent
load more comments (3 replies)
[ ]DiaperParty 9 points 3 hours ago
Fuck that. FUUUCK that. If this did stop terrorists, it would still not be worth
the violation of rights. We absolutely CANNOT start OKing this shit as long as
it "stops bad guys."
permalinkparent
[ ]quiteintriguing 1 point 3 hours ago
I think you misunderstood. I think they should have to back up their justificati
on, which they obviously can't.
permalinkparent
[ ]DiaperParty 4 points 3 hours ago
But if we ask them to, we lend legitimacy to that claim. We need to say from the
get go that no justification is needed because none will be sufficient.
permalinkparent
[ ]ebouwman 7 points 5 hours ago
In Canada we had the Ottawa shooting and that dude that ran over some soldiers.
Correct me if I'm wrong but both these guys had had their passports revoked.
I'm not a fan of letting them just go over and fight a dirty war but wtf.
permalinkparent
[ ]Ceejae 4 points 4 hours ago
But so what if it is? How successful the program is is irrelevant.
I'm sure if they set up a government camera in every home they'd stop plenty of
murders and rapes.
permalinkparent
load more comments (2 replies)
[ ]cassieloveseffie 5 points 2 hours ago
Well we all know that the FBI has followed people like John Lennon who believed
in radical peace, urged MLK to kill himself and was prepared to assassinate occu
py members. It is not about crime, it is about maintaining a status quo.
permalinkparent
[ ]monopixel 2 points 1 hour ago
was prepared to assassinate occupy members.
Interesting, where can I read up about this?
permalinkparent
[ ]wirepants 4 points 4 hours ago
Locking everyone in solitary could stop crime and terrorism too. That's not a go
od enough reason to violate our rights even if it was working.
permalinkparent
[ ]egodeath92 2 points 5 hours ago
Shh that's classified. This entire country would be a post-apocalyptic dirt-patc
h is not for the heroic NSA collecting dirt on most of the country.
permalinkparent
[ ]pion3435 1 point 3 hours ago
You had no privacy in the first place. That's not how cell phones work.
permalinkparent
load more comments (6 replies)
[ ]MashItMatt 143 points 13 hours ago
Obviously these are constitution free zones, citizen.
permalink

[ ]THANKS-FOR-THE-GOLD 22 points 7 hours ago


Embrace democracy or you will be eradicated
permalinkparent
[ ]jroddie4 14 points 5 hours ago
Citizen, pick up that can.
permalinkparent
[ ]douko 3 points 5 hours ago
This image won't even load (here's another one), but I still know what it is.
DEATH IS A PREFERABLE ALTERNATIVE TO COMMUNISM.
COMMUNISM IS THE VERY DEFINITION OF FAILURE!
permalinkparent
[ ]chewysquirrel 15 points 6 hours ago
Approximately 2/3 of Americans live in a "constitution free zone"
permalinkparent
[ ]newpolitics 50 points 10 hours ago
The Federal Bureau of Investigation is taking the position that court warrants a
re not required when deploying cell-site simulators in public places. Nicknamed
"stingrays," the devices are decoy cell towers that capture locations and identi
ties of mobile phone users and can intercept calls and texts.
So nobody has any expectation of privacy? Talking out of their asses. The implic
ation that a warrant shouldn't be needed to intercept someone's text messages, i
s outrageous.
permalink
[ ]acerplatanoides [score hidden] 16 minutes ago
The implication that a warrant shouldn't be needed to intercept someone's text m
essages, is outrageous.
The implication of intercepting a PRESS related text message, and thus also supp
ressing a free press.
I think many of these are used to stop uploading of images to social medial. You
ever tried that during a demonstration?
permalinkparent
[ ]dalasocatyemerc 67 points 9 hours ago
Hmm, I didn't realize the FBI had the authority to ignore the constitution of th
e United States of America.
Maybe this organization doesn't actually serve Americans. That's what I think
permalink
[ ]Jagoonder 17 points 2 hours ago
They don't. However, lets look at their 3rd criteria:
(3) cases in which the technology is used in public places or other locations at
which the FBI deems there is no reasonable expectation of privacy.
In public, noone has an expectation to privacy. SCOTUS has ruled on such. Theref
ore, it could be argued that phone conversations in public places forfeits at le
ast one party's rights to privacy.
There are a couple of problems with this. First, Stingray is indiscriminate. Sec
ond, the other party of the phone conversation may be in their own home thus hav
ing an expectation of privacy.
I don't know how law works in regards to phone tapping. But, I would assume that
any warrant to do so would provide the agency a waiver on a second party's priv
acy protections when conversing with the target of the warrant. Except in the ca
se of Stingray no warrant was ever obtained thus, no waiver, thus the second par
ty probably still has privacy protections.
So, I think it's bullshit. I'm no lawyer. I suspect the FBI also knows it's bull
shit. But, the more excuses they can come up with to bend the law around their w
ill the more time it takes to try to stop them since each instance requires anot
her court decision.
permalinkparent
[ ]punkrampant 13 points 1 hour ago
There's only "no expectation of privacy" in public in terms of video+camera surv
eillance. People still get disturbed if you look over their shoulder at their ph
one, or listen to a conversation.

Text messages, emails, phone calls, all of it, are the modern day written letter
s. What the FBI is trying to do is the equivalent of setting up a post office th
at opens everyone's envelopes and makes copies of all the contents.
permalinkparent
[ ]Jagoonder 5 points 1 hour ago
Text messages, emails, phone calls, all of it, are the modern day written letter
s. What the FBI is trying to do is the equivalent of setting up a post office th
at opens everyone's envelopes and makes copies of all the contents.
You're right. I was focusing on an actual phone conversation where one party cou
ld be overheard by others, thus no expectation to privacy.
permalinkparent
[ ]Cambodian_Drug_Mule 2 points 1 hour ago
Surely there are people with technical expertise that can just fuck their shit u
p. If I'm not mistaken the stingrays were detected with consumer grade electroni
cs. If everyone just looked out for them and pinned where they are at on a map,
couldn't some people with the technical know how take them offline?
permalinkparent
[ ]monopixel 1 point 1 hour ago
Hmm, I didn't realize the FBI had the authority to ignore the constitution of th
e United States of America.
The US government and its agencies has been doing it for ages.
permalinkparent
[ ]rtpg 40 points 6 hours ago
Surprised nobody's mentioned Kyllo v. United States yet.
This is fairly recent (2001) jurisprudence. The gov't used a thermal imager, and
saw that there were heat lamps inside of a house, and used that to get a search
warrant. The gov't argued that, well, the heat was outside, so pretty much publ
ic information.
The courts disagreed and ruled this an illegal search. Main reason being that no
t many people have thermal imagers, so there's a reasonable expectation of priva
cy. I think even less people have stingrays, so even from the "discovering that
someone has a cell phone" aspect, there's unreasonableness in the search.
Now to the wiretapping aspect... there's Katz v. United States. Here, somebody w
as in a phone booth, and the feds had set a microphone outside the phone booth w
ithout warrant (so not exactly a wiretap). Again, the courts ruled this an unrea
sonable search.
A part of the ruling:
Regardless of the location, a conversation is protected from unreasonable search
and seizure under the Fourth Amendment if it is made with a "reasonable expecta
tion of privacy".
Text messages definitely fall under this. I can't see this holding up for 2 seco
nds in court.
The article goes into it into detail, but few of the FBI's interpretations on pr
ivacy have been holding up in courts recently. The system is kind of working, an
d this interpretation will be shut down as well. Now, if only everyone had good
lawyers...
permalink
[ ]ryewheats 7 points 4 hours ago
But the biggest problem I see would be them not declaring how they gathered any
information they collected in the first place. It would be pretty easy to skirt
around the system and act like you caught the suspect red-handed (because you we
re tipped off by illegal searches). That is the really scary part.
permalinkparent
[ ]argv_minus_one 5 points 3 hours ago
This practice is known as "parallel construction".
permalinkparent
[ ]tughdffvdlfhegl 3 points 3 hours ago
Honestly, this is the biggest concern. The courts won't allow a challenge becaus
e no one will have standing, because the feds/police won't actively declare this
as evidence in a trial. Meanwhile, they'll continue to use it, having a chillin

g effect on the press and others (which the courts have not seen in recent histo
ry as sufficient to provide legal standing).
permalinkparent
[ ]JustaChimp 3 points 5 hours ago
With the Katz v US case, it took them 39 years to overturn the Olmstead v US rul
ing. Let's hope it takes a little less time for this medium.
The recent Romano v Steelcase Inc. court case could indicate how the courts will
rule in the short term with regards to "reasonable expectation of privacy" thou
gh this ruling was in the context of social media and not text messages. The ana
logy was made that much like a letter writer has no reasonable expectation of pr
ivacy once the recipient is in possession of the letter, neither does the post's
author. Same could be extended to text messages and would be equally as trouble
some.
permalinkparent
[ ]qdarius 1 point 3 hours ago
Damn, that doesn't seem right at all. If I send someone a letter I definitely ex
pect that only they will read it.
Could anyone expand on the logic that a letter writer has no reasonable expectat
ion of privacy?
permalinkparent
[ ]Boltaeg 1 point 3 hours ago
After that letter is given to the recipient, they can do whatever they want with
it without you knowing. They could copy it, show it to friends, frame it and pu
t it on their wall....etc. You have no control over that and must assume that an
ything you write in a letter can be disclosed in some manner, simply because you
have no control over that persons actions.
As to why that is the case, I have no idea. Especially considering it is illegal
to open someone elses mail, but perfectly legal to read someone else's letter o
nce they open it. At least that is my understanding of it.
permalinkparent
[ ]TheMightyBarbarian 1 point 3 hours ago
Its fairly simple, you sent a letter, until it is received by the intended recip
ient it has federal protections. Once the recipient receives it, they are free t
o do with it as they wish, even if you disagree with what they do, specifically
because the letter is now their property, even though you wrote it.
permalinkparent
[ ]qdarius 1 point 2 hours ago
I understand that. But if someone else intercepts my letter shouldn't that still
be illegal?
Maybe I'm misunderstanding how stingrays work but it seems like they're basicall
y designed to intercept hundreds of messages.
permalinkparent
[ ]TheMightyBarbarian 1 point 2 hours ago
Intercept isn't illegal, its sketchy but not illegal. As for reading it, it's a
grey area since texts are not encrypted and even if they were it would do shit i
f billions of devices can decrypt them. So unless you use something like a messe
nger system that can use basic encrypting. It won't stop the FBI from reading it
, but it does show you took steps to have a private conversation and that's what
matters to the court.
permalinkparent
[ ]coalbeeashi 1 point 3 hours ago
Re: Katz v. United States
Certain details, such as shutting the door on the telephone booth, help determin
e if a person intends for a conversation to be private. Thus, private conversati
ons can be made in public areas.
What steps is the average Joe taking to exhibit a reasonable expectation of priv
acy regarding his/her data usage? Honest question.
permalinkparent
[ ]TheMightyBarbarian 1 point 2 hours ago
Beyond using a VPN to mimic another location, not much really. Since there are m

any devices involved in the process of just looking up a website. Ex. You google
Microsoft. Here are all the parties involved: You, Your ISP, Google, Microsoft.
That's four parties involved and that's assuming you are not using a Phones Mob
ile Data plan and are using WiFi. Because then it can add a few more people invo
lved.
Sure you should have protection just the same, but currently the law doesn't rec
ognize that, because the people in charge dont understand how any of it works.
permalinkparent
[ ]rtpg [score hidden] 54 minutes ago
I would say that cultural norms kind of define that in that it is extremely rude
to look at another stranger's phone while they are using it to browse/look at t
heir emails/whatever. Not the most solid argument, I know.
permalinkparent
[ ]Sic_SemperTyrannis 1 point 2 hours ago
When the use of stingrays is challenged in court police have dropped the cases r
ather than explain their use of stingrays.
permalinkparent
[ ]cassieloveseffie 1 point 2 hours ago
I have seen a printed record of every one of someone's txt messages for 6 months
. Never assume txt messages are private.
permalinkparent
[ ]Ladderjack 29 points 12 hours ago
I'm sorry, have they gone ahead and combined the FBI and the Supreme Court of th
e United States of America? No? Well, we will see how long this lasts. . .
permalink
[ ]butitssnot 46 points 7 hours ago
Its ok. In 2016 we can vote for hope and change and transparency and fix all thi
s.
permalinkparent
[ ]CriticalThink 3 points 5 hours ago
yeah. I bet Hillary will fix this mess, right Reddit?
permalinkparent
[ ]TheMightyBarbarian 1 point 2 hours ago
We still got time before they can start promoting themselves for President, lega
lly actually, they can't start until a certain number of days from the election.
permalinkparent
[ ]looneybandito 5 points 6 hours ago
Haha. As if our votes matter.
permalinkparent
[ ]atomofconsumption 9 points 5 hours ago
thatsthejoke.jpg
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]dichroeyes 1 point 4 hours ago
You are right. I give up. Long live the hegemony.
permalinkparent
[ ]Pikaflu 1 point 3 hours ago
America is an irradiated wasteland. Within it lies a city. Outside the boundary
walls, a desert. A cursed earth. Inside the walls, a cursed city, stretching fro
m Boston to Washington D.C. An unbroken concrete landscape. 800 million people l
iving in the ruin of the old world and the mega structures of the new one. Mega
blocks. Mega highways. Mega City One. Convulsing. Choking. Breaking under its ow
n weight. Citizens in fear of the street. The gun. The gang. Only one thing figh
ting for order in the chaos: the men and women of the Hall of Justice. Juries. E
xecutioners. Judges.
permalinkparent
[ ]Ago_Solvo 36 points 9 hours ago
I'm sure that means that stingrays are also open for public hacking in that case
, because they're in a public place, and doing so can't be considered an intrusi
on on government properties or a violation of any Federal Law.

permalink
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]whysopositive 57 points 12 hours ago
Say whatever you want, you don't think big brother is going to find every way to
spy on you?
The thing is I bet every time we the people get upset about some "new" trespass
against our rights there's already something technologically beyond our knowledg
e being put to use to on us now.
permalink
[ ]I_SPLIT_INFINITIVES 16 points 7 hours ago
My dad always said, "If that's what they're telling us they have now, they proba
bly had it ten years ago. Just imagine what they really have."
permalinkparent
[ ]oOTHX1138Oo 28 points 9 hours ago
Thats why we need to add to the bill of rights, so that we continue to be protec
ted in the digital age.
permalinkparent
[ ]TheBlueWaffleHouse 18 points 8 hours ago
At this point in time the bill of rights only shrinks. It doesn't get bigger.
permalinkparent
[ ]tallerthanunicorngod 33 points 7 hours ago
Not with that attitude.
permalinkparent
[ ]mattacular2001 3 points 5 hours ago
Doesn't matter unless you're wealthy
permalinkparent
[ ]tallerthanunicorngod 1 point 2 hours ago
Wealthy people don't like to be spied on either. Honestly, they probably like it
even less.
permalinkparent
[ ]sockgorilla 1 point 5 hours ago
He's John Titor, he's watched it before.
permalinkparent
[ ]mastahslayah 1 point 4 hours ago
Well he isn't getting any of my Dr. Pepper.
permalinkparent
[ ]Poor__Yorick 1 point 2 hours ago
Wow that's a name I haven't heard in a while.
We've got a world war this year though.
3 billion dead by the end of it.
permalinkparent
load more comments (5 replies)
[ ]pion3435 1 point 3 hours ago
We already did. That's the point of laws like HIPAA. There's just no equivalent
for things like email or cell phones so it's legal to see whatever people are na
ively broadcasting.
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]ZomNomNomBeeZ 5 points 7 hours ago
This technology is not particularly new. The man-in-the-middle attack is a class
ic hacking technique. I remember reading an article after one of the security co
nventions detailing a small group of participants that used a remote control air
plane to do this exact thing to convention attendees. This was years ago.
permalinkparent
[ ]hershmire 4 points 7 hours ago
Which is why it's illegality could be successfully code into law.
permalinkparent
[ ]TheMightyBarbarian 1 point 3 hours ago
That's the problem, the people who make the laws don't understand how the techno
logy works, and the people making and using it are telling them its fine, so the

y don't feel like they need to make a law about.


And as such making a law about it would be bad, since the law would need specifi
c language to prevent certain technologies and usage of such. But the biggest is
sue is that some of the technology and uses are too general that it would never
work to stop anything. Since they can't just write a law preventing man in the m
iddle because they need to get a definitive wording on what that is exactly and
then word it so a slight variation doesn't just immediately skirt the new law.
Our technology grew faster than our laws did, but now it's grown faster than our
ability to properly define what it is we do. So controlling it is incredibly ha
rd and will take a long time, so for now we kinda have to suck it up and wait, b
ecause the worst possible thing is them putting out ineffective laws that do les
s than nothing to prevent stuff like that and hearing us complain and think we a
re whining when they just put out a law. I would rather wait a little longer to
make sure the law is proper and effective than to have a crap law screw everythi
ng up.
permalinkparent
[ ]ScorpionPool 1 point 6 hours ago
Serious question. What benefits does the government get from spying on us? Power
? Information for corporations? Shits and giggles? Some kind of profit?
permalinkparent
[ ]swingmemallet 2 points 5 hours ago
All of the above
permalinkparent
[ ]eyeforgot 1 point 5 hours ago*
What like complete access to what anyone posts/chats about on facebook/skype bei
ng dumped into a database? Anyone who work with cisco routers notice anything fu
nny like carefully crafted packets fucking w. the settings and not creating logs
. Maybe like there is a back door that someone has that doesn't require a passwo
rd.
permalinkparent
load more comments (3 replies)
[ ]philtech 26 points 10 hours ago
You can scan for stingray use.
Only works on rooted phones with Qualcomm chipset however. https://play.google.c
om/store/apps/details?id=de.srlabs.snoopsnitch&hl=en
permalink
[ ]vamper 2 points 6 hours ago
damn, no go for my nexus 5
permalinkparent
[ ]Ice_Pirate 1 point 5 hours ago
Should work on my 20 dollar ZTE's with dualies :). Overclocks to 1.8 like butta.
http://www.phonearena.com/phones/ZTE-N800_id8191
permalinkparent
[ ]willyboxc 1 point 2 hours ago
we need a version that will work without root :(
permalinkparent
[ ]networklackey 49 points 11 hours ago*
Bullshit... it's radio. They have no way of determining whether the person they
are monitoring is in public or not.
They shouldn't be able to use this without a warrant any more than they should b
e able to point a laser mic at your window.
The fact that they are in public is irrelevant... the subject they are monitorin
g has to be in public.
permalink
[ ]lll_1_lll 29 points 6 hours ago
Even if we are in public, what the fuck gives them the right to look through my
texts, phone calls, voicemails, emails, call history, etc?
permalinkparent
[ ]zoidbug 5 points 3 hours ago
It should be protected the level of paper mail. It is your private communication

s.
permalinkparent
[ ]networklackey 1 point 2 hours ago
Technically... because you are in public and are broadcasting. But I feel the sa
me way. None of this shit should be legal.
permalinkparent
load more comments (6 replies)
[ ]goatmagic 2 points 3 hours ago
laser mic
Well, TIL this exists :/
permalinkparent
[ ]networklackey 2 points 2 hours ago
They absolutely exist and they are freaking awesome. They should not however be
used by law enforcement without a warrant.
permalinkparent
[ ]makingupdumbnames 1 point 5 hours ago
I think it's that their airwaves cross public space. pls correct me if I'm wrong
, though
permalinkparent
[ ]networklackey 1 point 2 hours ago
That's certainly the argument they are making.
permalinkparent
[ ]wirepants 1 point 4 hours ago
Even assuming you are in public, who's to say the guy on the other side is too?
permalinkparent
[ ]networklackey 1 point 2 hours ago
Nothing but their log books but that doesn't really matter. It's your right to p
rivacy they are violating.
permalinkparent
[ ]Sarah_Connor 9 points 9 hours ago
We need a way to be able to identify, then jamm, stingrays.
permalink
[ ]cookie_nrk 8 points 7 hours ago
This Jammer made in sweden should do the trick. From what I have read it complet
ely blocks all signals, so using a phone wouldn't work at all, but if you were i
n a position to not want to be tracked during a certain time, you could use this
: http://www.jammer-store.com/monstro-10-all-frequencies-portable-jammer.html
permalinkparent
[ ]hershmire 10 points 7 hours ago
We're talking about blanket monitoring of civilians. It needs to be outlawed imm
ediately. Hoping each and every Joe Schmoe is going to buy an illegal cell phone
jammer to protect his identity is, well, ridiculous.
permalinkparent
[ ]davidverner 6 points 7 hours ago
Jammers are illegal in the US on the cellphone frequency. Good luck importing on
e.
permalinkparent
[ ]wicard 5 points 6 hours ago
had one from deal extreme i bought when i was younger to prank friends, was alot
of fun. But if you are worried about being tracked wouldn't just shutting your
phone off do the trick? If you are jamming your phone you arnt going to be talki
ng to anyone.
permalinkparent
[ ]RellenD 4 points 5 hours ago
You have to do more than just turn it off, unfortunately.
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]willyboxc 1 point 2 hours ago
we need the schematics so we can build one... also include 700 mhz jam for lte
permalinkparent

load more comments (1 reply)


[ ]ademnus 11 points 7 hours ago
That's nice but it's not up to the FBI if it is illegal or not.
permalink
[ ]MonitoredCitizen 21 points 7 hours ago
Come on Google and Apple, stop being so lame. Make the phones themselves defend
against this by always displaying the negotiated encryption level and allowing u
ser to configure the phone to refuse to connect if the GSM encryption level is A
5/0.
permalink
[ ]argv_minus_one 2 points 2 hours ago
If they do that, these same spooks will have some words with their CEOs. Otherwi
se, yeah, they likely would.
permalinkparent
[ ]vzzzbux 2 points 1 hour ago
Not sure on the technical specifics but my old Nokia from 10 years ago used to s
how a padlock if the call was "secure", which I guess meant it was encrypted in
some way.
Sounds like yet another way we've gone backwards with the rise of Google and App
le
permalinkparent
[ ]cryptovariable 180 points 12 hours ago
This seems icky, but anyone with a Raspberry Pi ($48.00), an RTL-SDR ($17.00), a
nd an ability to follow written step-by-step instructions on how to install and
configure some open source software ($0.00) can do this, albeit on a smaller sca
le.
That tutorial doesn't cover decrypting GSM traffic. This one does. You'll need s
omething faster than a Raspberry Pi, though. Maybe a $200 netbook.
And you can do it on the same scale as the police with a surplus commercial ante
nna and three or four friends.
I don't see how restricting the government's ability to do this would have any o
ther effect than to criminalize a private citizen's desire to experiment with GS
M.
permalink
[ ]HappyAtavism 113 points 11 hours ago
I don't see how restricting the government's ability to do this would have any o
ther effect than to criminalize a private citizen's desire to experiment with GS
M.
Experiment with GSM all you want, just don't eavesdrop or commit fraud by preten
ding to be part of a legitimate business.
I like to play with miniature cameras, microphones and transmitters. That's a fi
ne hobby as long as I don't use it to spy on my neighbors.
permalinkparent
load more comments (5 replies)
[ ]mr___ 50 points 12 hours ago
But theirs has a transmitter, and actively spoofs cell sites
permalinkparent
[ ]cryptovariable 55 points 12 hours ago
It you want to spoof rather than just eavesdrop all you have to do is buy any of
the SDR kits that are coming on to the market like a bladeRF or something and h
ave GNUradio (which hilariously autocorrects to FBI radio on my phone) pretend t
o be a tower, the credentials of which you sniffed with your Pi setup.
The reason the Feds spoof is so that they can target specific devices on a white
list and only have those connect. The size of the whitelist is unknown and up fo
r debate.
If you're capturing and decrypting all the GSM your antenna can receive you don'
t care if you're spoofing the tower unless you want to modify the traffic in som
e way. To quote Sir Patrick Stewart: "It's too late, I've seen everything."
If you just scoop up everything using cheap/free and publicly available tools yo
u don't really care about spoofing.

It should be noted that the Feds have a leg up with CDMA because of its smaller
global footprint and the scarcity of developers working on it, as well as UMTS (
3G) and LTE.
But people are poking at LTE every day: http://www.rtl-sdr.com/analyzing-td-ltertl-sdr/
permalinkparent
[ ]HappyAtavism 36 points 11 hours ago
The reason the Feds spoof is so that they can target specific devices on a white
list and only have those connect. The size of the whitelist is unknown and up fo
r debate.
We do know they don't have warrants. How many violations of the 4th Amendment do
es it take before it's considered a bad thing?
permalinkparent
load more comments (19 replies)
[ ]A530[??] 6 points 6 hours ago
I have to ask an honest question. Knowing what you know, do you live in a Farada
y cage or just eschew cell phones all together? I'm in InfoSec (I'm guessing you
are too) and with the shit I know, maintaining OPSec is just a never ending bat
tle. I can't imagine my paranoia if I went down the cellular rabbit hole (althou
gh I do know a lot about the shit happening with the carrier baseband MDM garbag
e).
Many thanks for the very informative post.
permalinkparent
[ ]tornadoRadar 1 point 1 hour ago
Gotta keep it segmented. Personal never mixes with biz
permalinkparent
[ ]the_nap_mutilator 1 point 5 hours ago
Spoofing the cell site also gives them access to the phone at something akin to
the hardware level... so unless you have rooted and or installed software to sec
ure the device, they can push new software onto your phone without your knowledg
e/consent in the same way that your carrier updates subscriber units say when th
ey make changes to the network or something. At that point your phone has been p
ermanently compromised.
permalinkparent
load more comments (13 replies)
[ ]mag17435 29 points 10 hours ago
I dont understand how people think the government can do things citizens can. Or
dering our government not to do something has no bearing on what citizens can do
.
permalinkparent
[ ]Golden-Fox 7 points 6 hours ago
Well when police are trying to visually collect evidence they can in general onl
y search from public areas. If a cop is looking for a certain car and they see i
t on the street, that's fine. If the car is parked in a closed garage and on pri
vate property, the cop wouldn't be able to see it without going onto private pro
perty and looking in a window. If the car is in the same garage and the garage d
oor is open, then anyone can see it, and the cop can legally use that informatio
n.
The FBI is trying to apply that same logic to these stingrays. Stingrays are a t
echnology that is available to the public. You could make your own and do exactl
y what the FBI does. The data being collected isn't encrypted, password protecte
d, or anything else. Everything is publicly available. You just have to have a c
ertain machine to be able to read it. The garage door has to be open.
permalinkparent
[ ]Wordygit 6 points 6 hours ago
The key word here is "public" whereas where there is the expectation of privacy,
I would think think that would carry some special considerations. That seems to
be some of what the courts are deciding about, where the expectation of privacy
holds sway over searches. Its already been determined that law enforcement cann
ot force you to unlock your phone. One such Supreme Court case, decided this pas

t summer, led to a sweeping victory for privacy rights advocates. In a rare unan
imous decision, the court found that police cannot search cellphones, and by ext
ension tablets and other digital communication devices, without first obtaining
a warrant. Smartphones, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote, hold the privacies of l
ife, and the fact that technology now allows an individual to carry such informati
on in his hand does not make the information any less worthy of the protection f
or which the Founders fought. I think, as well, that it has been established that
if there is encryption being used, that constitutes an acknowledgement that ste
ps have been taken to protect and maintain the sense of privacy, and so the expe
ctation carries onto the information being transmitted. Not sure if there is a l
egal precedent for that though.
permalinkparent
[ ]Golden-Fox 2 points 5 hours ago
Its already been determined that law enforcement cannot force you to unlock your
phone.
This is what I've heard, but to me it implies that police can access your phone
if you don't have it locked. Carrying that logic over to this argument, the poli
ce would be able to access your cell info as long as it isn't encrypted. It seem
s that you only have a "reasonable expectation to privacy" with your cell phone
if you've taken any steps to make your phone more private. If there were some wa
y to get your carrier to encrypt your data, then there'd be no question, but the
way cell providers are these days, that's not gonna happen.
permalinkparent
[ ]ThreeTimesUp 1 point 1 hour ago
Something that I have heard repeatedly (and I may yet have it wrong), is that if
your front door is closed, but unlocked, the police are free to enter without a
warrant.
This has always bothered me.
I could understand the mind-set of someone (i.e. a Justice of the Supreme court)
thinking that way if they grew up (or lived) in an area where they lived a life
always fearful of intruders and locking doors was a practical necessity.
But to me, a closed door means "Keep out, knock for admittance - no entry withou
t permission."
So, for naive, trusting, me, I would not expect the police (or anyone) to examin
e my phone (without a warrant) just to see what they could find.
permalinkparent
[ ]pion3435 1 point 3 hours ago
A technologically illiterate moron's expectation of privacy doesn't become a rea
sonable expectation of privacy just because the majority of the population is te
chnologically illiterate.
permalinkparent
[ ]F0sh 1 point 2 hours ago
This is totally wrong thinking. A private citizen can look for your car through
the garage window without legal repercussions, even though a police officer migh
t not be allowed. The police officer has to conduct his searches according to th
e expectation of privacy and you have every expectation that your private phone
conversations are private - even if you're sending your texts at the shopping ce
ntre.
This is a bullshit equivocation on the part of the FBI, who are claiming that si
nce any old person at the shops can see that you're also at the shops you have n
o expectation of privacy at all.
This logic, if extended, would also mean the FBI could clone your hard drive if
you took your laptop to a public place - after all, you have no expectation of p
rivacy there. No. Bullshit - just because you're in the park doesn't mean all yo
ur possessions and emails became public.
This has nothing to do with what an ordinary citizen is able to do in public or
in private.
permalinkparent
[ ]ThreeTimesUp 1 point 2 hours ago*
Well when police are trying to visually collect evidence they can in general onl

y search from public areas. If a cop is looking for a certain car and they see i
t on the street, that's fine.
To counterpoint this:
Infra-red light (heat) is just light that's at a lower frequency than humans can
detect.
Courts have ruled that the police using specialized equipment to detect heat sig
natures (Infra-red light) emanating from from houses for the purpose of snooping
for grow operations are an invasion of privacy.
The signals Stingray is picking up are just another frequency, even lower than I
nfra-red light, originating from inside your phone, that is your property, which
is in your possession.
Authorities are using all manner of logical distortions in an express attempt to
get around the ideals and principles expressed in the Constitution.
What law-abiding citizen would attempt such a thing?
What authority that the public has placed their trust in, would make continual a
ttempts to subvert the Constitution?
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
load more comments (2 replies)
[ ]kromem 2 points 3 hours ago
It is already criminal to capture and decrypt GSM traffic for citizens (Wiretap
Act), same as capturing and parsing WiFi data.
But I think I can point out the issue with your logic with a simple analogy:
Citizens can buy guns.
Law enforcement can be provided guns.
Citizens can practice shooting guns.
Law enforcement should do the same.
Citizens can't shoot other citizens with guns except in really specific exemptio
ns.
According to your logic, just because citizens can buy guns, and could possibly
go around shooting other people with them, law enforcement should not have any l
egal restrictions on their use of guns.
It is illegal for you to capture and decrypt anyone else's traffic, and it shoul
d be illegal for cops to do the same without a warrant. It's not that hard to ge
t a warrant when actually justified, creates a paper trail that can be examined
for abuses, and has been the case without serious issue for years now.
For what purpose does the law need to be changed to allow this? Because warrants
are inconvenient? Well then why not get rid of them for entering homes too? It'
s quite trivial to pick a lock, and even easier to smash a window and climb in.
Any citizen could do it. So why do we need to restrict the police from the same?
permalinkparent
[ ]dfioabnionjio 4 points 9 hours ago
I don't see how restricting the government's ability to do this would have any o
ther effect than to criminalize a private citizen's desire to experiment with GS
M.
Why not have it be illegal for government and legal for private citizens? Make i
t perfectly legal for private citizens to experiment with GSM, but don't let the
FBI do the same, like you can have a private citizen share something a defendan
t said in court while the police cannot do the same unless the suspect had been
told of their rights.
Of course, the problem here is not using GSM. It's tracking people who did not k
nowingly join your network. You could have it be legal to experiment with GSM an
d not legal to spoof a network, or make it so tracking someone on your network i
s illegal unless the person being tracked is aware they will be tracked and cons
ents to it.
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]confusiondiffusion 3 points 10 hours ago
Yeah, I really don't see the point in making laws against this, since they'll be
broken anyway. We need to fix the underlying technology. There is no excuse for

the sad state of cellphone security.


permalinkparent
[ ]HappyAtavism 18 points 10 hours ago
I really don't see the point in making laws against this
Then let's just flush the Constitution down the toilet. All laws get broken, the
question is what gets done about it.
since they'll be broken anyway
It's not very hard to break into my house either, but they're not supposed to do
it without a warrant.
permalinkparent
load more comments (4 replies)
[ ]HighMonster 1 point 7 hours ago
Wow that's intriguing
permalinkparent
[ ]lll_1_lll 1 point 6 hours ago
You act like this is realistically doable for the large majority of people and y
ou know that's BS.
permalinkparent
[+][deleted] 6 hours ago (1 child)
[ ]JabroniZamboni 1 point 5 hours ago
Are you suggesting that radar jammers should be legal? As well as cell phone or
wifi jammers? What if your neighbor wants to experiment with a jammer for the ne
xt 4 months? 6 years? I assume you wouldn't be too happy. There's experimentatio
n and then there's purposeful disruption and spying.
permalinkparent
[ ]egodeath92 1 point 5 hours ago
Yeah except "anyone with device X" can't prosecute people. It doesn't matter whe
n corporations do mass data collection because they are just trying to make mone
y/sell people shit. The government can create a database of people's private liv
es then prosecute them. You could even imagine a time where data collection is s
o widespread that this kind of info is used for political purposes rather then b
usting drug dealers/ other criminals which is what it's used for now.
permalinkparent
[ ]Kuusou 1 point 4 hours ago
What the people can do, and what the government can do, are no the same things,
nor should they.
permalinkparent
[ ]qdarius 1 point 4 hours ago
If a random person overhears my conversation I don't care. Even if they tell the
ir friends I'm still not too concerned.
If the government records my conversation and uses it to investigate or prosecut
e me that's clearly a different situation.
Just because someone can do something doesn't mean it should be legal. It defini
tely doesn't mean we should be okay with our government using it on us.
permalinkparent
load more comments (9 replies)
[ ]Sir_not_sir 52 points 13 hours ago
The main purpose of the stinger is to circumvent the need and time of acquiring
a warrant and getting the data from all the service providers.
Regardless of data retention plans, they should require a separate judicial warr
ant for each individual suspect in order to be deployed.
permalink
[ ]manoninternets 8 points 7 hours ago*
The time required to get a warrant is usually far less than what they make it ou
t to be, although cost is as factor. Phone companies make tons of money off poli
ce records requests.
To play devil's advocate (and I do think the STINGRAY arrangement is devilish):
once you request records from the phone companies, there's no guarantee that won
't get leaked to the people being investigated. The cartels have people everywhe

re.
permalinkparent
[ ]kevincreeperpants 6 points 6 hours ago
What if they are the cartels!?...dun dun dun
permalinkparent
[ ]tughdffvdlfhegl 1 point 3 hours ago
I don't think anyone here has a problem with STINGRAY being used, given that the
y have a warrant for the person's data they're monitoring. So in your situation,
that's easy to do.
permalinkparent
[ ]manoninternets 2 points 3 hours ago
Yeah it's the same concept as going through my private letters, or close enough
to it anyhow. (Even though letters are physically sealed and radio waves permeat
e the air freely, my intention is for my text messages to be as private as posta
l mail.)
Even a child could rip open an envelope with ease. That doesn't mean police don'
t need a warrant to do so.
permalinkparent
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[ ]turnthatfrown 9 points 7 hours ago
I think the FBI is conveniently forgetting that they are intercepting a communic
ation that is normally secured via encryption and carried privately by your wire
less provider then switched privately all the way to the party on the other end
who has similar expectations of the connection.
I mean, come on, the Stingrays themselves are impersonating the carrier that you
have a contract with and using techniques to avoid the strong encryption. The p
rove by their own design and implementation that the FBI's argument is bullshit.
permalink
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]dontbullshityourself 27 points 11 hours ago
I'm so sick of the ways these callous assholes use to crush our freedom.
What is the point of massive expensive law enforcement agencies if the law can't
protect our rights and freedoms? Hasn't the cart been put before the horse here
?
permalink
[ ]donottakethisserious 13 points 6 hours ago
If you are told you are free enough times, you start to believe it. You start at
a young age with a pledge every day and then when you grow up you attend sporti
ng events and stand for the national anthem and tear up at how free you are. Tha
t way nobody will ever question whether or not this is actually a free country.
permalinkparent
[ ]dontbullshityourself 10 points 5 hours ago
When I was a kid I started to sit during the pledge. Honestly I think I just wan
ted to test and see how free I was. I knew that saying the pledge etc wasn't in
the school handbook. I knew there was no rule saying I had to say it or stand or
anything. The powers that be at my school just used the herd instinct to keep t
his shit going.
So I started sitting down. This resulted in a lot of attention from gangs of bul
lies. My home room teacher didn't like it either and lectured/bitched about it e
very day. But she stopped short of anything more than shaming me unlike the bull
ies.
Anyway I just decided to drop out. Fuck it. Humans don't like new things that co
nfuse them and challenge them to think. How interesting that was to be the last
thing I learned in school. I found another kind of freedom. The freedom to leave
the assholes mired in their stupidity and find my own path in life.
permalinkparent
[ ]joshyfitzo90 4 points 5 hours ago
I like your style.
permalinkparent

[ ]Jack41096 3 points 4 hours ago


I applaud you. I stood but that's all I did. it was in our rulebook to stand but
fuck them if they thought I was gonna do more than that. I started a wave of pe
ople standing and doing nothing.
eventually my first period class was reduced to two people and the teacher actua
lly doing anything. they bitches about it but we all had our own reasons.
permalinkparent
[ ]dontbullshityourself 2 points 3 hours ago
eventually my first period class was reduced to two people and the teacher actua
lly doing anything. they bitches about it but we all had our own reasons.
There are lots of reasons to resist and only one reason to obey. Fear.
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]CriticalThink 3 points 5 hours ago
Government hasn't been interested in protecting our rights and freedoms in a lon
g time.
permalinkparent
[ ]jkeyser14 5 points 7 hours ago
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety
, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. - Benjamin Franklin
permalinkparent
[ ]dontbullshityourself 5 points 6 hours ago
We didn't give it up. They are taking it.
permalinkparent
[ ]jkeyser14 10 points 6 hours ago
Only because we aren't rioting. The first group of rioters to tar and feather a
politician again will bring about change very quickly.
permalinkparent
[ ]dontbullshityourself 4 points 5 hours ago
People are gonna have to get a lot more desperate. I reckon we'll get our riot s
oon enough.
permalinkparent
[ ]Jack41096 1 point 4 hours ago
take the food. that's the surefire way to cause a riot.
people will be content as long as they're fed. you take that away and suddenly t
hey have nothing to lose. they have to survive. that is the most primal response
we have. to fight tooth and nail for food. to eat no matter the cost.
permalinkparent
[ ]RamsNation 1 point 4 hours ago
America has a very stable food supply so I doubt that will happen.
permalinkparent
[ ]dontbullshityourself 1 point 3 hours ago
I don't think we have to take the food. I think that people today are a lot more
self entitled and will jump into a fit without their iphones. They can't even i
magine a world without abundant food.
permalinkparent
[ ]grungebucket 1 point 4 hours ago
bring about change very quickly. street executions very quickly.
there. Corrected that for you. After all. You wouldn't want to be mistaken for a
terrorist endorsing a terrorist act now, would you?
permalinkparent
[ ]pion3435 2 points 3 hours ago
You never had it. You're just now finding out.
permalinkparent
[ ]hershmire 7 points 7 hours ago
Ok, I get the FBI's argument. Technically, we are all choosing to carry a digita
l device around with us that uniquely identifies us via radio frequency. It's tr
ue that we could very well decide not to partake in the use of cell phones if we
're so worried about being tracked. And thus because we decide to carry these pa

rtially secure devices around with us, they FBI has every right to hack them and
track us.
But this argument is bogus. The FBI can't read our mail or tap our phones becaus
e legislators and judges at one time recognized that technology becomes indispen
sable, and therefore should be protected under privacy laws. Just because I choo
se to carry a cell phone around with me doesn't give the FBI to track my whereab
outs, or worse. That'd be like saying it's my fault for having my mail read by t
he FBI because I chose to write letters, or I chose to have my phones monitored
and recorded by the FBI because I chose to use telephones.
The FBI is part of the executive branch. They (supposedly) operate within the sc
ope of the law. If there's no specific law preventing their actions, they'll go
ahead and do it. So write your representatives and get shit like this regulated.
And use letters because they're obligated to at least open the envelope.
permalink
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]drakecherry 5 points 8 hours ago
we might as well get rid of warrants all together. they are gonna search if they
want to, and nothing will happen if they are wrong.
permalink
[ ]MeganNancySmith 6 points 6 hours ago
The FBI doesn't have the legal authority to make that determination.
It would be like if I said that murder is legal every other Sunday. I can say it
all I like, but it doesn't make it true.
permalink
[ ]Todda468 6 points 6 hours ago
Anything a private citizen can't do should require reasonable suspicion or a war
rent.
permalink
[ ]Sonotmethen 6 points 9 hours ago
Then signal jammers aren't either.
permalink
[ ]MrJDouble 4 points 9 hours ago
FBI tends to say a lot of things, doesn't mean it isn't a pile of horseshit.
permalink
[ ]blueiron0 4 points 6 hours ago
(3) cases in which the technology is used in public places or other locations at
which the FBI deems there is no reasonable expectation of privacy.
Love how the FBI gets to decide when it's ok for them to assume you shouldnt hav
e any expectation on privacy. "we saw a poop porn video on pornhub. you shouldnt
expect privacy when pooping then."
permalink
[ ]ragn4rok234 4 points 6 hours ago
Whoo! Now I don't need a warrant or sufficient reason to wire tap anyone and eve
ryone. Stalkers of the world rejoice! It's like Oprah is handing out privacy bre
aches in here
permalink
[ ]fourslaps 4 points 4 hours ago
This isn't what Steve Irwin would have wanted
permalink
[ ]knowyourbrain 7 points 8 hours ago
How sad is it that we have an R Senator trying to rein in a D president's FBI?
If Snowden et al have not been able to show the American people what a farce our
government is then I don't know how it can be demonstrated.
permalink
[ ]makingupdumbnames 1 point 5 hours ago
that's Chelsea to you, mister!
permalinkparent
[ ]StellarUsername 4 points 9 hours ago
Can someone ELI5 why my cell carrier lets this happen? Seems like it would be ea
sy enough for them to put a stop to it if they wanted.

permalink
[ ]giantgnat 13 points 8 hours ago
Because if you don't play nice with them, they don't play nice with you like wha
t happened to the CEO of quest after he refused to cooperate.
permalinkparent
[ ]lll_1_lll 6 points 6 hours ago
CEO of quest
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/09/30/a-ceo-who-resistednsa-spying-is-out-of-prison-and-he-feels-vindicated-by-snowden-leaks/
permalinkparent
[ ]WatchoutItsAllan 1 point 4 hours ago
Looks like the only way to be out of the eyes of the NSA is to go back to using
these http://imgur.com/JEFUt4h
permalinkparent
[ ]jkeyser14 4 points 7 hours ago
The cell and internet companies get paid millions by the government for direct a
ccess to their lines. This was one of the things Snowden blew the whistle on.
permalinkparent
[ ]MadPooter 2 points 7 hours ago
I believe that the technology behind our current cell phone towers needs to allo
w for widespread access to said cell phone towers from a wide array of technolog
ical devices.
The Stingray makes the cell phone tower believe that it's a cell phone--I don't
know that it's as easy as you might think to re-design all cell phone models to
differentiate themselves from what Stingrays currently are.
TL;DR: This might be a better issue for cell phone designers to solve rather the
n cell phone carriers.
permalinkparent
[ ]egalroc 2 points 6 hours ago
Maybe design a Falcon drone that homes in and locks on fake Stingray towers. Wou
ldn't the FBI just shit to see a couple sparrows zooming down on them?
permalinkparent
[ ]A530[??] 1 point 6 hours ago
Cell carriers couldn't care less. They're also packaging backdoors in their base
band software to do all kinds of functional crap, like over the air updates and
remote access.
permalinkparent
[ ]here4DaBacon 3 points 7 hours ago
So it's a honey pot for cell phones. This same method is used to intercept WiFi
internet traffic. The world is becoming a hackers paradise.
permalink
[ ]CapAnson 4 points 6 hours ago
I don't even think of the FBI's exceptions two and three are valid. And as for i
mminent danger to public safety I can't imagine when that safety hinges on inter
cepting a cell call right now this very second without a warrant
permalink
[ ]SquidwardSnowden1 3 points 6 hours ago
Let it be noted, I love big brother.
permalink
[ ]ryanknapper 3 points 6 hours ago
There was a comment asking what prevents private citizens from doing this. My re
ply was: Absolutely nothing. In fact, there are legal ways of doing exactly this
.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xKihq1fClQg
permalink
[ ]lll_1_lll 2 points 6 hours ago
inb4 this thread gets removed by the mods and/or shadowbanned
permalink
[ ]doctorshady[S] 3 points 6 hours ago
I was almost sure it was going to be removed when I submitted it.

permalinkparent
[ ]grtwatkins 1 point 3 hours ago
Wait, so mods = FBI?
permalinkparent
[ ]doctorshady[S] 2 points 2 hours ago
The mods here are quite restrictive about what is allowed to be submitted. Wheth
er or not they're under someone's influence is a question I can't answer (though
I'd honestly like to know), but you'll occasionally see high profile topics rem
oved, like the Snowden leaks back when PRISM was first pointed out.
permalinkparent
[ ]tomcat23 3 points 6 hours ago
If I had a hundred dollars for every time the FBI said it could do something une
thical or unconstitutional I'd be shooting rockets into space like Elon Musk rig
ht now.
permalink
[ ]leafygreenstuff 3 points 6 hours ago
Oh, well if they said....
permalink
[ ]wlxr 3 points 5 hours ago
Is this implying that they are going to repeatedly kill Steve Irwin?
permalink
[ ]Bulldog65 3 points 2 hours ago
Can I Use my Stingray in public places to intercept communications ?
If the answer is no, then the FBI needs a warrant.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effec
ts, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Wa
rrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, a
nd particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things t
o be seized.
This can only be changed by super majority votes in Congress and the States, not
treasonous opinions of mouthpiece lawyers in Department of Justice. This is why
prosecutions of torture memo writers is important. If they want to try and make
up laws they need to be held accountable under the law.
permalink
[ ]Do_Em_Till_They_Derp 13 points 12 hours ago
I don't think that is a good idea considering what happened to Steve Irwin.
permalink
[ ]Smgth 1 point 4 hours ago
I can't believe how far down I had to scroll to find this joke. I was worried I'
d have to make it myself. This thread is WAY too serious for my taste...
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]go1dfish 10 points 10 hours ago
This is what happens when you give a group of people authority over all else.
They use that authority to extort funds from you to pay for your own oppression.
But reddit still cheers it on. It seems to some; the concepts of roads or compas
sion cannot exist without specially anointed jack boot thugs.
permalink
[ ]Arael15th 3 points 6 hours ago
Do you see anyone in this post cheering this on? Moreover is this your first tim
e here?
permalinkparent
[ ]Flight_MH370 2 points 9 hours ago
Can the cell providers see every time this happens? If so, they could alert peop
le of fake towers or something. Alas, I'm pretty sure all the cell providers are
in bed with the feds already anyway.
permalink
[ ]leftnotracks 1 point 8 hours ago
This is why it s a good thing the FBI are not the people in charge of what is lega
l.

permalink
[ ]iluvmilfs420 3 points 7 hours ago
Ohh cool more of my taxes wasted on stupid shit...
permalink
[ ]fuzzycuffs 3 points 7 hours ago
Then I can do the same thing with wifi and not be charged with hacking, right?
permalink
[ ]endprism 2 points 7 hours ago
Use of Stringray in America: https://www.aclu.org/maps/stingray-tracking-devices
-whos-got-them
http://rt.com/usa/215735-sandiego-police-phone-tracking/
http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/First-Amendment-Coalition-Files-Lawsuit-Ab
out-Stingray-Surveillance--286092741.html
http://www.miaminewtimes.com/2012-02-16/news/cell-phone-tracking-miami-cops-know
-where-you-are/
http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/Fort-Worth-Cellphone-Tracking-Rings-Controversy
-140796693.html
http://www.wgrz.com/story/news/investigations/2014/02/13/are-local-police-spying
-on-your-cell-phone/5462273/
Tick tock...
permalink
[ ]johnnybiggs15 2 points 7 hours ago
didnt know they had that type of power
permalink
[ ]jwyche008 2 points 6 hours ago
They would fucking say that wouldn't they? The thing is it isn't supposed to be
their damn decision to make!
permalink
[ ]ICEClownfishWok 1 point 6 hours ago
Did the US government learn nothing from Nazi Germany? I honestly won't be surpr
ised if WWIII occurs when the rest of the world gets tired of our governments bu
llshit
permalink
[ ]frankenstilskin 3 points 6 hours ago
America, for the corporations by the corporations
permalink
[ ]Elephant_rhino_tiger 3 points 5 hours ago
It sounds like a 6 year old coming up with a superhero. "This is FBI man, and he
can fly and like punch through the earth, and he can y'know like intercept cell
traffic if he thinks it's important. But he is weak against himself though, so
like if he punched himself he would die."
permalink
[ ]Banana_blanket 2 points 4 hours ago
Hey who wants to just sit around and let it happen? Oh, everyone? Perfect. Ready
? Go.
permalink
[ ]poopinbutt2014 3 points 4 hours ago
Ah yes, the cops deciding what laws they are and aren't subject to.
permalink
[ ]burnerthrown 2 points 2 hours ago
Has anyone else notied a pattern of more and more laws that protect enforcement
operations from civilians, and fewer nd fewer laws protecting civilians from enf
orcement?
permalink
[ ]siquisiudices 2 points 2 hours ago
Increasingly I am astonished by the state of democracy in the developed western
countries. What has happened and how? I realise that there have always been infr
ingements of liberties by the state - always. But it seems to me that what has c
hanged is the blatent nature of the compromise of democratic norms. I'm not a hi
storian but my impression is that the origins of our current situation lie in tw

o iconic regimes in the UK and US - Reagan and Thatcher (and those that followed
) - and in the fall of the soviet regimes.
The economic philosophy that Reagan and Thatcher promoted reduced liberty to pro
perty rights while at the same time it condemned (rightly) the soviet regimes fo
r their lack of respect for democratic norms. The appeal of this economic ideolo
gy to capital, to the corporations, was obvious especially as during the 1970s t
here had been intermittent but recurring periods when profitability had fallen.
In the context of declining profitability, a roll back of the state and public e
xpenditure was a quick win.
For the rest of society, the implication that growth in personal, individual wea
lth was being held back by public spending and that the welfare state eroded ind
ividual responsibility also won the day. A key element in this process was the d
efeat and denigration of trade unionism: Thatcher going so far as to suggest tha
t trade unions (in the person of the National Union of Miners) were dangerous tr
aitors. People bought into the arguments for radical individualism ("there is no
such thing as society") because, in part, the concrete experience of collectivi
sm in trade unions declined in the face a massive anti-trade union assault.
The fall of the corrupt and totalitarian soviet regimes underpinned this all by
giving concrete expression to the notion that there is no alternative.
Economically the result has been massive widening of the discrepancy in wealth i
n many western countries and increased immiseration of labour across the world a
nd no force to counterbalance the power of the corporations and the state that t
hey (quite naturally) control. The state is the central committee of capital.
In all of this, the oft misnamed "libertarian" tendencies were accompanied by an
increasingly authoritarian and intrusive state apparatus which was promoted and
defended around quite classical nationalist ideas but recast often as the defen
se of western democracy against various external enemies.
And so, little by little, we have allowed our civil liberties to be chipped away
. Even the radical libertarians have been sidelined and fooled into irrelevant s
truggles around gun control in the US. Really, if an armed citizenry were the gu
arantee of liberty then one wold have hoped it would have done a better job. But
overall anti-welfare, anti-European and anti-immigrant rhetoric in the UK and,
for example, religious manipulation of public discourse in the US have allowed t
he authoritarian, pro-corporate state to gradually encroach on political and per
sonal freedoms. And here we are.
We can't say we didn't know - we were warned but the ruling class managed to def
ame the messengers and in other ways render us impotent.
One can only hope that we wake up in time and that our new disdain for collectiv
ism is overcome by the necessity of taking collective action.
permalink
[ ]DinglebellRock [score hidden] 49 minutes ago
You have a right to privacy according to the Constitution. Except for maybe your
cell phone calls. Or email. Or handwritten or typed letters. Or what you read f
rom the library and Amazon. Or maybe your colon and lower intestine if you are i
n New Mexico. What a fucked up nation this has become...
permalink
[ ]nstalker91 [score hidden] 38 minutes ago
Oh sure, when they do it, it's "protecting" and "morally right", but when I do i
t, it's a "federal crime" and "the FCC watches me"
permalink
[ ]The_Media_Collector 3 points 9 hours ago
This is why my phone has an app to continually report IMSI changes to me. I swit
ch one tower to another, I get a warning.
permalink
[ ]Redd575 1 point 7 hours ago
How is that helpful? Not being an ass, just curious. Seems if a Stingray can spo
of a tower then the app does little unless you are standing absolutely still.
permalinkparent
[ ]The_Media_Collector 3 points 7 hours ago
it's my understanding that Stingray "towers" do not encrypt traffic. anytime I a

m connected to an unencrypted "tower" the IMSI detector goes red and lets me kno
w.
permalinkparent
[ ]Redd575 1 point 6 hours ago
Wow. Whomever figured that out was clever.
permalinkparent
[ ]ExReverie93 1 point 7 hours ago
Which app? And would a normal person (not meaning you're not normal. You know wh
at I mean.) be able to use it?
permalinkparent
[ ]The_Media_Collector 1 point 7 hours ago
Requires Root. It's just caeld "Adnroid IMSI-Catchter"
permalinkparent
[ ]egalroc 1 point 6 hours ago
Makes a person want to be a criminal or spy just for the fun of it.
permalinkparent
[ ]Effo 3 points 7 hours ago
Goodbye America the Great, hello police state. :-[
permalink
[ ]Casemods 2 points 7 hours ago
Another reason why I don't have a cell phone.
permalink
[ ]GiveMe_TreeFiddy 3 points 7 hours ago
Things libertarians have been screaming about and offering solutions to for 500$
, Alex...
permalink
[ ]ilovesellinblow 1 point 9 hours ago
police and marshals have been running these for years.
permalink
[ ]bbelt16ag 1 point 8 hours ago
so FBI lets see what the Supreme court has to say to that. I am sure once they r
ule on this you will be going home with your tails between your legs.
permalink
[ ]Banana_blanket 1 point 4 hours ago
Do you people really have that much faith in our Supreme Court? Really?
permalinkparent
[ ]bbelt16ag 1 point 3 hours ago
gotta have some faith, other wise its just anarchy, or revolution. I am not read
y to give up quite yet.
permalinkparent
[ ]bonyponyride 1 point 8 hours ago
If digital communication in a public (and private) space is fair game, there's n
othing to stop an FBI tech specialist from stealing things like knowledge that w
ould be considered insider trading. There's an extreme potential for abuse.
permalink
[ ]jkeyser14 2 points 7 hours ago
If was fair game then hacking into wireless signals by private citizens wouldn't
be illegal.
permalinkparent
[ ]egalroc 1 point 6 hours ago
Just waiting for Anonymous to set up shop in a public park and hack into police
communications then dispatch them to bogus locations throughout the city. If any
thing goes wrong, they could always blame North Korea.
permalinkparent
[ ]coalbeeashi 1 point 3 hours ago
Aren't government agencies encrypting their digital communication - thus exhibit
ing an expectation of privacy?
I'm not sure what steps the "reasonable person" is taking to exhibit an expectat
ion of privacy over their data, tbh.
permalinkparent

[ ]hmmwhatsthisdo 1 point 8 hours ago


If you used RedPhone, Whisperpush/TextSecure, and a VPN, this wouldn't be of con
cern to you, right?
permalink
[ ]LucifersCounselNZ 1 point 7 hours ago
Wrong.
In other cases, the IMSI or equivalent identifier of a target is not known to th
e StingRay operator and the goal of the surveillance operation is to identify on
e or more cellular devices being used in a known area.[16] For example, if visua
l surveillance is being conducted on a group of protestors,[17] a StingRay can b
e used to download the IMSI or equivalent identifier from each phone within the
protest area. After identifying the phones, locating and tracking operations can
be conducted, and service providers can be forced to turn over account informat
ion identifying the phone users.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stingray_phone_tracker#Extracting_Data_From_Interna
l_Storage
Before any of that shit you're talking about comes into play, the IMSI number is
used when establishing the connection. It is uniquely identifying. With your IM
SI number and a court order (or cooperative telco) they will know who you are an
d who you were communicating with.
Then they can use that information to punish you for participating in legal prot
ests, associating with the wrong people, or simply because some Fed didn't like
the look of you.
permalinkparent
[ ]hmmwhatsthisdo 1 point 6 hours ago
So, the only way is to modify your IMEI (which is questionably legal) and use a
prepaid SIM?
permalinkparent
[ ]facepalmdude 1 point 5 hours ago
The IMSI part makes sense, but by using the mentioned tools authorities are very
unlikely to find out who you communicated with, or what the content was. All th
ey know is that you're the end point of an encrypted data connection.
permalinkparent
[ ]coalbeeashi 1 point 3 hours ago
I would assume that a court would view this as an individual exhibiting an expec
tation of privacy over their data.
permalinkparent
[ ]mambotangohandala 1 point 7 hours ago
Law?
We don't need no stinkin' law...
permalink
[ ]smilesbot 1 point 7 hours ago
You've just used a double negative! :P
permalinkparent
[ ]mambotangohandala 1 point 7 hours ago
no i did not, never would i do such a thing, nope, i don't think i ever did...
Ever see the movie 'blazing saddles'? Context kid, context
permalinkparent
[ ]smilesbot 1 point 7 hours ago
yup yup yup!
permalinkparent
[ ]mambotangohandala 1 point 7 hours ago
oh no a triple positive,what a stupendous faux pas!
permalinkparent
[ ]smilesbot 1 point 7 hours ago
yup yup yup!
permalinkparent
[ ]mambotangohandala 1 point 7 hours ago
Did mom give you too many sodas tonight?
permalinkparent

[ ]mambotangohandala 1 point 7 hours ago


Now where are those kiddy downers?
permalinkparent
[ ]mambotangohandala 1 point 7 hours ago
Remember tomorrow is a school day
permalinkparent
[ ]BigTex8900 1 point 7 hours ago
The Federal Bureau of Investigation is taking the position that court warrants a
re not required when deploying cell-site simulators in public places.
Wait so can I take the position that it's not actually illegal to suck dick for
money in public places?
permalink
[ ]AssOrca 1 point 6 hours ago
Well thank god there not doing it in my home!
permalinkparent
[ ]Drunken_Economist 1 point 7 hours ago
The FCC says they are needed, FWIW
permalink
[ ]FadingEchoes11 0 points 6 hours ago
100% true, power to the people
You should learn about and try to understand firearms more, they are just tools
after all.
permalink
[ ]winstrol 1 point 6 hours ago
Can i use a stingray? Al stick to my snoopsnitch.
permalink
[ ]fatscat84 2 points 6 hours ago
Big fucking surprise, 4th amendment=toilet paper anymore. The rights of the citi
zens arent even considered anymore since we dont have lobbyists. Maybe ill start
a kickstarter campaign to make a lobbyist group to give americans a voice in d.
c.
permalink
[ ]urbn 2 points 6 hours ago
The Obama Administration has repeatedly maintained that the public has no privac
y in public places.
And yet the excuse always used when someone records a police officer breaking th
e law and is arrested, detained and has his property stolen is that it violates
their privacy.
permalink
[ ]Vigilias 1 point 6 hours ago
If it's stealing signals being send from private residences it sure should fucki
ng be wtf.
permalink
[ ]2013palmtreepam 1 point 6 hours ago
Because stingrays automatically stop working at private property lines? Don't re
call the part of the 4th Amendment that exempts the requirement for probable cau
se and a search warrant when one happens to be in a public place.
permalink
[ ]makingupdumbnames 2 points 6 hours ago
I don't think it would be too hard to develop a stingray jammer, something that
just floods their equipment with a bunch of useless/fake cell phone numbers...I'
m in favor of a more strategic response to these types of infringements of our r
ights. We actually have a right and responsibility to fight tyranny...
permalink
[ ]ghotiaroma 1 point 3 hours ago
It's possible, but you wouldn't know where and when to use it. And it would be d
etectable you are using a jammer and anyone using one would find themselves fill
ed with SWAT bullets in no time.
permalinkparent
[ ]ononewheel 1 point 2 hours ago

Cant you rent bot net time and do this?


permalinkparent
[ ]psilontech 1 point 5 hours ago
I think that's for the courts to decide, FBI.
permalink
[ ]coalbeeashi 1 point 4 hours ago
...the only way the courts could decide is if it were practiced and a lawsuit wa
s brought against those practices.
Of course the FBI is going to finagle ways to flirt with obscure, outdated laws
for the purpose of investigating, thus practice it. Of course some group or orga
nization is going to take issue with it, thus taking it to court.
permalinkparent
[ ]cynoclast 2 points 5 hours ago
And the 4th Amendment says the FBI is wrong. And to the idea that subsequent law
s or that prededence says otherwise, I say that lawyers who make those interpret
ations were paid to do so by people with a vested interest in saying otherwise.
The constitution and amendments were intended to be read and interpreted by ever
yone, not just lawyers and judges so it matters not at all what lawyers and judg
es say.
permalink
[ ]coalbeeashi 1 point 5 hours ago
The constitution and amendments were intended to be read and interpreted by ever
yone
Uhh...interpreted by everyone? Do you know how fucked up that would be? There's
a reason for the judicial branch.
permalinkparent
[ ]cynoclast 2 points 4 hours ago
More fucked up than corporations as people? The 4th Amendment being ignored by t
he DHS, Homeland Security, and the NSA? More fucked up than than all the ridicul
ous, unconstitutional restrictions on cosmetic features of firearms that all vio
late the 2nd amendment? More fucked up than justices appointed by war criminals
refusing to recuse themselves where they have a clear conflict of interest?
The judicial branch is staffed by people, just as fallible as the rest of us. Th
e judicial branch was nly ever an attempt to reign in the other two. It was alwa
ys intended that it was the right of the people to alter or abolish the governme
nt if it gets out of hand and it has.
permalinkparent
[ ]coalbeeashi 1 point 4 hours ago
I would still rather have the fate of laws be in the hands of individuals who sp
ecifically studied the very nature of their professional practice than leave it
up to a mass of people with little-to-no understanding of the law, outside of wh
at is force-fed to them by media (comparable to your assertion of less-than-idea
l practices by lawyer/judges)
I fully agree that laws should be written in ways that the public can understand
and interpret (however, you're never going to reach a consensus on laws written
200+ years ago). And I believe that, reading most supreme court decisions, the
justices advocate for specifics in laws and understand that outdated or vague la
ws is a main reason cases are brought before them. Laws aren't concrete or stati
c. It's a court of public opinion.
permalinkparent
[ ]cynoclast 1 point 4 hours ago
I would still rather have the fate of laws be in the hands of individuals who sp
ecifically studied the very nature of their professional practice than leave it
up to a mass of people with little-to-no understanding of the law, outside of wh
at is force-fed to them by media (comparable to your assertion of less-than-idea
l practices by lawyer/judges)
I think there's balance between the two. It's similar to the balance between IT
and the user. While the IT guy is more knowledgeable about the field than most o
f the users he's supposed to facilitate, he often forgets that his purpose is to
facilitate, not to rule, and what the users are doing is what keeps the lights

on. People in congress and the senate are mislabelled when called 'lawmakers' th
eir job is representative of their constituency. And lawyers face a conflict of
interest between simplifying the law and representing people fairly and seeing a
fter their own welfare and ensuring their own job security. Simple, clear, and u
nambiguous laws have little value to the professional attorney at law. But the p
eople at large have no interest, and in fact a reason to despise laws they don't
understand, especially ones decided by decades old case law they know nothing a
bout. But for too long the balance has been swinging in favor of the lawyer seek
ing payment for services from the rich instead of the poor seeking freedom from
those with the resources to hire teams of lawyers for years to drain them of res
ources. The day a rich man could sue an innocent poor man under false pretenses
and crush him is the day the justice department ceased to function as intended.
I fully agree that laws should be written in ways that the public can understand
and interpret (however, you're never going to reach a consensus on laws written
200+ years ago). And I believe that, reading most supreme court decisions, the
justices advocate for specifics in laws and understand that outdated or vague la
ws is a main reason cases are brought before them. Laws aren't concrete or stati
c. It's a court of public opinion.
Lawyers like to pretend that they are concrete or static. Just imagine the phras
e "settled case law" coming out of their mouths and you need go no further. It's
like they forget that eventually given the dynamic equilibrium of the poor vs.
the rich that sometimes words written on paper in a dusty library somewhere mean
absolutely nothing when the pitchforks and guillotines come out, the old laws t
hrown out, and new ones written even more strongly against tyrants. You're right
, sometimes, it's a court of public opinion. But sometimes the court is brutal,
but not unjustly so:
There were two Reigns of Terror, if we would but remember it and consider it; the
one wrought murder in hot passion, the other in heartless cold blood; the one la
sted mere months, the other had lasted a thousand years; the one inflicted death
upon ten thousand persons, the other upon a hundred millions; but our shudders
are all for the horrors of the minor Terror, the momentary Terror, so to speak; wh
ereas, what is the horror of swift death by the axe, compared with lifelong deat
h from hunger, cold, insult, cruelty, and heart-break? What is swift death by li
ghtning compared with death by slow fire at the stake? A city cemetery could con
tain the coffins filled by that brief Terror which we have all been so diligentl
y taught to shiver at and mourn over; but all France could hardly contain the co
ffins filled by that older and real Terror that unspeakably bitter and awful Terro
r which none of us has been taught to see in its vastness or pity as it deserves
.
permalinkparent
[ ]DongleNocker 2 points 5 hours ago
Don't you wish government organizations would get permission from congress prior
to assuming they have the authority?
permalink
[ ]Euracil 1 point 5 hours ago
Whoops! Someone just happened to spill wine all over the Bill of Rights! Well, a
t least the Second Amendment survived!
permalink
[ ]ripvannwinkler 1 point 5 hours ago
What is the practical operational radius of one of these things?
If my place of business or residence falls in this radius of an operating device
, is my phone subject to interception by the device?
If so, you require a warrant. Period. No equivocation.
permalink
[ ]bittopia 1 point 5 hours ago
What is going to be interesting is when systems and encryptions becomes so resil
ient and powerful that nothing can be spied on AT ALL. What will they do then?
permalink
[ ]johnnybullet 1 point 5 hours ago
I thought only God was listening to me... This changes everything!

permalink
[ ]TronicTonic 2 points 5 hours ago
Thank god the FBI is in charge of the judicial branch and gets to decide what is
right vs wrong.
permalink
[ ]Vinven 1 point 5 hours ago
They can say whatever they want, it doesn't make it legal.
permalink
[ ]coffeethulhu 2 points 5 hours ago
Under this theory anybody could buy one of these devices and use it in "public s
paces" without fear of falling foul of the law....Who wants to start a kickstart
er campaign to buy one?
permalink
[ ]redditezmode 1 point 5 hours ago
Based on what, exactly? Why would they think search warrants aren't necessary?
permalink
[ ]Fucksfuturefatchicks 1 point 4 hours ago
If it stops me from downloading porn, it's a dead giveaway. If it doesn't, thank
s for the government funded and sanctioned porn.
permalink
[ ]egalroc 1 point 4 hours ago
I wonder if the FBI can upload unsanctioned porn to your computer using a stingr
ay? Interesting thought isn't it?
permalinkparent
[ ]winsomecowboy 1 point 4 hours ago
So my clandestine FBI staff list shouldn't be an issue.
permalink
[ ]Heisenpurrrrg 1 point 4 hours ago
Those guys can fuck right off, eh?
permalink
[ ]cerealcable 1 point 4 hours ago
Every time an invasion of our rights & privacy especially related to our establi
shed forms of communications happens it just terrifies me. Not because our gover
nment is throwing wind to established laws but because of what the future could
bring.
The reason why most of us are upset today over this is because we have an expect
ation of privacy when we pick up our cell phones. We expect our text messages, p
hone calls and data to be private thus protected by law requiring a warrant to "
tap" it only for Law Enforcement. Telecoms (wired, wireless, voip) will only com
ply to requests when required by law, but when it comes to the public air waves
using technology to just listen in we're starting a terrible precedent.
Essentially what I'm concerned about is that eventually it'll be so commonly acc
epted that these communications are not private (after all the government can sn
oop in on those conversations, and everyone already expects it) and thus we no l
onger have the expectation of privacy and thus no warrant is actually acquired.
The terrifying process is how it all started, with the government over stepping
their legal abilities with little to no repercussions.
Now that I'm reading that paragraph again, I honestly wouldn't be surprised if t
hat exact argument is/was/will be used in a secret court of which none of us wil
l be able to hold accountable.
It's scary to see what the future will hold for privacy related to technology. O
ur government is doing anything and everything they want and if people aren't sc
ared they need to get some tinfoil and make some hats because they're going to n
eed them.
Obligatory point: As the government snoops more and more, technology will just e
ncrypt more and more making it nearly pointless for the snooping, but it won't c
hange the expectation of privacy after say a decade of common knowledge that the
se communications are not private. Then Law Enforcement Agencies will just subpo
ena records instead of following due process of getting a warrant.
tl;dr It's a very slippery slope and I'm just watching us slowly sliding further

and further into the trap. :-(


permalink
[ ]coalbeeashi 1 point 4 hours ago
Honest question - in the eyes of laws, is our view on "expectation of privacy" i
gnorant or misguided? When I send a text - even though I don't think about it I gave permission to Apple, AT&T, my friend, their carrier, their phone, and pro
bably countless others that I don't even realize. When I download an app I give
them all sorts of permissions to access my information.
Also, what's stopping the government from creating an app, let's say some crazed
game like Trivia Crack, hide a bunch of permissions that no one looks at and do
it that way. They could have access to my photos, access to my microphone, acce
ss to my location, etc. (obviously I understand that you can retract most of tho
se permissions, but I doubt many people do)
So, I guess my question is, using multiple third parties, do I really have the r
ight to expect complete privacy?
permalinkparent
[ ]Rockerofboats 2 points 4 hours ago
I do what I wants to.
permalink
[ ]Gymshortsboner55 2 points 4 hours ago
I'm not trying to sound like the uncle that's always bitchin' at family reunions
but man is this country going down the shitter. I'm almost ashamed to live here
anymore.
permalink
[ ]kazuri85 2 points 4 hours ago
The government has no right to make your property do something you do not want i
t to do.
permalink
[ ]SpacemanLurker 2 points 3 hours ago
Crikey! Australian accent
Too soon?
permalink
[ ]Undisclosed-dopeness 1 point 3 hours ago
Really wish this was about actual stingrays
permalink
[ ]k-h 1 point 3 hours ago
Is that the "stingrays" that don't exist?
Of course they don't need a warrant on equipment that doesn't exist.
permalink
[ ]PhorTwenny 2 points 3 hours ago
if it picks up all cells text/call/info how do they know your not inside a house
or anyother private area? Either way this is disgusting!
permalink
[ ]MarxIzalias 2 points 3 hours ago
The more of these that get posted, the harder I laugh at America's freedoms.
You pretty much have the same as everybody else.
It seems as though the constitution is like bog roll to your law enforcement. Co
vered in meaningless shit that doesn't even stick to them.
What a joke.
The FBI stating that 'stingrays' don't apply to privacy laws because you're in a
public place makes no sense, otherwise you could walk around butt naked and arg
ue that "According to the FBI, personal privacy is not required in public".
Of course, they could say, what any deceitful peice of trash could say. "If you
weren't doing anything illegal then you have nothing to worry about."
Unless you were talking to you solicitor about a patent. In which case it would
be worthless the moment a third party heard about the invention.
Talking to your doctor about a condition that could prejudice a group against yo
u.
Talking to a solicitor about the details of a case.
Talking to fellow jurors over the phone about a details of a case, that's always

good to be spied on.


Talk about family history and possible ties you might have to foreign nations, w
hich could put you on a watch list.
Give personal details to bankers about foreign business accounts which have diff
erent protection laws.
Discuss plans you may have that they could interfere with.
Or just miscellaneous emails to and from your employer that could be damaging to
the companies reputation if published and could be used against them as leverag
e with a false flag operation LOOKING AT YOU SONY!
This isn't even a comprehensive list of things that you could do, but hey, it's
America, the land where freedom is a lie and the constitution is apparently wort
h less and less with each new government. XFD
permalink
[ ]NightOfTheLivingHam 1 point 3 hours ago
while we're declaring bullshit, I declare I'm owed a million dollars.
permalink
[ ]ZedOud 1 point 3 hours ago
Most warrant-less law enforcement surveillance techniques are legal because they
can be performed by members of the public, in public. (ex. tailing)
So can we also legally operate a stingray?
Yes we can!
permalink
[ ]Wulfgar_RIP 1 point 3 hours ago
FBI protecting freedoms and constitution from terrorists
permalink
[ ]CantHugEveryCat 2 points 3 hours ago
I'm surprised the FBI still feel they have to justify their actions.
permalink
[ ]bazingabrain 0 points 3 hours ago
Here I am thinking the FBI is going to be throwing real stingrays around without
a search warrant. Can't have that
permalink
[ ]tobsn 1 point 3 hours ago
and whoever said that should be immediately terminated.
permalink
[ ]joshladd 1 point 3 hours ago
Didn't the supreme court just say that searching cell phones requires a warrant?
Is this different than searching cell phones? I might be uninformed but it seem
s like a blatant disregard for court rulings.
permalink
[ ]birdington1 1 point 3 hours ago
Can anybody explain what a 'stingray' is?
permalink
[ ]one_love_silvia 1 point 2 hours ago
the article explains it in literally the first paragraph.
permalinkparent
[ ]IllegalOperator 0 points 2 hours ago
Yeah right, dropping the case rather than reveal their methods says otherwise. I
f there weren't doing anything wrong they would have nothing to hide.
permalink
[ ]HauntedBeepers 1 point 2 hours ago
FBI says FBI can do what it wants
permalink
[ ]Fig1024 1 point 2 hours ago
does that mean I, as private citizen, can also use them? After all, there are no
laws against it
permalink
[ ]Monkeibusiness 1 point 2 hours ago
"FBI - out if control since 2001" -Simpsons
permalink

[ ]skztr 1 point 2 hours ago


good test for whether or not you need a warrant:
If any random person off the street did it, would that be legal? If not, you nee
d a fucking warrant.
permalink
[ ]Rusky82 1 point 2 hours ago
Land of the free eh......
permalink
[ ]WECGEWHYAAIORTNU 1 point 2 hours ago
So in some states its "wiretapping" to record with a microphone a conversation b
etween two people happening at a table, but pretending to be a cell tower is a-o
k?
permalink
[ ]Amanoo 1 point 2 hours ago
"concerned about whether the FBI and other law enforcement agencies have adequat
ely considered the privacy interests" of Americans
Privacy interests of Americans? Is that supposed to still be a thing? I thought
that privacy interests were considered something for terrorists in the US, by no
w.
permalink
[ ]raviddadford 1 point 2 hours ago
Stingray got Steve Irwin
permalink
[ ]Homarus_Americanus 1 point 2 hours ago
It's all good 'cause I can by me all guns I want.
permalink
[ ]anshu1234 0 points 2 hours ago
This is non-news if you are not a drug-peddler. Next please.
permalink
[ ]bubbafat1155 1 point 2 hours ago
It's over. "They" have won. The only hope now is for individuals, society is los
t. Get off the grid, or join the sheep. http://imgur.com/W7CdURh
permalink
[ ]Targun 1 point 2 hours ago
And how are they going to filter out cellphones of all the people who live next
to public places where stingray is located?
permalink
[ ]riderer 1 point 2 hours ago
So can i do the same in public place? just stingray everyone?
permalink
[ ]Neker 1 point 1 hour ago
There are blueprints and tutorials out there that put "stingrays" within reach o
f an hobbyist. Law-breaking hobbyist, that is, but still : mobile phones essenti
aly broadcast your conversations.
permalink
[ ]mindwandering 1 point 1 hour ago
The flying DRT box.
permalink
[ ]SilenceGivesConsent [score hidden] 48 minutes ago
In other words, FBI says it does not need search warrants to warrant a search.
permalink
[ ]Formally_Nightman [score hidden] 46 minutes ago
FBI: "Senator we have been monitoring your calls and your exact geographical loc
ation for years ... You shouldn't find that unconstitutional or the public and y
our wife will learn how unconstitutional you've been"
permalink
[ ]ActuallyNotSparticus [score hidden] 40 minutes ago
Fuck this shit. Stingrays killed the crocodile hunter. Are we ready for the gove
rnment to use these stingrays?
permalink

[ ]Rayhueston [score hidden] 38 minutes ago


The article says the Obama administration consistently maintains that people hav
e no privacy in public. Is that true or is that hyperbole?
If I'm walking down the street, do I have the right to keep the contents of my w
allet private? My blood type? My thoughts?
If I have no privacy with regard to these and many other sensitive things, who d
oes have the right to them?
permalink
[ ]swollennode [score hidden] 37 minutes ago
People don't have privacy in public places..hmmm, I think that people are entitl
ed to privacy if something private belongs to them. Sure, people's faces aren't
private when they're in public places. But people's phone calls and texts should
be.
permalink
[ ]pomod [score hidden] 18 minutes ago
Well if the FBI says they are not needed...
Seriously, this should be a court decision not a cop one. Cops, even a fancy cop
s like the FBI, should not make the laws just enforce them.
permalink
[ ]CJ59 [score hidden] 18 minutes ago
In other news, the FBI says, "You know what, screw it. There are no more laws. W
e'll do whatever the hell we want. Not like you're going to do anything about it
."
permalink
[ ]gkiltz [score hidden] 15 minutes ago
Just because the FBI says it, that does not mean it's true!
I don't envy the poor schmuck who has to stan in front of the Supreme Court and
argue that!!
permalink
load more comments (48 replies)
about
blog
about
team
source code
advertise
jobs
help
wiki
FAQ
reddiquette
rules
contact us
tools
mobile
firefox extension
chrome extension
buttons
widget
<3
reddit gold
store
redditgifts
reddit AMA app
reddit.tv
radio reddit
Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy
. 2015 reddit inc. All rights reserved.
REDDIT and the ALIEN Logo are registered trademarks of reddit inc.

p jump to content
MY SUBREDDITS
FRONT-ALL-RANDOM | PHOTOSHOPBATTLES-HISTORY-GIFS-FOOD-PHILOSOPHY-TELEVISION-WORL
DNEWS-SHOWERTHOUGHTS-LIFEPROTIPS-ART-SPACE-NOTTHEONION-DOCUMENTARIES-NOSLEEP-GAM
ING-GADGETS-EARTHPORN-ASKREDDIT-FUNNY-MOVIES-DIY-FUTUROLOGY-FITNESS-BOOKS-LISTEN
TOTHIS-INTERNETISBEAUTIFUL-MUSIC-EXPLAINLIKEIMFIVE-UPLIFTINGNEWS-SPORTS-PICS-TOD
AYILEARNED-PERSONALFINANCE-DATAISBEAUTIFUL-IAMA-OLDSCHOOLCOOL-EUROPE-CREEPY-TWOX
CHROMOSOMES-AWW-NEWS-WRITINGPROMPTS-GETMOTIVATED-VIDEOS-TIFU-ASKSCIENCE-JOKES-MI
LDLYINTERESTING-SCIENCE
MORE
news newscommentsrelatedother discussions (15)
want to join? sign in or create an account in seconds|English
this post was submitted on 05 Jan 2015
3,152 points (95% upvoted)
shortlink:
remember mereset passwordlogin
news
unsubscribe4,562,294 readers
2,631 users here now
/r/inthenews
/r/worldnews
new submissions
new comments
Post analysis/opinion articles to /r/inthenews
Want to talk?
Chat with us on IRC
Follow @rslashnews on Twitter
See a post that violates the rules below? Had your post stuck in the spam filter
? Have a question about policy? Just want to give feedback? Send the mod team a
message.
Please post news items only, with the exception of meta posts about /r/news itse
lf. Self-posts aggregating news data and "independent reporting" each count as n
ews, but are not an excuse to editorialize.
Your post will likely be removed if it:
is not news (or a meta post).
is an opinion/analysis or advocacy piece.
primarily concerns politics.
has a title not taken from the article.
has a pay wall or steals content.
covers an already-submitted story.
violates reddit's site-wide rules, especially regarding personal info.
Your comment will likely be removed if it:
is racist, sexist, vitriolic, or overly crude.
is unnecessarily rude or provocative.
is a cheap and distracting joke or meme.
is responding to spam.
violates reddit's site-wide rules.
Extreme or repeat offenders will be banned.
Expanded Rules
If your post doesn't fit, consider finding an appropriate news article on that s
tory to submit instead, or submitting yours to lower moderation subreddits:
/r/inthenews - all news-related content
/r/AnythingGoesNews - unrestricted news
/r/truereddit - insightful articles
/r/self - any self-post
/r/misc, /r/redditdotcom - anything
or other news subreddits:
/r/worldnews - from outside the USA only
/r/SyrianCivilWar - about the conflict in Syria

/r/MidEastRegionalWar - on MidEast conflict /r/UpliftingNews - uplifting


/r/mediaquotes - the things they say
or subreddits for other topics:
/r/FoodForThought - discussion-worthy long form articles about interesting subje
cts
/r/politics - for shouting about politics
/r/moderatepolitics - less shouting
/r/politicaldiscussion - even less shouting
/r/geopolitics - intl. politics and geography
/r/entertainment - Justin Bieber updates, etc.
/r/europe - news from Europe
or check out the 200 most active subreddits, categorized by content and the full
list of subreddits by subscribers.
Recommendations:
/r/redactedcharts
/r/patriots
/r/personalfinance
/r/restorethefourth
reddit is fun for Android and its subreddit /r/redditisfun
submit analysis/opinion article
submit news article
submit something else
submit analysis/opinion article
a community for 6 years
message the moderators
moderators
douglasmacarthur
KyldeThe Janitor
AyeMatey
CandyManCan
Elderthedog
LuckyBdx4
NickWasHere09
ani625
pomosexuality
IKingJeremy
...and 1 more
3152
FBI says search warrants not needed to use stingrays in public places (arstechnica
.com)
submitted 13 hours ago by doctorshady
731 commentsshare
top 500 comments
sorted by: best
[ ]peaceshark 654 points 11 hours ago
If only there were some branch of government that would keep the FBI in check, o
ne that judged people and organizations supremely...
permalink
[ ]misogichan 641 points 8 hours ago
Unfortunately the Catholic church has its hands full dealing with its own intern
al reforms and recasting its vision and mission.
permalinkparent
[ ]wutshappening 93 points 7 hours ago
And looking at cat photos that's why they're Cat-holic. Alco-holics are addicted
to alcohol and catholics well you get the idea.
permalinkparent
[ ]TuffLuffJimmy 142 points 6 hours ago
Omg dad you're embarrassing me in front of my friends
permalinkparent
[ ]okmkz 27 points 4 hours ago

We ain't your friends, bruh


permalinkparent
[ ]Corruptionss 4 points 2 hours ago
We ain't your bruh, friends
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
load more comments (2 replies)
[ ]ROLLINGtemple 9 points 5 hours ago
What's their Dogma?
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
load more comments (9 replies)
[ ]hershmire 73 points 7 hours ago
The courts gave up about ten years ago.
permalinkparent
[ ]endprism 50 points 7 hours ago
The courts are pwned by the surveillance state.
permalinkparent
[ ]sushisection 41 points 6 hours ago
This is what I'm afraid of. Nsa is collecting data from all citizens including p
oliticians and supreme court judges.
permalinkparent
[ ]dutchguilder2 19 points 5 hours ago
Whistleblower confirms: http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=d6m1XbWOfVk
permalinkparent
[ ]TwitchTV_Subbort 1 point 3 hours ago
D.C. is Hollywood for ugly people. best line ever!!
permalinkparent
[ ]sklite 1 point 1 hour ago
Charles Augustus Magnussen approves
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]CriticalThink 1 point 6 hours ago
Skeletons in the closet are easy to find with intelligence infrastructure.
permalinkparent
[ ]HurricaneSandyHook 1 point 5 hours ago
The 10th circuit a few days ago sided with the government saying the cops use of
doppler radar to see if anyone was inside a house was legal. They did say it is
a troubling tactic that needs further review and just left it at that....
permalinkparent
[ ]-_--___-_--_--___--_ 27 points 6 hours ago
One major problem with judicial review is that there must be a case for the cour
t to review. I guess the other avenue would be to sue the government, but I'm no
t an attorney so I don't know how that would work.
permalinkparent
[ ]downvotesmakemehard 14 points 4 hours ago
I believe the current court has taken the stance that to take up a case someone
has to show they've been harmed in some way.
The police will never say that stingray is the source of the evidence. This woul
d open stingray to be scrutinized. They will use stingray to go after phone comp
any records which they will claim they requested on a hunch or some other bullsh
it excuse.
permalinkparent
[ ]great_gape [score hidden] 29 minutes ago
Anonymous tip.
permalinkparent
load more comments (2 replies)
[ ]dissonance07 8 points 6 hours ago
With is wide a latitude as the current SCOTUS seems to give to individual libert
y, this seems like the one kind of thing that they could actually usefully addre

ss, right?
permalinkparent
[ ]MrBojangles528 1 point 5 hours ago
Scalia and the rest of the SCOTUS is bought and sold just like the rest of our g
overnment. They answer first and foremost to the parties that nominated them as
well as the corporations that own them.
permalinkparent
[ ]psilontech 12 points 5 hours ago
See, I don't get that. You get into the Supreme Court and you're golden. Unless
you are actively breaking the law and can be impeached, you're untouchable. Why
not, you know, do what's best for your country instead of remaining beholden to
the parasites that leveraged you into that position?
permalinkparent
[ ]Ratbasher88 14 points 4 hours ago
Yep, Supreme Court justices have a well established history of turning out way d
ifferent than their supporters thought they'd be. For whatever reason this curre
nt batch of justices seems more comfortable with the security state than their p
redecessors, however that's true for most Americans in general so I suppose it s
houldn't be shocking.
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]MrBojangles528 2 points 4 hours ago
Good question, but you'd have to ask them about it.
permalinkparent
[ ]cynoclast 0 points 3 hours ago
Unless you are actively breaking the law and can be impeached, you're untouchabl
e.
But you can get richer. Or have your personal communications made public.
permalinkparent
[ ]tughdffvdlfhegl 1 point 3 hours ago
Honestly? Because they run in those social circles. They're friends with the peo
ple at the top. They don't actively associate with "regular folk" that much.
They've been ingratiated into the upper echelons of society long before ever rea
ching the supreme court through lifetimes spent at the forefront of the legal pr
ofession. This insulates them from others, and leaves them in an echo chamber of
their peers.
Now, when a case comes up that pits one of their friends, or friends' friends ag
ainst some random angry dude who's only making 50k a year, who do you think they
automatically side with, when the case isn't cut and dried? I'm not even saying
it's conscious, but prejudices come in all kinds and run deep. Tribalism happen
s all the time in subtle ways.
Plus there's Scalia taking paid for hunting trips with people who are directly a
ffected by cases in front of him, all of them getting invited to dinners and fun
ctions of the DC elite, etc.
permalinkparent
[ ]pion3435 1 point 3 hours ago
They do. It's possible to disagree with you without being corrupt.
permalinkparent
[ ]Jagoonder 1 point 2 hours ago
Not in an omnipotent surveillance state, however.
permalinkparent
[ ]DownFromYesBad 1 point 2 hours ago
Money, bribery.
permalinkparent
[ ]neotropic9 1 point 1 hour ago
Because they are selected to be the type of people who think whats "best for the
ir country" is serving the parasites, the corporate oligarchs, and the surveilla
nce state. They support the status quo, and the status quo supports them. It wou
ld be a miracle if someone with real principles was actually brought into the Su
preme Court, let alone enough of them to form a majority.

permalinkparent
[ ]isprobablyatwork 1 point 1 hour ago
This does happen, sometimes. Good examples would be Justices Warren and Stevens.
They played along with the GOP right up until they were put on the Court, then
immediately started voting their actual conscience (or if not their conscience,
then at least not as their political backers wanted).
permalinkparent
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[ ]cynoclast 2 points 3 hours ago
You mean the press?
permalinkparent
[ ]scrapinpeg 3 points 6 hours ago*
Obligatory link to illustrated law.
EDIT: fixed link
permalinkparent
[ ]ducttapejedi 3 points 6 hours ago*
error 404, check the link.
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[+][deleted] 13 hours ago (56 children)
[ ]sunbolts 701 points 12 hours ago
Glad to see the FBI is tearing up the constitution to increase their own powers
and authority. /s
permalink
[ ]dontbullshityourself 325 points 11 hours ago
Glad to see the FBI is tearing up the constitution to increase their own powers
and authority
I wish this was just the FBI. Pretty much everybody in the federal, state and lo
cals are doing this. Have been doing for this quite some time too.
permalinkparent
[ ]sunbolts 136 points 10 hours ago
Precisely, and that's what makes this very frightening. The whole club's in on i
t.
permalinkparent
[ ]radonthetyrant 75 points 7 hours ago
but why.. I realize that these "zomg the terrorists!!!11" is only a PR-lie. What
do they really accomplish with this? Industry espionage? Bribes from the indust
ries which create the espionage hardware? Feeling of total control? Control the
masses so it all stays as conservative and corrupt as possible?
Why would you amass such a criminal energy to break constitutional laws just to
be able to see through everyone's communication?
permalinkparent
[ ]BettyRubbleIsHot 151 points 7 hours ago
Total control.
That way when the state has it, they can really put the boot on our necks. Think
they treat us poorly now? Just wait until they have the infrastructure in place
where they feel confident there are absolutely zero threats to their power. Tha
t's when shit is going to get BAD.
permalinkparent
[ ]b-LE-z_it 106 points 6 hours ago
And that's why, despite being terrified of some gun owners, despite being terrif
ied of mass shootings, I don't think we should ban guns, even combat rifles. It
can happen here, and we should at least make it hurt if and when it happens.
permalinkparent
[ ]7V3N 47 points 6 hours ago
Welcome to the list.
permalinkparent

[ ]M00glemuffins 10 points 5 hours ago


Sign me up too. If they try to pull a fast one on the public I'm not standing fo
r their bullshit.
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]FadingEchoes11 26 points 6 hours ago
*rifle. No "combat" rifles are owned by citizens
permalinkparent
[ ]b-LE-z_it 39 points 6 hours ago
Did I mention I don't know anything about guns? I don't know anything about guns
.
Point is, force is not something only people in power should have.
permalinkparent
[ ]teefour 19 points 6 hours ago
You should go to a shooting range and take a class. You won't be so unnecessaril
y afraid of them after that.
permalinkparent
[ ]Pullo_T 27 points 6 hours ago
He's not afraid of guns. He's afraid of some gun owners. At least, as far as we
know.
permalinkparent
continue this thread
load more comments (3 replies)
[ ]Bootsncatsn4 5 points 5 hours ago
i understand where youre coming from, but what will a bunch of angry townsfolk d
o to a predator drone strike?
permalinkparent
[ ]Oeboues 18 points 4 hours ago
You should ask the angry townsfolk of Iraq and Afghanistan.
Once the US military is done slinking away in shame, I mean.
permalinkparent
continue this thread
[ ]nuesuh 1 point 1 hour ago
Remove them. Predator drones are being operated from the ground, and has to land
after a couple hours to refuel.
permalinkparent
[ ]joe_m107 4 points 6 hours ago
Maybe we should change that. Repeal the NFA.
permalinkparent
load more comments (2 replies)
[ ]4nco1j 0 points 2 hours ago
You don't know much about guns, do you now.
permalinkparent
load more comments (6 replies)
[ ]conquer69 15 points 4 hours ago
You can have all the guns you want. That won't stop them from labeling you a "su
spected school shooter, pedophile or terrorist".
A gun can't protect you from that. A gun can't teach your fellow countryman to t
hink by themselves or see through propaganda.
Good luck destroying a drone, plane or tank with a rifle. Not sure how useful a
gun is against your own trained military with even better guns and more.
People thinking they can start a revolution and win with a handgun don't realize
this isn't the 1700's anymore.
permalinkparent
[ ]JimmyBuffer 14 points 4 hours ago
Better tell the Middle East they haven't had a bout of revolutions then
permalinkparent
load more comments (2 replies)
[ ]b-LE-z_it 7 points 4 hours ago
Didn't say we would win, I said we could at least make it hurt. Assuming, of cou

rse, that the American people themselves aren't the ones willingly handing in th
eir freedoms, which would mean we're all fucked immediately.
permalinkparent
[ ]theothercoolfish 13 points 2 hours ago
Assuming, of course, that the American people themselves aren't the ones willing
ly handing in their freedoms, which would mean we're all fucked immediately.
Err, you guys gave up much of your freedoms long ago. And it isn't just the US politicians everywhere are taking as much as they can get, because it's simply
more power for them. More power, more money, more control. It's not a conspiracy
- this is just how an imperfect system with inadequate controls eventually goes
. We need to start re-examining our systems and look at alternatives that are no
w possible with the internet.
permalinkparent
[ ]vynusmagnus 3 points 2 hours ago
Tell that to the insurgents in Afghanistan. It seems to me that the US military
has been unable to defeat them in over a decade of war, despite its overwhelming
technological superiority. Tanks and fighter jets are nice, but they do little
against a small guerrilla force that can disappear into the woodwork.
permalinkparent
[ ]Qoix 3 points 3 hours ago
I think the main issue with that line of thinking is that the military would gun
down the civilians it pledges to protect. How many people in the armed forces d
o you know? Now, are any of them willing to murder innocent people? Probably not
.
permalinkparent
[ ]ihcn 6 points 2 hours ago
They're not innocent people, they're armed revolutionaries, suspected terrorists
permalinkparent
[ ]chance-- 4 points 3 hours ago
You say that as if there isn't insurmountable evidence to the contrary.
Military coups are thoroughly woven into the fabric of humanity's history.
permalinkparent
[ ]theothercoolfish 1 point 2 hours ago
gun down the civilians it pledges to protect.
Err, they don't pledge to protect civilians. They pledge to protect the constitu
tion. And if they are convinced that these people are attempting to "subvert" th
e constitution, then they are enemies. Nevermind that their leaders have shat al
l over the constitution - soldiers take their orders and follow 'em.
Now, are any of them willing to murder innocent people?
lol.
permalinkparent
load more comments (2 replies)
[ ]eloquentnemesis [score hidden] 33 minutes ago
Welcome to 4th generation warfare. You don't need a better gun, or the ability t
o kill a drone, or anything else like that. You just need A gun and more commitm
ent than the other side.
permalinkparent
[ ]homegrowncountryboy [score hidden] 16 minutes ago*
Good luck with those tanks, planes and drones when the American people stop supp
lying fuel and ammunition. My brother is in the Army and he will tell you about
75%, or more of the military will disband and fight to protect the American peop
le. All you have to do is look at New Orleans during Katrina, when they got the
order to start confiscating guns almost all of them refused, instead it was main
ly police stealing people's weapons.
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]Hermit_ 2 points 5 hours ago
Yeah but if it does happen all people would be doing is creating the chaos one o
f the armed and militarized militias needs to take power. For example, The KKK.
permalinkparent

[ ]b-LE-z_it 1 point 5 hours ago


Hopefully not the KKK.
permalinkparent
[ ]AussieArcher 1 point 3 hours ago
Fuck me there's always one of you. I'm starting to think the gun club spends mor
e time on reddit than anyone.
permalinkparent
[ ]astronautg117 1 point 1 hour ago
What's a combat rifle going to do against a drone?
permalinkparent
[ ]datbino 1 point 1 hour ago
i think thats where 2nd ammendment people miss the mark- you owning a rifle will
do nothing against the government.
you becoming an active participating member in that government can help fix it,
the goal is to make you a kony2012 fb sharer rather than a person who gets to wo
rk and fixes shit
permalinkparent
[ ]mpg1846 1 point 1 hour ago
You think 50 guys with hand guns are going to do anything to anyone? Gun laws ar
e a joke.
permalinkparent
[ ]Actionbuilding 1 point 1 hour ago
The founders of the United States of America WANTED the citizens to rise up and
overthrow the government if it approached the levels of corruption it is current
ly working toward.
permalinkparent
load more comments (11 replies)
[ ]nuesuh 1 point 1 hour ago
Ever seen "Das Leben der Anderen"? Imagine this, just with total corruption and
100 times better technology. This is what we are moving towards. Imagine this sy
stem getting in the hands of someone like Hitler or Stalin.. And it can happen.
Before Hitler came to power Germany was a modern, western, christian nation. We
need safety with this technology. And when i say safety, i don't mean surveillan
ce. I mean the opposite.
permalinkparent
[ ]know_comment [score hidden] 14 minutes ago
I agree, but I think the reason for the infrastructure development is because it
is going to get bad. As we are forced to compete more globally, quality of life
stagnates. Even the slightest hint of austerity is going to be very painful for
the lower classes in a society with a large income disparity.
That's why we see the race baiting and divisive rhetoric being used so much. Kee
p the poor and working classes quibbling at each other.
I want you to consider the daffodil. And while you're doing that, I'll be over h
ere, looking through your stuff.
permalinkparent
[ ]mzackler 19 points 7 hours ago
It takes a really complicated answer to truly understand but you often get into
the us vs them mentality in siloed areas of law enforcement. You also often get
frustrated with the levels of proof you need to put the bad guy in jail. Thus an
y method you can use you feel justified in using. Although I think there are a l
ot of issues with The Wire, it's a great starting off point for a discussion if
you want a serious answer.
permalinkparent
load more comments (2 replies)
[ ]hershmire 30 points 7 hours ago
Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts, absolutely.
permalinkparent
[ ]TheNewRavager 70 points 6 hours ago
"All governments suffer a recurring problem: Power attracts pathological persona
lities. It is not that power corrupts but that it is magnetic to the corruptible

. Such people have a tendency to become drunk on violence, a condition to which


they are quickly addicted."
permalinkparent
[ ]gee_iwonderwhy 22 points 6 hours ago
Oh shit, a Dune quote outside /r/dune not about spice.
permalinkparent
[ ]TheNumberMuncher 3 points 6 hours ago
This is pretty cool.
permalinkparent
[ ]YawnDogg 1 point 3 hours ago
Gene Hackman was so kinky in that movie.
permalinkparent
[ ]ThreeTimesUp 2 points 2 hours ago
From a Guardian article by Glenn Greenwald I came across recently:
Inside the mind of NSA chief Gen Keith Alexander
Any casual review of human history proves how deeply irrational it is to believe
that powerful factions can be trusted to exercise vast surveillance power with
little accountability or transparency.
But the more they proudly flaunt their warped imperial hubris, the more irration
al it becomes.
permalinkparent
[ ]Epsilox 3 points 2 hours ago
I'm going to take an unpopular stance here and argue that they get more effectiv
e investigations. Which isn't to say I have no reservations about this stuff, be
cause I do.
I've worked in a field tangential to law enforcement, and I've had the unpleasan
t experience of watching very bad people act with impunity because law enforceme
nt had to play by the rules and they didn't. Does that justify the modern trend
towards more invasive government? Maybe that's just the price we pay to live in
a free society. I don't know. I'm a fan of the H.L. Mencken quote:
"The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's ti
me defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are f
irst aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopp
ed at all."
On the other hand, it's very hard to watch members of organized crime and other
monsters literally get away with murder.
In part the difficulty the lies in the infrastructure of modern society. Communi
cations move at such speed and in such quantity that the sort of pinpoint accura
cy required for effective investigations and prosecutions becomes much more diff
icult.
None of which is to say that what we're doing is necessarily right. I've felt th
e fear of writing an opinion online and knowing that the NSA can see it and ever
ything else I've ever written if they so choose. I've had that feeling of always
being watched. I know exactly what is meant by the danger of chilling free spee
ch, because it's happened to me. But I do tend to trust (perhaps naively) that,
for the most part, most of the people making these decisions have good intention
s. I've worked with many of them, and I believe that it more than anything is th
e result of them trying to do their jobs well. Whether they are actually protect
ing the American people or simply paving the road to hell, only time will really
tell.
permalinkparent
[ ]eyeforgot 4 points 6 hours ago
Think of all the blackmail material they have for any future politicians. They w
ill firmly be in check by the powers that be.
permalinkparent
[ ]ademnus 3 points 7 hours ago
Total control.
permalinkparent
[ ]NotAnotherDecoy 4 points 7 hours ago
Total control?

permalinkparent
[ ]leamas666 2 points 5 hours ago
Why would you amass such a criminal energy to break constitutional laws just to
be able to see through everyone's communication?
It's the deep state attempting to preserve its own regime continuity in the even
t of violent revolution.
permalinkparent
[ ]sunbolts 3 points 6 hours ago
Because those in power try to keep it and in addition, there is always a lust fo
r more power. One who is wealthy seeks to increase his riches usually, right? Sa
me thing going on here. In terms of practicality, there's no reason for breaking
constitutional laws, but when you realize how human nature functions in regards
to ambitions and power, well, what we see going on explains itself.
permalinkparent
[ ]Martenz05 1 point 3 hours ago
So, in order to become a political leader who really does work for the benefit o
f the people, one would somehow have to lose every shred of their humanity so th
ey wouldn't have a human nature that could be corrupted by ambition and power?
That sounds ominous, when I put it like that
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]RuthlessDickTater 1 point 5 hours ago
but why.. I realize that these "zomg the terrorists!!!11" is only a PR-lie.
Well pretty soon they might have their terrorists, but they'll be the domestic k
ind.
permalinkparent
[ ]karadan100 1 point 4 hours ago
More money.
permalinkparent
[ ]cynoclast 1 point 3 hours ago
What do they really accomplish with this?
Get rich.
permalinkparent
load more comments (7 replies)
[ ]TGlucifer 50 points 10 hours ago
Criminals learned it's just way easier to do their lawbreaking with a government
salary.
permalinkparent
[ ]pete1729 22 points 9 hours ago
Well, the benefits package is far more attractive.
permalinkparent
[ ]__ghostpants 25 points 7 hours ago
and somehow snitches go to jail instead of the criminals
permalinkparent
[ ]iismitch55 1 point 3 hours ago
Snitches get stitches. Whistleblowers get their mouth sowed shut.
permalinkparent
[ ]HandsOffMyDitka 5 points 5 hours ago
Why break a law, when you can just change it.
permalinkparent
[ ]moresmarterthanyou 2 points 5 hours ago
except when they have to answer questions themselves...
permalinkparent
[ ]dontbullshityourself 1 point 5 hours ago
Well you know liberty is wasted on peasant swine 'eh?
permalinkparent
[ ]ButterflyAttack 1 point 4 hours ago
Sounds like the constitution doesn't mean much at this point. . .
permalinkparent
[ ]dontbullshityourself 1 point 3 hours ago

Sounds like the constitution doesn't mean much at this point. . .


All it means is that the scum who rule us have a legal contract that they say ba
cks up all their power. But their actions shit all over that document.
President Obama, a constitutional law professor ordered the deaths of two US cit
izens without trial in EXPRESS and DIRECT violation of the constitution.
permalinkparent
load more comments (4 replies)
[ ]Eurynom0s 68 points 9 hours ago
And on top of it, even if being in public was a justification for this, how the
fuck do you prevent the device from nabbing people who are inside their own hous
e or apartment as well?
Oh right, you can't, because that's not how radio waves work.
permalinkparent
[ ]Ioneos 18 points 8 hours ago
You can increase the noise gate to reduce range on purpose, but what good would
that do to keep the terrorists citizens under scrutiny.
permalinkparent
[ ]Eurynom0s 20 points 8 hours ago
Even if they were going to do that, I can't imagine that you could do it to a su
fficient degree in a place like NYC to not scoop up at least some people inside
of buildings.
permalinkparent
load more comments (5 replies)
[ ]Codoro 1 point 4 hours ago
I foresee turning your house into a Faraday Cage being the cop radar finder of t
omorrow.
permalinkparent
[ ]Kenny_Login 23 points 7 hours ago
Taxation without representation, an income far below what the productivity was v
alued at, government intrusion? The founding fathers (you know, those "heroes" o
f our nation) got much more pissed off for much less.
permalinkparent
[ ]Socialdem 8 points 5 hours ago
Can you really blame them? The Constitution was written when people were still r
iding on horses. There's no way the founding fathers could have anticipated the
advances in technology and the way people communicate. I think we're due for a f
irmware upgrade.
permalinkparent
[ ]upandrunning 11 points 3 hours ago
Yes, it's called 'replacing congress'. What we're seeing is a natural consequenc
e of career politicians. Most of the people in office have gotten so comfortable
with the idea that they'll get reelected that what they actually do during thei
r term is almost irrelevent.
permalinkparent
[ ]theothercoolfish 2 points 2 hours ago
Exactly. I think we should look at sortition - with an approval vote, and extrem
ely strict rules on what sort of laws can be passed (eg any law must apply equal
ly to everyone - protecting the minority), and a approval bonus for the randomly
selected representatives if the public approves. Fuck career politicians - they
've proven themselves wholly incapable, and the system that supports them is too
corruptible. I don't think campaign finance reform will 1) ever happen 2) adequ
ately deal with institutional corruption.
permalinkparent
[ ]NuclearWookiee 0 points 2 hours ago
All of this should be covered, in any reasonable interpretation, by the Fourth a
mendment. Rebooting who change anything if the limits on government are ignored.
permalinkparent
[ ]KalAl 1 point 1 hour ago
Do you update your firmware by smashing your bios chip with a hammer?
permalinkparent

[ ]FireFromTheWire 4 points 6 hours ago


You're just another Steve Irwin to them.
permalinkparent
[ ]iismitch55 2 points 3 hours ago
Too soon mate :'(
permalinkparent
[ ]Penguin_in_the_sand 1 point 1 hour ago*
I am curious to know what this comment means?... Oh! Steve Irwin was killed by a
stingray. I thought you may have been referring to some conspiracy relating the
Steve Irwin's death. He had an American wife and both were invited to Howard's
Bush BBQ. http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/10/27/1067233100397.html
permalinkparent
[ ]gloubenterder 2 points 1 hour ago
Steve Irwin was a wildlife documentary filmmaker who was well-known for getting
up close and personal with dangerous animals such as crocodiles and komodo drago
ns.
He was pierced through a heart by a stingray in 2006, while shooting footage for
a documentary called Ocean's Deadliest.
After his death, stingrays had a period of great infamy, and there were even rep
orts of people killing and mutilating stingrays as vengeance for Steve Irwin. ..
.which, of course, is the last thing Irwin would have wanted; he was a conservat
ionist, and whenever he was injured by an animal he was studying, he would alway
s clarify to the viewer that that was his own fault and a risk he was aware of.
permalinkparent
[ ]Agent-BurtMacklinFBI 1 point 5 hours ago
Don't worry I'm keeping a look out
permalinkparent
[ ]pion3435 1 point 3 hours ago
It's not a constitutional issue. It might be an FCC one, but they just do whatev
er they're told anyway.
permalinkparent
[ ]dntur 1 point 3 hours ago
theoretically, every cell tower is in a public place. Why not just attach a stin
gray to all of them? Think of the money mobile companies could make renting towe
r space! next comes google who wants to know who you are calling on your iphone
and windows phone for better directed advertising, followed by Bing. /s
permalinkparent
[ ]Brian3232 [score hidden] 46 minutes ago
Why are they wrong? You already can take pictures of people in public places wit
hout warrant
permalinkparent
[ ]GaltsGulchTouristInf [score hidden] 24 minutes ago
When the constitution, the supreme law of the land, the contract between the gov
ernment and the people, is violated, this violating it should be banned from 'pu
blic service' for life, should be personally liable to those whose rights they v
iolated, and should forfeit their government pension and benefits.
permalinkparent
[ ]wtfmuck [score hidden] 17 minutes ago
It's sad how they shirk doing what is right for what is easy.
permalinkparent
load more comments (8 replies)
[ ]quiteintriguing 127 points 12 hours ago
I think it's about time these fuckers provided some evidence that privacy invadi
ng is helping stop crime or terrorism. As far as I can see, there is an Islamic
army in the middle east right now filled with westerners that simply flew over a
nd caught a bus. Nice job government agencies, you sure showed us.
permalink
[ ]HappyAtavism 81 points 11 hours ago
I think it's about time these fuckers provided some evidence that privacy invadi
ng is helping stop crime or terrorism.

Even more importantly they should provide evidence that they're not violating th
e 4th Amendment. The Bill of Rights doesn't say it applies only when convenient.
P.S. I agree that repeated failures to demonstrate the effectiveness of these th
ings, or lies which get "corrected", is yet another reason why this stuff is BS,
but the Constitution is first and foremost. Don't like the 4th Amendment? Try t
o repeal it. Until then it's in force.
permalinkparent
[ ]7u5 3 points 5 hours ago
The "checks and balances" of the judiciary are a farce. They are free to "interp
ret" the Constitution as they see fit.
permalinkparent
load more comments (3 replies)
[ ]DiaperParty 9 points 3 hours ago
Fuck that. FUUUCK that. If this did stop terrorists, it would still not be worth
the violation of rights. We absolutely CANNOT start OKing this shit as long as
it "stops bad guys."
permalinkparent
[ ]quiteintriguing 1 point 3 hours ago
I think you misunderstood. I think they should have to back up their justificati
on, which they obviously can't.
permalinkparent
[ ]DiaperParty 4 points 3 hours ago
But if we ask them to, we lend legitimacy to that claim. We need to say from the
get go that no justification is needed because none will be sufficient.
permalinkparent
[ ]ebouwman 7 points 5 hours ago
In Canada we had the Ottawa shooting and that dude that ran over some soldiers.
Correct me if I'm wrong but both these guys had had their passports revoked.
I'm not a fan of letting them just go over and fight a dirty war but wtf.
permalinkparent
[ ]Ceejae 4 points 4 hours ago
But so what if it is? How successful the program is is irrelevant.
I'm sure if they set up a government camera in every home they'd stop plenty of
murders and rapes.
permalinkparent
load more comments (2 replies)
[ ]cassieloveseffie 5 points 2 hours ago
Well we all know that the FBI has followed people like John Lennon who believed
in radical peace, urged MLK to kill himself and was prepared to assassinate occu
py members. It is not about crime, it is about maintaining a status quo.
permalinkparent
[ ]monopixel 2 points 1 hour ago
was prepared to assassinate occupy members.
Interesting, where can I read up about this?
permalinkparent
[ ]wirepants 4 points 4 hours ago
Locking everyone in solitary could stop crime and terrorism too. That's not a go
od enough reason to violate our rights even if it was working.
permalinkparent
[ ]egodeath92 2 points 5 hours ago
Shh that's classified. This entire country would be a post-apocalyptic dirt-patc
h is not for the heroic NSA collecting dirt on most of the country.
permalinkparent
[ ]pion3435 1 point 3 hours ago
You had no privacy in the first place. That's not how cell phones work.
permalinkparent
load more comments (6 replies)
[ ]MashItMatt 143 points 13 hours ago
Obviously these are constitution free zones, citizen.
permalink

[ ]THANKS-FOR-THE-GOLD 22 points 7 hours ago


Embrace democracy or you will be eradicated
permalinkparent
[ ]jroddie4 14 points 5 hours ago
Citizen, pick up that can.
permalinkparent
[ ]douko 3 points 5 hours ago
This image won't even load (here's another one), but I still know what it is.
DEATH IS A PREFERABLE ALTERNATIVE TO COMMUNISM.
COMMUNISM IS THE VERY DEFINITION OF FAILURE!
permalinkparent
[ ]chewysquirrel 15 points 6 hours ago
Approximately 2/3 of Americans live in a "constitution free zone"
permalinkparent
[ ]newpolitics 50 points 10 hours ago
The Federal Bureau of Investigation is taking the position that court warrants a
re not required when deploying cell-site simulators in public places. Nicknamed
"stingrays," the devices are decoy cell towers that capture locations and identi
ties of mobile phone users and can intercept calls and texts.
So nobody has any expectation of privacy? Talking out of their asses. The implic
ation that a warrant shouldn't be needed to intercept someone's text messages, i
s outrageous.
permalink
[ ]acerplatanoides [score hidden] 16 minutes ago
The implication that a warrant shouldn't be needed to intercept someone's text m
essages, is outrageous.
The implication of intercepting a PRESS related text message, and thus also supp
ressing a free press.
I think many of these are used to stop uploading of images to social medial. You
ever tried that during a demonstration?
permalinkparent
[ ]dalasocatyemerc 67 points 9 hours ago
Hmm, I didn't realize the FBI had the authority to ignore the constitution of th
e United States of America.
Maybe this organization doesn't actually serve Americans. That's what I think
permalink
[ ]Jagoonder 17 points 2 hours ago
They don't. However, lets look at their 3rd criteria:
(3) cases in which the technology is used in public places or other locations at
which the FBI deems there is no reasonable expectation of privacy.
In public, noone has an expectation to privacy. SCOTUS has ruled on such. Theref
ore, it could be argued that phone conversations in public places forfeits at le
ast one party's rights to privacy.
There are a couple of problems with this. First, Stingray is indiscriminate. Sec
ond, the other party of the phone conversation may be in their own home thus hav
ing an expectation of privacy.
I don't know how law works in regards to phone tapping. But, I would assume that
any warrant to do so would provide the agency a waiver on a second party's priv
acy protections when conversing with the target of the warrant. Except in the ca
se of Stingray no warrant was ever obtained thus, no waiver, thus the second par
ty probably still has privacy protections.
So, I think it's bullshit. I'm no lawyer. I suspect the FBI also knows it's bull
shit. But, the more excuses they can come up with to bend the law around their w
ill the more time it takes to try to stop them since each instance requires anot
her court decision.
permalinkparent
[ ]punkrampant 13 points 1 hour ago
There's only "no expectation of privacy" in public in terms of video+camera surv
eillance. People still get disturbed if you look over their shoulder at their ph
one, or listen to a conversation.

Text messages, emails, phone calls, all of it, are the modern day written letter
s. What the FBI is trying to do is the equivalent of setting up a post office th
at opens everyone's envelopes and makes copies of all the contents.
permalinkparent
[ ]Jagoonder 5 points 1 hour ago
Text messages, emails, phone calls, all of it, are the modern day written letter
s. What the FBI is trying to do is the equivalent of setting up a post office th
at opens everyone's envelopes and makes copies of all the contents.
You're right. I was focusing on an actual phone conversation where one party cou
ld be overheard by others, thus no expectation to privacy.
permalinkparent
[ ]Cambodian_Drug_Mule 2 points 1 hour ago
Surely there are people with technical expertise that can just fuck their shit u
p. If I'm not mistaken the stingrays were detected with consumer grade electroni
cs. If everyone just looked out for them and pinned where they are at on a map,
couldn't some people with the technical know how take them offline?
permalinkparent
[ ]monopixel 1 point 1 hour ago
Hmm, I didn't realize the FBI had the authority to ignore the constitution of th
e United States of America.
The US government and its agencies has been doing it for ages.
permalinkparent
[ ]rtpg 40 points 6 hours ago
Surprised nobody's mentioned Kyllo v. United States yet.
This is fairly recent (2001) jurisprudence. The gov't used a thermal imager, and
saw that there were heat lamps inside of a house, and used that to get a search
warrant. The gov't argued that, well, the heat was outside, so pretty much publ
ic information.
The courts disagreed and ruled this an illegal search. Main reason being that no
t many people have thermal imagers, so there's a reasonable expectation of priva
cy. I think even less people have stingrays, so even from the "discovering that
someone has a cell phone" aspect, there's unreasonableness in the search.
Now to the wiretapping aspect... there's Katz v. United States. Here, somebody w
as in a phone booth, and the feds had set a microphone outside the phone booth w
ithout warrant (so not exactly a wiretap). Again, the courts ruled this an unrea
sonable search.
A part of the ruling:
Regardless of the location, a conversation is protected from unreasonable search
and seizure under the Fourth Amendment if it is made with a "reasonable expecta
tion of privacy".
Text messages definitely fall under this. I can't see this holding up for 2 seco
nds in court.
The article goes into it into detail, but few of the FBI's interpretations on pr
ivacy have been holding up in courts recently. The system is kind of working, an
d this interpretation will be shut down as well. Now, if only everyone had good
lawyers...
permalink
[ ]ryewheats 7 points 4 hours ago
But the biggest problem I see would be them not declaring how they gathered any
information they collected in the first place. It would be pretty easy to skirt
around the system and act like you caught the suspect red-handed (because you we
re tipped off by illegal searches). That is the really scary part.
permalinkparent
[ ]argv_minus_one 5 points 3 hours ago
This practice is known as "parallel construction".
permalinkparent
[ ]tughdffvdlfhegl 3 points 3 hours ago
Honestly, this is the biggest concern. The courts won't allow a challenge becaus
e no one will have standing, because the feds/police won't actively declare this
as evidence in a trial. Meanwhile, they'll continue to use it, having a chillin

g effect on the press and others (which the courts have not seen in recent histo
ry as sufficient to provide legal standing).
permalinkparent
[ ]JustaChimp 3 points 5 hours ago
With the Katz v US case, it took them 39 years to overturn the Olmstead v US rul
ing. Let's hope it takes a little less time for this medium.
The recent Romano v Steelcase Inc. court case could indicate how the courts will
rule in the short term with regards to "reasonable expectation of privacy" thou
gh this ruling was in the context of social media and not text messages. The ana
logy was made that much like a letter writer has no reasonable expectation of pr
ivacy once the recipient is in possession of the letter, neither does the post's
author. Same could be extended to text messages and would be equally as trouble
some.
permalinkparent
[ ]qdarius 1 point 3 hours ago
Damn, that doesn't seem right at all. If I send someone a letter I definitely ex
pect that only they will read it.
Could anyone expand on the logic that a letter writer has no reasonable expectat
ion of privacy?
permalinkparent
[ ]Boltaeg 1 point 3 hours ago
After that letter is given to the recipient, they can do whatever they want with
it without you knowing. They could copy it, show it to friends, frame it and pu
t it on their wall....etc. You have no control over that and must assume that an
ything you write in a letter can be disclosed in some manner, simply because you
have no control over that persons actions.
As to why that is the case, I have no idea. Especially considering it is illegal
to open someone elses mail, but perfectly legal to read someone else's letter o
nce they open it. At least that is my understanding of it.
permalinkparent
[ ]TheMightyBarbarian 1 point 3 hours ago
Its fairly simple, you sent a letter, until it is received by the intended recip
ient it has federal protections. Once the recipient receives it, they are free t
o do with it as they wish, even if you disagree with what they do, specifically
because the letter is now their property, even though you wrote it.
permalinkparent
[ ]qdarius 1 point 2 hours ago
I understand that. But if someone else intercepts my letter shouldn't that still
be illegal?
Maybe I'm misunderstanding how stingrays work but it seems like they're basicall
y designed to intercept hundreds of messages.
permalinkparent
[ ]TheMightyBarbarian 1 point 2 hours ago
Intercept isn't illegal, its sketchy but not illegal. As for reading it, it's a
grey area since texts are not encrypted and even if they were it would do shit i
f billions of devices can decrypt them. So unless you use something like a messe
nger system that can use basic encrypting. It won't stop the FBI from reading it
, but it does show you took steps to have a private conversation and that's what
matters to the court.
permalinkparent
[ ]coalbeeashi 1 point 3 hours ago
Re: Katz v. United States
Certain details, such as shutting the door on the telephone booth, help determin
e if a person intends for a conversation to be private. Thus, private conversati
ons can be made in public areas.
What steps is the average Joe taking to exhibit a reasonable expectation of priv
acy regarding his/her data usage? Honest question.
permalinkparent
[ ]TheMightyBarbarian 1 point 2 hours ago
Beyond using a VPN to mimic another location, not much really. Since there are m

any devices involved in the process of just looking up a website. Ex. You google
Microsoft. Here are all the parties involved: You, Your ISP, Google, Microsoft.
That's four parties involved and that's assuming you are not using a Phones Mob
ile Data plan and are using WiFi. Because then it can add a few more people invo
lved.
Sure you should have protection just the same, but currently the law doesn't rec
ognize that, because the people in charge dont understand how any of it works.
permalinkparent
[ ]rtpg [score hidden] 54 minutes ago
I would say that cultural norms kind of define that in that it is extremely rude
to look at another stranger's phone while they are using it to browse/look at t
heir emails/whatever. Not the most solid argument, I know.
permalinkparent
[ ]Sic_SemperTyrannis 1 point 2 hours ago
When the use of stingrays is challenged in court police have dropped the cases r
ather than explain their use of stingrays.
permalinkparent
[ ]cassieloveseffie 1 point 2 hours ago
I have seen a printed record of every one of someone's txt messages for 6 months
. Never assume txt messages are private.
permalinkparent
[ ]Ladderjack 29 points 12 hours ago
I'm sorry, have they gone ahead and combined the FBI and the Supreme Court of th
e United States of America? No? Well, we will see how long this lasts. . .
permalink
[ ]butitssnot 46 points 7 hours ago
Its ok. In 2016 we can vote for hope and change and transparency and fix all thi
s.
permalinkparent
[ ]CriticalThink 3 points 5 hours ago
yeah. I bet Hillary will fix this mess, right Reddit?
permalinkparent
[ ]TheMightyBarbarian 1 point 2 hours ago
We still got time before they can start promoting themselves for President, lega
lly actually, they can't start until a certain number of days from the election.
permalinkparent
[ ]looneybandito 5 points 6 hours ago
Haha. As if our votes matter.
permalinkparent
[ ]atomofconsumption 9 points 5 hours ago
thatsthejoke.jpg
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]dichroeyes 1 point 4 hours ago
You are right. I give up. Long live the hegemony.
permalinkparent
[ ]Pikaflu 1 point 3 hours ago
America is an irradiated wasteland. Within it lies a city. Outside the boundary
walls, a desert. A cursed earth. Inside the walls, a cursed city, stretching fro
m Boston to Washington D.C. An unbroken concrete landscape. 800 million people l
iving in the ruin of the old world and the mega structures of the new one. Mega
blocks. Mega highways. Mega City One. Convulsing. Choking. Breaking under its ow
n weight. Citizens in fear of the street. The gun. The gang. Only one thing figh
ting for order in the chaos: the men and women of the Hall of Justice. Juries. E
xecutioners. Judges.
permalinkparent
[ ]Ago_Solvo 36 points 9 hours ago
I'm sure that means that stingrays are also open for public hacking in that case
, because they're in a public place, and doing so can't be considered an intrusi
on on government properties or a violation of any Federal Law.

permalink
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]whysopositive 57 points 12 hours ago
Say whatever you want, you don't think big brother is going to find every way to
spy on you?
The thing is I bet every time we the people get upset about some "new" trespass
against our rights there's already something technologically beyond our knowledg
e being put to use to on us now.
permalink
[ ]I_SPLIT_INFINITIVES 16 points 7 hours ago
My dad always said, "If that's what they're telling us they have now, they proba
bly had it ten years ago. Just imagine what they really have."
permalinkparent
[ ]oOTHX1138Oo 28 points 9 hours ago
Thats why we need to add to the bill of rights, so that we continue to be protec
ted in the digital age.
permalinkparent
[ ]TheBlueWaffleHouse 18 points 8 hours ago
At this point in time the bill of rights only shrinks. It doesn't get bigger.
permalinkparent
[ ]tallerthanunicorngod 33 points 7 hours ago
Not with that attitude.
permalinkparent
[ ]mattacular2001 3 points 5 hours ago
Doesn't matter unless you're wealthy
permalinkparent
[ ]tallerthanunicorngod 1 point 2 hours ago
Wealthy people don't like to be spied on either. Honestly, they probably like it
even less.
permalinkparent
[ ]sockgorilla 1 point 5 hours ago
He's John Titor, he's watched it before.
permalinkparent
[ ]mastahslayah 1 point 4 hours ago
Well he isn't getting any of my Dr. Pepper.
permalinkparent
[ ]Poor__Yorick 1 point 2 hours ago
Wow that's a name I haven't heard in a while.
We've got a world war this year though.
3 billion dead by the end of it.
permalinkparent
load more comments (5 replies)
[ ]pion3435 1 point 3 hours ago
We already did. That's the point of laws like HIPAA. There's just no equivalent
for things like email or cell phones so it's legal to see whatever people are na
ively broadcasting.
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]ZomNomNomBeeZ 5 points 7 hours ago
This technology is not particularly new. The man-in-the-middle attack is a class
ic hacking technique. I remember reading an article after one of the security co
nventions detailing a small group of participants that used a remote control air
plane to do this exact thing to convention attendees. This was years ago.
permalinkparent
[ ]hershmire 4 points 7 hours ago
Which is why it's illegality could be successfully code into law.
permalinkparent
[ ]TheMightyBarbarian 1 point 3 hours ago
That's the problem, the people who make the laws don't understand how the techno
logy works, and the people making and using it are telling them its fine, so the

y don't feel like they need to make a law about.


And as such making a law about it would be bad, since the law would need specifi
c language to prevent certain technologies and usage of such. But the biggest is
sue is that some of the technology and uses are too general that it would never
work to stop anything. Since they can't just write a law preventing man in the m
iddle because they need to get a definitive wording on what that is exactly and
then word it so a slight variation doesn't just immediately skirt the new law.
Our technology grew faster than our laws did, but now it's grown faster than our
ability to properly define what it is we do. So controlling it is incredibly ha
rd and will take a long time, so for now we kinda have to suck it up and wait, b
ecause the worst possible thing is them putting out ineffective laws that do les
s than nothing to prevent stuff like that and hearing us complain and think we a
re whining when they just put out a law. I would rather wait a little longer to
make sure the law is proper and effective than to have a crap law screw everythi
ng up.
permalinkparent
[ ]ScorpionPool 1 point 6 hours ago
Serious question. What benefits does the government get from spying on us? Power
? Information for corporations? Shits and giggles? Some kind of profit?
permalinkparent
[ ]swingmemallet 2 points 5 hours ago
All of the above
permalinkparent
[ ]eyeforgot 1 point 5 hours ago*
What like complete access to what anyone posts/chats about on facebook/skype bei
ng dumped into a database? Anyone who work with cisco routers notice anything fu
nny like carefully crafted packets fucking w. the settings and not creating logs
. Maybe like there is a back door that someone has that doesn't require a passwo
rd.
permalinkparent
load more comments (3 replies)
[ ]philtech 26 points 10 hours ago
You can scan for stingray use.
Only works on rooted phones with Qualcomm chipset however. https://play.google.c
om/store/apps/details?id=de.srlabs.snoopsnitch&hl=en
permalink
[ ]vamper 2 points 6 hours ago
damn, no go for my nexus 5
permalinkparent
[ ]Ice_Pirate 1 point 5 hours ago
Should work on my 20 dollar ZTE's with dualies :). Overclocks to 1.8 like butta.
http://www.phonearena.com/phones/ZTE-N800_id8191
permalinkparent
[ ]willyboxc 1 point 2 hours ago
we need a version that will work without root :(
permalinkparent
[ ]networklackey 49 points 11 hours ago*
Bullshit... it's radio. They have no way of determining whether the person they
are monitoring is in public or not.
They shouldn't be able to use this without a warrant any more than they should b
e able to point a laser mic at your window.
The fact that they are in public is irrelevant... the subject they are monitorin
g has to be in public.
permalink
[ ]lll_1_lll 29 points 6 hours ago
Even if we are in public, what the fuck gives them the right to look through my
texts, phone calls, voicemails, emails, call history, etc?
permalinkparent
[ ]zoidbug 5 points 3 hours ago
It should be protected the level of paper mail. It is your private communication

s.
permalinkparent
[ ]networklackey 1 point 2 hours ago
Technically... because you are in public and are broadcasting. But I feel the sa
me way. None of this shit should be legal.
permalinkparent
load more comments (6 replies)
[ ]goatmagic 2 points 3 hours ago
laser mic
Well, TIL this exists :/
permalinkparent
[ ]networklackey 2 points 2 hours ago
They absolutely exist and they are freaking awesome. They should not however be
used by law enforcement without a warrant.
permalinkparent
[ ]makingupdumbnames 1 point 5 hours ago
I think it's that their airwaves cross public space. pls correct me if I'm wrong
, though
permalinkparent
[ ]networklackey 1 point 2 hours ago
That's certainly the argument they are making.
permalinkparent
[ ]wirepants 1 point 4 hours ago
Even assuming you are in public, who's to say the guy on the other side is too?
permalinkparent
[ ]networklackey 1 point 2 hours ago
Nothing but their log books but that doesn't really matter. It's your right to p
rivacy they are violating.
permalinkparent
[ ]Sarah_Connor 9 points 9 hours ago
We need a way to be able to identify, then jamm, stingrays.
permalink
[ ]cookie_nrk 8 points 7 hours ago
This Jammer made in sweden should do the trick. From what I have read it complet
ely blocks all signals, so using a phone wouldn't work at all, but if you were i
n a position to not want to be tracked during a certain time, you could use this
: http://www.jammer-store.com/monstro-10-all-frequencies-portable-jammer.html
permalinkparent
[ ]hershmire 10 points 7 hours ago
We're talking about blanket monitoring of civilians. It needs to be outlawed imm
ediately. Hoping each and every Joe Schmoe is going to buy an illegal cell phone
jammer to protect his identity is, well, ridiculous.
permalinkparent
[ ]davidverner 6 points 7 hours ago
Jammers are illegal in the US on the cellphone frequency. Good luck importing on
e.
permalinkparent
[ ]wicard 5 points 6 hours ago
had one from deal extreme i bought when i was younger to prank friends, was alot
of fun. But if you are worried about being tracked wouldn't just shutting your
phone off do the trick? If you are jamming your phone you arnt going to be talki
ng to anyone.
permalinkparent
[ ]RellenD 4 points 5 hours ago
You have to do more than just turn it off, unfortunately.
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]willyboxc 1 point 2 hours ago
we need the schematics so we can build one... also include 700 mhz jam for lte
permalinkparent

load more comments (1 reply)


[ ]ademnus 11 points 7 hours ago
That's nice but it's not up to the FBI if it is illegal or not.
permalink
[ ]MonitoredCitizen 21 points 7 hours ago
Come on Google and Apple, stop being so lame. Make the phones themselves defend
against this by always displaying the negotiated encryption level and allowing u
ser to configure the phone to refuse to connect if the GSM encryption level is A
5/0.
permalink
[ ]argv_minus_one 2 points 2 hours ago
If they do that, these same spooks will have some words with their CEOs. Otherwi
se, yeah, they likely would.
permalinkparent
[ ]vzzzbux 2 points 1 hour ago
Not sure on the technical specifics but my old Nokia from 10 years ago used to s
how a padlock if the call was "secure", which I guess meant it was encrypted in
some way.
Sounds like yet another way we've gone backwards with the rise of Google and App
le
permalinkparent
[ ]cryptovariable 180 points 12 hours ago
This seems icky, but anyone with a Raspberry Pi ($48.00), an RTL-SDR ($17.00), a
nd an ability to follow written step-by-step instructions on how to install and
configure some open source software ($0.00) can do this, albeit on a smaller sca
le.
That tutorial doesn't cover decrypting GSM traffic. This one does. You'll need s
omething faster than a Raspberry Pi, though. Maybe a $200 netbook.
And you can do it on the same scale as the police with a surplus commercial ante
nna and three or four friends.
I don't see how restricting the government's ability to do this would have any o
ther effect than to criminalize a private citizen's desire to experiment with GS
M.
permalink
[ ]HappyAtavism 113 points 11 hours ago
I don't see how restricting the government's ability to do this would have any o
ther effect than to criminalize a private citizen's desire to experiment with GS
M.
Experiment with GSM all you want, just don't eavesdrop or commit fraud by preten
ding to be part of a legitimate business.
I like to play with miniature cameras, microphones and transmitters. That's a fi
ne hobby as long as I don't use it to spy on my neighbors.
permalinkparent
load more comments (5 replies)
[ ]mr___ 50 points 12 hours ago
But theirs has a transmitter, and actively spoofs cell sites
permalinkparent
[ ]cryptovariable 55 points 12 hours ago
It you want to spoof rather than just eavesdrop all you have to do is buy any of
the SDR kits that are coming on to the market like a bladeRF or something and h
ave GNUradio (which hilariously autocorrects to FBI radio on my phone) pretend t
o be a tower, the credentials of which you sniffed with your Pi setup.
The reason the Feds spoof is so that they can target specific devices on a white
list and only have those connect. The size of the whitelist is unknown and up fo
r debate.
If you're capturing and decrypting all the GSM your antenna can receive you don'
t care if you're spoofing the tower unless you want to modify the traffic in som
e way. To quote Sir Patrick Stewart: "It's too late, I've seen everything."
If you just scoop up everything using cheap/free and publicly available tools yo
u don't really care about spoofing.

It should be noted that the Feds have a leg up with CDMA because of its smaller
global footprint and the scarcity of developers working on it, as well as UMTS (
3G) and LTE.
But people are poking at LTE every day: http://www.rtl-sdr.com/analyzing-td-ltertl-sdr/
permalinkparent
[ ]HappyAtavism 36 points 11 hours ago
The reason the Feds spoof is so that they can target specific devices on a white
list and only have those connect. The size of the whitelist is unknown and up fo
r debate.
We do know they don't have warrants. How many violations of the 4th Amendment do
es it take before it's considered a bad thing?
permalinkparent
load more comments (19 replies)
[ ]A530[??] 6 points 6 hours ago
I have to ask an honest question. Knowing what you know, do you live in a Farada
y cage or just eschew cell phones all together? I'm in InfoSec (I'm guessing you
are too) and with the shit I know, maintaining OPSec is just a never ending bat
tle. I can't imagine my paranoia if I went down the cellular rabbit hole (althou
gh I do know a lot about the shit happening with the carrier baseband MDM garbag
e).
Many thanks for the very informative post.
permalinkparent
[ ]tornadoRadar 1 point 1 hour ago
Gotta keep it segmented. Personal never mixes with biz
permalinkparent
[ ]the_nap_mutilator 1 point 5 hours ago
Spoofing the cell site also gives them access to the phone at something akin to
the hardware level... so unless you have rooted and or installed software to sec
ure the device, they can push new software onto your phone without your knowledg
e/consent in the same way that your carrier updates subscriber units say when th
ey make changes to the network or something. At that point your phone has been p
ermanently compromised.
permalinkparent
load more comments (13 replies)
[ ]mag17435 29 points 10 hours ago
I dont understand how people think the government can do things citizens can. Or
dering our government not to do something has no bearing on what citizens can do
.
permalinkparent
[ ]Golden-Fox 7 points 6 hours ago
Well when police are trying to visually collect evidence they can in general onl
y search from public areas. If a cop is looking for a certain car and they see i
t on the street, that's fine. If the car is parked in a closed garage and on pri
vate property, the cop wouldn't be able to see it without going onto private pro
perty and looking in a window. If the car is in the same garage and the garage d
oor is open, then anyone can see it, and the cop can legally use that informatio
n.
The FBI is trying to apply that same logic to these stingrays. Stingrays are a t
echnology that is available to the public. You could make your own and do exactl
y what the FBI does. The data being collected isn't encrypted, password protecte
d, or anything else. Everything is publicly available. You just have to have a c
ertain machine to be able to read it. The garage door has to be open.
permalinkparent
[ ]Wordygit 6 points 6 hours ago
The key word here is "public" whereas where there is the expectation of privacy,
I would think think that would carry some special considerations. That seems to
be some of what the courts are deciding about, where the expectation of privacy
holds sway over searches. Its already been determined that law enforcement cann
ot force you to unlock your phone. One such Supreme Court case, decided this pas

t summer, led to a sweeping victory for privacy rights advocates. In a rare unan
imous decision, the court found that police cannot search cellphones, and by ext
ension tablets and other digital communication devices, without first obtaining
a warrant. Smartphones, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote, hold the privacies of l
ife, and the fact that technology now allows an individual to carry such informati
on in his hand does not make the information any less worthy of the protection f
or which the Founders fought. I think, as well, that it has been established that
if there is encryption being used, that constitutes an acknowledgement that ste
ps have been taken to protect and maintain the sense of privacy, and so the expe
ctation carries onto the information being transmitted. Not sure if there is a l
egal precedent for that though.
permalinkparent
[ ]Golden-Fox 2 points 5 hours ago
Its already been determined that law enforcement cannot force you to unlock your
phone.
This is what I've heard, but to me it implies that police can access your phone
if you don't have it locked. Carrying that logic over to this argument, the poli
ce would be able to access your cell info as long as it isn't encrypted. It seem
s that you only have a "reasonable expectation to privacy" with your cell phone
if you've taken any steps to make your phone more private. If there were some wa
y to get your carrier to encrypt your data, then there'd be no question, but the
way cell providers are these days, that's not gonna happen.
permalinkparent
[ ]ThreeTimesUp 1 point 1 hour ago
Something that I have heard repeatedly (and I may yet have it wrong), is that if
your front door is closed, but unlocked, the police are free to enter without a
warrant.
This has always bothered me.
I could understand the mind-set of someone (i.e. a Justice of the Supreme court)
thinking that way if they grew up (or lived) in an area where they lived a life
always fearful of intruders and locking doors was a practical necessity.
But to me, a closed door means "Keep out, knock for admittance - no entry withou
t permission."
So, for naive, trusting, me, I would not expect the police (or anyone) to examin
e my phone (without a warrant) just to see what they could find.
permalinkparent
[ ]pion3435 1 point 3 hours ago
A technologically illiterate moron's expectation of privacy doesn't become a rea
sonable expectation of privacy just because the majority of the population is te
chnologically illiterate.
permalinkparent
[ ]F0sh 1 point 2 hours ago
This is totally wrong thinking. A private citizen can look for your car through
the garage window without legal repercussions, even though a police officer migh
t not be allowed. The police officer has to conduct his searches according to th
e expectation of privacy and you have every expectation that your private phone
conversations are private - even if you're sending your texts at the shopping ce
ntre.
This is a bullshit equivocation on the part of the FBI, who are claiming that si
nce any old person at the shops can see that you're also at the shops you have n
o expectation of privacy at all.
This logic, if extended, would also mean the FBI could clone your hard drive if
you took your laptop to a public place - after all, you have no expectation of p
rivacy there. No. Bullshit - just because you're in the park doesn't mean all yo
ur possessions and emails became public.
This has nothing to do with what an ordinary citizen is able to do in public or
in private.
permalinkparent
[ ]ThreeTimesUp 1 point 2 hours ago*
Well when police are trying to visually collect evidence they can in general onl

y search from public areas. If a cop is looking for a certain car and they see i
t on the street, that's fine.
To counterpoint this:
Infra-red light (heat) is just light that's at a lower frequency than humans can
detect.
Courts have ruled that the police using specialized equipment to detect heat sig
natures (Infra-red light) emanating from from houses for the purpose of snooping
for grow operations are an invasion of privacy.
The signals Stingray is picking up are just another frequency, even lower than I
nfra-red light, originating from inside your phone, that is your property, which
is in your possession.
Authorities are using all manner of logical distortions in an express attempt to
get around the ideals and principles expressed in the Constitution.
What law-abiding citizen would attempt such a thing?
What authority that the public has placed their trust in, would make continual a
ttempts to subvert the Constitution?
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
load more comments (2 replies)
[ ]kromem 2 points 3 hours ago
It is already criminal to capture and decrypt GSM traffic for citizens (Wiretap
Act), same as capturing and parsing WiFi data.
But I think I can point out the issue with your logic with a simple analogy:
Citizens can buy guns.
Law enforcement can be provided guns.
Citizens can practice shooting guns.
Law enforcement should do the same.
Citizens can't shoot other citizens with guns except in really specific exemptio
ns.
According to your logic, just because citizens can buy guns, and could possibly
go around shooting other people with them, law enforcement should not have any l
egal restrictions on their use of guns.
It is illegal for you to capture and decrypt anyone else's traffic, and it shoul
d be illegal for cops to do the same without a warrant. It's not that hard to ge
t a warrant when actually justified, creates a paper trail that can be examined
for abuses, and has been the case without serious issue for years now.
For what purpose does the law need to be changed to allow this? Because warrants
are inconvenient? Well then why not get rid of them for entering homes too? It'
s quite trivial to pick a lock, and even easier to smash a window and climb in.
Any citizen could do it. So why do we need to restrict the police from the same?
permalinkparent
[ ]dfioabnionjio 4 points 9 hours ago
I don't see how restricting the government's ability to do this would have any o
ther effect than to criminalize a private citizen's desire to experiment with GS
M.
Why not have it be illegal for government and legal for private citizens? Make i
t perfectly legal for private citizens to experiment with GSM, but don't let the
FBI do the same, like you can have a private citizen share something a defendan
t said in court while the police cannot do the same unless the suspect had been
told of their rights.
Of course, the problem here is not using GSM. It's tracking people who did not k
nowingly join your network. You could have it be legal to experiment with GSM an
d not legal to spoof a network, or make it so tracking someone on your network i
s illegal unless the person being tracked is aware they will be tracked and cons
ents to it.
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]confusiondiffusion 3 points 10 hours ago
Yeah, I really don't see the point in making laws against this, since they'll be
broken anyway. We need to fix the underlying technology. There is no excuse for

the sad state of cellphone security.


permalinkparent
[ ]HappyAtavism 18 points 10 hours ago
I really don't see the point in making laws against this
Then let's just flush the Constitution down the toilet. All laws get broken, the
question is what gets done about it.
since they'll be broken anyway
It's not very hard to break into my house either, but they're not supposed to do
it without a warrant.
permalinkparent
load more comments (4 replies)
[ ]HighMonster 1 point 7 hours ago
Wow that's intriguing
permalinkparent
[ ]lll_1_lll 1 point 6 hours ago
You act like this is realistically doable for the large majority of people and y
ou know that's BS.
permalinkparent
[+][deleted] 6 hours ago (1 child)
[ ]JabroniZamboni 1 point 5 hours ago
Are you suggesting that radar jammers should be legal? As well as cell phone or
wifi jammers? What if your neighbor wants to experiment with a jammer for the ne
xt 4 months? 6 years? I assume you wouldn't be too happy. There's experimentatio
n and then there's purposeful disruption and spying.
permalinkparent
[ ]egodeath92 1 point 5 hours ago
Yeah except "anyone with device X" can't prosecute people. It doesn't matter whe
n corporations do mass data collection because they are just trying to make mone
y/sell people shit. The government can create a database of people's private liv
es then prosecute them. You could even imagine a time where data collection is s
o widespread that this kind of info is used for political purposes rather then b
usting drug dealers/ other criminals which is what it's used for now.
permalinkparent
[ ]Kuusou 1 point 4 hours ago
What the people can do, and what the government can do, are no the same things,
nor should they.
permalinkparent
[ ]qdarius 1 point 4 hours ago
If a random person overhears my conversation I don't care. Even if they tell the
ir friends I'm still not too concerned.
If the government records my conversation and uses it to investigate or prosecut
e me that's clearly a different situation.
Just because someone can do something doesn't mean it should be legal. It defini
tely doesn't mean we should be okay with our government using it on us.
permalinkparent
load more comments (9 replies)
[ ]Sir_not_sir 52 points 13 hours ago
The main purpose of the stinger is to circumvent the need and time of acquiring
a warrant and getting the data from all the service providers.
Regardless of data retention plans, they should require a separate judicial warr
ant for each individual suspect in order to be deployed.
permalink
[ ]manoninternets 8 points 7 hours ago*
The time required to get a warrant is usually far less than what they make it ou
t to be, although cost is as factor. Phone companies make tons of money off poli
ce records requests.
To play devil's advocate (and I do think the STINGRAY arrangement is devilish):
once you request records from the phone companies, there's no guarantee that won
't get leaked to the people being investigated. The cartels have people everywhe

re.
permalinkparent
[ ]kevincreeperpants 6 points 6 hours ago
What if they are the cartels!?...dun dun dun
permalinkparent
[ ]tughdffvdlfhegl 1 point 3 hours ago
I don't think anyone here has a problem with STINGRAY being used, given that the
y have a warrant for the person's data they're monitoring. So in your situation,
that's easy to do.
permalinkparent
[ ]manoninternets 2 points 3 hours ago
Yeah it's the same concept as going through my private letters, or close enough
to it anyhow. (Even though letters are physically sealed and radio waves permeat
e the air freely, my intention is for my text messages to be as private as posta
l mail.)
Even a child could rip open an envelope with ease. That doesn't mean police don'
t need a warrant to do so.
permalinkparent
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[ ]turnthatfrown 9 points 7 hours ago
I think the FBI is conveniently forgetting that they are intercepting a communic
ation that is normally secured via encryption and carried privately by your wire
less provider then switched privately all the way to the party on the other end
who has similar expectations of the connection.
I mean, come on, the Stingrays themselves are impersonating the carrier that you
have a contract with and using techniques to avoid the strong encryption. The p
rove by their own design and implementation that the FBI's argument is bullshit.
permalink
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]dontbullshityourself 27 points 11 hours ago
I'm so sick of the ways these callous assholes use to crush our freedom.
What is the point of massive expensive law enforcement agencies if the law can't
protect our rights and freedoms? Hasn't the cart been put before the horse here
?
permalink
[ ]donottakethisserious 13 points 6 hours ago
If you are told you are free enough times, you start to believe it. You start at
a young age with a pledge every day and then when you grow up you attend sporti
ng events and stand for the national anthem and tear up at how free you are. Tha
t way nobody will ever question whether or not this is actually a free country.
permalinkparent
[ ]dontbullshityourself 10 points 5 hours ago
When I was a kid I started to sit during the pledge. Honestly I think I just wan
ted to test and see how free I was. I knew that saying the pledge etc wasn't in
the school handbook. I knew there was no rule saying I had to say it or stand or
anything. The powers that be at my school just used the herd instinct to keep t
his shit going.
So I started sitting down. This resulted in a lot of attention from gangs of bul
lies. My home room teacher didn't like it either and lectured/bitched about it e
very day. But she stopped short of anything more than shaming me unlike the bull
ies.
Anyway I just decided to drop out. Fuck it. Humans don't like new things that co
nfuse them and challenge them to think. How interesting that was to be the last
thing I learned in school. I found another kind of freedom. The freedom to leave
the assholes mired in their stupidity and find my own path in life.
permalinkparent
[ ]joshyfitzo90 4 points 5 hours ago
I like your style.
permalinkparent

[ ]Jack41096 3 points 4 hours ago


I applaud you. I stood but that's all I did. it was in our rulebook to stand but
fuck them if they thought I was gonna do more than that. I started a wave of pe
ople standing and doing nothing.
eventually my first period class was reduced to two people and the teacher actua
lly doing anything. they bitches about it but we all had our own reasons.
permalinkparent
[ ]dontbullshityourself 2 points 3 hours ago
eventually my first period class was reduced to two people and the teacher actua
lly doing anything. they bitches about it but we all had our own reasons.
There are lots of reasons to resist and only one reason to obey. Fear.
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]CriticalThink 3 points 5 hours ago
Government hasn't been interested in protecting our rights and freedoms in a lon
g time.
permalinkparent
[ ]jkeyser14 5 points 7 hours ago
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety
, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. - Benjamin Franklin
permalinkparent
[ ]dontbullshityourself 5 points 6 hours ago
We didn't give it up. They are taking it.
permalinkparent
[ ]jkeyser14 10 points 6 hours ago
Only because we aren't rioting. The first group of rioters to tar and feather a
politician again will bring about change very quickly.
permalinkparent
[ ]dontbullshityourself 4 points 5 hours ago
People are gonna have to get a lot more desperate. I reckon we'll get our riot s
oon enough.
permalinkparent
[ ]Jack41096 1 point 4 hours ago
take the food. that's the surefire way to cause a riot.
people will be content as long as they're fed. you take that away and suddenly t
hey have nothing to lose. they have to survive. that is the most primal response
we have. to fight tooth and nail for food. to eat no matter the cost.
permalinkparent
[ ]RamsNation 1 point 4 hours ago
America has a very stable food supply so I doubt that will happen.
permalinkparent
[ ]dontbullshityourself 1 point 3 hours ago
I don't think we have to take the food. I think that people today are a lot more
self entitled and will jump into a fit without their iphones. They can't even i
magine a world without abundant food.
permalinkparent
[ ]grungebucket 1 point 4 hours ago
bring about change very quickly. street executions very quickly.
there. Corrected that for you. After all. You wouldn't want to be mistaken for a
terrorist endorsing a terrorist act now, would you?
permalinkparent
[ ]pion3435 2 points 3 hours ago
You never had it. You're just now finding out.
permalinkparent
[ ]hershmire 7 points 7 hours ago
Ok, I get the FBI's argument. Technically, we are all choosing to carry a digita
l device around with us that uniquely identifies us via radio frequency. It's tr
ue that we could very well decide not to partake in the use of cell phones if we
're so worried about being tracked. And thus because we decide to carry these pa

rtially secure devices around with us, they FBI has every right to hack them and
track us.
But this argument is bogus. The FBI can't read our mail or tap our phones becaus
e legislators and judges at one time recognized that technology becomes indispen
sable, and therefore should be protected under privacy laws. Just because I choo
se to carry a cell phone around with me doesn't give the FBI to track my whereab
outs, or worse. That'd be like saying it's my fault for having my mail read by t
he FBI because I chose to write letters, or I chose to have my phones monitored
and recorded by the FBI because I chose to use telephones.
The FBI is part of the executive branch. They (supposedly) operate within the sc
ope of the law. If there's no specific law preventing their actions, they'll go
ahead and do it. So write your representatives and get shit like this regulated.
And use letters because they're obligated to at least open the envelope.
permalink
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]drakecherry 5 points 8 hours ago
we might as well get rid of warrants all together. they are gonna search if they
want to, and nothing will happen if they are wrong.
permalink
[ ]MeganNancySmith 6 points 6 hours ago
The FBI doesn't have the legal authority to make that determination.
It would be like if I said that murder is legal every other Sunday. I can say it
all I like, but it doesn't make it true.
permalink
[ ]Todda468 6 points 6 hours ago
Anything a private citizen can't do should require reasonable suspicion or a war
rent.
permalink
[ ]Sonotmethen 6 points 9 hours ago
Then signal jammers aren't either.
permalink
[ ]MrJDouble 4 points 9 hours ago
FBI tends to say a lot of things, doesn't mean it isn't a pile of horseshit.
permalink
[ ]blueiron0 4 points 6 hours ago
(3) cases in which the technology is used in public places or other locations at
which the FBI deems there is no reasonable expectation of privacy.
Love how the FBI gets to decide when it's ok for them to assume you shouldnt hav
e any expectation on privacy. "we saw a poop porn video on pornhub. you shouldnt
expect privacy when pooping then."
permalink
[ ]ragn4rok234 4 points 6 hours ago
Whoo! Now I don't need a warrant or sufficient reason to wire tap anyone and eve
ryone. Stalkers of the world rejoice! It's like Oprah is handing out privacy bre
aches in here
permalink
[ ]fourslaps 4 points 4 hours ago
This isn't what Steve Irwin would have wanted
permalink
[ ]knowyourbrain 7 points 8 hours ago
How sad is it that we have an R Senator trying to rein in a D president's FBI?
If Snowden et al have not been able to show the American people what a farce our
government is then I don't know how it can be demonstrated.
permalink
[ ]makingupdumbnames 1 point 5 hours ago
that's Chelsea to you, mister!
permalinkparent
[ ]StellarUsername 4 points 9 hours ago
Can someone ELI5 why my cell carrier lets this happen? Seems like it would be ea
sy enough for them to put a stop to it if they wanted.

permalink
[ ]giantgnat 13 points 8 hours ago
Because if you don't play nice with them, they don't play nice with you like wha
t happened to the CEO of quest after he refused to cooperate.
permalinkparent
[ ]lll_1_lll 6 points 6 hours ago
CEO of quest
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/09/30/a-ceo-who-resistednsa-spying-is-out-of-prison-and-he-feels-vindicated-by-snowden-leaks/
permalinkparent
[ ]WatchoutItsAllan 1 point 4 hours ago
Looks like the only way to be out of the eyes of the NSA is to go back to using
these http://imgur.com/JEFUt4h
permalinkparent
[ ]jkeyser14 4 points 7 hours ago
The cell and internet companies get paid millions by the government for direct a
ccess to their lines. This was one of the things Snowden blew the whistle on.
permalinkparent
[ ]MadPooter 2 points 7 hours ago
I believe that the technology behind our current cell phone towers needs to allo
w for widespread access to said cell phone towers from a wide array of technolog
ical devices.
The Stingray makes the cell phone tower believe that it's a cell phone--I don't
know that it's as easy as you might think to re-design all cell phone models to
differentiate themselves from what Stingrays currently are.
TL;DR: This might be a better issue for cell phone designers to solve rather the
n cell phone carriers.
permalinkparent
[ ]egalroc 2 points 6 hours ago
Maybe design a Falcon drone that homes in and locks on fake Stingray towers. Wou
ldn't the FBI just shit to see a couple sparrows zooming down on them?
permalinkparent
[ ]A530[??] 1 point 6 hours ago
Cell carriers couldn't care less. They're also packaging backdoors in their base
band software to do all kinds of functional crap, like over the air updates and
remote access.
permalinkparent
[ ]here4DaBacon 3 points 7 hours ago
So it's a honey pot for cell phones. This same method is used to intercept WiFi
internet traffic. The world is becoming a hackers paradise.
permalink
[ ]CapAnson 4 points 6 hours ago
I don't even think of the FBI's exceptions two and three are valid. And as for i
mminent danger to public safety I can't imagine when that safety hinges on inter
cepting a cell call right now this very second without a warrant
permalink
[ ]SquidwardSnowden1 3 points 6 hours ago
Let it be noted, I love big brother.
permalink
[ ]ryanknapper 3 points 6 hours ago
There was a comment asking what prevents private citizens from doing this. My re
ply was: Absolutely nothing. In fact, there are legal ways of doing exactly this
.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xKihq1fClQg
permalink
[ ]lll_1_lll 2 points 6 hours ago
inb4 this thread gets removed by the mods and/or shadowbanned
permalink
[ ]doctorshady[S] 3 points 6 hours ago
I was almost sure it was going to be removed when I submitted it.

permalinkparent
[ ]grtwatkins 1 point 3 hours ago
Wait, so mods = FBI?
permalinkparent
[ ]doctorshady[S] 2 points 2 hours ago
The mods here are quite restrictive about what is allowed to be submitted. Wheth
er or not they're under someone's influence is a question I can't answer (though
I'd honestly like to know), but you'll occasionally see high profile topics rem
oved, like the Snowden leaks back when PRISM was first pointed out.
permalinkparent
[ ]tomcat23 3 points 6 hours ago
If I had a hundred dollars for every time the FBI said it could do something une
thical or unconstitutional I'd be shooting rockets into space like Elon Musk rig
ht now.
permalink
[ ]leafygreenstuff 3 points 6 hours ago
Oh, well if they said....
permalink
[ ]wlxr 3 points 5 hours ago
Is this implying that they are going to repeatedly kill Steve Irwin?
permalink
[ ]Bulldog65 3 points 2 hours ago
Can I Use my Stingray in public places to intercept communications ?
If the answer is no, then the FBI needs a warrant.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effec
ts, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Wa
rrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, a
nd particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things t
o be seized.
This can only be changed by super majority votes in Congress and the States, not
treasonous opinions of mouthpiece lawyers in Department of Justice. This is why
prosecutions of torture memo writers is important. If they want to try and make
up laws they need to be held accountable under the law.
permalink
[ ]Do_Em_Till_They_Derp 13 points 12 hours ago
I don't think that is a good idea considering what happened to Steve Irwin.
permalink
[ ]Smgth 1 point 4 hours ago
I can't believe how far down I had to scroll to find this joke. I was worried I'
d have to make it myself. This thread is WAY too serious for my taste...
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]go1dfish 10 points 10 hours ago
This is what happens when you give a group of people authority over all else.
They use that authority to extort funds from you to pay for your own oppression.
But reddit still cheers it on. It seems to some; the concepts of roads or compas
sion cannot exist without specially anointed jack boot thugs.
permalink
[ ]Arael15th 3 points 6 hours ago
Do you see anyone in this post cheering this on? Moreover is this your first tim
e here?
permalinkparent
[ ]Flight_MH370 2 points 9 hours ago
Can the cell providers see every time this happens? If so, they could alert peop
le of fake towers or something. Alas, I'm pretty sure all the cell providers are
in bed with the feds already anyway.
permalink
[ ]leftnotracks 1 point 8 hours ago
This is why it s a good thing the FBI are not the people in charge of what is lega
l.

permalink
[ ]iluvmilfs420 3 points 7 hours ago
Ohh cool more of my taxes wasted on stupid shit...
permalink
[ ]fuzzycuffs 3 points 7 hours ago
Then I can do the same thing with wifi and not be charged with hacking, right?
permalink
[ ]endprism 2 points 7 hours ago
Use of Stringray in America: https://www.aclu.org/maps/stingray-tracking-devices
-whos-got-them
http://rt.com/usa/215735-sandiego-police-phone-tracking/
http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/First-Amendment-Coalition-Files-Lawsuit-Ab
out-Stingray-Surveillance--286092741.html
http://www.miaminewtimes.com/2012-02-16/news/cell-phone-tracking-miami-cops-know
-where-you-are/
http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/Fort-Worth-Cellphone-Tracking-Rings-Controversy
-140796693.html
http://www.wgrz.com/story/news/investigations/2014/02/13/are-local-police-spying
-on-your-cell-phone/5462273/
Tick tock...
permalink
[ ]johnnybiggs15 2 points 7 hours ago
didnt know they had that type of power
permalink
[ ]jwyche008 2 points 6 hours ago
They would fucking say that wouldn't they? The thing is it isn't supposed to be
their damn decision to make!
permalink
[ ]ICEClownfishWok 1 point 6 hours ago
Did the US government learn nothing from Nazi Germany? I honestly won't be surpr
ised if WWIII occurs when the rest of the world gets tired of our governments bu
llshit
permalink
[ ]frankenstilskin 3 points 6 hours ago
America, for the corporations by the corporations
permalink
[ ]Elephant_rhino_tiger 3 points 5 hours ago
It sounds like a 6 year old coming up with a superhero. "This is FBI man, and he
can fly and like punch through the earth, and he can y'know like intercept cell
traffic if he thinks it's important. But he is weak against himself though, so
like if he punched himself he would die."
permalink
[ ]Banana_blanket 2 points 4 hours ago
Hey who wants to just sit around and let it happen? Oh, everyone? Perfect. Ready
? Go.
permalink
[ ]poopinbutt2014 3 points 4 hours ago
Ah yes, the cops deciding what laws they are and aren't subject to.
permalink
[ ]burnerthrown 2 points 2 hours ago
Has anyone else notied a pattern of more and more laws that protect enforcement
operations from civilians, and fewer nd fewer laws protecting civilians from enf
orcement?
permalink
[ ]siquisiudices 2 points 2 hours ago
Increasingly I am astonished by the state of democracy in the developed western
countries. What has happened and how? I realise that there have always been infr
ingements of liberties by the state - always. But it seems to me that what has c
hanged is the blatent nature of the compromise of democratic norms. I'm not a hi
storian but my impression is that the origins of our current situation lie in tw

o iconic regimes in the UK and US - Reagan and Thatcher (and those that followed
) - and in the fall of the soviet regimes.
The economic philosophy that Reagan and Thatcher promoted reduced liberty to pro
perty rights while at the same time it condemned (rightly) the soviet regimes fo
r their lack of respect for democratic norms. The appeal of this economic ideolo
gy to capital, to the corporations, was obvious especially as during the 1970s t
here had been intermittent but recurring periods when profitability had fallen.
In the context of declining profitability, a roll back of the state and public e
xpenditure was a quick win.
For the rest of society, the implication that growth in personal, individual wea
lth was being held back by public spending and that the welfare state eroded ind
ividual responsibility also won the day. A key element in this process was the d
efeat and denigration of trade unionism: Thatcher going so far as to suggest tha
t trade unions (in the person of the National Union of Miners) were dangerous tr
aitors. People bought into the arguments for radical individualism ("there is no
such thing as society") because, in part, the concrete experience of collectivi
sm in trade unions declined in the face a massive anti-trade union assault.
The fall of the corrupt and totalitarian soviet regimes underpinned this all by
giving concrete expression to the notion that there is no alternative.
Economically the result has been massive widening of the discrepancy in wealth i
n many western countries and increased immiseration of labour across the world a
nd no force to counterbalance the power of the corporations and the state that t
hey (quite naturally) control. The state is the central committee of capital.
In all of this, the oft misnamed "libertarian" tendencies were accompanied by an
increasingly authoritarian and intrusive state apparatus which was promoted and
defended around quite classical nationalist ideas but recast often as the defen
se of western democracy against various external enemies.
And so, little by little, we have allowed our civil liberties to be chipped away
. Even the radical libertarians have been sidelined and fooled into irrelevant s
truggles around gun control in the US. Really, if an armed citizenry were the gu
arantee of liberty then one wold have hoped it would have done a better job. But
overall anti-welfare, anti-European and anti-immigrant rhetoric in the UK and,
for example, religious manipulation of public discourse in the US have allowed t
he authoritarian, pro-corporate state to gradually encroach on political and per
sonal freedoms. And here we are.
We can't say we didn't know - we were warned but the ruling class managed to def
ame the messengers and in other ways render us impotent.
One can only hope that we wake up in time and that our new disdain for collectiv
ism is overcome by the necessity of taking collective action.
permalink
[ ]DinglebellRock [score hidden] 49 minutes ago
You have a right to privacy according to the Constitution. Except for maybe your
cell phone calls. Or email. Or handwritten or typed letters. Or what you read f
rom the library and Amazon. Or maybe your colon and lower intestine if you are i
n New Mexico. What a fucked up nation this has become...
permalink
[ ]nstalker91 [score hidden] 38 minutes ago
Oh sure, when they do it, it's "protecting" and "morally right", but when I do i
t, it's a "federal crime" and "the FCC watches me"
permalink
[ ]The_Media_Collector 3 points 9 hours ago
This is why my phone has an app to continually report IMSI changes to me. I swit
ch one tower to another, I get a warning.
permalink
[ ]Redd575 1 point 7 hours ago
How is that helpful? Not being an ass, just curious. Seems if a Stingray can spo
of a tower then the app does little unless you are standing absolutely still.
permalinkparent
[ ]The_Media_Collector 3 points 7 hours ago
it's my understanding that Stingray "towers" do not encrypt traffic. anytime I a

m connected to an unencrypted "tower" the IMSI detector goes red and lets me kno
w.
permalinkparent
[ ]Redd575 1 point 6 hours ago
Wow. Whomever figured that out was clever.
permalinkparent
[ ]ExReverie93 1 point 7 hours ago
Which app? And would a normal person (not meaning you're not normal. You know wh
at I mean.) be able to use it?
permalinkparent
[ ]The_Media_Collector 1 point 7 hours ago
Requires Root. It's just caeld "Adnroid IMSI-Catchter"
permalinkparent
[ ]egalroc 1 point 6 hours ago
Makes a person want to be a criminal or spy just for the fun of it.
permalinkparent
[ ]Effo 3 points 7 hours ago
Goodbye America the Great, hello police state. :-[
permalink
[ ]Casemods 2 points 7 hours ago
Another reason why I don't have a cell phone.
permalink
[ ]GiveMe_TreeFiddy 3 points 7 hours ago
Things libertarians have been screaming about and offering solutions to for 500$
, Alex...
permalink
[ ]ilovesellinblow 1 point 9 hours ago
police and marshals have been running these for years.
permalink
[ ]bbelt16ag 1 point 8 hours ago
so FBI lets see what the Supreme court has to say to that. I am sure once they r
ule on this you will be going home with your tails between your legs.
permalink
[ ]Banana_blanket 1 point 4 hours ago
Do you people really have that much faith in our Supreme Court? Really?
permalinkparent
[ ]bbelt16ag 1 point 3 hours ago
gotta have some faith, other wise its just anarchy, or revolution. I am not read
y to give up quite yet.
permalinkparent
[ ]bonyponyride 1 point 8 hours ago
If digital communication in a public (and private) space is fair game, there's n
othing to stop an FBI tech specialist from stealing things like knowledge that w
ould be considered insider trading. There's an extreme potential for abuse.
permalink
[ ]jkeyser14 2 points 7 hours ago
If was fair game then hacking into wireless signals by private citizens wouldn't
be illegal.
permalinkparent
[ ]egalroc 1 point 6 hours ago
Just waiting for Anonymous to set up shop in a public park and hack into police
communications then dispatch them to bogus locations throughout the city. If any
thing goes wrong, they could always blame North Korea.
permalinkparent
[ ]coalbeeashi 1 point 3 hours ago
Aren't government agencies encrypting their digital communication - thus exhibit
ing an expectation of privacy?
I'm not sure what steps the "reasonable person" is taking to exhibit an expectat
ion of privacy over their data, tbh.
permalinkparent

[ ]hmmwhatsthisdo 1 point 8 hours ago


If you used RedPhone, Whisperpush/TextSecure, and a VPN, this wouldn't be of con
cern to you, right?
permalink
[ ]LucifersCounselNZ 1 point 7 hours ago
Wrong.
In other cases, the IMSI or equivalent identifier of a target is not known to th
e StingRay operator and the goal of the surveillance operation is to identify on
e or more cellular devices being used in a known area.[16] For example, if visua
l surveillance is being conducted on a group of protestors,[17] a StingRay can b
e used to download the IMSI or equivalent identifier from each phone within the
protest area. After identifying the phones, locating and tracking operations can
be conducted, and service providers can be forced to turn over account informat
ion identifying the phone users.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stingray_phone_tracker#Extracting_Data_From_Interna
l_Storage
Before any of that shit you're talking about comes into play, the IMSI number is
used when establishing the connection. It is uniquely identifying. With your IM
SI number and a court order (or cooperative telco) they will know who you are an
d who you were communicating with.
Then they can use that information to punish you for participating in legal prot
ests, associating with the wrong people, or simply because some Fed didn't like
the look of you.
permalinkparent
[ ]hmmwhatsthisdo 1 point 6 hours ago
So, the only way is to modify your IMEI (which is questionably legal) and use a
prepaid SIM?
permalinkparent
[ ]facepalmdude 1 point 5 hours ago
The IMSI part makes sense, but by using the mentioned tools authorities are very
unlikely to find out who you communicated with, or what the content was. All th
ey know is that you're the end point of an encrypted data connection.
permalinkparent
[ ]coalbeeashi 1 point 3 hours ago
I would assume that a court would view this as an individual exhibiting an expec
tation of privacy over their data.
permalinkparent
[ ]mambotangohandala 1 point 7 hours ago
Law?
We don't need no stinkin' law...
permalink
[ ]smilesbot 1 point 7 hours ago
You've just used a double negative! :P
permalinkparent
[ ]mambotangohandala 1 point 7 hours ago
no i did not, never would i do such a thing, nope, i don't think i ever did...
Ever see the movie 'blazing saddles'? Context kid, context
permalinkparent
[ ]smilesbot 1 point 7 hours ago
yup yup yup!
permalinkparent
[ ]mambotangohandala 1 point 7 hours ago
oh no a triple positive,what a stupendous faux pas!
permalinkparent
[ ]smilesbot 1 point 7 hours ago
yup yup yup!
permalinkparent
[ ]mambotangohandala 1 point 7 hours ago
Did mom give you too many sodas tonight?
permalinkparent

[ ]mambotangohandala 1 point 7 hours ago


Now where are those kiddy downers?
permalinkparent
[ ]mambotangohandala 1 point 7 hours ago
Remember tomorrow is a school day
permalinkparent
[ ]BigTex8900 1 point 7 hours ago
The Federal Bureau of Investigation is taking the position that court warrants a
re not required when deploying cell-site simulators in public places.
Wait so can I take the position that it's not actually illegal to suck dick for
money in public places?
permalink
[ ]AssOrca 1 point 6 hours ago
Well thank god there not doing it in my home!
permalinkparent
[ ]Drunken_Economist 1 point 7 hours ago
The FCC says they are needed, FWIW
permalink
[ ]FadingEchoes11 0 points 6 hours ago
100% true, power to the people
You should learn about and try to understand firearms more, they are just tools
after all.
permalink
[ ]winstrol 1 point 6 hours ago
Can i use a stingray? Al stick to my snoopsnitch.
permalink
[ ]fatscat84 2 points 6 hours ago
Big fucking surprise, 4th amendment=toilet paper anymore. The rights of the citi
zens arent even considered anymore since we dont have lobbyists. Maybe ill start
a kickstarter campaign to make a lobbyist group to give americans a voice in d.
c.
permalink
[ ]urbn 2 points 6 hours ago
The Obama Administration has repeatedly maintained that the public has no privac
y in public places.
And yet the excuse always used when someone records a police officer breaking th
e law and is arrested, detained and has his property stolen is that it violates
their privacy.
permalink
[ ]Vigilias 1 point 6 hours ago
If it's stealing signals being send from private residences it sure should fucki
ng be wtf.
permalink
[ ]2013palmtreepam 1 point 6 hours ago
Because stingrays automatically stop working at private property lines? Don't re
call the part of the 4th Amendment that exempts the requirement for probable cau
se and a search warrant when one happens to be in a public place.
permalink
[ ]makingupdumbnames 2 points 6 hours ago
I don't think it would be too hard to develop a stingray jammer, something that
just floods their equipment with a bunch of useless/fake cell phone numbers...I'
m in favor of a more strategic response to these types of infringements of our r
ights. We actually have a right and responsibility to fight tyranny...
permalink
[ ]ghotiaroma 1 point 3 hours ago
It's possible, but you wouldn't know where and when to use it. And it would be d
etectable you are using a jammer and anyone using one would find themselves fill
ed with SWAT bullets in no time.
permalinkparent
[ ]ononewheel 1 point 2 hours ago

Cant you rent bot net time and do this?


permalinkparent
[ ]psilontech 1 point 5 hours ago
I think that's for the courts to decide, FBI.
permalink
[ ]coalbeeashi 1 point 4 hours ago
...the only way the courts could decide is if it were practiced and a lawsuit wa
s brought against those practices.
Of course the FBI is going to finagle ways to flirt with obscure, outdated laws
for the purpose of investigating, thus practice it. Of course some group or orga
nization is going to take issue with it, thus taking it to court.
permalinkparent
[ ]cynoclast 2 points 5 hours ago
And the 4th Amendment says the FBI is wrong. And to the idea that subsequent law
s or that prededence says otherwise, I say that lawyers who make those interpret
ations were paid to do so by people with a vested interest in saying otherwise.
The constitution and amendments were intended to be read and interpreted by ever
yone, not just lawyers and judges so it matters not at all what lawyers and judg
es say.
permalink
[ ]coalbeeashi 1 point 5 hours ago
The constitution and amendments were intended to be read and interpreted by ever
yone
Uhh...interpreted by everyone? Do you know how fucked up that would be? There's
a reason for the judicial branch.
permalinkparent
[ ]cynoclast 2 points 4 hours ago
More fucked up than corporations as people? The 4th Amendment being ignored by t
he DHS, Homeland Security, and the NSA? More fucked up than than all the ridicul
ous, unconstitutional restrictions on cosmetic features of firearms that all vio
late the 2nd amendment? More fucked up than justices appointed by war criminals
refusing to recuse themselves where they have a clear conflict of interest?
The judicial branch is staffed by people, just as fallible as the rest of us. Th
e judicial branch was nly ever an attempt to reign in the other two. It was alwa
ys intended that it was the right of the people to alter or abolish the governme
nt if it gets out of hand and it has.
permalinkparent
[ ]coalbeeashi 1 point 4 hours ago
I would still rather have the fate of laws be in the hands of individuals who sp
ecifically studied the very nature of their professional practice than leave it
up to a mass of people with little-to-no understanding of the law, outside of wh
at is force-fed to them by media (comparable to your assertion of less-than-idea
l practices by lawyer/judges)
I fully agree that laws should be written in ways that the public can understand
and interpret (however, you're never going to reach a consensus on laws written
200+ years ago). And I believe that, reading most supreme court decisions, the
justices advocate for specifics in laws and understand that outdated or vague la
ws is a main reason cases are brought before them. Laws aren't concrete or stati
c. It's a court of public opinion.
permalinkparent
[ ]cynoclast 1 point 4 hours ago
I would still rather have the fate of laws be in the hands of individuals who sp
ecifically studied the very nature of their professional practice than leave it
up to a mass of people with little-to-no understanding of the law, outside of wh
at is force-fed to them by media (comparable to your assertion of less-than-idea
l practices by lawyer/judges)
I think there's balance between the two. It's similar to the balance between IT
and the user. While the IT guy is more knowledgeable about the field than most o
f the users he's supposed to facilitate, he often forgets that his purpose is to
facilitate, not to rule, and what the users are doing is what keeps the lights

on. People in congress and the senate are mislabelled when called 'lawmakers' th
eir job is representative of their constituency. And lawyers face a conflict of
interest between simplifying the law and representing people fairly and seeing a
fter their own welfare and ensuring their own job security. Simple, clear, and u
nambiguous laws have little value to the professional attorney at law. But the p
eople at large have no interest, and in fact a reason to despise laws they don't
understand, especially ones decided by decades old case law they know nothing a
bout. But for too long the balance has been swinging in favor of the lawyer seek
ing payment for services from the rich instead of the poor seeking freedom from
those with the resources to hire teams of lawyers for years to drain them of res
ources. The day a rich man could sue an innocent poor man under false pretenses
and crush him is the day the justice department ceased to function as intended.
I fully agree that laws should be written in ways that the public can understand
and interpret (however, you're never going to reach a consensus on laws written
200+ years ago). And I believe that, reading most supreme court decisions, the
justices advocate for specifics in laws and understand that outdated or vague la
ws is a main reason cases are brought before them. Laws aren't concrete or stati
c. It's a court of public opinion.
Lawyers like to pretend that they are concrete or static. Just imagine the phras
e "settled case law" coming out of their mouths and you need go no further. It's
like they forget that eventually given the dynamic equilibrium of the poor vs.
the rich that sometimes words written on paper in a dusty library somewhere mean
absolutely nothing when the pitchforks and guillotines come out, the old laws t
hrown out, and new ones written even more strongly against tyrants. You're right
, sometimes, it's a court of public opinion. But sometimes the court is brutal,
but not unjustly so:
There were two Reigns of Terror, if we would but remember it and consider it; the
one wrought murder in hot passion, the other in heartless cold blood; the one la
sted mere months, the other had lasted a thousand years; the one inflicted death
upon ten thousand persons, the other upon a hundred millions; but our shudders
are all for the horrors of the minor Terror, the momentary Terror, so to speak; wh
ereas, what is the horror of swift death by the axe, compared with lifelong deat
h from hunger, cold, insult, cruelty, and heart-break? What is swift death by li
ghtning compared with death by slow fire at the stake? A city cemetery could con
tain the coffins filled by that brief Terror which we have all been so diligentl
y taught to shiver at and mourn over; but all France could hardly contain the co
ffins filled by that older and real Terror that unspeakably bitter and awful Terro
r which none of us has been taught to see in its vastness or pity as it deserves
.
permalinkparent
[ ]DongleNocker 2 points 5 hours ago
Don't you wish government organizations would get permission from congress prior
to assuming they have the authority?
permalink
[ ]Euracil 1 point 5 hours ago
Whoops! Someone just happened to spill wine all over the Bill of Rights! Well, a
t least the Second Amendment survived!
permalink
[ ]ripvannwinkler 1 point 5 hours ago
What is the practical operational radius of one of these things?
If my place of business or residence falls in this radius of an operating device
, is my phone subject to interception by the device?
If so, you require a warrant. Period. No equivocation.
permalink
[ ]bittopia 1 point 5 hours ago
What is going to be interesting is when systems and encryptions becomes so resil
ient and powerful that nothing can be spied on AT ALL. What will they do then?
permalink
[ ]johnnybullet 1 point 5 hours ago
I thought only God was listening to me... This changes everything!

permalink
[ ]TronicTonic 2 points 5 hours ago
Thank god the FBI is in charge of the judicial branch and gets to decide what is
right vs wrong.
permalink
[ ]Vinven 1 point 5 hours ago
They can say whatever they want, it doesn't make it legal.
permalink
[ ]coffeethulhu 2 points 5 hours ago
Under this theory anybody could buy one of these devices and use it in "public s
paces" without fear of falling foul of the law....Who wants to start a kickstart
er campaign to buy one?
permalink
[ ]redditezmode 1 point 5 hours ago
Based on what, exactly? Why would they think search warrants aren't necessary?
permalink
[ ]Fucksfuturefatchicks 1 point 4 hours ago
If it stops me from downloading porn, it's a dead giveaway. If it doesn't, thank
s for the government funded and sanctioned porn.
permalink
[ ]egalroc 1 point 4 hours ago
I wonder if the FBI can upload unsanctioned porn to your computer using a stingr
ay? Interesting thought isn't it?
permalinkparent
[ ]winsomecowboy 1 point 4 hours ago
So my clandestine FBI staff list shouldn't be an issue.
permalink
[ ]Heisenpurrrrg 1 point 4 hours ago
Those guys can fuck right off, eh?
permalink
[ ]cerealcable 1 point 4 hours ago
Every time an invasion of our rights & privacy especially related to our establi
shed forms of communications happens it just terrifies me. Not because our gover
nment is throwing wind to established laws but because of what the future could
bring.
The reason why most of us are upset today over this is because we have an expect
ation of privacy when we pick up our cell phones. We expect our text messages, p
hone calls and data to be private thus protected by law requiring a warrant to "
tap" it only for Law Enforcement. Telecoms (wired, wireless, voip) will only com
ply to requests when required by law, but when it comes to the public air waves
using technology to just listen in we're starting a terrible precedent.
Essentially what I'm concerned about is that eventually it'll be so commonly acc
epted that these communications are not private (after all the government can sn
oop in on those conversations, and everyone already expects it) and thus we no l
onger have the expectation of privacy and thus no warrant is actually acquired.
The terrifying process is how it all started, with the government over stepping
their legal abilities with little to no repercussions.
Now that I'm reading that paragraph again, I honestly wouldn't be surprised if t
hat exact argument is/was/will be used in a secret court of which none of us wil
l be able to hold accountable.
It's scary to see what the future will hold for privacy related to technology. O
ur government is doing anything and everything they want and if people aren't sc
ared they need to get some tinfoil and make some hats because they're going to n
eed them.
Obligatory point: As the government snoops more and more, technology will just e
ncrypt more and more making it nearly pointless for the snooping, but it won't c
hange the expectation of privacy after say a decade of common knowledge that the
se communications are not private. Then Law Enforcement Agencies will just subpo
ena records instead of following due process of getting a warrant.
tl;dr It's a very slippery slope and I'm just watching us slowly sliding further

and further into the trap. :-(


permalink
[ ]coalbeeashi 1 point 4 hours ago
Honest question - in the eyes of laws, is our view on "expectation of privacy" i
gnorant or misguided? When I send a text - even though I don't think about it I gave permission to Apple, AT&T, my friend, their carrier, their phone, and pro
bably countless others that I don't even realize. When I download an app I give
them all sorts of permissions to access my information.
Also, what's stopping the government from creating an app, let's say some crazed
game like Trivia Crack, hide a bunch of permissions that no one looks at and do
it that way. They could have access to my photos, access to my microphone, acce
ss to my location, etc. (obviously I understand that you can retract most of tho
se permissions, but I doubt many people do)
So, I guess my question is, using multiple third parties, do I really have the r
ight to expect complete privacy?
permalinkparent
[ ]Rockerofboats 2 points 4 hours ago
I do what I wants to.
permalink
[ ]Gymshortsboner55 2 points 4 hours ago
I'm not trying to sound like the uncle that's always bitchin' at family reunions
but man is this country going down the shitter. I'm almost ashamed to live here
anymore.
permalink
[ ]kazuri85 2 points 4 hours ago
The government has no right to make your property do something you do not want i
t to do.
permalink
[ ]SpacemanLurker 2 points 3 hours ago
Crikey! Australian accent
Too soon?
permalink
[ ]Undisclosed-dopeness 1 point 3 hours ago
Really wish this was about actual stingrays
permalink
[ ]k-h 1 point 3 hours ago
Is that the "stingrays" that don't exist?
Of course they don't need a warrant on equipment that doesn't exist.
permalink
[ ]PhorTwenny 2 points 3 hours ago
if it picks up all cells text/call/info how do they know your not inside a house
or anyother private area? Either way this is disgusting!
permalink
[ ]MarxIzalias 2 points 3 hours ago
The more of these that get posted, the harder I laugh at America's freedoms.
You pretty much have the same as everybody else.
It seems as though the constitution is like bog roll to your law enforcement. Co
vered in meaningless shit that doesn't even stick to them.
What a joke.
The FBI stating that 'stingrays' don't apply to privacy laws because you're in a
public place makes no sense, otherwise you could walk around butt naked and arg
ue that "According to the FBI, personal privacy is not required in public".
Of course, they could say, what any deceitful peice of trash could say. "If you
weren't doing anything illegal then you have nothing to worry about."
Unless you were talking to you solicitor about a patent. In which case it would
be worthless the moment a third party heard about the invention.
Talking to your doctor about a condition that could prejudice a group against yo
u.
Talking to a solicitor about the details of a case.
Talking to fellow jurors over the phone about a details of a case, that's always

good to be spied on.


Talk about family history and possible ties you might have to foreign nations, w
hich could put you on a watch list.
Give personal details to bankers about foreign business accounts which have diff
erent protection laws.
Discuss plans you may have that they could interfere with.
Or just miscellaneous emails to and from your employer that could be damaging to
the companies reputation if published and could be used against them as leverag
e with a false flag operation LOOKING AT YOU SONY!
This isn't even a comprehensive list of things that you could do, but hey, it's
America, the land where freedom is a lie and the constitution is apparently wort
h less and less with each new government. XFD
permalink
[ ]NightOfTheLivingHam 1 point 3 hours ago
while we're declaring bullshit, I declare I'm owed a million dollars.
permalink
[ ]ZedOud 1 point 3 hours ago
Most warrant-less law enforcement surveillance techniques are legal because they
can be performed by members of the public, in public. (ex. tailing)
So can we also legally operate a stingray?
Yes we can!
permalink
[ ]Wulfgar_RIP 1 point 3 hours ago
FBI protecting freedoms and constitution from terrorists
permalink
[ ]CantHugEveryCat 2 points 3 hours ago
I'm surprised the FBI still feel they have to justify their actions.
permalink
[ ]bazingabrain 0 points 3 hours ago
Here I am thinking the FBI is going to be throwing real stingrays around without
a search warrant. Can't have that
permalink
[ ]tobsn 1 point 3 hours ago
and whoever said that should be immediately terminated.
permalink
[ ]joshladd 1 point 3 hours ago
Didn't the supreme court just say that searching cell phones requires a warrant?
Is this different than searching cell phones? I might be uninformed but it seem
s like a blatant disregard for court rulings.
permalink
[ ]birdington1 1 point 3 hours ago
Can anybody explain what a 'stingray' is?
permalink
[ ]one_love_silvia 1 point 2 hours ago
the article explains it in literally the first paragraph.
permalinkparent
[ ]IllegalOperator 0 points 2 hours ago
Yeah right, dropping the case rather than reveal their methods says otherwise. I
f there weren't doing anything wrong they would have nothing to hide.
permalink
[ ]HauntedBeepers 1 point 2 hours ago
FBI says FBI can do what it wants
permalink
[ ]Fig1024 1 point 2 hours ago
does that mean I, as private citizen, can also use them? After all, there are no
laws against it
permalink
[ ]Monkeibusiness 1 point 2 hours ago
"FBI - out if control since 2001" -Simpsons
permalink

[ ]skztr 1 point 2 hours ago


good test for whether or not you need a warrant:
If any random person off the street did it, would that be legal? If not, you nee
d a fucking warrant.
permalink
[ ]Rusky82 1 point 2 hours ago
Land of the free eh......
permalink
[ ]WECGEWHYAAIORTNU 1 point 2 hours ago
So in some states its "wiretapping" to record with a microphone a conversation b
etween two people happening at a table, but pretending to be a cell tower is a-o
k?
permalink
[ ]Amanoo 1 point 2 hours ago
"concerned about whether the FBI and other law enforcement agencies have adequat
ely considered the privacy interests" of Americans
Privacy interests of Americans? Is that supposed to still be a thing? I thought
that privacy interests were considered something for terrorists in the US, by no
w.
permalink
[ ]raviddadford 1 point 2 hours ago
Stingray got Steve Irwin
permalink
[ ]Homarus_Americanus 1 point 2 hours ago
It's all good 'cause I can by me all guns I want.
permalink
[ ]anshu1234 0 points 2 hours ago
This is non-news if you are not a drug-peddler. Next please.
permalink
[ ]bubbafat1155 1 point 2 hours ago
It's over. "They" have won. The only hope now is for individuals, society is los
t. Get off the grid, or join the sheep. http://imgur.com/W7CdURh
permalink
[ ]Targun 1 point 2 hours ago
And how are they going to filter out cellphones of all the people who live next
to public places where stingray is located?
permalink
[ ]riderer 1 point 2 hours ago
So can i do the same in public place? just stingray everyone?
permalink
[ ]Neker 1 point 1 hour ago
There are blueprints and tutorials out there that put "stingrays" within reach o
f an hobbyist. Law-breaking hobbyist, that is, but still : mobile phones essenti
aly broadcast your conversations.
permalink
[ ]mindwandering 1 point 1 hour ago
The flying DRT box.
permalink
[ ]SilenceGivesConsent [score hidden] 48 minutes ago
In other words, FBI says it does not need search warrants to warrant a search.
permalink
[ ]Formally_Nightman [score hidden] 46 minutes ago
FBI: "Senator we have been monitoring your calls and your exact geographical loc
ation for years ... You shouldn't find that unconstitutional or the public and y
our wife will learn how unconstitutional you've been"
permalink
[ ]ActuallyNotSparticus [score hidden] 40 minutes ago
Fuck this shit. Stingrays killed the crocodile hunter. Are we ready for the gove
rnment to use these stingrays?
permalink

[ ]Rayhueston [score hidden] 38 minutes ago


The article says the Obama administration consistently maintains that people hav
e no privacy in public. Is that true or is that hyperbole?
If I'm walking down the street, do I have the right to keep the contents of my w
allet private? My blood type? My thoughts?
If I have no privacy with regard to these and many other sensitive things, who d
oes have the right to them?
permalink
[ ]swollennode [score hidden] 37 minutes ago
People don't have privacy in public places..hmmm, I think that people are entitl
ed to privacy if something private belongs to them. Sure, people's faces aren't
private when they're in public places. But people's phone calls and texts should
be.
permalink
[ ]pomod [score hidden] 18 minutes ago
Well if the FBI says they are not needed...
Seriously, this should be a court decision not a cop one. Cops, even a fancy cop
s like the FBI, should not make the laws just enforce them.
permalink
[ ]CJ59 [score hidden] 18 minutes ago
In other news, the FBI says, "You know what, screw it. There are no more laws. W
e'll do whatever the hell we want. Not like you're going to do anything about it
."
permalink
[ ]gkiltz [score hidden] 15 minutes ago
Just because the FBI says it, that does not mean it's true!
I don't envy the poor schmuck who has to stan in front of the Supreme Court and
argue that!!
permalink
load more comments (48 replies)
about
blog
about
team
source code
advertise
jobs
help
wiki
FAQ
reddiquette
rules
contact us
tools
mobile
firefox extension
chrome extension
buttons
widget
<3
reddit gold
store
redditgifts
reddit AMA app
reddit.tv
radio reddit
Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy
. 2015 reddit inc. All rights reserved.
REDDIT and the ALIEN Logo are registered trademarks of reddit inc.

p jump to content
MY SUBREDDITS
FRONT-ALL-RANDOM | PHOTOSHOPBATTLES-HISTORY-GIFS-FOOD-PHILOSOPHY-TELEVISION-WORL
DNEWS-SHOWERTHOUGHTS-LIFEPROTIPS-ART-SPACE-NOTTHEONION-DOCUMENTARIES-NOSLEEP-GAM
ING-GADGETS-EARTHPORN-ASKREDDIT-FUNNY-MOVIES-DIY-FUTUROLOGY-FITNESS-BOOKS-LISTEN
TOTHIS-INTERNETISBEAUTIFUL-MUSIC-EXPLAINLIKEIMFIVE-UPLIFTINGNEWS-SPORTS-PICS-TOD
AYILEARNED-PERSONALFINANCE-DATAISBEAUTIFUL-IAMA-OLDSCHOOLCOOL-EUROPE-CREEPY-TWOX
CHROMOSOMES-AWW-NEWS-WRITINGPROMPTS-GETMOTIVATED-VIDEOS-TIFU-ASKSCIENCE-JOKES-MI
LDLYINTERESTING-SCIENCE
MORE
news newscommentsrelatedother discussions (15)
want to join? sign in or create an account in seconds|English
this post was submitted on 05 Jan 2015
3,152 points (95% upvoted)
shortlink:
remember mereset passwordlogin
news
unsubscribe4,562,294 readers
2,631 users here now
/r/inthenews
/r/worldnews
new submissions
new comments
Post analysis/opinion articles to /r/inthenews
Want to talk?
Chat with us on IRC
Follow @rslashnews on Twitter
See a post that violates the rules below? Had your post stuck in the spam filter
? Have a question about policy? Just want to give feedback? Send the mod team a
message.
Please post news items only, with the exception of meta posts about /r/news itse
lf. Self-posts aggregating news data and "independent reporting" each count as n
ews, but are not an excuse to editorialize.
Your post will likely be removed if it:
is not news (or a meta post).
is an opinion/analysis or advocacy piece.
primarily concerns politics.
has a title not taken from the article.
has a pay wall or steals content.
covers an already-submitted story.
violates reddit's site-wide rules, especially regarding personal info.
Your comment will likely be removed if it:
is racist, sexist, vitriolic, or overly crude.
is unnecessarily rude or provocative.
is a cheap and distracting joke or meme.
is responding to spam.
violates reddit's site-wide rules.
Extreme or repeat offenders will be banned.
Expanded Rules
If your post doesn't fit, consider finding an appropriate news article on that s
tory to submit instead, or submitting yours to lower moderation subreddits:
/r/inthenews - all news-related content
/r/AnythingGoesNews - unrestricted news
/r/truereddit - insightful articles
/r/self - any self-post
/r/misc, /r/redditdotcom - anything
or other news subreddits:
/r/worldnews - from outside the USA only
/r/SyrianCivilWar - about the conflict in Syria

/r/MidEastRegionalWar - on MidEast conflict /r/UpliftingNews - uplifting


/r/mediaquotes - the things they say
or subreddits for other topics:
/r/FoodForThought - discussion-worthy long form articles about interesting subje
cts
/r/politics - for shouting about politics
/r/moderatepolitics - less shouting
/r/politicaldiscussion - even less shouting
/r/geopolitics - intl. politics and geography
/r/entertainment - Justin Bieber updates, etc.
/r/europe - news from Europe
or check out the 200 most active subreddits, categorized by content and the full
list of subreddits by subscribers.
Recommendations:
/r/redactedcharts
/r/patriots
/r/personalfinance
/r/restorethefourth
reddit is fun for Android and its subreddit /r/redditisfun
submit analysis/opinion article
submit news article
submit something else
submit analysis/opinion article
a community for 6 years
message the moderators
moderators
douglasmacarthur
KyldeThe Janitor
AyeMatey
CandyManCan
Elderthedog
LuckyBdx4
NickWasHere09
ani625
pomosexuality
IKingJeremy
...and 1 more
3152
FBI says search warrants not needed to use stingrays in public places (arstechnica
.com)
submitted 13 hours ago by doctorshady
731 commentsshare
top 500 comments
sorted by: best
[ ]peaceshark 654 points 11 hours ago
If only there were some branch of government that would keep the FBI in check, o
ne that judged people and organizations supremely...
permalink
[ ]misogichan 641 points 8 hours ago
Unfortunately the Catholic church has its hands full dealing with its own intern
al reforms and recasting its vision and mission.
permalinkparent
[ ]wutshappening 93 points 7 hours ago
And looking at cat photos that's why they're Cat-holic. Alco-holics are addicted
to alcohol and catholics well you get the idea.
permalinkparent
[ ]TuffLuffJimmy 142 points 6 hours ago
Omg dad you're embarrassing me in front of my friends
permalinkparent
[ ]okmkz 27 points 4 hours ago

We ain't your friends, bruh


permalinkparent
[ ]Corruptionss 4 points 2 hours ago
We ain't your bruh, friends
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
load more comments (2 replies)
[ ]ROLLINGtemple 9 points 5 hours ago
What's their Dogma?
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
load more comments (9 replies)
[ ]hershmire 73 points 7 hours ago
The courts gave up about ten years ago.
permalinkparent
[ ]endprism 50 points 7 hours ago
The courts are pwned by the surveillance state.
permalinkparent
[ ]sushisection 41 points 6 hours ago
This is what I'm afraid of. Nsa is collecting data from all citizens including p
oliticians and supreme court judges.
permalinkparent
[ ]dutchguilder2 19 points 5 hours ago
Whistleblower confirms: http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=d6m1XbWOfVk
permalinkparent
[ ]TwitchTV_Subbort 1 point 3 hours ago
D.C. is Hollywood for ugly people. best line ever!!
permalinkparent
[ ]sklite 1 point 1 hour ago
Charles Augustus Magnussen approves
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]CriticalThink 1 point 6 hours ago
Skeletons in the closet are easy to find with intelligence infrastructure.
permalinkparent
[ ]HurricaneSandyHook 1 point 5 hours ago
The 10th circuit a few days ago sided with the government saying the cops use of
doppler radar to see if anyone was inside a house was legal. They did say it is
a troubling tactic that needs further review and just left it at that....
permalinkparent
[ ]-_--___-_--_--___--_ 27 points 6 hours ago
One major problem with judicial review is that there must be a case for the cour
t to review. I guess the other avenue would be to sue the government, but I'm no
t an attorney so I don't know how that would work.
permalinkparent
[ ]downvotesmakemehard 14 points 4 hours ago
I believe the current court has taken the stance that to take up a case someone
has to show they've been harmed in some way.
The police will never say that stingray is the source of the evidence. This woul
d open stingray to be scrutinized. They will use stingray to go after phone comp
any records which they will claim they requested on a hunch or some other bullsh
it excuse.
permalinkparent
[ ]great_gape [score hidden] 29 minutes ago
Anonymous tip.
permalinkparent
load more comments (2 replies)
[ ]dissonance07 8 points 6 hours ago
With is wide a latitude as the current SCOTUS seems to give to individual libert
y, this seems like the one kind of thing that they could actually usefully addre

ss, right?
permalinkparent
[ ]MrBojangles528 1 point 5 hours ago
Scalia and the rest of the SCOTUS is bought and sold just like the rest of our g
overnment. They answer first and foremost to the parties that nominated them as
well as the corporations that own them.
permalinkparent
[ ]psilontech 12 points 5 hours ago
See, I don't get that. You get into the Supreme Court and you're golden. Unless
you are actively breaking the law and can be impeached, you're untouchable. Why
not, you know, do what's best for your country instead of remaining beholden to
the parasites that leveraged you into that position?
permalinkparent
[ ]Ratbasher88 14 points 4 hours ago
Yep, Supreme Court justices have a well established history of turning out way d
ifferent than their supporters thought they'd be. For whatever reason this curre
nt batch of justices seems more comfortable with the security state than their p
redecessors, however that's true for most Americans in general so I suppose it s
houldn't be shocking.
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]MrBojangles528 2 points 4 hours ago
Good question, but you'd have to ask them about it.
permalinkparent
[ ]cynoclast 0 points 3 hours ago
Unless you are actively breaking the law and can be impeached, you're untouchabl
e.
But you can get richer. Or have your personal communications made public.
permalinkparent
[ ]tughdffvdlfhegl 1 point 3 hours ago
Honestly? Because they run in those social circles. They're friends with the peo
ple at the top. They don't actively associate with "regular folk" that much.
They've been ingratiated into the upper echelons of society long before ever rea
ching the supreme court through lifetimes spent at the forefront of the legal pr
ofession. This insulates them from others, and leaves them in an echo chamber of
their peers.
Now, when a case comes up that pits one of their friends, or friends' friends ag
ainst some random angry dude who's only making 50k a year, who do you think they
automatically side with, when the case isn't cut and dried? I'm not even saying
it's conscious, but prejudices come in all kinds and run deep. Tribalism happen
s all the time in subtle ways.
Plus there's Scalia taking paid for hunting trips with people who are directly a
ffected by cases in front of him, all of them getting invited to dinners and fun
ctions of the DC elite, etc.
permalinkparent
[ ]pion3435 1 point 3 hours ago
They do. It's possible to disagree with you without being corrupt.
permalinkparent
[ ]Jagoonder 1 point 2 hours ago
Not in an omnipotent surveillance state, however.
permalinkparent
[ ]DownFromYesBad 1 point 2 hours ago
Money, bribery.
permalinkparent
[ ]neotropic9 1 point 1 hour ago
Because they are selected to be the type of people who think whats "best for the
ir country" is serving the parasites, the corporate oligarchs, and the surveilla
nce state. They support the status quo, and the status quo supports them. It wou
ld be a miracle if someone with real principles was actually brought into the Su
preme Court, let alone enough of them to form a majority.

permalinkparent
[ ]isprobablyatwork 1 point 1 hour ago
This does happen, sometimes. Good examples would be Justices Warren and Stevens.
They played along with the GOP right up until they were put on the Court, then
immediately started voting their actual conscience (or if not their conscience,
then at least not as their political backers wanted).
permalinkparent
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[ ]cynoclast 2 points 3 hours ago
You mean the press?
permalinkparent
[ ]scrapinpeg 3 points 6 hours ago*
Obligatory link to illustrated law.
EDIT: fixed link
permalinkparent
[ ]ducttapejedi 3 points 6 hours ago*
error 404, check the link.
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[+][deleted] 13 hours ago (56 children)
[ ]sunbolts 701 points 12 hours ago
Glad to see the FBI is tearing up the constitution to increase their own powers
and authority. /s
permalink
[ ]dontbullshityourself 325 points 11 hours ago
Glad to see the FBI is tearing up the constitution to increase their own powers
and authority
I wish this was just the FBI. Pretty much everybody in the federal, state and lo
cals are doing this. Have been doing for this quite some time too.
permalinkparent
[ ]sunbolts 136 points 10 hours ago
Precisely, and that's what makes this very frightening. The whole club's in on i
t.
permalinkparent
[ ]radonthetyrant 75 points 7 hours ago
but why.. I realize that these "zomg the terrorists!!!11" is only a PR-lie. What
do they really accomplish with this? Industry espionage? Bribes from the indust
ries which create the espionage hardware? Feeling of total control? Control the
masses so it all stays as conservative and corrupt as possible?
Why would you amass such a criminal energy to break constitutional laws just to
be able to see through everyone's communication?
permalinkparent
[ ]BettyRubbleIsHot 151 points 7 hours ago
Total control.
That way when the state has it, they can really put the boot on our necks. Think
they treat us poorly now? Just wait until they have the infrastructure in place
where they feel confident there are absolutely zero threats to their power. Tha
t's when shit is going to get BAD.
permalinkparent
[ ]b-LE-z_it 106 points 6 hours ago
And that's why, despite being terrified of some gun owners, despite being terrif
ied of mass shootings, I don't think we should ban guns, even combat rifles. It
can happen here, and we should at least make it hurt if and when it happens.
permalinkparent
[ ]7V3N 47 points 6 hours ago
Welcome to the list.
permalinkparent

[ ]M00glemuffins 10 points 5 hours ago


Sign me up too. If they try to pull a fast one on the public I'm not standing fo
r their bullshit.
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]FadingEchoes11 26 points 6 hours ago
*rifle. No "combat" rifles are owned by citizens
permalinkparent
[ ]b-LE-z_it 39 points 6 hours ago
Did I mention I don't know anything about guns? I don't know anything about guns
.
Point is, force is not something only people in power should have.
permalinkparent
[ ]teefour 19 points 6 hours ago
You should go to a shooting range and take a class. You won't be so unnecessaril
y afraid of them after that.
permalinkparent
[ ]Pullo_T 27 points 6 hours ago
He's not afraid of guns. He's afraid of some gun owners. At least, as far as we
know.
permalinkparent
continue this thread
load more comments (3 replies)
[ ]Bootsncatsn4 5 points 5 hours ago
i understand where youre coming from, but what will a bunch of angry townsfolk d
o to a predator drone strike?
permalinkparent
[ ]Oeboues 18 points 4 hours ago
You should ask the angry townsfolk of Iraq and Afghanistan.
Once the US military is done slinking away in shame, I mean.
permalinkparent
continue this thread
[ ]nuesuh 1 point 1 hour ago
Remove them. Predator drones are being operated from the ground, and has to land
after a couple hours to refuel.
permalinkparent
[ ]joe_m107 4 points 6 hours ago
Maybe we should change that. Repeal the NFA.
permalinkparent
load more comments (2 replies)
[ ]4nco1j 0 points 2 hours ago
You don't know much about guns, do you now.
permalinkparent
load more comments (6 replies)
[ ]conquer69 15 points 4 hours ago
You can have all the guns you want. That won't stop them from labeling you a "su
spected school shooter, pedophile or terrorist".
A gun can't protect you from that. A gun can't teach your fellow countryman to t
hink by themselves or see through propaganda.
Good luck destroying a drone, plane or tank with a rifle. Not sure how useful a
gun is against your own trained military with even better guns and more.
People thinking they can start a revolution and win with a handgun don't realize
this isn't the 1700's anymore.
permalinkparent
[ ]JimmyBuffer 14 points 4 hours ago
Better tell the Middle East they haven't had a bout of revolutions then
permalinkparent
load more comments (2 replies)
[ ]b-LE-z_it 7 points 4 hours ago
Didn't say we would win, I said we could at least make it hurt. Assuming, of cou

rse, that the American people themselves aren't the ones willingly handing in th
eir freedoms, which would mean we're all fucked immediately.
permalinkparent
[ ]theothercoolfish 13 points 2 hours ago
Assuming, of course, that the American people themselves aren't the ones willing
ly handing in their freedoms, which would mean we're all fucked immediately.
Err, you guys gave up much of your freedoms long ago. And it isn't just the US politicians everywhere are taking as much as they can get, because it's simply
more power for them. More power, more money, more control. It's not a conspiracy
- this is just how an imperfect system with inadequate controls eventually goes
. We need to start re-examining our systems and look at alternatives that are no
w possible with the internet.
permalinkparent
[ ]vynusmagnus 3 points 2 hours ago
Tell that to the insurgents in Afghanistan. It seems to me that the US military
has been unable to defeat them in over a decade of war, despite its overwhelming
technological superiority. Tanks and fighter jets are nice, but they do little
against a small guerrilla force that can disappear into the woodwork.
permalinkparent
[ ]Qoix 3 points 3 hours ago
I think the main issue with that line of thinking is that the military would gun
down the civilians it pledges to protect. How many people in the armed forces d
o you know? Now, are any of them willing to murder innocent people? Probably not
.
permalinkparent
[ ]ihcn 6 points 2 hours ago
They're not innocent people, they're armed revolutionaries, suspected terrorists
permalinkparent
[ ]chance-- 4 points 3 hours ago
You say that as if there isn't insurmountable evidence to the contrary.
Military coups are thoroughly woven into the fabric of humanity's history.
permalinkparent
[ ]theothercoolfish 1 point 2 hours ago
gun down the civilians it pledges to protect.
Err, they don't pledge to protect civilians. They pledge to protect the constitu
tion. And if they are convinced that these people are attempting to "subvert" th
e constitution, then they are enemies. Nevermind that their leaders have shat al
l over the constitution - soldiers take their orders and follow 'em.
Now, are any of them willing to murder innocent people?
lol.
permalinkparent
load more comments (2 replies)
[ ]eloquentnemesis [score hidden] 33 minutes ago
Welcome to 4th generation warfare. You don't need a better gun, or the ability t
o kill a drone, or anything else like that. You just need A gun and more commitm
ent than the other side.
permalinkparent
[ ]homegrowncountryboy [score hidden] 16 minutes ago*
Good luck with those tanks, planes and drones when the American people stop supp
lying fuel and ammunition. My brother is in the Army and he will tell you about
75%, or more of the military will disband and fight to protect the American peop
le. All you have to do is look at New Orleans during Katrina, when they got the
order to start confiscating guns almost all of them refused, instead it was main
ly police stealing people's weapons.
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]Hermit_ 2 points 5 hours ago
Yeah but if it does happen all people would be doing is creating the chaos one o
f the armed and militarized militias needs to take power. For example, The KKK.
permalinkparent

[ ]b-LE-z_it 1 point 5 hours ago


Hopefully not the KKK.
permalinkparent
[ ]AussieArcher 1 point 3 hours ago
Fuck me there's always one of you. I'm starting to think the gun club spends mor
e time on reddit than anyone.
permalinkparent
[ ]astronautg117 1 point 1 hour ago
What's a combat rifle going to do against a drone?
permalinkparent
[ ]datbino 1 point 1 hour ago
i think thats where 2nd ammendment people miss the mark- you owning a rifle will
do nothing against the government.
you becoming an active participating member in that government can help fix it,
the goal is to make you a kony2012 fb sharer rather than a person who gets to wo
rk and fixes shit
permalinkparent
[ ]mpg1846 1 point 1 hour ago
You think 50 guys with hand guns are going to do anything to anyone? Gun laws ar
e a joke.
permalinkparent
[ ]Actionbuilding 1 point 1 hour ago
The founders of the United States of America WANTED the citizens to rise up and
overthrow the government if it approached the levels of corruption it is current
ly working toward.
permalinkparent
load more comments (11 replies)
[ ]nuesuh 1 point 1 hour ago
Ever seen "Das Leben der Anderen"? Imagine this, just with total corruption and
100 times better technology. This is what we are moving towards. Imagine this sy
stem getting in the hands of someone like Hitler or Stalin.. And it can happen.
Before Hitler came to power Germany was a modern, western, christian nation. We
need safety with this technology. And when i say safety, i don't mean surveillan
ce. I mean the opposite.
permalinkparent
[ ]know_comment [score hidden] 14 minutes ago
I agree, but I think the reason for the infrastructure development is because it
is going to get bad. As we are forced to compete more globally, quality of life
stagnates. Even the slightest hint of austerity is going to be very painful for
the lower classes in a society with a large income disparity.
That's why we see the race baiting and divisive rhetoric being used so much. Kee
p the poor and working classes quibbling at each other.
I want you to consider the daffodil. And while you're doing that, I'll be over h
ere, looking through your stuff.
permalinkparent
[ ]mzackler 19 points 7 hours ago
It takes a really complicated answer to truly understand but you often get into
the us vs them mentality in siloed areas of law enforcement. You also often get
frustrated with the levels of proof you need to put the bad guy in jail. Thus an
y method you can use you feel justified in using. Although I think there are a l
ot of issues with The Wire, it's a great starting off point for a discussion if
you want a serious answer.
permalinkparent
load more comments (2 replies)
[ ]hershmire 30 points 7 hours ago
Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts, absolutely.
permalinkparent
[ ]TheNewRavager 70 points 6 hours ago
"All governments suffer a recurring problem: Power attracts pathological persona
lities. It is not that power corrupts but that it is magnetic to the corruptible

. Such people have a tendency to become drunk on violence, a condition to which


they are quickly addicted."
permalinkparent
[ ]gee_iwonderwhy 22 points 6 hours ago
Oh shit, a Dune quote outside /r/dune not about spice.
permalinkparent
[ ]TheNumberMuncher 3 points 6 hours ago
This is pretty cool.
permalinkparent
[ ]YawnDogg 1 point 3 hours ago
Gene Hackman was so kinky in that movie.
permalinkparent
[ ]ThreeTimesUp 2 points 2 hours ago
From a Guardian article by Glenn Greenwald I came across recently:
Inside the mind of NSA chief Gen Keith Alexander
Any casual review of human history proves how deeply irrational it is to believe
that powerful factions can be trusted to exercise vast surveillance power with
little accountability or transparency.
But the more they proudly flaunt their warped imperial hubris, the more irration
al it becomes.
permalinkparent
[ ]Epsilox 3 points 2 hours ago
I'm going to take an unpopular stance here and argue that they get more effectiv
e investigations. Which isn't to say I have no reservations about this stuff, be
cause I do.
I've worked in a field tangential to law enforcement, and I've had the unpleasan
t experience of watching very bad people act with impunity because law enforceme
nt had to play by the rules and they didn't. Does that justify the modern trend
towards more invasive government? Maybe that's just the price we pay to live in
a free society. I don't know. I'm a fan of the H.L. Mencken quote:
"The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's ti
me defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are f
irst aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopp
ed at all."
On the other hand, it's very hard to watch members of organized crime and other
monsters literally get away with murder.
In part the difficulty the lies in the infrastructure of modern society. Communi
cations move at such speed and in such quantity that the sort of pinpoint accura
cy required for effective investigations and prosecutions becomes much more diff
icult.
None of which is to say that what we're doing is necessarily right. I've felt th
e fear of writing an opinion online and knowing that the NSA can see it and ever
ything else I've ever written if they so choose. I've had that feeling of always
being watched. I know exactly what is meant by the danger of chilling free spee
ch, because it's happened to me. But I do tend to trust (perhaps naively) that,
for the most part, most of the people making these decisions have good intention
s. I've worked with many of them, and I believe that it more than anything is th
e result of them trying to do their jobs well. Whether they are actually protect
ing the American people or simply paving the road to hell, only time will really
tell.
permalinkparent
[ ]eyeforgot 4 points 6 hours ago
Think of all the blackmail material they have for any future politicians. They w
ill firmly be in check by the powers that be.
permalinkparent
[ ]ademnus 3 points 7 hours ago
Total control.
permalinkparent
[ ]NotAnotherDecoy 4 points 7 hours ago
Total control?

permalinkparent
[ ]leamas666 2 points 5 hours ago
Why would you amass such a criminal energy to break constitutional laws just to
be able to see through everyone's communication?
It's the deep state attempting to preserve its own regime continuity in the even
t of violent revolution.
permalinkparent
[ ]sunbolts 3 points 6 hours ago
Because those in power try to keep it and in addition, there is always a lust fo
r more power. One who is wealthy seeks to increase his riches usually, right? Sa
me thing going on here. In terms of practicality, there's no reason for breaking
constitutional laws, but when you realize how human nature functions in regards
to ambitions and power, well, what we see going on explains itself.
permalinkparent
[ ]Martenz05 1 point 3 hours ago
So, in order to become a political leader who really does work for the benefit o
f the people, one would somehow have to lose every shred of their humanity so th
ey wouldn't have a human nature that could be corrupted by ambition and power?
That sounds ominous, when I put it like that
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]RuthlessDickTater 1 point 5 hours ago
but why.. I realize that these "zomg the terrorists!!!11" is only a PR-lie.
Well pretty soon they might have their terrorists, but they'll be the domestic k
ind.
permalinkparent
[ ]karadan100 1 point 4 hours ago
More money.
permalinkparent
[ ]cynoclast 1 point 3 hours ago
What do they really accomplish with this?
Get rich.
permalinkparent
load more comments (7 replies)
[ ]TGlucifer 50 points 10 hours ago
Criminals learned it's just way easier to do their lawbreaking with a government
salary.
permalinkparent
[ ]pete1729 22 points 9 hours ago
Well, the benefits package is far more attractive.
permalinkparent
[ ]__ghostpants 25 points 7 hours ago
and somehow snitches go to jail instead of the criminals
permalinkparent
[ ]iismitch55 1 point 3 hours ago
Snitches get stitches. Whistleblowers get their mouth sowed shut.
permalinkparent
[ ]HandsOffMyDitka 5 points 5 hours ago
Why break a law, when you can just change it.
permalinkparent
[ ]moresmarterthanyou 2 points 5 hours ago
except when they have to answer questions themselves...
permalinkparent
[ ]dontbullshityourself 1 point 5 hours ago
Well you know liberty is wasted on peasant swine 'eh?
permalinkparent
[ ]ButterflyAttack 1 point 4 hours ago
Sounds like the constitution doesn't mean much at this point. . .
permalinkparent
[ ]dontbullshityourself 1 point 3 hours ago

Sounds like the constitution doesn't mean much at this point. . .


All it means is that the scum who rule us have a legal contract that they say ba
cks up all their power. But their actions shit all over that document.
President Obama, a constitutional law professor ordered the deaths of two US cit
izens without trial in EXPRESS and DIRECT violation of the constitution.
permalinkparent
load more comments (4 replies)
[ ]Eurynom0s 68 points 9 hours ago
And on top of it, even if being in public was a justification for this, how the
fuck do you prevent the device from nabbing people who are inside their own hous
e or apartment as well?
Oh right, you can't, because that's not how radio waves work.
permalinkparent
[ ]Ioneos 18 points 8 hours ago
You can increase the noise gate to reduce range on purpose, but what good would
that do to keep the terrorists citizens under scrutiny.
permalinkparent
[ ]Eurynom0s 20 points 8 hours ago
Even if they were going to do that, I can't imagine that you could do it to a su
fficient degree in a place like NYC to not scoop up at least some people inside
of buildings.
permalinkparent
load more comments (5 replies)
[ ]Codoro 1 point 4 hours ago
I foresee turning your house into a Faraday Cage being the cop radar finder of t
omorrow.
permalinkparent
[ ]Kenny_Login 23 points 7 hours ago
Taxation without representation, an income far below what the productivity was v
alued at, government intrusion? The founding fathers (you know, those "heroes" o
f our nation) got much more pissed off for much less.
permalinkparent
[ ]Socialdem 8 points 5 hours ago
Can you really blame them? The Constitution was written when people were still r
iding on horses. There's no way the founding fathers could have anticipated the
advances in technology and the way people communicate. I think we're due for a f
irmware upgrade.
permalinkparent
[ ]upandrunning 11 points 3 hours ago
Yes, it's called 'replacing congress'. What we're seeing is a natural consequenc
e of career politicians. Most of the people in office have gotten so comfortable
with the idea that they'll get reelected that what they actually do during thei
r term is almost irrelevent.
permalinkparent
[ ]theothercoolfish 2 points 2 hours ago
Exactly. I think we should look at sortition - with an approval vote, and extrem
ely strict rules on what sort of laws can be passed (eg any law must apply equal
ly to everyone - protecting the minority), and a approval bonus for the randomly
selected representatives if the public approves. Fuck career politicians - they
've proven themselves wholly incapable, and the system that supports them is too
corruptible. I don't think campaign finance reform will 1) ever happen 2) adequ
ately deal with institutional corruption.
permalinkparent
[ ]NuclearWookiee 0 points 2 hours ago
All of this should be covered, in any reasonable interpretation, by the Fourth a
mendment. Rebooting who change anything if the limits on government are ignored.
permalinkparent
[ ]KalAl 1 point 1 hour ago
Do you update your firmware by smashing your bios chip with a hammer?
permalinkparent

[ ]FireFromTheWire 4 points 6 hours ago


You're just another Steve Irwin to them.
permalinkparent
[ ]iismitch55 2 points 3 hours ago
Too soon mate :'(
permalinkparent
[ ]Penguin_in_the_sand 1 point 1 hour ago*
I am curious to know what this comment means?... Oh! Steve Irwin was killed by a
stingray. I thought you may have been referring to some conspiracy relating the
Steve Irwin's death. He had an American wife and both were invited to Howard's
Bush BBQ. http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/10/27/1067233100397.html
permalinkparent
[ ]gloubenterder 2 points 1 hour ago
Steve Irwin was a wildlife documentary filmmaker who was well-known for getting
up close and personal with dangerous animals such as crocodiles and komodo drago
ns.
He was pierced through a heart by a stingray in 2006, while shooting footage for
a documentary called Ocean's Deadliest.
After his death, stingrays had a period of great infamy, and there were even rep
orts of people killing and mutilating stingrays as vengeance for Steve Irwin. ..
.which, of course, is the last thing Irwin would have wanted; he was a conservat
ionist, and whenever he was injured by an animal he was studying, he would alway
s clarify to the viewer that that was his own fault and a risk he was aware of.
permalinkparent
[ ]Agent-BurtMacklinFBI 1 point 5 hours ago
Don't worry I'm keeping a look out
permalinkparent
[ ]pion3435 1 point 3 hours ago
It's not a constitutional issue. It might be an FCC one, but they just do whatev
er they're told anyway.
permalinkparent
[ ]dntur 1 point 3 hours ago
theoretically, every cell tower is in a public place. Why not just attach a stin
gray to all of them? Think of the money mobile companies could make renting towe
r space! next comes google who wants to know who you are calling on your iphone
and windows phone for better directed advertising, followed by Bing. /s
permalinkparent
[ ]Brian3232 [score hidden] 46 minutes ago
Why are they wrong? You already can take pictures of people in public places wit
hout warrant
permalinkparent
[ ]GaltsGulchTouristInf [score hidden] 24 minutes ago
When the constitution, the supreme law of the land, the contract between the gov
ernment and the people, is violated, this violating it should be banned from 'pu
blic service' for life, should be personally liable to those whose rights they v
iolated, and should forfeit their government pension and benefits.
permalinkparent
[ ]wtfmuck [score hidden] 17 minutes ago
It's sad how they shirk doing what is right for what is easy.
permalinkparent
load more comments (8 replies)
[ ]quiteintriguing 127 points 12 hours ago
I think it's about time these fuckers provided some evidence that privacy invadi
ng is helping stop crime or terrorism. As far as I can see, there is an Islamic
army in the middle east right now filled with westerners that simply flew over a
nd caught a bus. Nice job government agencies, you sure showed us.
permalink
[ ]HappyAtavism 81 points 11 hours ago
I think it's about time these fuckers provided some evidence that privacy invadi
ng is helping stop crime or terrorism.

Even more importantly they should provide evidence that they're not violating th
e 4th Amendment. The Bill of Rights doesn't say it applies only when convenient.
P.S. I agree that repeated failures to demonstrate the effectiveness of these th
ings, or lies which get "corrected", is yet another reason why this stuff is BS,
but the Constitution is first and foremost. Don't like the 4th Amendment? Try t
o repeal it. Until then it's in force.
permalinkparent
[ ]7u5 3 points 5 hours ago
The "checks and balances" of the judiciary are a farce. They are free to "interp
ret" the Constitution as they see fit.
permalinkparent
load more comments (3 replies)
[ ]DiaperParty 9 points 3 hours ago
Fuck that. FUUUCK that. If this did stop terrorists, it would still not be worth
the violation of rights. We absolutely CANNOT start OKing this shit as long as
it "stops bad guys."
permalinkparent
[ ]quiteintriguing 1 point 3 hours ago
I think you misunderstood. I think they should have to back up their justificati
on, which they obviously can't.
permalinkparent
[ ]DiaperParty 4 points 3 hours ago
But if we ask them to, we lend legitimacy to that claim. We need to say from the
get go that no justification is needed because none will be sufficient.
permalinkparent
[ ]ebouwman 7 points 5 hours ago
In Canada we had the Ottawa shooting and that dude that ran over some soldiers.
Correct me if I'm wrong but both these guys had had their passports revoked.
I'm not a fan of letting them just go over and fight a dirty war but wtf.
permalinkparent
[ ]Ceejae 4 points 4 hours ago
But so what if it is? How successful the program is is irrelevant.
I'm sure if they set up a government camera in every home they'd stop plenty of
murders and rapes.
permalinkparent
load more comments (2 replies)
[ ]cassieloveseffie 5 points 2 hours ago
Well we all know that the FBI has followed people like John Lennon who believed
in radical peace, urged MLK to kill himself and was prepared to assassinate occu
py members. It is not about crime, it is about maintaining a status quo.
permalinkparent
[ ]monopixel 2 points 1 hour ago
was prepared to assassinate occupy members.
Interesting, where can I read up about this?
permalinkparent
[ ]wirepants 4 points 4 hours ago
Locking everyone in solitary could stop crime and terrorism too. That's not a go
od enough reason to violate our rights even if it was working.
permalinkparent
[ ]egodeath92 2 points 5 hours ago
Shh that's classified. This entire country would be a post-apocalyptic dirt-patc
h is not for the heroic NSA collecting dirt on most of the country.
permalinkparent
[ ]pion3435 1 point 3 hours ago
You had no privacy in the first place. That's not how cell phones work.
permalinkparent
load more comments (6 replies)
[ ]MashItMatt 143 points 13 hours ago
Obviously these are constitution free zones, citizen.
permalink

[ ]THANKS-FOR-THE-GOLD 22 points 7 hours ago


Embrace democracy or you will be eradicated
permalinkparent
[ ]jroddie4 14 points 5 hours ago
Citizen, pick up that can.
permalinkparent
[ ]douko 3 points 5 hours ago
This image won't even load (here's another one), but I still know what it is.
DEATH IS A PREFERABLE ALTERNATIVE TO COMMUNISM.
COMMUNISM IS THE VERY DEFINITION OF FAILURE!
permalinkparent
[ ]chewysquirrel 15 points 6 hours ago
Approximately 2/3 of Americans live in a "constitution free zone"
permalinkparent
[ ]newpolitics 50 points 10 hours ago
The Federal Bureau of Investigation is taking the position that court warrants a
re not required when deploying cell-site simulators in public places. Nicknamed
"stingrays," the devices are decoy cell towers that capture locations and identi
ties of mobile phone users and can intercept calls and texts.
So nobody has any expectation of privacy? Talking out of their asses. The implic
ation that a warrant shouldn't be needed to intercept someone's text messages, i
s outrageous.
permalink
[ ]acerplatanoides [score hidden] 16 minutes ago
The implication that a warrant shouldn't be needed to intercept someone's text m
essages, is outrageous.
The implication of intercepting a PRESS related text message, and thus also supp
ressing a free press.
I think many of these are used to stop uploading of images to social medial. You
ever tried that during a demonstration?
permalinkparent
[ ]dalasocatyemerc 67 points 9 hours ago
Hmm, I didn't realize the FBI had the authority to ignore the constitution of th
e United States of America.
Maybe this organization doesn't actually serve Americans. That's what I think
permalink
[ ]Jagoonder 17 points 2 hours ago
They don't. However, lets look at their 3rd criteria:
(3) cases in which the technology is used in public places or other locations at
which the FBI deems there is no reasonable expectation of privacy.
In public, noone has an expectation to privacy. SCOTUS has ruled on such. Theref
ore, it could be argued that phone conversations in public places forfeits at le
ast one party's rights to privacy.
There are a couple of problems with this. First, Stingray is indiscriminate. Sec
ond, the other party of the phone conversation may be in their own home thus hav
ing an expectation of privacy.
I don't know how law works in regards to phone tapping. But, I would assume that
any warrant to do so would provide the agency a waiver on a second party's priv
acy protections when conversing with the target of the warrant. Except in the ca
se of Stingray no warrant was ever obtained thus, no waiver, thus the second par
ty probably still has privacy protections.
So, I think it's bullshit. I'm no lawyer. I suspect the FBI also knows it's bull
shit. But, the more excuses they can come up with to bend the law around their w
ill the more time it takes to try to stop them since each instance requires anot
her court decision.
permalinkparent
[ ]punkrampant 13 points 1 hour ago
There's only "no expectation of privacy" in public in terms of video+camera surv
eillance. People still get disturbed if you look over their shoulder at their ph
one, or listen to a conversation.

Text messages, emails, phone calls, all of it, are the modern day written letter
s. What the FBI is trying to do is the equivalent of setting up a post office th
at opens everyone's envelopes and makes copies of all the contents.
permalinkparent
[ ]Jagoonder 5 points 1 hour ago
Text messages, emails, phone calls, all of it, are the modern day written letter
s. What the FBI is trying to do is the equivalent of setting up a post office th
at opens everyone's envelopes and makes copies of all the contents.
You're right. I was focusing on an actual phone conversation where one party cou
ld be overheard by others, thus no expectation to privacy.
permalinkparent
[ ]Cambodian_Drug_Mule 2 points 1 hour ago
Surely there are people with technical expertise that can just fuck their shit u
p. If I'm not mistaken the stingrays were detected with consumer grade electroni
cs. If everyone just looked out for them and pinned where they are at on a map,
couldn't some people with the technical know how take them offline?
permalinkparent
[ ]monopixel 1 point 1 hour ago
Hmm, I didn't realize the FBI had the authority to ignore the constitution of th
e United States of America.
The US government and its agencies has been doing it for ages.
permalinkparent
[ ]rtpg 40 points 6 hours ago
Surprised nobody's mentioned Kyllo v. United States yet.
This is fairly recent (2001) jurisprudence. The gov't used a thermal imager, and
saw that there were heat lamps inside of a house, and used that to get a search
warrant. The gov't argued that, well, the heat was outside, so pretty much publ
ic information.
The courts disagreed and ruled this an illegal search. Main reason being that no
t many people have thermal imagers, so there's a reasonable expectation of priva
cy. I think even less people have stingrays, so even from the "discovering that
someone has a cell phone" aspect, there's unreasonableness in the search.
Now to the wiretapping aspect... there's Katz v. United States. Here, somebody w
as in a phone booth, and the feds had set a microphone outside the phone booth w
ithout warrant (so not exactly a wiretap). Again, the courts ruled this an unrea
sonable search.
A part of the ruling:
Regardless of the location, a conversation is protected from unreasonable search
and seizure under the Fourth Amendment if it is made with a "reasonable expecta
tion of privacy".
Text messages definitely fall under this. I can't see this holding up for 2 seco
nds in court.
The article goes into it into detail, but few of the FBI's interpretations on pr
ivacy have been holding up in courts recently. The system is kind of working, an
d this interpretation will be shut down as well. Now, if only everyone had good
lawyers...
permalink
[ ]ryewheats 7 points 4 hours ago
But the biggest problem I see would be them not declaring how they gathered any
information they collected in the first place. It would be pretty easy to skirt
around the system and act like you caught the suspect red-handed (because you we
re tipped off by illegal searches). That is the really scary part.
permalinkparent
[ ]argv_minus_one 5 points 3 hours ago
This practice is known as "parallel construction".
permalinkparent
[ ]tughdffvdlfhegl 3 points 3 hours ago
Honestly, this is the biggest concern. The courts won't allow a challenge becaus
e no one will have standing, because the feds/police won't actively declare this
as evidence in a trial. Meanwhile, they'll continue to use it, having a chillin

g effect on the press and others (which the courts have not seen in recent histo
ry as sufficient to provide legal standing).
permalinkparent
[ ]JustaChimp 3 points 5 hours ago
With the Katz v US case, it took them 39 years to overturn the Olmstead v US rul
ing. Let's hope it takes a little less time for this medium.
The recent Romano v Steelcase Inc. court case could indicate how the courts will
rule in the short term with regards to "reasonable expectation of privacy" thou
gh this ruling was in the context of social media and not text messages. The ana
logy was made that much like a letter writer has no reasonable expectation of pr
ivacy once the recipient is in possession of the letter, neither does the post's
author. Same could be extended to text messages and would be equally as trouble
some.
permalinkparent
[ ]qdarius 1 point 3 hours ago
Damn, that doesn't seem right at all. If I send someone a letter I definitely ex
pect that only they will read it.
Could anyone expand on the logic that a letter writer has no reasonable expectat
ion of privacy?
permalinkparent
[ ]Boltaeg 1 point 3 hours ago
After that letter is given to the recipient, they can do whatever they want with
it without you knowing. They could copy it, show it to friends, frame it and pu
t it on their wall....etc. You have no control over that and must assume that an
ything you write in a letter can be disclosed in some manner, simply because you
have no control over that persons actions.
As to why that is the case, I have no idea. Especially considering it is illegal
to open someone elses mail, but perfectly legal to read someone else's letter o
nce they open it. At least that is my understanding of it.
permalinkparent
[ ]TheMightyBarbarian 1 point 3 hours ago
Its fairly simple, you sent a letter, until it is received by the intended recip
ient it has federal protections. Once the recipient receives it, they are free t
o do with it as they wish, even if you disagree with what they do, specifically
because the letter is now their property, even though you wrote it.
permalinkparent
[ ]qdarius 1 point 2 hours ago
I understand that. But if someone else intercepts my letter shouldn't that still
be illegal?
Maybe I'm misunderstanding how stingrays work but it seems like they're basicall
y designed to intercept hundreds of messages.
permalinkparent
[ ]TheMightyBarbarian 1 point 2 hours ago
Intercept isn't illegal, its sketchy but not illegal. As for reading it, it's a
grey area since texts are not encrypted and even if they were it would do shit i
f billions of devices can decrypt them. So unless you use something like a messe
nger system that can use basic encrypting. It won't stop the FBI from reading it
, but it does show you took steps to have a private conversation and that's what
matters to the court.
permalinkparent
[ ]coalbeeashi 1 point 3 hours ago
Re: Katz v. United States
Certain details, such as shutting the door on the telephone booth, help determin
e if a person intends for a conversation to be private. Thus, private conversati
ons can be made in public areas.
What steps is the average Joe taking to exhibit a reasonable expectation of priv
acy regarding his/her data usage? Honest question.
permalinkparent
[ ]TheMightyBarbarian 1 point 2 hours ago
Beyond using a VPN to mimic another location, not much really. Since there are m

any devices involved in the process of just looking up a website. Ex. You google
Microsoft. Here are all the parties involved: You, Your ISP, Google, Microsoft.
That's four parties involved and that's assuming you are not using a Phones Mob
ile Data plan and are using WiFi. Because then it can add a few more people invo
lved.
Sure you should have protection just the same, but currently the law doesn't rec
ognize that, because the people in charge dont understand how any of it works.
permalinkparent
[ ]rtpg [score hidden] 54 minutes ago
I would say that cultural norms kind of define that in that it is extremely rude
to look at another stranger's phone while they are using it to browse/look at t
heir emails/whatever. Not the most solid argument, I know.
permalinkparent
[ ]Sic_SemperTyrannis 1 point 2 hours ago
When the use of stingrays is challenged in court police have dropped the cases r
ather than explain their use of stingrays.
permalinkparent
[ ]cassieloveseffie 1 point 2 hours ago
I have seen a printed record of every one of someone's txt messages for 6 months
. Never assume txt messages are private.
permalinkparent
[ ]Ladderjack 29 points 12 hours ago
I'm sorry, have they gone ahead and combined the FBI and the Supreme Court of th
e United States of America? No? Well, we will see how long this lasts. . .
permalink
[ ]butitssnot 46 points 7 hours ago
Its ok. In 2016 we can vote for hope and change and transparency and fix all thi
s.
permalinkparent
[ ]CriticalThink 3 points 5 hours ago
yeah. I bet Hillary will fix this mess, right Reddit?
permalinkparent
[ ]TheMightyBarbarian 1 point 2 hours ago
We still got time before they can start promoting themselves for President, lega
lly actually, they can't start until a certain number of days from the election.
permalinkparent
[ ]looneybandito 5 points 6 hours ago
Haha. As if our votes matter.
permalinkparent
[ ]atomofconsumption 9 points 5 hours ago
thatsthejoke.jpg
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]dichroeyes 1 point 4 hours ago
You are right. I give up. Long live the hegemony.
permalinkparent
[ ]Pikaflu 1 point 3 hours ago
America is an irradiated wasteland. Within it lies a city. Outside the boundary
walls, a desert. A cursed earth. Inside the walls, a cursed city, stretching fro
m Boston to Washington D.C. An unbroken concrete landscape. 800 million people l
iving in the ruin of the old world and the mega structures of the new one. Mega
blocks. Mega highways. Mega City One. Convulsing. Choking. Breaking under its ow
n weight. Citizens in fear of the street. The gun. The gang. Only one thing figh
ting for order in the chaos: the men and women of the Hall of Justice. Juries. E
xecutioners. Judges.
permalinkparent
[ ]Ago_Solvo 36 points 9 hours ago
I'm sure that means that stingrays are also open for public hacking in that case
, because they're in a public place, and doing so can't be considered an intrusi
on on government properties or a violation of any Federal Law.

permalink
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]whysopositive 57 points 12 hours ago
Say whatever you want, you don't think big brother is going to find every way to
spy on you?
The thing is I bet every time we the people get upset about some "new" trespass
against our rights there's already something technologically beyond our knowledg
e being put to use to on us now.
permalink
[ ]I_SPLIT_INFINITIVES 16 points 7 hours ago
My dad always said, "If that's what they're telling us they have now, they proba
bly had it ten years ago. Just imagine what they really have."
permalinkparent
[ ]oOTHX1138Oo 28 points 9 hours ago
Thats why we need to add to the bill of rights, so that we continue to be protec
ted in the digital age.
permalinkparent
[ ]TheBlueWaffleHouse 18 points 8 hours ago
At this point in time the bill of rights only shrinks. It doesn't get bigger.
permalinkparent
[ ]tallerthanunicorngod 33 points 7 hours ago
Not with that attitude.
permalinkparent
[ ]mattacular2001 3 points 5 hours ago
Doesn't matter unless you're wealthy
permalinkparent
[ ]tallerthanunicorngod 1 point 2 hours ago
Wealthy people don't like to be spied on either. Honestly, they probably like it
even less.
permalinkparent
[ ]sockgorilla 1 point 5 hours ago
He's John Titor, he's watched it before.
permalinkparent
[ ]mastahslayah 1 point 4 hours ago
Well he isn't getting any of my Dr. Pepper.
permalinkparent
[ ]Poor__Yorick 1 point 2 hours ago
Wow that's a name I haven't heard in a while.
We've got a world war this year though.
3 billion dead by the end of it.
permalinkparent
load more comments (5 replies)
[ ]pion3435 1 point 3 hours ago
We already did. That's the point of laws like HIPAA. There's just no equivalent
for things like email or cell phones so it's legal to see whatever people are na
ively broadcasting.
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]ZomNomNomBeeZ 5 points 7 hours ago
This technology is not particularly new. The man-in-the-middle attack is a class
ic hacking technique. I remember reading an article after one of the security co
nventions detailing a small group of participants that used a remote control air
plane to do this exact thing to convention attendees. This was years ago.
permalinkparent
[ ]hershmire 4 points 7 hours ago
Which is why it's illegality could be successfully code into law.
permalinkparent
[ ]TheMightyBarbarian 1 point 3 hours ago
That's the problem, the people who make the laws don't understand how the techno
logy works, and the people making and using it are telling them its fine, so the

y don't feel like they need to make a law about.


And as such making a law about it would be bad, since the law would need specifi
c language to prevent certain technologies and usage of such. But the biggest is
sue is that some of the technology and uses are too general that it would never
work to stop anything. Since they can't just write a law preventing man in the m
iddle because they need to get a definitive wording on what that is exactly and
then word it so a slight variation doesn't just immediately skirt the new law.
Our technology grew faster than our laws did, but now it's grown faster than our
ability to properly define what it is we do. So controlling it is incredibly ha
rd and will take a long time, so for now we kinda have to suck it up and wait, b
ecause the worst possible thing is them putting out ineffective laws that do les
s than nothing to prevent stuff like that and hearing us complain and think we a
re whining when they just put out a law. I would rather wait a little longer to
make sure the law is proper and effective than to have a crap law screw everythi
ng up.
permalinkparent
[ ]ScorpionPool 1 point 6 hours ago
Serious question. What benefits does the government get from spying on us? Power
? Information for corporations? Shits and giggles? Some kind of profit?
permalinkparent
[ ]swingmemallet 2 points 5 hours ago
All of the above
permalinkparent
[ ]eyeforgot 1 point 5 hours ago*
What like complete access to what anyone posts/chats about on facebook/skype bei
ng dumped into a database? Anyone who work with cisco routers notice anything fu
nny like carefully crafted packets fucking w. the settings and not creating logs
. Maybe like there is a back door that someone has that doesn't require a passwo
rd.
permalinkparent
load more comments (3 replies)
[ ]philtech 26 points 10 hours ago
You can scan for stingray use.
Only works on rooted phones with Qualcomm chipset however. https://play.google.c
om/store/apps/details?id=de.srlabs.snoopsnitch&hl=en
permalink
[ ]vamper 2 points 6 hours ago
damn, no go for my nexus 5
permalinkparent
[ ]Ice_Pirate 1 point 5 hours ago
Should work on my 20 dollar ZTE's with dualies :). Overclocks to 1.8 like butta.
http://www.phonearena.com/phones/ZTE-N800_id8191
permalinkparent
[ ]willyboxc 1 point 2 hours ago
we need a version that will work without root :(
permalinkparent
[ ]networklackey 49 points 11 hours ago*
Bullshit... it's radio. They have no way of determining whether the person they
are monitoring is in public or not.
They shouldn't be able to use this without a warrant any more than they should b
e able to point a laser mic at your window.
The fact that they are in public is irrelevant... the subject they are monitorin
g has to be in public.
permalink
[ ]lll_1_lll 29 points 6 hours ago
Even if we are in public, what the fuck gives them the right to look through my
texts, phone calls, voicemails, emails, call history, etc?
permalinkparent
[ ]zoidbug 5 points 3 hours ago
It should be protected the level of paper mail. It is your private communication

s.
permalinkparent
[ ]networklackey 1 point 2 hours ago
Technically... because you are in public and are broadcasting. But I feel the sa
me way. None of this shit should be legal.
permalinkparent
load more comments (6 replies)
[ ]goatmagic 2 points 3 hours ago
laser mic
Well, TIL this exists :/
permalinkparent
[ ]networklackey 2 points 2 hours ago
They absolutely exist and they are freaking awesome. They should not however be
used by law enforcement without a warrant.
permalinkparent
[ ]makingupdumbnames 1 point 5 hours ago
I think it's that their airwaves cross public space. pls correct me if I'm wrong
, though
permalinkparent
[ ]networklackey 1 point 2 hours ago
That's certainly the argument they are making.
permalinkparent
[ ]wirepants 1 point 4 hours ago
Even assuming you are in public, who's to say the guy on the other side is too?
permalinkparent
[ ]networklackey 1 point 2 hours ago
Nothing but their log books but that doesn't really matter. It's your right to p
rivacy they are violating.
permalinkparent
[ ]Sarah_Connor 9 points 9 hours ago
We need a way to be able to identify, then jamm, stingrays.
permalink
[ ]cookie_nrk 8 points 7 hours ago
This Jammer made in sweden should do the trick. From what I have read it complet
ely blocks all signals, so using a phone wouldn't work at all, but if you were i
n a position to not want to be tracked during a certain time, you could use this
: http://www.jammer-store.com/monstro-10-all-frequencies-portable-jammer.html
permalinkparent
[ ]hershmire 10 points 7 hours ago
We're talking about blanket monitoring of civilians. It needs to be outlawed imm
ediately. Hoping each and every Joe Schmoe is going to buy an illegal cell phone
jammer to protect his identity is, well, ridiculous.
permalinkparent
[ ]davidverner 6 points 7 hours ago
Jammers are illegal in the US on the cellphone frequency. Good luck importing on
e.
permalinkparent
[ ]wicard 5 points 6 hours ago
had one from deal extreme i bought when i was younger to prank friends, was alot
of fun. But if you are worried about being tracked wouldn't just shutting your
phone off do the trick? If you are jamming your phone you arnt going to be talki
ng to anyone.
permalinkparent
[ ]RellenD 4 points 5 hours ago
You have to do more than just turn it off, unfortunately.
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]willyboxc 1 point 2 hours ago
we need the schematics so we can build one... also include 700 mhz jam for lte
permalinkparent

load more comments (1 reply)


[ ]ademnus 11 points 7 hours ago
That's nice but it's not up to the FBI if it is illegal or not.
permalink
[ ]MonitoredCitizen 21 points 7 hours ago
Come on Google and Apple, stop being so lame. Make the phones themselves defend
against this by always displaying the negotiated encryption level and allowing u
ser to configure the phone to refuse to connect if the GSM encryption level is A
5/0.
permalink
[ ]argv_minus_one 2 points 2 hours ago
If they do that, these same spooks will have some words with their CEOs. Otherwi
se, yeah, they likely would.
permalinkparent
[ ]vzzzbux 2 points 1 hour ago
Not sure on the technical specifics but my old Nokia from 10 years ago used to s
how a padlock if the call was "secure", which I guess meant it was encrypted in
some way.
Sounds like yet another way we've gone backwards with the rise of Google and App
le
permalinkparent
[ ]cryptovariable 180 points 12 hours ago
This seems icky, but anyone with a Raspberry Pi ($48.00), an RTL-SDR ($17.00), a
nd an ability to follow written step-by-step instructions on how to install and
configure some open source software ($0.00) can do this, albeit on a smaller sca
le.
That tutorial doesn't cover decrypting GSM traffic. This one does. You'll need s
omething faster than a Raspberry Pi, though. Maybe a $200 netbook.
And you can do it on the same scale as the police with a surplus commercial ante
nna and three or four friends.
I don't see how restricting the government's ability to do this would have any o
ther effect than to criminalize a private citizen's desire to experiment with GS
M.
permalink
[ ]HappyAtavism 113 points 11 hours ago
I don't see how restricting the government's ability to do this would have any o
ther effect than to criminalize a private citizen's desire to experiment with GS
M.
Experiment with GSM all you want, just don't eavesdrop or commit fraud by preten
ding to be part of a legitimate business.
I like to play with miniature cameras, microphones and transmitters. That's a fi
ne hobby as long as I don't use it to spy on my neighbors.
permalinkparent
load more comments (5 replies)
[ ]mr___ 50 points 12 hours ago
But theirs has a transmitter, and actively spoofs cell sites
permalinkparent
[ ]cryptovariable 55 points 12 hours ago
It you want to spoof rather than just eavesdrop all you have to do is buy any of
the SDR kits that are coming on to the market like a bladeRF or something and h
ave GNUradio (which hilariously autocorrects to FBI radio on my phone) pretend t
o be a tower, the credentials of which you sniffed with your Pi setup.
The reason the Feds spoof is so that they can target specific devices on a white
list and only have those connect. The size of the whitelist is unknown and up fo
r debate.
If you're capturing and decrypting all the GSM your antenna can receive you don'
t care if you're spoofing the tower unless you want to modify the traffic in som
e way. To quote Sir Patrick Stewart: "It's too late, I've seen everything."
If you just scoop up everything using cheap/free and publicly available tools yo
u don't really care about spoofing.

It should be noted that the Feds have a leg up with CDMA because of its smaller
global footprint and the scarcity of developers working on it, as well as UMTS (
3G) and LTE.
But people are poking at LTE every day: http://www.rtl-sdr.com/analyzing-td-ltertl-sdr/
permalinkparent
[ ]HappyAtavism 36 points 11 hours ago
The reason the Feds spoof is so that they can target specific devices on a white
list and only have those connect. The size of the whitelist is unknown and up fo
r debate.
We do know they don't have warrants. How many violations of the 4th Amendment do
es it take before it's considered a bad thing?
permalinkparent
load more comments (19 replies)
[ ]A530[??] 6 points 6 hours ago
I have to ask an honest question. Knowing what you know, do you live in a Farada
y cage or just eschew cell phones all together? I'm in InfoSec (I'm guessing you
are too) and with the shit I know, maintaining OPSec is just a never ending bat
tle. I can't imagine my paranoia if I went down the cellular rabbit hole (althou
gh I do know a lot about the shit happening with the carrier baseband MDM garbag
e).
Many thanks for the very informative post.
permalinkparent
[ ]tornadoRadar 1 point 1 hour ago
Gotta keep it segmented. Personal never mixes with biz
permalinkparent
[ ]the_nap_mutilator 1 point 5 hours ago
Spoofing the cell site also gives them access to the phone at something akin to
the hardware level... so unless you have rooted and or installed software to sec
ure the device, they can push new software onto your phone without your knowledg
e/consent in the same way that your carrier updates subscriber units say when th
ey make changes to the network or something. At that point your phone has been p
ermanently compromised.
permalinkparent
load more comments (13 replies)
[ ]mag17435 29 points 10 hours ago
I dont understand how people think the government can do things citizens can. Or
dering our government not to do something has no bearing on what citizens can do
.
permalinkparent
[ ]Golden-Fox 7 points 6 hours ago
Well when police are trying to visually collect evidence they can in general onl
y search from public areas. If a cop is looking for a certain car and they see i
t on the street, that's fine. If the car is parked in a closed garage and on pri
vate property, the cop wouldn't be able to see it without going onto private pro
perty and looking in a window. If the car is in the same garage and the garage d
oor is open, then anyone can see it, and the cop can legally use that informatio
n.
The FBI is trying to apply that same logic to these stingrays. Stingrays are a t
echnology that is available to the public. You could make your own and do exactl
y what the FBI does. The data being collected isn't encrypted, password protecte
d, or anything else. Everything is publicly available. You just have to have a c
ertain machine to be able to read it. The garage door has to be open.
permalinkparent
[ ]Wordygit 6 points 6 hours ago
The key word here is "public" whereas where there is the expectation of privacy,
I would think think that would carry some special considerations. That seems to
be some of what the courts are deciding about, where the expectation of privacy
holds sway over searches. Its already been determined that law enforcement cann
ot force you to unlock your phone. One such Supreme Court case, decided this pas

t summer, led to a sweeping victory for privacy rights advocates. In a rare unan
imous decision, the court found that police cannot search cellphones, and by ext
ension tablets and other digital communication devices, without first obtaining
a warrant. Smartphones, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote, hold the privacies of l
ife, and the fact that technology now allows an individual to carry such informati
on in his hand does not make the information any less worthy of the protection f
or which the Founders fought. I think, as well, that it has been established that
if there is encryption being used, that constitutes an acknowledgement that ste
ps have been taken to protect and maintain the sense of privacy, and so the expe
ctation carries onto the information being transmitted. Not sure if there is a l
egal precedent for that though.
permalinkparent
[ ]Golden-Fox 2 points 5 hours ago
Its already been determined that law enforcement cannot force you to unlock your
phone.
This is what I've heard, but to me it implies that police can access your phone
if you don't have it locked. Carrying that logic over to this argument, the poli
ce would be able to access your cell info as long as it isn't encrypted. It seem
s that you only have a "reasonable expectation to privacy" with your cell phone
if you've taken any steps to make your phone more private. If there were some wa
y to get your carrier to encrypt your data, then there'd be no question, but the
way cell providers are these days, that's not gonna happen.
permalinkparent
[ ]ThreeTimesUp 1 point 1 hour ago
Something that I have heard repeatedly (and I may yet have it wrong), is that if
your front door is closed, but unlocked, the police are free to enter without a
warrant.
This has always bothered me.
I could understand the mind-set of someone (i.e. a Justice of the Supreme court)
thinking that way if they grew up (or lived) in an area where they lived a life
always fearful of intruders and locking doors was a practical necessity.
But to me, a closed door means "Keep out, knock for admittance - no entry withou
t permission."
So, for naive, trusting, me, I would not expect the police (or anyone) to examin
e my phone (without a warrant) just to see what they could find.
permalinkparent
[ ]pion3435 1 point 3 hours ago
A technologically illiterate moron's expectation of privacy doesn't become a rea
sonable expectation of privacy just because the majority of the population is te
chnologically illiterate.
permalinkparent
[ ]F0sh 1 point 2 hours ago
This is totally wrong thinking. A private citizen can look for your car through
the garage window without legal repercussions, even though a police officer migh
t not be allowed. The police officer has to conduct his searches according to th
e expectation of privacy and you have every expectation that your private phone
conversations are private - even if you're sending your texts at the shopping ce
ntre.
This is a bullshit equivocation on the part of the FBI, who are claiming that si
nce any old person at the shops can see that you're also at the shops you have n
o expectation of privacy at all.
This logic, if extended, would also mean the FBI could clone your hard drive if
you took your laptop to a public place - after all, you have no expectation of p
rivacy there. No. Bullshit - just because you're in the park doesn't mean all yo
ur possessions and emails became public.
This has nothing to do with what an ordinary citizen is able to do in public or
in private.
permalinkparent
[ ]ThreeTimesUp 1 point 2 hours ago*
Well when police are trying to visually collect evidence they can in general onl

y search from public areas. If a cop is looking for a certain car and they see i
t on the street, that's fine.
To counterpoint this:
Infra-red light (heat) is just light that's at a lower frequency than humans can
detect.
Courts have ruled that the police using specialized equipment to detect heat sig
natures (Infra-red light) emanating from from houses for the purpose of snooping
for grow operations are an invasion of privacy.
The signals Stingray is picking up are just another frequency, even lower than I
nfra-red light, originating from inside your phone, that is your property, which
is in your possession.
Authorities are using all manner of logical distortions in an express attempt to
get around the ideals and principles expressed in the Constitution.
What law-abiding citizen would attempt such a thing?
What authority that the public has placed their trust in, would make continual a
ttempts to subvert the Constitution?
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
load more comments (2 replies)
[ ]kromem 2 points 3 hours ago
It is already criminal to capture and decrypt GSM traffic for citizens (Wiretap
Act), same as capturing and parsing WiFi data.
But I think I can point out the issue with your logic with a simple analogy:
Citizens can buy guns.
Law enforcement can be provided guns.
Citizens can practice shooting guns.
Law enforcement should do the same.
Citizens can't shoot other citizens with guns except in really specific exemptio
ns.
According to your logic, just because citizens can buy guns, and could possibly
go around shooting other people with them, law enforcement should not have any l
egal restrictions on their use of guns.
It is illegal for you to capture and decrypt anyone else's traffic, and it shoul
d be illegal for cops to do the same without a warrant. It's not that hard to ge
t a warrant when actually justified, creates a paper trail that can be examined
for abuses, and has been the case without serious issue for years now.
For what purpose does the law need to be changed to allow this? Because warrants
are inconvenient? Well then why not get rid of them for entering homes too? It'
s quite trivial to pick a lock, and even easier to smash a window and climb in.
Any citizen could do it. So why do we need to restrict the police from the same?
permalinkparent
[ ]dfioabnionjio 4 points 9 hours ago
I don't see how restricting the government's ability to do this would have any o
ther effect than to criminalize a private citizen's desire to experiment with GS
M.
Why not have it be illegal for government and legal for private citizens? Make i
t perfectly legal for private citizens to experiment with GSM, but don't let the
FBI do the same, like you can have a private citizen share something a defendan
t said in court while the police cannot do the same unless the suspect had been
told of their rights.
Of course, the problem here is not using GSM. It's tracking people who did not k
nowingly join your network. You could have it be legal to experiment with GSM an
d not legal to spoof a network, or make it so tracking someone on your network i
s illegal unless the person being tracked is aware they will be tracked and cons
ents to it.
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]confusiondiffusion 3 points 10 hours ago
Yeah, I really don't see the point in making laws against this, since they'll be
broken anyway. We need to fix the underlying technology. There is no excuse for

the sad state of cellphone security.


permalinkparent
[ ]HappyAtavism 18 points 10 hours ago
I really don't see the point in making laws against this
Then let's just flush the Constitution down the toilet. All laws get broken, the
question is what gets done about it.
since they'll be broken anyway
It's not very hard to break into my house either, but they're not supposed to do
it without a warrant.
permalinkparent
load more comments (4 replies)
[ ]HighMonster 1 point 7 hours ago
Wow that's intriguing
permalinkparent
[ ]lll_1_lll 1 point 6 hours ago
You act like this is realistically doable for the large majority of people and y
ou know that's BS.
permalinkparent
[+][deleted] 6 hours ago (1 child)
[ ]JabroniZamboni 1 point 5 hours ago
Are you suggesting that radar jammers should be legal? As well as cell phone or
wifi jammers? What if your neighbor wants to experiment with a jammer for the ne
xt 4 months? 6 years? I assume you wouldn't be too happy. There's experimentatio
n and then there's purposeful disruption and spying.
permalinkparent
[ ]egodeath92 1 point 5 hours ago
Yeah except "anyone with device X" can't prosecute people. It doesn't matter whe
n corporations do mass data collection because they are just trying to make mone
y/sell people shit. The government can create a database of people's private liv
es then prosecute them. You could even imagine a time where data collection is s
o widespread that this kind of info is used for political purposes rather then b
usting drug dealers/ other criminals which is what it's used for now.
permalinkparent
[ ]Kuusou 1 point 4 hours ago
What the people can do, and what the government can do, are no the same things,
nor should they.
permalinkparent
[ ]qdarius 1 point 4 hours ago
If a random person overhears my conversation I don't care. Even if they tell the
ir friends I'm still not too concerned.
If the government records my conversation and uses it to investigate or prosecut
e me that's clearly a different situation.
Just because someone can do something doesn't mean it should be legal. It defini
tely doesn't mean we should be okay with our government using it on us.
permalinkparent
load more comments (9 replies)
[ ]Sir_not_sir 52 points 13 hours ago
The main purpose of the stinger is to circumvent the need and time of acquiring
a warrant and getting the data from all the service providers.
Regardless of data retention plans, they should require a separate judicial warr
ant for each individual suspect in order to be deployed.
permalink
[ ]manoninternets 8 points 7 hours ago*
The time required to get a warrant is usually far less than what they make it ou
t to be, although cost is as factor. Phone companies make tons of money off poli
ce records requests.
To play devil's advocate (and I do think the STINGRAY arrangement is devilish):
once you request records from the phone companies, there's no guarantee that won
't get leaked to the people being investigated. The cartels have people everywhe

re.
permalinkparent
[ ]kevincreeperpants 6 points 6 hours ago
What if they are the cartels!?...dun dun dun
permalinkparent
[ ]tughdffvdlfhegl 1 point 3 hours ago
I don't think anyone here has a problem with STINGRAY being used, given that the
y have a warrant for the person's data they're monitoring. So in your situation,
that's easy to do.
permalinkparent
[ ]manoninternets 2 points 3 hours ago
Yeah it's the same concept as going through my private letters, or close enough
to it anyhow. (Even though letters are physically sealed and radio waves permeat
e the air freely, my intention is for my text messages to be as private as posta
l mail.)
Even a child could rip open an envelope with ease. That doesn't mean police don'
t need a warrant to do so.
permalinkparent
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[ ]turnthatfrown 9 points 7 hours ago
I think the FBI is conveniently forgetting that they are intercepting a communic
ation that is normally secured via encryption and carried privately by your wire
less provider then switched privately all the way to the party on the other end
who has similar expectations of the connection.
I mean, come on, the Stingrays themselves are impersonating the carrier that you
have a contract with and using techniques to avoid the strong encryption. The p
rove by their own design and implementation that the FBI's argument is bullshit.
permalink
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]dontbullshityourself 27 points 11 hours ago
I'm so sick of the ways these callous assholes use to crush our freedom.
What is the point of massive expensive law enforcement agencies if the law can't
protect our rights and freedoms? Hasn't the cart been put before the horse here
?
permalink
[ ]donottakethisserious 13 points 6 hours ago
If you are told you are free enough times, you start to believe it. You start at
a young age with a pledge every day and then when you grow up you attend sporti
ng events and stand for the national anthem and tear up at how free you are. Tha
t way nobody will ever question whether or not this is actually a free country.
permalinkparent
[ ]dontbullshityourself 10 points 5 hours ago
When I was a kid I started to sit during the pledge. Honestly I think I just wan
ted to test and see how free I was. I knew that saying the pledge etc wasn't in
the school handbook. I knew there was no rule saying I had to say it or stand or
anything. The powers that be at my school just used the herd instinct to keep t
his shit going.
So I started sitting down. This resulted in a lot of attention from gangs of bul
lies. My home room teacher didn't like it either and lectured/bitched about it e
very day. But she stopped short of anything more than shaming me unlike the bull
ies.
Anyway I just decided to drop out. Fuck it. Humans don't like new things that co
nfuse them and challenge them to think. How interesting that was to be the last
thing I learned in school. I found another kind of freedom. The freedom to leave
the assholes mired in their stupidity and find my own path in life.
permalinkparent
[ ]joshyfitzo90 4 points 5 hours ago
I like your style.
permalinkparent

[ ]Jack41096 3 points 4 hours ago


I applaud you. I stood but that's all I did. it was in our rulebook to stand but
fuck them if they thought I was gonna do more than that. I started a wave of pe
ople standing and doing nothing.
eventually my first period class was reduced to two people and the teacher actua
lly doing anything. they bitches about it but we all had our own reasons.
permalinkparent
[ ]dontbullshityourself 2 points 3 hours ago
eventually my first period class was reduced to two people and the teacher actua
lly doing anything. they bitches about it but we all had our own reasons.
There are lots of reasons to resist and only one reason to obey. Fear.
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]CriticalThink 3 points 5 hours ago
Government hasn't been interested in protecting our rights and freedoms in a lon
g time.
permalinkparent
[ ]jkeyser14 5 points 7 hours ago
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety
, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. - Benjamin Franklin
permalinkparent
[ ]dontbullshityourself 5 points 6 hours ago
We didn't give it up. They are taking it.
permalinkparent
[ ]jkeyser14 10 points 6 hours ago
Only because we aren't rioting. The first group of rioters to tar and feather a
politician again will bring about change very quickly.
permalinkparent
[ ]dontbullshityourself 4 points 5 hours ago
People are gonna have to get a lot more desperate. I reckon we'll get our riot s
oon enough.
permalinkparent
[ ]Jack41096 1 point 4 hours ago
take the food. that's the surefire way to cause a riot.
people will be content as long as they're fed. you take that away and suddenly t
hey have nothing to lose. they have to survive. that is the most primal response
we have. to fight tooth and nail for food. to eat no matter the cost.
permalinkparent
[ ]RamsNation 1 point 4 hours ago
America has a very stable food supply so I doubt that will happen.
permalinkparent
[ ]dontbullshityourself 1 point 3 hours ago
I don't think we have to take the food. I think that people today are a lot more
self entitled and will jump into a fit without their iphones. They can't even i
magine a world without abundant food.
permalinkparent
[ ]grungebucket 1 point 4 hours ago
bring about change very quickly. street executions very quickly.
there. Corrected that for you. After all. You wouldn't want to be mistaken for a
terrorist endorsing a terrorist act now, would you?
permalinkparent
[ ]pion3435 2 points 3 hours ago
You never had it. You're just now finding out.
permalinkparent
[ ]hershmire 7 points 7 hours ago
Ok, I get the FBI's argument. Technically, we are all choosing to carry a digita
l device around with us that uniquely identifies us via radio frequency. It's tr
ue that we could very well decide not to partake in the use of cell phones if we
're so worried about being tracked. And thus because we decide to carry these pa

rtially secure devices around with us, they FBI has every right to hack them and
track us.
But this argument is bogus. The FBI can't read our mail or tap our phones becaus
e legislators and judges at one time recognized that technology becomes indispen
sable, and therefore should be protected under privacy laws. Just because I choo
se to carry a cell phone around with me doesn't give the FBI to track my whereab
outs, or worse. That'd be like saying it's my fault for having my mail read by t
he FBI because I chose to write letters, or I chose to have my phones monitored
and recorded by the FBI because I chose to use telephones.
The FBI is part of the executive branch. They (supposedly) operate within the sc
ope of the law. If there's no specific law preventing their actions, they'll go
ahead and do it. So write your representatives and get shit like this regulated.
And use letters because they're obligated to at least open the envelope.
permalink
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]drakecherry 5 points 8 hours ago
we might as well get rid of warrants all together. they are gonna search if they
want to, and nothing will happen if they are wrong.
permalink
[ ]MeganNancySmith 6 points 6 hours ago
The FBI doesn't have the legal authority to make that determination.
It would be like if I said that murder is legal every other Sunday. I can say it
all I like, but it doesn't make it true.
permalink
[ ]Todda468 6 points 6 hours ago
Anything a private citizen can't do should require reasonable suspicion or a war
rent.
permalink
[ ]Sonotmethen 6 points 9 hours ago
Then signal jammers aren't either.
permalink
[ ]MrJDouble 4 points 9 hours ago
FBI tends to say a lot of things, doesn't mean it isn't a pile of horseshit.
permalink
[ ]blueiron0 4 points 6 hours ago
(3) cases in which the technology is used in public places or other locations at
which the FBI deems there is no reasonable expectation of privacy.
Love how the FBI gets to decide when it's ok for them to assume you shouldnt hav
e any expectation on privacy. "we saw a poop porn video on pornhub. you shouldnt
expect privacy when pooping then."
permalink
[ ]ragn4rok234 4 points 6 hours ago
Whoo! Now I don't need a warrant or sufficient reason to wire tap anyone and eve
ryone. Stalkers of the world rejoice! It's like Oprah is handing out privacy bre
aches in here
permalink
[ ]fourslaps 4 points 4 hours ago
This isn't what Steve Irwin would have wanted
permalink
[ ]knowyourbrain 7 points 8 hours ago
How sad is it that we have an R Senator trying to rein in a D president's FBI?
If Snowden et al have not been able to show the American people what a farce our
government is then I don't know how it can be demonstrated.
permalink
[ ]makingupdumbnames 1 point 5 hours ago
that's Chelsea to you, mister!
permalinkparent
[ ]StellarUsername 4 points 9 hours ago
Can someone ELI5 why my cell carrier lets this happen? Seems like it would be ea
sy enough for them to put a stop to it if they wanted.

permalink
[ ]giantgnat 13 points 8 hours ago
Because if you don't play nice with them, they don't play nice with you like wha
t happened to the CEO of quest after he refused to cooperate.
permalinkparent
[ ]lll_1_lll 6 points 6 hours ago
CEO of quest
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/09/30/a-ceo-who-resistednsa-spying-is-out-of-prison-and-he-feels-vindicated-by-snowden-leaks/
permalinkparent
[ ]WatchoutItsAllan 1 point 4 hours ago
Looks like the only way to be out of the eyes of the NSA is to go back to using
these http://imgur.com/JEFUt4h
permalinkparent
[ ]jkeyser14 4 points 7 hours ago
The cell and internet companies get paid millions by the government for direct a
ccess to their lines. This was one of the things Snowden blew the whistle on.
permalinkparent
[ ]MadPooter 2 points 7 hours ago
I believe that the technology behind our current cell phone towers needs to allo
w for widespread access to said cell phone towers from a wide array of technolog
ical devices.
The Stingray makes the cell phone tower believe that it's a cell phone--I don't
know that it's as easy as you might think to re-design all cell phone models to
differentiate themselves from what Stingrays currently are.
TL;DR: This might be a better issue for cell phone designers to solve rather the
n cell phone carriers.
permalinkparent
[ ]egalroc 2 points 6 hours ago
Maybe design a Falcon drone that homes in and locks on fake Stingray towers. Wou
ldn't the FBI just shit to see a couple sparrows zooming down on them?
permalinkparent
[ ]A530[??] 1 point 6 hours ago
Cell carriers couldn't care less. They're also packaging backdoors in their base
band software to do all kinds of functional crap, like over the air updates and
remote access.
permalinkparent
[ ]here4DaBacon 3 points 7 hours ago
So it's a honey pot for cell phones. This same method is used to intercept WiFi
internet traffic. The world is becoming a hackers paradise.
permalink
[ ]CapAnson 4 points 6 hours ago
I don't even think of the FBI's exceptions two and three are valid. And as for i
mminent danger to public safety I can't imagine when that safety hinges on inter
cepting a cell call right now this very second without a warrant
permalink
[ ]SquidwardSnowden1 3 points 6 hours ago
Let it be noted, I love big brother.
permalink
[ ]ryanknapper 3 points 6 hours ago
There was a comment asking what prevents private citizens from doing this. My re
ply was: Absolutely nothing. In fact, there are legal ways of doing exactly this
.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xKihq1fClQg
permalink
[ ]lll_1_lll 2 points 6 hours ago
inb4 this thread gets removed by the mods and/or shadowbanned
permalink
[ ]doctorshady[S] 3 points 6 hours ago
I was almost sure it was going to be removed when I submitted it.

permalinkparent
[ ]grtwatkins 1 point 3 hours ago
Wait, so mods = FBI?
permalinkparent
[ ]doctorshady[S] 2 points 2 hours ago
The mods here are quite restrictive about what is allowed to be submitted. Wheth
er or not they're under someone's influence is a question I can't answer (though
I'd honestly like to know), but you'll occasionally see high profile topics rem
oved, like the Snowden leaks back when PRISM was first pointed out.
permalinkparent
[ ]tomcat23 3 points 6 hours ago
If I had a hundred dollars for every time the FBI said it could do something une
thical or unconstitutional I'd be shooting rockets into space like Elon Musk rig
ht now.
permalink
[ ]leafygreenstuff 3 points 6 hours ago
Oh, well if they said....
permalink
[ ]wlxr 3 points 5 hours ago
Is this implying that they are going to repeatedly kill Steve Irwin?
permalink
[ ]Bulldog65 3 points 2 hours ago
Can I Use my Stingray in public places to intercept communications ?
If the answer is no, then the FBI needs a warrant.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effec
ts, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Wa
rrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, a
nd particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things t
o be seized.
This can only be changed by super majority votes in Congress and the States, not
treasonous opinions of mouthpiece lawyers in Department of Justice. This is why
prosecutions of torture memo writers is important. If they want to try and make
up laws they need to be held accountable under the law.
permalink
[ ]Do_Em_Till_They_Derp 13 points 12 hours ago
I don't think that is a good idea considering what happened to Steve Irwin.
permalink
[ ]Smgth 1 point 4 hours ago
I can't believe how far down I had to scroll to find this joke. I was worried I'
d have to make it myself. This thread is WAY too serious for my taste...
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]go1dfish 10 points 10 hours ago
This is what happens when you give a group of people authority over all else.
They use that authority to extort funds from you to pay for your own oppression.
But reddit still cheers it on. It seems to some; the concepts of roads or compas
sion cannot exist without specially anointed jack boot thugs.
permalink
[ ]Arael15th 3 points 6 hours ago
Do you see anyone in this post cheering this on? Moreover is this your first tim
e here?
permalinkparent
[ ]Flight_MH370 2 points 9 hours ago
Can the cell providers see every time this happens? If so, they could alert peop
le of fake towers or something. Alas, I'm pretty sure all the cell providers are
in bed with the feds already anyway.
permalink
[ ]leftnotracks 1 point 8 hours ago
This is why it s a good thing the FBI are not the people in charge of what is lega
l.

permalink
[ ]iluvmilfs420 3 points 7 hours ago
Ohh cool more of my taxes wasted on stupid shit...
permalink
[ ]fuzzycuffs 3 points 7 hours ago
Then I can do the same thing with wifi and not be charged with hacking, right?
permalink
[ ]endprism 2 points 7 hours ago
Use of Stringray in America: https://www.aclu.org/maps/stingray-tracking-devices
-whos-got-them
http://rt.com/usa/215735-sandiego-police-phone-tracking/
http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/First-Amendment-Coalition-Files-Lawsuit-Ab
out-Stingray-Surveillance--286092741.html
http://www.miaminewtimes.com/2012-02-16/news/cell-phone-tracking-miami-cops-know
-where-you-are/
http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/Fort-Worth-Cellphone-Tracking-Rings-Controversy
-140796693.html
http://www.wgrz.com/story/news/investigations/2014/02/13/are-local-police-spying
-on-your-cell-phone/5462273/
Tick tock...
permalink
[ ]johnnybiggs15 2 points 7 hours ago
didnt know they had that type of power
permalink
[ ]jwyche008 2 points 6 hours ago
They would fucking say that wouldn't they? The thing is it isn't supposed to be
their damn decision to make!
permalink
[ ]ICEClownfishWok 1 point 6 hours ago
Did the US government learn nothing from Nazi Germany? I honestly won't be surpr
ised if WWIII occurs when the rest of the world gets tired of our governments bu
llshit
permalink
[ ]frankenstilskin 3 points 6 hours ago
America, for the corporations by the corporations
permalink
[ ]Elephant_rhino_tiger 3 points 5 hours ago
It sounds like a 6 year old coming up with a superhero. "This is FBI man, and he
can fly and like punch through the earth, and he can y'know like intercept cell
traffic if he thinks it's important. But he is weak against himself though, so
like if he punched himself he would die."
permalink
[ ]Banana_blanket 2 points 4 hours ago
Hey who wants to just sit around and let it happen? Oh, everyone? Perfect. Ready
? Go.
permalink
[ ]poopinbutt2014 3 points 4 hours ago
Ah yes, the cops deciding what laws they are and aren't subject to.
permalink
[ ]burnerthrown 2 points 2 hours ago
Has anyone else notied a pattern of more and more laws that protect enforcement
operations from civilians, and fewer nd fewer laws protecting civilians from enf
orcement?
permalink
[ ]siquisiudices 2 points 2 hours ago
Increasingly I am astonished by the state of democracy in the developed western
countries. What has happened and how? I realise that there have always been infr
ingements of liberties by the state - always. But it seems to me that what has c
hanged is the blatent nature of the compromise of democratic norms. I'm not a hi
storian but my impression is that the origins of our current situation lie in tw

o iconic regimes in the UK and US - Reagan and Thatcher (and those that followed
) - and in the fall of the soviet regimes.
The economic philosophy that Reagan and Thatcher promoted reduced liberty to pro
perty rights while at the same time it condemned (rightly) the soviet regimes fo
r their lack of respect for democratic norms. The appeal of this economic ideolo
gy to capital, to the corporations, was obvious especially as during the 1970s t
here had been intermittent but recurring periods when profitability had fallen.
In the context of declining profitability, a roll back of the state and public e
xpenditure was a quick win.
For the rest of society, the implication that growth in personal, individual wea
lth was being held back by public spending and that the welfare state eroded ind
ividual responsibility also won the day. A key element in this process was the d
efeat and denigration of trade unionism: Thatcher going so far as to suggest tha
t trade unions (in the person of the National Union of Miners) were dangerous tr
aitors. People bought into the arguments for radical individualism ("there is no
such thing as society") because, in part, the concrete experience of collectivi
sm in trade unions declined in the face a massive anti-trade union assault.
The fall of the corrupt and totalitarian soviet regimes underpinned this all by
giving concrete expression to the notion that there is no alternative.
Economically the result has been massive widening of the discrepancy in wealth i
n many western countries and increased immiseration of labour across the world a
nd no force to counterbalance the power of the corporations and the state that t
hey (quite naturally) control. The state is the central committee of capital.
In all of this, the oft misnamed "libertarian" tendencies were accompanied by an
increasingly authoritarian and intrusive state apparatus which was promoted and
defended around quite classical nationalist ideas but recast often as the defen
se of western democracy against various external enemies.
And so, little by little, we have allowed our civil liberties to be chipped away
. Even the radical libertarians have been sidelined and fooled into irrelevant s
truggles around gun control in the US. Really, if an armed citizenry were the gu
arantee of liberty then one wold have hoped it would have done a better job. But
overall anti-welfare, anti-European and anti-immigrant rhetoric in the UK and,
for example, religious manipulation of public discourse in the US have allowed t
he authoritarian, pro-corporate state to gradually encroach on political and per
sonal freedoms. And here we are.
We can't say we didn't know - we were warned but the ruling class managed to def
ame the messengers and in other ways render us impotent.
One can only hope that we wake up in time and that our new disdain for collectiv
ism is overcome by the necessity of taking collective action.
permalink
[ ]DinglebellRock [score hidden] 49 minutes ago
You have a right to privacy according to the Constitution. Except for maybe your
cell phone calls. Or email. Or handwritten or typed letters. Or what you read f
rom the library and Amazon. Or maybe your colon and lower intestine if you are i
n New Mexico. What a fucked up nation this has become...
permalink
[ ]nstalker91 [score hidden] 38 minutes ago
Oh sure, when they do it, it's "protecting" and "morally right", but when I do i
t, it's a "federal crime" and "the FCC watches me"
permalink
[ ]The_Media_Collector 3 points 9 hours ago
This is why my phone has an app to continually report IMSI changes to me. I swit
ch one tower to another, I get a warning.
permalink
[ ]Redd575 1 point 7 hours ago
How is that helpful? Not being an ass, just curious. Seems if a Stingray can spo
of a tower then the app does little unless you are standing absolutely still.
permalinkparent
[ ]The_Media_Collector 3 points 7 hours ago
it's my understanding that Stingray "towers" do not encrypt traffic. anytime I a

m connected to an unencrypted "tower" the IMSI detector goes red and lets me kno
w.
permalinkparent
[ ]Redd575 1 point 6 hours ago
Wow. Whomever figured that out was clever.
permalinkparent
[ ]ExReverie93 1 point 7 hours ago
Which app? And would a normal person (not meaning you're not normal. You know wh
at I mean.) be able to use it?
permalinkparent
[ ]The_Media_Collector 1 point 7 hours ago
Requires Root. It's just caeld "Adnroid IMSI-Catchter"
permalinkparent
[ ]egalroc 1 point 6 hours ago
Makes a person want to be a criminal or spy just for the fun of it.
permalinkparent
[ ]Effo 3 points 7 hours ago
Goodbye America the Great, hello police state. :-[
permalink
[ ]Casemods 2 points 7 hours ago
Another reason why I don't have a cell phone.
permalink
[ ]GiveMe_TreeFiddy 3 points 7 hours ago
Things libertarians have been screaming about and offering solutions to for 500$
, Alex...
permalink
[ ]ilovesellinblow 1 point 9 hours ago
police and marshals have been running these for years.
permalink
[ ]bbelt16ag 1 point 8 hours ago
so FBI lets see what the Supreme court has to say to that. I am sure once they r
ule on this you will be going home with your tails between your legs.
permalink
[ ]Banana_blanket 1 point 4 hours ago
Do you people really have that much faith in our Supreme Court? Really?
permalinkparent
[ ]bbelt16ag 1 point 3 hours ago
gotta have some faith, other wise its just anarchy, or revolution. I am not read
y to give up quite yet.
permalinkparent
[ ]bonyponyride 1 point 8 hours ago
If digital communication in a public (and private) space is fair game, there's n
othing to stop an FBI tech specialist from stealing things like knowledge that w
ould be considered insider trading. There's an extreme potential for abuse.
permalink
[ ]jkeyser14 2 points 7 hours ago
If was fair game then hacking into wireless signals by private citizens wouldn't
be illegal.
permalinkparent
[ ]egalroc 1 point 6 hours ago
Just waiting for Anonymous to set up shop in a public park and hack into police
communications then dispatch them to bogus locations throughout the city. If any
thing goes wrong, they could always blame North Korea.
permalinkparent
[ ]coalbeeashi 1 point 3 hours ago
Aren't government agencies encrypting their digital communication - thus exhibit
ing an expectation of privacy?
I'm not sure what steps the "reasonable person" is taking to exhibit an expectat
ion of privacy over their data, tbh.
permalinkparent

[ ]hmmwhatsthisdo 1 point 8 hours ago


If you used RedPhone, Whisperpush/TextSecure, and a VPN, this wouldn't be of con
cern to you, right?
permalink
[ ]LucifersCounselNZ 1 point 7 hours ago
Wrong.
In other cases, the IMSI or equivalent identifier of a target is not known to th
e StingRay operator and the goal of the surveillance operation is to identify on
e or more cellular devices being used in a known area.[16] For example, if visua
l surveillance is being conducted on a group of protestors,[17] a StingRay can b
e used to download the IMSI or equivalent identifier from each phone within the
protest area. After identifying the phones, locating and tracking operations can
be conducted, and service providers can be forced to turn over account informat
ion identifying the phone users.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stingray_phone_tracker#Extracting_Data_From_Interna
l_Storage
Before any of that shit you're talking about comes into play, the IMSI number is
used when establishing the connection. It is uniquely identifying. With your IM
SI number and a court order (or cooperative telco) they will know who you are an
d who you were communicating with.
Then they can use that information to punish you for participating in legal prot
ests, associating with the wrong people, or simply because some Fed didn't like
the look of you.
permalinkparent
[ ]hmmwhatsthisdo 1 point 6 hours ago
So, the only way is to modify your IMEI (which is questionably legal) and use a
prepaid SIM?
permalinkparent
[ ]facepalmdude 1 point 5 hours ago
The IMSI part makes sense, but by using the mentioned tools authorities are very
unlikely to find out who you communicated with, or what the content was. All th
ey know is that you're the end point of an encrypted data connection.
permalinkparent
[ ]coalbeeashi 1 point 3 hours ago
I would assume that a court would view this as an individual exhibiting an expec
tation of privacy over their data.
permalinkparent
[ ]mambotangohandala 1 point 7 hours ago
Law?
We don't need no stinkin' law...
permalink
[ ]smilesbot 1 point 7 hours ago
You've just used a double negative! :P
permalinkparent
[ ]mambotangohandala 1 point 7 hours ago
no i did not, never would i do such a thing, nope, i don't think i ever did...
Ever see the movie 'blazing saddles'? Context kid, context
permalinkparent
[ ]smilesbot 1 point 7 hours ago
yup yup yup!
permalinkparent
[ ]mambotangohandala 1 point 7 hours ago
oh no a triple positive,what a stupendous faux pas!
permalinkparent
[ ]smilesbot 1 point 7 hours ago
yup yup yup!
permalinkparent
[ ]mambotangohandala 1 point 7 hours ago
Did mom give you too many sodas tonight?
permalinkparent

[ ]mambotangohandala 1 point 7 hours ago


Now where are those kiddy downers?
permalinkparent
[ ]mambotangohandala 1 point 7 hours ago
Remember tomorrow is a school day
permalinkparent
[ ]BigTex8900 1 point 7 hours ago
The Federal Bureau of Investigation is taking the position that court warrants a
re not required when deploying cell-site simulators in public places.
Wait so can I take the position that it's not actually illegal to suck dick for
money in public places?
permalink
[ ]AssOrca 1 point 6 hours ago
Well thank god there not doing it in my home!
permalinkparent
[ ]Drunken_Economist 1 point 7 hours ago
The FCC says they are needed, FWIW
permalink
[ ]FadingEchoes11 0 points 6 hours ago
100% true, power to the people
You should learn about and try to understand firearms more, they are just tools
after all.
permalink
[ ]winstrol 1 point 6 hours ago
Can i use a stingray? Al stick to my snoopsnitch.
permalink
[ ]fatscat84 2 points 6 hours ago
Big fucking surprise, 4th amendment=toilet paper anymore. The rights of the citi
zens arent even considered anymore since we dont have lobbyists. Maybe ill start
a kickstarter campaign to make a lobbyist group to give americans a voice in d.
c.
permalink
[ ]urbn 2 points 6 hours ago
The Obama Administration has repeatedly maintained that the public has no privac
y in public places.
And yet the excuse always used when someone records a police officer breaking th
e law and is arrested, detained and has his property stolen is that it violates
their privacy.
permalink
[ ]Vigilias 1 point 6 hours ago
If it's stealing signals being send from private residences it sure should fucki
ng be wtf.
permalink
[ ]2013palmtreepam 1 point 6 hours ago
Because stingrays automatically stop working at private property lines? Don't re
call the part of the 4th Amendment that exempts the requirement for probable cau
se and a search warrant when one happens to be in a public place.
permalink
[ ]makingupdumbnames 2 points 6 hours ago
I don't think it would be too hard to develop a stingray jammer, something that
just floods their equipment with a bunch of useless/fake cell phone numbers...I'
m in favor of a more strategic response to these types of infringements of our r
ights. We actually have a right and responsibility to fight tyranny...
permalink
[ ]ghotiaroma 1 point 3 hours ago
It's possible, but you wouldn't know where and when to use it. And it would be d
etectable you are using a jammer and anyone using one would find themselves fill
ed with SWAT bullets in no time.
permalinkparent
[ ]ononewheel 1 point 2 hours ago

Cant you rent bot net time and do this?


permalinkparent
[ ]psilontech 1 point 5 hours ago
I think that's for the courts to decide, FBI.
permalink
[ ]coalbeeashi 1 point 4 hours ago
...the only way the courts could decide is if it were practiced and a lawsuit wa
s brought against those practices.
Of course the FBI is going to finagle ways to flirt with obscure, outdated laws
for the purpose of investigating, thus practice it. Of course some group or orga
nization is going to take issue with it, thus taking it to court.
permalinkparent
[ ]cynoclast 2 points 5 hours ago
And the 4th Amendment says the FBI is wrong. And to the idea that subsequent law
s or that prededence says otherwise, I say that lawyers who make those interpret
ations were paid to do so by people with a vested interest in saying otherwise.
The constitution and amendments were intended to be read and interpreted by ever
yone, not just lawyers and judges so it matters not at all what lawyers and judg
es say.
permalink
[ ]coalbeeashi 1 point 5 hours ago
The constitution and amendments were intended to be read and interpreted by ever
yone
Uhh...interpreted by everyone? Do you know how fucked up that would be? There's
a reason for the judicial branch.
permalinkparent
[ ]cynoclast 2 points 4 hours ago
More fucked up than corporations as people? The 4th Amendment being ignored by t
he DHS, Homeland Security, and the NSA? More fucked up than than all the ridicul
ous, unconstitutional restrictions on cosmetic features of firearms that all vio
late the 2nd amendment? More fucked up than justices appointed by war criminals
refusing to recuse themselves where they have a clear conflict of interest?
The judicial branch is staffed by people, just as fallible as the rest of us. Th
e judicial branch was nly ever an attempt to reign in the other two. It was alwa
ys intended that it was the right of the people to alter or abolish the governme
nt if it gets out of hand and it has.
permalinkparent
[ ]coalbeeashi 1 point 4 hours ago
I would still rather have the fate of laws be in the hands of individuals who sp
ecifically studied the very nature of their professional practice than leave it
up to a mass of people with little-to-no understanding of the law, outside of wh
at is force-fed to them by media (comparable to your assertion of less-than-idea
l practices by lawyer/judges)
I fully agree that laws should be written in ways that the public can understand
and interpret (however, you're never going to reach a consensus on laws written
200+ years ago). And I believe that, reading most supreme court decisions, the
justices advocate for specifics in laws and understand that outdated or vague la
ws is a main reason cases are brought before them. Laws aren't concrete or stati
c. It's a court of public opinion.
permalinkparent
[ ]cynoclast 1 point 4 hours ago
I would still rather have the fate of laws be in the hands of individuals who sp
ecifically studied the very nature of their professional practice than leave it
up to a mass of people with little-to-no understanding of the law, outside of wh
at is force-fed to them by media (comparable to your assertion of less-than-idea
l practices by lawyer/judges)
I think there's balance between the two. It's similar to the balance between IT
and the user. While the IT guy is more knowledgeable about the field than most o
f the users he's supposed to facilitate, he often forgets that his purpose is to
facilitate, not to rule, and what the users are doing is what keeps the lights

on. People in congress and the senate are mislabelled when called 'lawmakers' th
eir job is representative of their constituency. And lawyers face a conflict of
interest between simplifying the law and representing people fairly and seeing a
fter their own welfare and ensuring their own job security. Simple, clear, and u
nambiguous laws have little value to the professional attorney at law. But the p
eople at large have no interest, and in fact a reason to despise laws they don't
understand, especially ones decided by decades old case law they know nothing a
bout. But for too long the balance has been swinging in favor of the lawyer seek
ing payment for services from the rich instead of the poor seeking freedom from
those with the resources to hire teams of lawyers for years to drain them of res
ources. The day a rich man could sue an innocent poor man under false pretenses
and crush him is the day the justice department ceased to function as intended.
I fully agree that laws should be written in ways that the public can understand
and interpret (however, you're never going to reach a consensus on laws written
200+ years ago). And I believe that, reading most supreme court decisions, the
justices advocate for specifics in laws and understand that outdated or vague la
ws is a main reason cases are brought before them. Laws aren't concrete or stati
c. It's a court of public opinion.
Lawyers like to pretend that they are concrete or static. Just imagine the phras
e "settled case law" coming out of their mouths and you need go no further. It's
like they forget that eventually given the dynamic equilibrium of the poor vs.
the rich that sometimes words written on paper in a dusty library somewhere mean
absolutely nothing when the pitchforks and guillotines come out, the old laws t
hrown out, and new ones written even more strongly against tyrants. You're right
, sometimes, it's a court of public opinion. But sometimes the court is brutal,
but not unjustly so:
There were two Reigns of Terror, if we would but remember it and consider it; the
one wrought murder in hot passion, the other in heartless cold blood; the one la
sted mere months, the other had lasted a thousand years; the one inflicted death
upon ten thousand persons, the other upon a hundred millions; but our shudders
are all for the horrors of the minor Terror, the momentary Terror, so to speak; wh
ereas, what is the horror of swift death by the axe, compared with lifelong deat
h from hunger, cold, insult, cruelty, and heart-break? What is swift death by li
ghtning compared with death by slow fire at the stake? A city cemetery could con
tain the coffins filled by that brief Terror which we have all been so diligentl
y taught to shiver at and mourn over; but all France could hardly contain the co
ffins filled by that older and real Terror that unspeakably bitter and awful Terro
r which none of us has been taught to see in its vastness or pity as it deserves
.
permalinkparent
[ ]DongleNocker 2 points 5 hours ago
Don't you wish government organizations would get permission from congress prior
to assuming they have the authority?
permalink
[ ]Euracil 1 point 5 hours ago
Whoops! Someone just happened to spill wine all over the Bill of Rights! Well, a
t least the Second Amendment survived!
permalink
[ ]ripvannwinkler 1 point 5 hours ago
What is the practical operational radius of one of these things?
If my place of business or residence falls in this radius of an operating device
, is my phone subject to interception by the device?
If so, you require a warrant. Period. No equivocation.
permalink
[ ]bittopia 1 point 5 hours ago
What is going to be interesting is when systems and encryptions becomes so resil
ient and powerful that nothing can be spied on AT ALL. What will they do then?
permalink
[ ]johnnybullet 1 point 5 hours ago
I thought only God was listening to me... This changes everything!

permalink
[ ]TronicTonic 2 points 5 hours ago
Thank god the FBI is in charge of the judicial branch and gets to decide what is
right vs wrong.
permalink
[ ]Vinven 1 point 5 hours ago
They can say whatever they want, it doesn't make it legal.
permalink
[ ]coffeethulhu 2 points 5 hours ago
Under this theory anybody could buy one of these devices and use it in "public s
paces" without fear of falling foul of the law....Who wants to start a kickstart
er campaign to buy one?
permalink
[ ]redditezmode 1 point 5 hours ago
Based on what, exactly? Why would they think search warrants aren't necessary?
permalink
[ ]Fucksfuturefatchicks 1 point 4 hours ago
If it stops me from downloading porn, it's a dead giveaway. If it doesn't, thank
s for the government funded and sanctioned porn.
permalink
[ ]egalroc 1 point 4 hours ago
I wonder if the FBI can upload unsanctioned porn to your computer using a stingr
ay? Interesting thought isn't it?
permalinkparent
[ ]winsomecowboy 1 point 4 hours ago
So my clandestine FBI staff list shouldn't be an issue.
permalink
[ ]Heisenpurrrrg 1 point 4 hours ago
Those guys can fuck right off, eh?
permalink
[ ]cerealcable 1 point 4 hours ago
Every time an invasion of our rights & privacy especially related to our establi
shed forms of communications happens it just terrifies me. Not because our gover
nment is throwing wind to established laws but because of what the future could
bring.
The reason why most of us are upset today over this is because we have an expect
ation of privacy when we pick up our cell phones. We expect our text messages, p
hone calls and data to be private thus protected by law requiring a warrant to "
tap" it only for Law Enforcement. Telecoms (wired, wireless, voip) will only com
ply to requests when required by law, but when it comes to the public air waves
using technology to just listen in we're starting a terrible precedent.
Essentially what I'm concerned about is that eventually it'll be so commonly acc
epted that these communications are not private (after all the government can sn
oop in on those conversations, and everyone already expects it) and thus we no l
onger have the expectation of privacy and thus no warrant is actually acquired.
The terrifying process is how it all started, with the government over stepping
their legal abilities with little to no repercussions.
Now that I'm reading that paragraph again, I honestly wouldn't be surprised if t
hat exact argument is/was/will be used in a secret court of which none of us wil
l be able to hold accountable.
It's scary to see what the future will hold for privacy related to technology. O
ur government is doing anything and everything they want and if people aren't sc
ared they need to get some tinfoil and make some hats because they're going to n
eed them.
Obligatory point: As the government snoops more and more, technology will just e
ncrypt more and more making it nearly pointless for the snooping, but it won't c
hange the expectation of privacy after say a decade of common knowledge that the
se communications are not private. Then Law Enforcement Agencies will just subpo
ena records instead of following due process of getting a warrant.
tl;dr It's a very slippery slope and I'm just watching us slowly sliding further

and further into the trap. :-(


permalink
[ ]coalbeeashi 1 point 4 hours ago
Honest question - in the eyes of laws, is our view on "expectation of privacy" i
gnorant or misguided? When I send a text - even though I don't think about it I gave permission to Apple, AT&T, my friend, their carrier, their phone, and pro
bably countless others that I don't even realize. When I download an app I give
them all sorts of permissions to access my information.
Also, what's stopping the government from creating an app, let's say some crazed
game like Trivia Crack, hide a bunch of permissions that no one looks at and do
it that way. They could have access to my photos, access to my microphone, acce
ss to my location, etc. (obviously I understand that you can retract most of tho
se permissions, but I doubt many people do)
So, I guess my question is, using multiple third parties, do I really have the r
ight to expect complete privacy?
permalinkparent
[ ]Rockerofboats 2 points 4 hours ago
I do what I wants to.
permalink
[ ]Gymshortsboner55 2 points 4 hours ago
I'm not trying to sound like the uncle that's always bitchin' at family reunions
but man is this country going down the shitter. I'm almost ashamed to live here
anymore.
permalink
[ ]kazuri85 2 points 4 hours ago
The government has no right to make your property do something you do not want i
t to do.
permalink
[ ]SpacemanLurker 2 points 3 hours ago
Crikey! Australian accent
Too soon?
permalink
[ ]Undisclosed-dopeness 1 point 3 hours ago
Really wish this was about actual stingrays
permalink
[ ]k-h 1 point 3 hours ago
Is that the "stingrays" that don't exist?
Of course they don't need a warrant on equipment that doesn't exist.
permalink
[ ]PhorTwenny 2 points 3 hours ago
if it picks up all cells text/call/info how do they know your not inside a house
or anyother private area? Either way this is disgusting!
permalink
[ ]MarxIzalias 2 points 3 hours ago
The more of these that get posted, the harder I laugh at America's freedoms.
You pretty much have the same as everybody else.
It seems as though the constitution is like bog roll to your law enforcement. Co
vered in meaningless shit that doesn't even stick to them.
What a joke.
The FBI stating that 'stingrays' don't apply to privacy laws because you're in a
public place makes no sense, otherwise you could walk around butt naked and arg
ue that "According to the FBI, personal privacy is not required in public".
Of course, they could say, what any deceitful peice of trash could say. "If you
weren't doing anything illegal then you have nothing to worry about."
Unless you were talking to you solicitor about a patent. In which case it would
be worthless the moment a third party heard about the invention.
Talking to your doctor about a condition that could prejudice a group against yo
u.
Talking to a solicitor about the details of a case.
Talking to fellow jurors over the phone about a details of a case, that's always

good to be spied on.


Talk about family history and possible ties you might have to foreign nations, w
hich could put you on a watch list.
Give personal details to bankers about foreign business accounts which have diff
erent protection laws.
Discuss plans you may have that they could interfere with.
Or just miscellaneous emails to and from your employer that could be damaging to
the companies reputation if published and could be used against them as leverag
e with a false flag operation LOOKING AT YOU SONY!
This isn't even a comprehensive list of things that you could do, but hey, it's
America, the land where freedom is a lie and the constitution is apparently wort
h less and less with each new government. XFD
permalink
[ ]NightOfTheLivingHam 1 point 3 hours ago
while we're declaring bullshit, I declare I'm owed a million dollars.
permalink
[ ]ZedOud 1 point 3 hours ago
Most warrant-less law enforcement surveillance techniques are legal because they
can be performed by members of the public, in public. (ex. tailing)
So can we also legally operate a stingray?
Yes we can!
permalink
[ ]Wulfgar_RIP 1 point 3 hours ago
FBI protecting freedoms and constitution from terrorists
permalink
[ ]CantHugEveryCat 2 points 3 hours ago
I'm surprised the FBI still feel they have to justify their actions.
permalink
[ ]bazingabrain 0 points 3 hours ago
Here I am thinking the FBI is going to be throwing real stingrays around without
a search warrant. Can't have that
permalink
[ ]tobsn 1 point 3 hours ago
and whoever said that should be immediately terminated.
permalink
[ ]joshladd 1 point 3 hours ago
Didn't the supreme court just say that searching cell phones requires a warrant?
Is this different than searching cell phones? I might be uninformed but it seem
s like a blatant disregard for court rulings.
permalink
[ ]birdington1 1 point 3 hours ago
Can anybody explain what a 'stingray' is?
permalink
[ ]one_love_silvia 1 point 2 hours ago
the article explains it in literally the first paragraph.
permalinkparent
[ ]IllegalOperator 0 points 2 hours ago
Yeah right, dropping the case rather than reveal their methods says otherwise. I
f there weren't doing anything wrong they would have nothing to hide.
permalink
[ ]HauntedBeepers 1 point 2 hours ago
FBI says FBI can do what it wants
permalink
[ ]Fig1024 1 point 2 hours ago
does that mean I, as private citizen, can also use them? After all, there are no
laws against it
permalink
[ ]Monkeibusiness 1 point 2 hours ago
"FBI - out if control since 2001" -Simpsons
permalink

[ ]skztr 1 point 2 hours ago


good test for whether or not you need a warrant:
If any random person off the street did it, would that be legal? If not, you nee
d a fucking warrant.
permalink
[ ]Rusky82 1 point 2 hours ago
Land of the free eh......
permalink
[ ]WECGEWHYAAIORTNU 1 point 2 hours ago
So in some states its "wiretapping" to record with a microphone a conversation b
etween two people happening at a table, but pretending to be a cell tower is a-o
k?
permalink
[ ]Amanoo 1 point 2 hours ago
"concerned about whether the FBI and other law enforcement agencies have adequat
ely considered the privacy interests" of Americans
Privacy interests of Americans? Is that supposed to still be a thing? I thought
that privacy interests were considered something for terrorists in the US, by no
w.
permalink
[ ]raviddadford 1 point 2 hours ago
Stingray got Steve Irwin
permalink
[ ]Homarus_Americanus 1 point 2 hours ago
It's all good 'cause I can by me all guns I want.
permalink
[ ]anshu1234 0 points 2 hours ago
This is non-news if you are not a drug-peddler. Next please.
permalink
[ ]bubbafat1155 1 point 2 hours ago
It's over. "They" have won. The only hope now is for individuals, society is los
t. Get off the grid, or join the sheep. http://imgur.com/W7CdURh
permalink
[ ]Targun 1 point 2 hours ago
And how are they going to filter out cellphones of all the people who live next
to public places where stingray is located?
permalink
[ ]riderer 1 point 2 hours ago
So can i do the same in public place? just stingray everyone?
permalink
[ ]Neker 1 point 1 hour ago
There are blueprints and tutorials out there that put "stingrays" within reach o
f an hobbyist. Law-breaking hobbyist, that is, but still : mobile phones essenti
aly broadcast your conversations.
permalink
[ ]mindwandering 1 point 1 hour ago
The flying DRT box.
permalink
[ ]SilenceGivesConsent [score hidden] 48 minutes ago
In other words, FBI says it does not need search warrants to warrant a search.
permalink
[ ]Formally_Nightman [score hidden] 46 minutes ago
FBI: "Senator we have been monitoring your calls and your exact geographical loc
ation for years ... You shouldn't find that unconstitutional or the public and y
our wife will learn how unconstitutional you've been"
permalink
[ ]ActuallyNotSparticus [score hidden] 40 minutes ago
Fuck this shit. Stingrays killed the crocodile hunter. Are we ready for the gove
rnment to use these stingrays?
permalink

[ ]Rayhueston [score hidden] 38 minutes ago


The article says the Obama administration consistently maintains that people hav
e no privacy in public. Is that true or is that hyperbole?
If I'm walking down the street, do I have the right to keep the contents of my w
allet private? My blood type? My thoughts?
If I have no privacy with regard to these and many other sensitive things, who d
oes have the right to them?
permalink
[ ]swollennode [score hidden] 37 minutes ago
People don't have privacy in public places..hmmm, I think that people are entitl
ed to privacy if something private belongs to them. Sure, people's faces aren't
private when they're in public places. But people's phone calls and texts should
be.
permalink
[ ]pomod [score hidden] 18 minutes ago
Well if the FBI says they are not needed...
Seriously, this should be a court decision not a cop one. Cops, even a fancy cop
s like the FBI, should not make the laws just enforce them.
permalink
[ ]CJ59 [score hidden] 18 minutes ago
In other news, the FBI says, "You know what, screw it. There are no more laws. W
e'll do whatever the hell we want. Not like you're going to do anything about it
."
permalink
[ ]gkiltz [score hidden] 15 minutes ago
Just because the FBI says it, that does not mean it's true!
I don't envy the poor schmuck who has to stan in front of the Supreme Court and
argue that!!
permalink
load more comments (48 replies)
about
blog
about
team
source code
advertise
jobs
help
wiki
FAQ
reddiquette
rules
contact us
tools
mobile
firefox extension
chrome extension
buttons
widget
<3
reddit gold
store
redditgifts
reddit AMA app
reddit.tv
radio reddit
Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy
. 2015 reddit inc. All rights reserved.
REDDIT and the ALIEN Logo are registered trademarks of reddit inc.

p jump to content
MY SUBREDDITS
FRONT-ALL-RANDOM | PHOTOSHOPBATTLES-HISTORY-GIFS-FOOD-PHILOSOPHY-TELEVISION-WORL
DNEWS-SHOWERTHOUGHTS-LIFEPROTIPS-ART-SPACE-NOTTHEONION-DOCUMENTARIES-NOSLEEP-GAM
ING-GADGETS-EARTHPORN-ASKREDDIT-FUNNY-MOVIES-DIY-FUTUROLOGY-FITNESS-BOOKS-LISTEN
TOTHIS-INTERNETISBEAUTIFUL-MUSIC-EXPLAINLIKEIMFIVE-UPLIFTINGNEWS-SPORTS-PICS-TOD
AYILEARNED-PERSONALFINANCE-DATAISBEAUTIFUL-IAMA-OLDSCHOOLCOOL-EUROPE-CREEPY-TWOX
CHROMOSOMES-AWW-NEWS-WRITINGPROMPTS-GETMOTIVATED-VIDEOS-TIFU-ASKSCIENCE-JOKES-MI
LDLYINTERESTING-SCIENCE
MORE
news newscommentsrelatedother discussions (15)
want to join? sign in or create an account in seconds|English
this post was submitted on 05 Jan 2015
3,152 points (95% upvoted)
shortlink:
remember mereset passwordlogin
news
unsubscribe4,562,294 readers
2,631 users here now
/r/inthenews
/r/worldnews
new submissions
new comments
Post analysis/opinion articles to /r/inthenews
Want to talk?
Chat with us on IRC
Follow @rslashnews on Twitter
See a post that violates the rules below? Had your post stuck in the spam filter
? Have a question about policy? Just want to give feedback? Send the mod team a
message.
Please post news items only, with the exception of meta posts about /r/news itse
lf. Self-posts aggregating news data and "independent reporting" each count as n
ews, but are not an excuse to editorialize.
Your post will likely be removed if it:
is not news (or a meta post).
is an opinion/analysis or advocacy piece.
primarily concerns politics.
has a title not taken from the article.
has a pay wall or steals content.
covers an already-submitted story.
violates reddit's site-wide rules, especially regarding personal info.
Your comment will likely be removed if it:
is racist, sexist, vitriolic, or overly crude.
is unnecessarily rude or provocative.
is a cheap and distracting joke or meme.
is responding to spam.
violates reddit's site-wide rules.
Extreme or repeat offenders will be banned.
Expanded Rules
If your post doesn't fit, consider finding an appropriate news article on that s
tory to submit instead, or submitting yours to lower moderation subreddits:
/r/inthenews - all news-related content
/r/AnythingGoesNews - unrestricted news
/r/truereddit - insightful articles
/r/self - any self-post
/r/misc, /r/redditdotcom - anything
or other news subreddits:
/r/worldnews - from outside the USA only
/r/SyrianCivilWar - about the conflict in Syria

/r/MidEastRegionalWar - on MidEast conflict /r/UpliftingNews - uplifting


/r/mediaquotes - the things they say
or subreddits for other topics:
/r/FoodForThought - discussion-worthy long form articles about interesting subje
cts
/r/politics - for shouting about politics
/r/moderatepolitics - less shouting
/r/politicaldiscussion - even less shouting
/r/geopolitics - intl. politics and geography
/r/entertainment - Justin Bieber updates, etc.
/r/europe - news from Europe
or check out the 200 most active subreddits, categorized by content and the full
list of subreddits by subscribers.
Recommendations:
/r/redactedcharts
/r/patriots
/r/personalfinance
/r/restorethefourth
reddit is fun for Android and its subreddit /r/redditisfun
submit analysis/opinion article
submit news article
submit something else
submit analysis/opinion article
a community for 6 years
message the moderators
moderators
douglasmacarthur
KyldeThe Janitor
AyeMatey
CandyManCan
Elderthedog
LuckyBdx4
NickWasHere09
ani625
pomosexuality
IKingJeremy
...and 1 more
3152
FBI says search warrants not needed to use stingrays in public places (arstechnica
.com)
submitted 13 hours ago by doctorshady
731 commentsshare
top 500 comments
sorted by: best
[ ]peaceshark 654 points 11 hours ago
If only there were some branch of government that would keep the FBI in check, o
ne that judged people and organizations supremely...
permalink
[ ]misogichan 641 points 8 hours ago
Unfortunately the Catholic church has its hands full dealing with its own intern
al reforms and recasting its vision and mission.
permalinkparent
[ ]wutshappening 93 points 7 hours ago
And looking at cat photos that's why they're Cat-holic. Alco-holics are addicted
to alcohol and catholics well you get the idea.
permalinkparent
[ ]TuffLuffJimmy 142 points 6 hours ago
Omg dad you're embarrassing me in front of my friends
permalinkparent
[ ]okmkz 27 points 4 hours ago

We ain't your friends, bruh


permalinkparent
[ ]Corruptionss 4 points 2 hours ago
We ain't your bruh, friends
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
load more comments (2 replies)
[ ]ROLLINGtemple 9 points 5 hours ago
What's their Dogma?
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
load more comments (9 replies)
[ ]hershmire 73 points 7 hours ago
The courts gave up about ten years ago.
permalinkparent
[ ]endprism 50 points 7 hours ago
The courts are pwned by the surveillance state.
permalinkparent
[ ]sushisection 41 points 6 hours ago
This is what I'm afraid of. Nsa is collecting data from all citizens including p
oliticians and supreme court judges.
permalinkparent
[ ]dutchguilder2 19 points 5 hours ago
Whistleblower confirms: http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=d6m1XbWOfVk
permalinkparent
[ ]TwitchTV_Subbort 1 point 3 hours ago
D.C. is Hollywood for ugly people. best line ever!!
permalinkparent
[ ]sklite 1 point 1 hour ago
Charles Augustus Magnussen approves
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]CriticalThink 1 point 6 hours ago
Skeletons in the closet are easy to find with intelligence infrastructure.
permalinkparent
[ ]HurricaneSandyHook 1 point 5 hours ago
The 10th circuit a few days ago sided with the government saying the cops use of
doppler radar to see if anyone was inside a house was legal. They did say it is
a troubling tactic that needs further review and just left it at that....
permalinkparent
[ ]-_--___-_--_--___--_ 27 points 6 hours ago
One major problem with judicial review is that there must be a case for the cour
t to review. I guess the other avenue would be to sue the government, but I'm no
t an attorney so I don't know how that would work.
permalinkparent
[ ]downvotesmakemehard 14 points 4 hours ago
I believe the current court has taken the stance that to take up a case someone
has to show they've been harmed in some way.
The police will never say that stingray is the source of the evidence. This woul
d open stingray to be scrutinized. They will use stingray to go after phone comp
any records which they will claim they requested on a hunch or some other bullsh
it excuse.
permalinkparent
[ ]great_gape [score hidden] 29 minutes ago
Anonymous tip.
permalinkparent
load more comments (2 replies)
[ ]dissonance07 8 points 6 hours ago
With is wide a latitude as the current SCOTUS seems to give to individual libert
y, this seems like the one kind of thing that they could actually usefully addre

ss, right?
permalinkparent
[ ]MrBojangles528 1 point 5 hours ago
Scalia and the rest of the SCOTUS is bought and sold just like the rest of our g
overnment. They answer first and foremost to the parties that nominated them as
well as the corporations that own them.
permalinkparent
[ ]psilontech 12 points 5 hours ago
See, I don't get that. You get into the Supreme Court and you're golden. Unless
you are actively breaking the law and can be impeached, you're untouchable. Why
not, you know, do what's best for your country instead of remaining beholden to
the parasites that leveraged you into that position?
permalinkparent
[ ]Ratbasher88 14 points 4 hours ago
Yep, Supreme Court justices have a well established history of turning out way d
ifferent than their supporters thought they'd be. For whatever reason this curre
nt batch of justices seems more comfortable with the security state than their p
redecessors, however that's true for most Americans in general so I suppose it s
houldn't be shocking.
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]MrBojangles528 2 points 4 hours ago
Good question, but you'd have to ask them about it.
permalinkparent
[ ]cynoclast 0 points 3 hours ago
Unless you are actively breaking the law and can be impeached, you're untouchabl
e.
But you can get richer. Or have your personal communications made public.
permalinkparent
[ ]tughdffvdlfhegl 1 point 3 hours ago
Honestly? Because they run in those social circles. They're friends with the peo
ple at the top. They don't actively associate with "regular folk" that much.
They've been ingratiated into the upper echelons of society long before ever rea
ching the supreme court through lifetimes spent at the forefront of the legal pr
ofession. This insulates them from others, and leaves them in an echo chamber of
their peers.
Now, when a case comes up that pits one of their friends, or friends' friends ag
ainst some random angry dude who's only making 50k a year, who do you think they
automatically side with, when the case isn't cut and dried? I'm not even saying
it's conscious, but prejudices come in all kinds and run deep. Tribalism happen
s all the time in subtle ways.
Plus there's Scalia taking paid for hunting trips with people who are directly a
ffected by cases in front of him, all of them getting invited to dinners and fun
ctions of the DC elite, etc.
permalinkparent
[ ]pion3435 1 point 3 hours ago
They do. It's possible to disagree with you without being corrupt.
permalinkparent
[ ]Jagoonder 1 point 2 hours ago
Not in an omnipotent surveillance state, however.
permalinkparent
[ ]DownFromYesBad 1 point 2 hours ago
Money, bribery.
permalinkparent
[ ]neotropic9 1 point 1 hour ago
Because they are selected to be the type of people who think whats "best for the
ir country" is serving the parasites, the corporate oligarchs, and the surveilla
nce state. They support the status quo, and the status quo supports them. It wou
ld be a miracle if someone with real principles was actually brought into the Su
preme Court, let alone enough of them to form a majority.

permalinkparent
[ ]isprobablyatwork 1 point 1 hour ago
This does happen, sometimes. Good examples would be Justices Warren and Stevens.
They played along with the GOP right up until they were put on the Court, then
immediately started voting their actual conscience (or if not their conscience,
then at least not as their political backers wanted).
permalinkparent
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[ ]cynoclast 2 points 3 hours ago
You mean the press?
permalinkparent
[ ]scrapinpeg 3 points 6 hours ago*
Obligatory link to illustrated law.
EDIT: fixed link
permalinkparent
[ ]ducttapejedi 3 points 6 hours ago*
error 404, check the link.
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[+][deleted] 13 hours ago (56 children)
[ ]sunbolts 701 points 12 hours ago
Glad to see the FBI is tearing up the constitution to increase their own powers
and authority. /s
permalink
[ ]dontbullshityourself 325 points 11 hours ago
Glad to see the FBI is tearing up the constitution to increase their own powers
and authority
I wish this was just the FBI. Pretty much everybody in the federal, state and lo
cals are doing this. Have been doing for this quite some time too.
permalinkparent
[ ]sunbolts 136 points 10 hours ago
Precisely, and that's what makes this very frightening. The whole club's in on i
t.
permalinkparent
[ ]radonthetyrant 75 points 7 hours ago
but why.. I realize that these "zomg the terrorists!!!11" is only a PR-lie. What
do they really accomplish with this? Industry espionage? Bribes from the indust
ries which create the espionage hardware? Feeling of total control? Control the
masses so it all stays as conservative and corrupt as possible?
Why would you amass such a criminal energy to break constitutional laws just to
be able to see through everyone's communication?
permalinkparent
[ ]BettyRubbleIsHot 151 points 7 hours ago
Total control.
That way when the state has it, they can really put the boot on our necks. Think
they treat us poorly now? Just wait until they have the infrastructure in place
where they feel confident there are absolutely zero threats to their power. Tha
t's when shit is going to get BAD.
permalinkparent
[ ]b-LE-z_it 106 points 6 hours ago
And that's why, despite being terrified of some gun owners, despite being terrif
ied of mass shootings, I don't think we should ban guns, even combat rifles. It
can happen here, and we should at least make it hurt if and when it happens.
permalinkparent
[ ]7V3N 47 points 6 hours ago
Welcome to the list.
permalinkparent

[ ]M00glemuffins 10 points 5 hours ago


Sign me up too. If they try to pull a fast one on the public I'm not standing fo
r their bullshit.
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]FadingEchoes11 26 points 6 hours ago
*rifle. No "combat" rifles are owned by citizens
permalinkparent
[ ]b-LE-z_it 39 points 6 hours ago
Did I mention I don't know anything about guns? I don't know anything about guns
.
Point is, force is not something only people in power should have.
permalinkparent
[ ]teefour 19 points 6 hours ago
You should go to a shooting range and take a class. You won't be so unnecessaril
y afraid of them after that.
permalinkparent
[ ]Pullo_T 27 points 6 hours ago
He's not afraid of guns. He's afraid of some gun owners. At least, as far as we
know.
permalinkparent
continue this thread
load more comments (3 replies)
[ ]Bootsncatsn4 5 points 5 hours ago
i understand where youre coming from, but what will a bunch of angry townsfolk d
o to a predator drone strike?
permalinkparent
[ ]Oeboues 18 points 4 hours ago
You should ask the angry townsfolk of Iraq and Afghanistan.
Once the US military is done slinking away in shame, I mean.
permalinkparent
continue this thread
[ ]nuesuh 1 point 1 hour ago
Remove them. Predator drones are being operated from the ground, and has to land
after a couple hours to refuel.
permalinkparent
[ ]joe_m107 4 points 6 hours ago
Maybe we should change that. Repeal the NFA.
permalinkparent
load more comments (2 replies)
[ ]4nco1j 0 points 2 hours ago
You don't know much about guns, do you now.
permalinkparent
load more comments (6 replies)
[ ]conquer69 15 points 4 hours ago
You can have all the guns you want. That won't stop them from labeling you a "su
spected school shooter, pedophile or terrorist".
A gun can't protect you from that. A gun can't teach your fellow countryman to t
hink by themselves or see through propaganda.
Good luck destroying a drone, plane or tank with a rifle. Not sure how useful a
gun is against your own trained military with even better guns and more.
People thinking they can start a revolution and win with a handgun don't realize
this isn't the 1700's anymore.
permalinkparent
[ ]JimmyBuffer 14 points 4 hours ago
Better tell the Middle East they haven't had a bout of revolutions then
permalinkparent
load more comments (2 replies)
[ ]b-LE-z_it 7 points 4 hours ago
Didn't say we would win, I said we could at least make it hurt. Assuming, of cou

rse, that the American people themselves aren't the ones willingly handing in th
eir freedoms, which would mean we're all fucked immediately.
permalinkparent
[ ]theothercoolfish 13 points 2 hours ago
Assuming, of course, that the American people themselves aren't the ones willing
ly handing in their freedoms, which would mean we're all fucked immediately.
Err, you guys gave up much of your freedoms long ago. And it isn't just the US politicians everywhere are taking as much as they can get, because it's simply
more power for them. More power, more money, more control. It's not a conspiracy
- this is just how an imperfect system with inadequate controls eventually goes
. We need to start re-examining our systems and look at alternatives that are no
w possible with the internet.
permalinkparent
[ ]vynusmagnus 3 points 2 hours ago
Tell that to the insurgents in Afghanistan. It seems to me that the US military
has been unable to defeat them in over a decade of war, despite its overwhelming
technological superiority. Tanks and fighter jets are nice, but they do little
against a small guerrilla force that can disappear into the woodwork.
permalinkparent
[ ]Qoix 3 points 3 hours ago
I think the main issue with that line of thinking is that the military would gun
down the civilians it pledges to protect. How many people in the armed forces d
o you know? Now, are any of them willing to murder innocent people? Probably not
.
permalinkparent
[ ]ihcn 6 points 2 hours ago
They're not innocent people, they're armed revolutionaries, suspected terrorists
permalinkparent
[ ]chance-- 4 points 3 hours ago
You say that as if there isn't insurmountable evidence to the contrary.
Military coups are thoroughly woven into the fabric of humanity's history.
permalinkparent
[ ]theothercoolfish 1 point 2 hours ago
gun down the civilians it pledges to protect.
Err, they don't pledge to protect civilians. They pledge to protect the constitu
tion. And if they are convinced that these people are attempting to "subvert" th
e constitution, then they are enemies. Nevermind that their leaders have shat al
l over the constitution - soldiers take their orders and follow 'em.
Now, are any of them willing to murder innocent people?
lol.
permalinkparent
load more comments (2 replies)
[ ]eloquentnemesis [score hidden] 33 minutes ago
Welcome to 4th generation warfare. You don't need a better gun, or the ability t
o kill a drone, or anything else like that. You just need A gun and more commitm
ent than the other side.
permalinkparent
[ ]homegrowncountryboy [score hidden] 16 minutes ago*
Good luck with those tanks, planes and drones when the American people stop supp
lying fuel and ammunition. My brother is in the Army and he will tell you about
75%, or more of the military will disband and fight to protect the American peop
le. All you have to do is look at New Orleans during Katrina, when they got the
order to start confiscating guns almost all of them refused, instead it was main
ly police stealing people's weapons.
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]Hermit_ 2 points 5 hours ago
Yeah but if it does happen all people would be doing is creating the chaos one o
f the armed and militarized militias needs to take power. For example, The KKK.
permalinkparent

[ ]b-LE-z_it 1 point 5 hours ago


Hopefully not the KKK.
permalinkparent
[ ]AussieArcher 1 point 3 hours ago
Fuck me there's always one of you. I'm starting to think the gun club spends mor
e time on reddit than anyone.
permalinkparent
[ ]astronautg117 1 point 1 hour ago
What's a combat rifle going to do against a drone?
permalinkparent
[ ]datbino 1 point 1 hour ago
i think thats where 2nd ammendment people miss the mark- you owning a rifle will
do nothing against the government.
you becoming an active participating member in that government can help fix it,
the goal is to make you a kony2012 fb sharer rather than a person who gets to wo
rk and fixes shit
permalinkparent
[ ]mpg1846 1 point 1 hour ago
You think 50 guys with hand guns are going to do anything to anyone? Gun laws ar
e a joke.
permalinkparent
[ ]Actionbuilding 1 point 1 hour ago
The founders of the United States of America WANTED the citizens to rise up and
overthrow the government if it approached the levels of corruption it is current
ly working toward.
permalinkparent
load more comments (11 replies)
[ ]nuesuh 1 point 1 hour ago
Ever seen "Das Leben der Anderen"? Imagine this, just with total corruption and
100 times better technology. This is what we are moving towards. Imagine this sy
stem getting in the hands of someone like Hitler or Stalin.. And it can happen.
Before Hitler came to power Germany was a modern, western, christian nation. We
need safety with this technology. And when i say safety, i don't mean surveillan
ce. I mean the opposite.
permalinkparent
[ ]know_comment [score hidden] 14 minutes ago
I agree, but I think the reason for the infrastructure development is because it
is going to get bad. As we are forced to compete more globally, quality of life
stagnates. Even the slightest hint of austerity is going to be very painful for
the lower classes in a society with a large income disparity.
That's why we see the race baiting and divisive rhetoric being used so much. Kee
p the poor and working classes quibbling at each other.
I want you to consider the daffodil. And while you're doing that, I'll be over h
ere, looking through your stuff.
permalinkparent
[ ]mzackler 19 points 7 hours ago
It takes a really complicated answer to truly understand but you often get into
the us vs them mentality in siloed areas of law enforcement. You also often get
frustrated with the levels of proof you need to put the bad guy in jail. Thus an
y method you can use you feel justified in using. Although I think there are a l
ot of issues with The Wire, it's a great starting off point for a discussion if
you want a serious answer.
permalinkparent
load more comments (2 replies)
[ ]hershmire 30 points 7 hours ago
Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts, absolutely.
permalinkparent
[ ]TheNewRavager 70 points 6 hours ago
"All governments suffer a recurring problem: Power attracts pathological persona
lities. It is not that power corrupts but that it is magnetic to the corruptible

. Such people have a tendency to become drunk on violence, a condition to which


they are quickly addicted."
permalinkparent
[ ]gee_iwonderwhy 22 points 6 hours ago
Oh shit, a Dune quote outside /r/dune not about spice.
permalinkparent
[ ]TheNumberMuncher 3 points 6 hours ago
This is pretty cool.
permalinkparent
[ ]YawnDogg 1 point 3 hours ago
Gene Hackman was so kinky in that movie.
permalinkparent
[ ]ThreeTimesUp 2 points 2 hours ago
From a Guardian article by Glenn Greenwald I came across recently:
Inside the mind of NSA chief Gen Keith Alexander
Any casual review of human history proves how deeply irrational it is to believe
that powerful factions can be trusted to exercise vast surveillance power with
little accountability or transparency.
But the more they proudly flaunt their warped imperial hubris, the more irration
al it becomes.
permalinkparent
[ ]Epsilox 3 points 2 hours ago
I'm going to take an unpopular stance here and argue that they get more effectiv
e investigations. Which isn't to say I have no reservations about this stuff, be
cause I do.
I've worked in a field tangential to law enforcement, and I've had the unpleasan
t experience of watching very bad people act with impunity because law enforceme
nt had to play by the rules and they didn't. Does that justify the modern trend
towards more invasive government? Maybe that's just the price we pay to live in
a free society. I don't know. I'm a fan of the H.L. Mencken quote:
"The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's ti
me defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are f
irst aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopp
ed at all."
On the other hand, it's very hard to watch members of organized crime and other
monsters literally get away with murder.
In part the difficulty the lies in the infrastructure of modern society. Communi
cations move at such speed and in such quantity that the sort of pinpoint accura
cy required for effective investigations and prosecutions becomes much more diff
icult.
None of which is to say that what we're doing is necessarily right. I've felt th
e fear of writing an opinion online and knowing that the NSA can see it and ever
ything else I've ever written if they so choose. I've had that feeling of always
being watched. I know exactly what is meant by the danger of chilling free spee
ch, because it's happened to me. But I do tend to trust (perhaps naively) that,
for the most part, most of the people making these decisions have good intention
s. I've worked with many of them, and I believe that it more than anything is th
e result of them trying to do their jobs well. Whether they are actually protect
ing the American people or simply paving the road to hell, only time will really
tell.
permalinkparent
[ ]eyeforgot 4 points 6 hours ago
Think of all the blackmail material they have for any future politicians. They w
ill firmly be in check by the powers that be.
permalinkparent
[ ]ademnus 3 points 7 hours ago
Total control.
permalinkparent
[ ]NotAnotherDecoy 4 points 7 hours ago
Total control?

permalinkparent
[ ]leamas666 2 points 5 hours ago
Why would you amass such a criminal energy to break constitutional laws just to
be able to see through everyone's communication?
It's the deep state attempting to preserve its own regime continuity in the even
t of violent revolution.
permalinkparent
[ ]sunbolts 3 points 6 hours ago
Because those in power try to keep it and in addition, there is always a lust fo
r more power. One who is wealthy seeks to increase his riches usually, right? Sa
me thing going on here. In terms of practicality, there's no reason for breaking
constitutional laws, but when you realize how human nature functions in regards
to ambitions and power, well, what we see going on explains itself.
permalinkparent
[ ]Martenz05 1 point 3 hours ago
So, in order to become a political leader who really does work for the benefit o
f the people, one would somehow have to lose every shred of their humanity so th
ey wouldn't have a human nature that could be corrupted by ambition and power?
That sounds ominous, when I put it like that
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]RuthlessDickTater 1 point 5 hours ago
but why.. I realize that these "zomg the terrorists!!!11" is only a PR-lie.
Well pretty soon they might have their terrorists, but they'll be the domestic k
ind.
permalinkparent
[ ]karadan100 1 point 4 hours ago
More money.
permalinkparent
[ ]cynoclast 1 point 3 hours ago
What do they really accomplish with this?
Get rich.
permalinkparent
load more comments (7 replies)
[ ]TGlucifer 50 points 10 hours ago
Criminals learned it's just way easier to do their lawbreaking with a government
salary.
permalinkparent
[ ]pete1729 22 points 9 hours ago
Well, the benefits package is far more attractive.
permalinkparent
[ ]__ghostpants 25 points 7 hours ago
and somehow snitches go to jail instead of the criminals
permalinkparent
[ ]iismitch55 1 point 3 hours ago
Snitches get stitches. Whistleblowers get their mouth sowed shut.
permalinkparent
[ ]HandsOffMyDitka 5 points 5 hours ago
Why break a law, when you can just change it.
permalinkparent
[ ]moresmarterthanyou 2 points 5 hours ago
except when they have to answer questions themselves...
permalinkparent
[ ]dontbullshityourself 1 point 5 hours ago
Well you know liberty is wasted on peasant swine 'eh?
permalinkparent
[ ]ButterflyAttack 1 point 4 hours ago
Sounds like the constitution doesn't mean much at this point. . .
permalinkparent
[ ]dontbullshityourself 1 point 3 hours ago

Sounds like the constitution doesn't mean much at this point. . .


All it means is that the scum who rule us have a legal contract that they say ba
cks up all their power. But their actions shit all over that document.
President Obama, a constitutional law professor ordered the deaths of two US cit
izens without trial in EXPRESS and DIRECT violation of the constitution.
permalinkparent
load more comments (4 replies)
[ ]Eurynom0s 68 points 9 hours ago
And on top of it, even if being in public was a justification for this, how the
fuck do you prevent the device from nabbing people who are inside their own hous
e or apartment as well?
Oh right, you can't, because that's not how radio waves work.
permalinkparent
[ ]Ioneos 18 points 8 hours ago
You can increase the noise gate to reduce range on purpose, but what good would
that do to keep the terrorists citizens under scrutiny.
permalinkparent
[ ]Eurynom0s 20 points 8 hours ago
Even if they were going to do that, I can't imagine that you could do it to a su
fficient degree in a place like NYC to not scoop up at least some people inside
of buildings.
permalinkparent
load more comments (5 replies)
[ ]Codoro 1 point 4 hours ago
I foresee turning your house into a Faraday Cage being the cop radar finder of t
omorrow.
permalinkparent
[ ]Kenny_Login 23 points 7 hours ago
Taxation without representation, an income far below what the productivity was v
alued at, government intrusion? The founding fathers (you know, those "heroes" o
f our nation) got much more pissed off for much less.
permalinkparent
[ ]Socialdem 8 points 5 hours ago
Can you really blame them? The Constitution was written when people were still r
iding on horses. There's no way the founding fathers could have anticipated the
advances in technology and the way people communicate. I think we're due for a f
irmware upgrade.
permalinkparent
[ ]upandrunning 11 points 3 hours ago
Yes, it's called 'replacing congress'. What we're seeing is a natural consequenc
e of career politicians. Most of the people in office have gotten so comfortable
with the idea that they'll get reelected that what they actually do during thei
r term is almost irrelevent.
permalinkparent
[ ]theothercoolfish 2 points 2 hours ago
Exactly. I think we should look at sortition - with an approval vote, and extrem
ely strict rules on what sort of laws can be passed (eg any law must apply equal
ly to everyone - protecting the minority), and a approval bonus for the randomly
selected representatives if the public approves. Fuck career politicians - they
've proven themselves wholly incapable, and the system that supports them is too
corruptible. I don't think campaign finance reform will 1) ever happen 2) adequ
ately deal with institutional corruption.
permalinkparent
[ ]NuclearWookiee 0 points 2 hours ago
All of this should be covered, in any reasonable interpretation, by the Fourth a
mendment. Rebooting who change anything if the limits on government are ignored.
permalinkparent
[ ]KalAl 1 point 1 hour ago
Do you update your firmware by smashing your bios chip with a hammer?
permalinkparent

[ ]FireFromTheWire 4 points 6 hours ago


You're just another Steve Irwin to them.
permalinkparent
[ ]iismitch55 2 points 3 hours ago
Too soon mate :'(
permalinkparent
[ ]Penguin_in_the_sand 1 point 1 hour ago*
I am curious to know what this comment means?... Oh! Steve Irwin was killed by a
stingray. I thought you may have been referring to some conspiracy relating the
Steve Irwin's death. He had an American wife and both were invited to Howard's
Bush BBQ. http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/10/27/1067233100397.html
permalinkparent
[ ]gloubenterder 2 points 1 hour ago
Steve Irwin was a wildlife documentary filmmaker who was well-known for getting
up close and personal with dangerous animals such as crocodiles and komodo drago
ns.
He was pierced through a heart by a stingray in 2006, while shooting footage for
a documentary called Ocean's Deadliest.
After his death, stingrays had a period of great infamy, and there were even rep
orts of people killing and mutilating stingrays as vengeance for Steve Irwin. ..
.which, of course, is the last thing Irwin would have wanted; he was a conservat
ionist, and whenever he was injured by an animal he was studying, he would alway
s clarify to the viewer that that was his own fault and a risk he was aware of.
permalinkparent
[ ]Agent-BurtMacklinFBI 1 point 5 hours ago
Don't worry I'm keeping a look out
permalinkparent
[ ]pion3435 1 point 3 hours ago
It's not a constitutional issue. It might be an FCC one, but they just do whatev
er they're told anyway.
permalinkparent
[ ]dntur 1 point 3 hours ago
theoretically, every cell tower is in a public place. Why not just attach a stin
gray to all of them? Think of the money mobile companies could make renting towe
r space! next comes google who wants to know who you are calling on your iphone
and windows phone for better directed advertising, followed by Bing. /s
permalinkparent
[ ]Brian3232 [score hidden] 46 minutes ago
Why are they wrong? You already can take pictures of people in public places wit
hout warrant
permalinkparent
[ ]GaltsGulchTouristInf [score hidden] 24 minutes ago
When the constitution, the supreme law of the land, the contract between the gov
ernment and the people, is violated, this violating it should be banned from 'pu
blic service' for life, should be personally liable to those whose rights they v
iolated, and should forfeit their government pension and benefits.
permalinkparent
[ ]wtfmuck [score hidden] 17 minutes ago
It's sad how they shirk doing what is right for what is easy.
permalinkparent
load more comments (8 replies)
[ ]quiteintriguing 127 points 12 hours ago
I think it's about time these fuckers provided some evidence that privacy invadi
ng is helping stop crime or terrorism. As far as I can see, there is an Islamic
army in the middle east right now filled with westerners that simply flew over a
nd caught a bus. Nice job government agencies, you sure showed us.
permalink
[ ]HappyAtavism 81 points 11 hours ago
I think it's about time these fuckers provided some evidence that privacy invadi
ng is helping stop crime or terrorism.

Even more importantly they should provide evidence that they're not violating th
e 4th Amendment. The Bill of Rights doesn't say it applies only when convenient.
P.S. I agree that repeated failures to demonstrate the effectiveness of these th
ings, or lies which get "corrected", is yet another reason why this stuff is BS,
but the Constitution is first and foremost. Don't like the 4th Amendment? Try t
o repeal it. Until then it's in force.
permalinkparent
[ ]7u5 3 points 5 hours ago
The "checks and balances" of the judiciary are a farce. They are free to "interp
ret" the Constitution as they see fit.
permalinkparent
load more comments (3 replies)
[ ]DiaperParty 9 points 3 hours ago
Fuck that. FUUUCK that. If this did stop terrorists, it would still not be worth
the violation of rights. We absolutely CANNOT start OKing this shit as long as
it "stops bad guys."
permalinkparent
[ ]quiteintriguing 1 point 3 hours ago
I think you misunderstood. I think they should have to back up their justificati
on, which they obviously can't.
permalinkparent
[ ]DiaperParty 4 points 3 hours ago
But if we ask them to, we lend legitimacy to that claim. We need to say from the
get go that no justification is needed because none will be sufficient.
permalinkparent
[ ]ebouwman 7 points 5 hours ago
In Canada we had the Ottawa shooting and that dude that ran over some soldiers.
Correct me if I'm wrong but both these guys had had their passports revoked.
I'm not a fan of letting them just go over and fight a dirty war but wtf.
permalinkparent
[ ]Ceejae 4 points 4 hours ago
But so what if it is? How successful the program is is irrelevant.
I'm sure if they set up a government camera in every home they'd stop plenty of
murders and rapes.
permalinkparent
load more comments (2 replies)
[ ]cassieloveseffie 5 points 2 hours ago
Well we all know that the FBI has followed people like John Lennon who believed
in radical peace, urged MLK to kill himself and was prepared to assassinate occu
py members. It is not about crime, it is about maintaining a status quo.
permalinkparent
[ ]monopixel 2 points 1 hour ago
was prepared to assassinate occupy members.
Interesting, where can I read up about this?
permalinkparent
[ ]wirepants 4 points 4 hours ago
Locking everyone in solitary could stop crime and terrorism too. That's not a go
od enough reason to violate our rights even if it was working.
permalinkparent
[ ]egodeath92 2 points 5 hours ago
Shh that's classified. This entire country would be a post-apocalyptic dirt-patc
h is not for the heroic NSA collecting dirt on most of the country.
permalinkparent
[ ]pion3435 1 point 3 hours ago
You had no privacy in the first place. That's not how cell phones work.
permalinkparent
load more comments (6 replies)
[ ]MashItMatt 143 points 13 hours ago
Obviously these are constitution free zones, citizen.
permalink

[ ]THANKS-FOR-THE-GOLD 22 points 7 hours ago


Embrace democracy or you will be eradicated
permalinkparent
[ ]jroddie4 14 points 5 hours ago
Citizen, pick up that can.
permalinkparent
[ ]douko 3 points 5 hours ago
This image won't even load (here's another one), but I still know what it is.
DEATH IS A PREFERABLE ALTERNATIVE TO COMMUNISM.
COMMUNISM IS THE VERY DEFINITION OF FAILURE!
permalinkparent
[ ]chewysquirrel 15 points 6 hours ago
Approximately 2/3 of Americans live in a "constitution free zone"
permalinkparent
[ ]newpolitics 50 points 10 hours ago
The Federal Bureau of Investigation is taking the position that court warrants a
re not required when deploying cell-site simulators in public places. Nicknamed
"stingrays," the devices are decoy cell towers that capture locations and identi
ties of mobile phone users and can intercept calls and texts.
So nobody has any expectation of privacy? Talking out of their asses. The implic
ation that a warrant shouldn't be needed to intercept someone's text messages, i
s outrageous.
permalink
[ ]acerplatanoides [score hidden] 16 minutes ago
The implication that a warrant shouldn't be needed to intercept someone's text m
essages, is outrageous.
The implication of intercepting a PRESS related text message, and thus also supp
ressing a free press.
I think many of these are used to stop uploading of images to social medial. You
ever tried that during a demonstration?
permalinkparent
[ ]dalasocatyemerc 67 points 9 hours ago
Hmm, I didn't realize the FBI had the authority to ignore the constitution of th
e United States of America.
Maybe this organization doesn't actually serve Americans. That's what I think
permalink
[ ]Jagoonder 17 points 2 hours ago
They don't. However, lets look at their 3rd criteria:
(3) cases in which the technology is used in public places or other locations at
which the FBI deems there is no reasonable expectation of privacy.
In public, noone has an expectation to privacy. SCOTUS has ruled on such. Theref
ore, it could be argued that phone conversations in public places forfeits at le
ast one party's rights to privacy.
There are a couple of problems with this. First, Stingray is indiscriminate. Sec
ond, the other party of the phone conversation may be in their own home thus hav
ing an expectation of privacy.
I don't know how law works in regards to phone tapping. But, I would assume that
any warrant to do so would provide the agency a waiver on a second party's priv
acy protections when conversing with the target of the warrant. Except in the ca
se of Stingray no warrant was ever obtained thus, no waiver, thus the second par
ty probably still has privacy protections.
So, I think it's bullshit. I'm no lawyer. I suspect the FBI also knows it's bull
shit. But, the more excuses they can come up with to bend the law around their w
ill the more time it takes to try to stop them since each instance requires anot
her court decision.
permalinkparent
[ ]punkrampant 13 points 1 hour ago
There's only "no expectation of privacy" in public in terms of video+camera surv
eillance. People still get disturbed if you look over their shoulder at their ph
one, or listen to a conversation.

Text messages, emails, phone calls, all of it, are the modern day written letter
s. What the FBI is trying to do is the equivalent of setting up a post office th
at opens everyone's envelopes and makes copies of all the contents.
permalinkparent
[ ]Jagoonder 5 points 1 hour ago
Text messages, emails, phone calls, all of it, are the modern day written letter
s. What the FBI is trying to do is the equivalent of setting up a post office th
at opens everyone's envelopes and makes copies of all the contents.
You're right. I was focusing on an actual phone conversation where one party cou
ld be overheard by others, thus no expectation to privacy.
permalinkparent
[ ]Cambodian_Drug_Mule 2 points 1 hour ago
Surely there are people with technical expertise that can just fuck their shit u
p. If I'm not mistaken the stingrays were detected with consumer grade electroni
cs. If everyone just looked out for them and pinned where they are at on a map,
couldn't some people with the technical know how take them offline?
permalinkparent
[ ]monopixel 1 point 1 hour ago
Hmm, I didn't realize the FBI had the authority to ignore the constitution of th
e United States of America.
The US government and its agencies has been doing it for ages.
permalinkparent
[ ]rtpg 40 points 6 hours ago
Surprised nobody's mentioned Kyllo v. United States yet.
This is fairly recent (2001) jurisprudence. The gov't used a thermal imager, and
saw that there were heat lamps inside of a house, and used that to get a search
warrant. The gov't argued that, well, the heat was outside, so pretty much publ
ic information.
The courts disagreed and ruled this an illegal search. Main reason being that no
t many people have thermal imagers, so there's a reasonable expectation of priva
cy. I think even less people have stingrays, so even from the "discovering that
someone has a cell phone" aspect, there's unreasonableness in the search.
Now to the wiretapping aspect... there's Katz v. United States. Here, somebody w
as in a phone booth, and the feds had set a microphone outside the phone booth w
ithout warrant (so not exactly a wiretap). Again, the courts ruled this an unrea
sonable search.
A part of the ruling:
Regardless of the location, a conversation is protected from unreasonable search
and seizure under the Fourth Amendment if it is made with a "reasonable expecta
tion of privacy".
Text messages definitely fall under this. I can't see this holding up for 2 seco
nds in court.
The article goes into it into detail, but few of the FBI's interpretations on pr
ivacy have been holding up in courts recently. The system is kind of working, an
d this interpretation will be shut down as well. Now, if only everyone had good
lawyers...
permalink
[ ]ryewheats 7 points 4 hours ago
But the biggest problem I see would be them not declaring how they gathered any
information they collected in the first place. It would be pretty easy to skirt
around the system and act like you caught the suspect red-handed (because you we
re tipped off by illegal searches). That is the really scary part.
permalinkparent
[ ]argv_minus_one 5 points 3 hours ago
This practice is known as "parallel construction".
permalinkparent
[ ]tughdffvdlfhegl 3 points 3 hours ago
Honestly, this is the biggest concern. The courts won't allow a challenge becaus
e no one will have standing, because the feds/police won't actively declare this
as evidence in a trial. Meanwhile, they'll continue to use it, having a chillin

g effect on the press and others (which the courts have not seen in recent histo
ry as sufficient to provide legal standing).
permalinkparent
[ ]JustaChimp 3 points 5 hours ago
With the Katz v US case, it took them 39 years to overturn the Olmstead v US rul
ing. Let's hope it takes a little less time for this medium.
The recent Romano v Steelcase Inc. court case could indicate how the courts will
rule in the short term with regards to "reasonable expectation of privacy" thou
gh this ruling was in the context of social media and not text messages. The ana
logy was made that much like a letter writer has no reasonable expectation of pr
ivacy once the recipient is in possession of the letter, neither does the post's
author. Same could be extended to text messages and would be equally as trouble
some.
permalinkparent
[ ]qdarius 1 point 3 hours ago
Damn, that doesn't seem right at all. If I send someone a letter I definitely ex
pect that only they will read it.
Could anyone expand on the logic that a letter writer has no reasonable expectat
ion of privacy?
permalinkparent
[ ]Boltaeg 1 point 3 hours ago
After that letter is given to the recipient, they can do whatever they want with
it without you knowing. They could copy it, show it to friends, frame it and pu
t it on their wall....etc. You have no control over that and must assume that an
ything you write in a letter can be disclosed in some manner, simply because you
have no control over that persons actions.
As to why that is the case, I have no idea. Especially considering it is illegal
to open someone elses mail, but perfectly legal to read someone else's letter o
nce they open it. At least that is my understanding of it.
permalinkparent
[ ]TheMightyBarbarian 1 point 3 hours ago
Its fairly simple, you sent a letter, until it is received by the intended recip
ient it has federal protections. Once the recipient receives it, they are free t
o do with it as they wish, even if you disagree with what they do, specifically
because the letter is now their property, even though you wrote it.
permalinkparent
[ ]qdarius 1 point 2 hours ago
I understand that. But if someone else intercepts my letter shouldn't that still
be illegal?
Maybe I'm misunderstanding how stingrays work but it seems like they're basicall
y designed to intercept hundreds of messages.
permalinkparent
[ ]TheMightyBarbarian 1 point 2 hours ago
Intercept isn't illegal, its sketchy but not illegal. As for reading it, it's a
grey area since texts are not encrypted and even if they were it would do shit i
f billions of devices can decrypt them. So unless you use something like a messe
nger system that can use basic encrypting. It won't stop the FBI from reading it
, but it does show you took steps to have a private conversation and that's what
matters to the court.
permalinkparent
[ ]coalbeeashi 1 point 3 hours ago
Re: Katz v. United States
Certain details, such as shutting the door on the telephone booth, help determin
e if a person intends for a conversation to be private. Thus, private conversati
ons can be made in public areas.
What steps is the average Joe taking to exhibit a reasonable expectation of priv
acy regarding his/her data usage? Honest question.
permalinkparent
[ ]TheMightyBarbarian 1 point 2 hours ago
Beyond using a VPN to mimic another location, not much really. Since there are m

any devices involved in the process of just looking up a website. Ex. You google
Microsoft. Here are all the parties involved: You, Your ISP, Google, Microsoft.
That's four parties involved and that's assuming you are not using a Phones Mob
ile Data plan and are using WiFi. Because then it can add a few more people invo
lved.
Sure you should have protection just the same, but currently the law doesn't rec
ognize that, because the people in charge dont understand how any of it works.
permalinkparent
[ ]rtpg [score hidden] 54 minutes ago
I would say that cultural norms kind of define that in that it is extremely rude
to look at another stranger's phone while they are using it to browse/look at t
heir emails/whatever. Not the most solid argument, I know.
permalinkparent
[ ]Sic_SemperTyrannis 1 point 2 hours ago
When the use of stingrays is challenged in court police have dropped the cases r
ather than explain their use of stingrays.
permalinkparent
[ ]cassieloveseffie 1 point 2 hours ago
I have seen a printed record of every one of someone's txt messages for 6 months
. Never assume txt messages are private.
permalinkparent
[ ]Ladderjack 29 points 12 hours ago
I'm sorry, have they gone ahead and combined the FBI and the Supreme Court of th
e United States of America? No? Well, we will see how long this lasts. . .
permalink
[ ]butitssnot 46 points 7 hours ago
Its ok. In 2016 we can vote for hope and change and transparency and fix all thi
s.
permalinkparent
[ ]CriticalThink 3 points 5 hours ago
yeah. I bet Hillary will fix this mess, right Reddit?
permalinkparent
[ ]TheMightyBarbarian 1 point 2 hours ago
We still got time before they can start promoting themselves for President, lega
lly actually, they can't start until a certain number of days from the election.
permalinkparent
[ ]looneybandito 5 points 6 hours ago
Haha. As if our votes matter.
permalinkparent
[ ]atomofconsumption 9 points 5 hours ago
thatsthejoke.jpg
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]dichroeyes 1 point 4 hours ago
You are right. I give up. Long live the hegemony.
permalinkparent
[ ]Pikaflu 1 point 3 hours ago
America is an irradiated wasteland. Within it lies a city. Outside the boundary
walls, a desert. A cursed earth. Inside the walls, a cursed city, stretching fro
m Boston to Washington D.C. An unbroken concrete landscape. 800 million people l
iving in the ruin of the old world and the mega structures of the new one. Mega
blocks. Mega highways. Mega City One. Convulsing. Choking. Breaking under its ow
n weight. Citizens in fear of the street. The gun. The gang. Only one thing figh
ting for order in the chaos: the men and women of the Hall of Justice. Juries. E
xecutioners. Judges.
permalinkparent
[ ]Ago_Solvo 36 points 9 hours ago
I'm sure that means that stingrays are also open for public hacking in that case
, because they're in a public place, and doing so can't be considered an intrusi
on on government properties or a violation of any Federal Law.

permalink
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]whysopositive 57 points 12 hours ago
Say whatever you want, you don't think big brother is going to find every way to
spy on you?
The thing is I bet every time we the people get upset about some "new" trespass
against our rights there's already something technologically beyond our knowledg
e being put to use to on us now.
permalink
[ ]I_SPLIT_INFINITIVES 16 points 7 hours ago
My dad always said, "If that's what they're telling us they have now, they proba
bly had it ten years ago. Just imagine what they really have."
permalinkparent
[ ]oOTHX1138Oo 28 points 9 hours ago
Thats why we need to add to the bill of rights, so that we continue to be protec
ted in the digital age.
permalinkparent
[ ]TheBlueWaffleHouse 18 points 8 hours ago
At this point in time the bill of rights only shrinks. It doesn't get bigger.
permalinkparent
[ ]tallerthanunicorngod 33 points 7 hours ago
Not with that attitude.
permalinkparent
[ ]mattacular2001 3 points 5 hours ago
Doesn't matter unless you're wealthy
permalinkparent
[ ]tallerthanunicorngod 1 point 2 hours ago
Wealthy people don't like to be spied on either. Honestly, they probably like it
even less.
permalinkparent
[ ]sockgorilla 1 point 5 hours ago
He's John Titor, he's watched it before.
permalinkparent
[ ]mastahslayah 1 point 4 hours ago
Well he isn't getting any of my Dr. Pepper.
permalinkparent
[ ]Poor__Yorick 1 point 2 hours ago
Wow that's a name I haven't heard in a while.
We've got a world war this year though.
3 billion dead by the end of it.
permalinkparent
load more comments (5 replies)
[ ]pion3435 1 point 3 hours ago
We already did. That's the point of laws like HIPAA. There's just no equivalent
for things like email or cell phones so it's legal to see whatever people are na
ively broadcasting.
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]ZomNomNomBeeZ 5 points 7 hours ago
This technology is not particularly new. The man-in-the-middle attack is a class
ic hacking technique. I remember reading an article after one of the security co
nventions detailing a small group of participants that used a remote control air
plane to do this exact thing to convention attendees. This was years ago.
permalinkparent
[ ]hershmire 4 points 7 hours ago
Which is why it's illegality could be successfully code into law.
permalinkparent
[ ]TheMightyBarbarian 1 point 3 hours ago
That's the problem, the people who make the laws don't understand how the techno
logy works, and the people making and using it are telling them its fine, so the

y don't feel like they need to make a law about.


And as such making a law about it would be bad, since the law would need specifi
c language to prevent certain technologies and usage of such. But the biggest is
sue is that some of the technology and uses are too general that it would never
work to stop anything. Since they can't just write a law preventing man in the m
iddle because they need to get a definitive wording on what that is exactly and
then word it so a slight variation doesn't just immediately skirt the new law.
Our technology grew faster than our laws did, but now it's grown faster than our
ability to properly define what it is we do. So controlling it is incredibly ha
rd and will take a long time, so for now we kinda have to suck it up and wait, b
ecause the worst possible thing is them putting out ineffective laws that do les
s than nothing to prevent stuff like that and hearing us complain and think we a
re whining when they just put out a law. I would rather wait a little longer to
make sure the law is proper and effective than to have a crap law screw everythi
ng up.
permalinkparent
[ ]ScorpionPool 1 point 6 hours ago
Serious question. What benefits does the government get from spying on us? Power
? Information for corporations? Shits and giggles? Some kind of profit?
permalinkparent
[ ]swingmemallet 2 points 5 hours ago
All of the above
permalinkparent
[ ]eyeforgot 1 point 5 hours ago*
What like complete access to what anyone posts/chats about on facebook/skype bei
ng dumped into a database? Anyone who work with cisco routers notice anything fu
nny like carefully crafted packets fucking w. the settings and not creating logs
. Maybe like there is a back door that someone has that doesn't require a passwo
rd.
permalinkparent
load more comments (3 replies)
[ ]philtech 26 points 10 hours ago
You can scan for stingray use.
Only works on rooted phones with Qualcomm chipset however. https://play.google.c
om/store/apps/details?id=de.srlabs.snoopsnitch&hl=en
permalink
[ ]vamper 2 points 6 hours ago
damn, no go for my nexus 5
permalinkparent
[ ]Ice_Pirate 1 point 5 hours ago
Should work on my 20 dollar ZTE's with dualies :). Overclocks to 1.8 like butta.
http://www.phonearena.com/phones/ZTE-N800_id8191
permalinkparent
[ ]willyboxc 1 point 2 hours ago
we need a version that will work without root :(
permalinkparent
[ ]networklackey 49 points 11 hours ago*
Bullshit... it's radio. They have no way of determining whether the person they
are monitoring is in public or not.
They shouldn't be able to use this without a warrant any more than they should b
e able to point a laser mic at your window.
The fact that they are in public is irrelevant... the subject they are monitorin
g has to be in public.
permalink
[ ]lll_1_lll 29 points 6 hours ago
Even if we are in public, what the fuck gives them the right to look through my
texts, phone calls, voicemails, emails, call history, etc?
permalinkparent
[ ]zoidbug 5 points 3 hours ago
It should be protected the level of paper mail. It is your private communication

s.
permalinkparent
[ ]networklackey 1 point 2 hours ago
Technically... because you are in public and are broadcasting. But I feel the sa
me way. None of this shit should be legal.
permalinkparent
load more comments (6 replies)
[ ]goatmagic 2 points 3 hours ago
laser mic
Well, TIL this exists :/
permalinkparent
[ ]networklackey 2 points 2 hours ago
They absolutely exist and they are freaking awesome. They should not however be
used by law enforcement without a warrant.
permalinkparent
[ ]makingupdumbnames 1 point 5 hours ago
I think it's that their airwaves cross public space. pls correct me if I'm wrong
, though
permalinkparent
[ ]networklackey 1 point 2 hours ago
That's certainly the argument they are making.
permalinkparent
[ ]wirepants 1 point 4 hours ago
Even assuming you are in public, who's to say the guy on the other side is too?
permalinkparent
[ ]networklackey 1 point 2 hours ago
Nothing but their log books but that doesn't really matter. It's your right to p
rivacy they are violating.
permalinkparent
[ ]Sarah_Connor 9 points 9 hours ago
We need a way to be able to identify, then jamm, stingrays.
permalink
[ ]cookie_nrk 8 points 7 hours ago
This Jammer made in sweden should do the trick. From what I have read it complet
ely blocks all signals, so using a phone wouldn't work at all, but if you were i
n a position to not want to be tracked during a certain time, you could use this
: http://www.jammer-store.com/monstro-10-all-frequencies-portable-jammer.html
permalinkparent
[ ]hershmire 10 points 7 hours ago
We're talking about blanket monitoring of civilians. It needs to be outlawed imm
ediately. Hoping each and every Joe Schmoe is going to buy an illegal cell phone
jammer to protect his identity is, well, ridiculous.
permalinkparent
[ ]davidverner 6 points 7 hours ago
Jammers are illegal in the US on the cellphone frequency. Good luck importing on
e.
permalinkparent
[ ]wicard 5 points 6 hours ago
had one from deal extreme i bought when i was younger to prank friends, was alot
of fun. But if you are worried about being tracked wouldn't just shutting your
phone off do the trick? If you are jamming your phone you arnt going to be talki
ng to anyone.
permalinkparent
[ ]RellenD 4 points 5 hours ago
You have to do more than just turn it off, unfortunately.
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]willyboxc 1 point 2 hours ago
we need the schematics so we can build one... also include 700 mhz jam for lte
permalinkparent

load more comments (1 reply)


[ ]ademnus 11 points 7 hours ago
That's nice but it's not up to the FBI if it is illegal or not.
permalink
[ ]MonitoredCitizen 21 points 7 hours ago
Come on Google and Apple, stop being so lame. Make the phones themselves defend
against this by always displaying the negotiated encryption level and allowing u
ser to configure the phone to refuse to connect if the GSM encryption level is A
5/0.
permalink
[ ]argv_minus_one 2 points 2 hours ago
If they do that, these same spooks will have some words with their CEOs. Otherwi
se, yeah, they likely would.
permalinkparent
[ ]vzzzbux 2 points 1 hour ago
Not sure on the technical specifics but my old Nokia from 10 years ago used to s
how a padlock if the call was "secure", which I guess meant it was encrypted in
some way.
Sounds like yet another way we've gone backwards with the rise of Google and App
le
permalinkparent
[ ]cryptovariable 180 points 12 hours ago
This seems icky, but anyone with a Raspberry Pi ($48.00), an RTL-SDR ($17.00), a
nd an ability to follow written step-by-step instructions on how to install and
configure some open source software ($0.00) can do this, albeit on a smaller sca
le.
That tutorial doesn't cover decrypting GSM traffic. This one does. You'll need s
omething faster than a Raspberry Pi, though. Maybe a $200 netbook.
And you can do it on the same scale as the police with a surplus commercial ante
nna and three or four friends.
I don't see how restricting the government's ability to do this would have any o
ther effect than to criminalize a private citizen's desire to experiment with GS
M.
permalink
[ ]HappyAtavism 113 points 11 hours ago
I don't see how restricting the government's ability to do this would have any o
ther effect than to criminalize a private citizen's desire to experiment with GS
M.
Experiment with GSM all you want, just don't eavesdrop or commit fraud by preten
ding to be part of a legitimate business.
I like to play with miniature cameras, microphones and transmitters. That's a fi
ne hobby as long as I don't use it to spy on my neighbors.
permalinkparent
load more comments (5 replies)
[ ]mr___ 50 points 12 hours ago
But theirs has a transmitter, and actively spoofs cell sites
permalinkparent
[ ]cryptovariable 55 points 12 hours ago
It you want to spoof rather than just eavesdrop all you have to do is buy any of
the SDR kits that are coming on to the market like a bladeRF or something and h
ave GNUradio (which hilariously autocorrects to FBI radio on my phone) pretend t
o be a tower, the credentials of which you sniffed with your Pi setup.
The reason the Feds spoof is so that they can target specific devices on a white
list and only have those connect. The size of the whitelist is unknown and up fo
r debate.
If you're capturing and decrypting all the GSM your antenna can receive you don'
t care if you're spoofing the tower unless you want to modify the traffic in som
e way. To quote Sir Patrick Stewart: "It's too late, I've seen everything."
If you just scoop up everything using cheap/free and publicly available tools yo
u don't really care about spoofing.

It should be noted that the Feds have a leg up with CDMA because of its smaller
global footprint and the scarcity of developers working on it, as well as UMTS (
3G) and LTE.
But people are poking at LTE every day: http://www.rtl-sdr.com/analyzing-td-ltertl-sdr/
permalinkparent
[ ]HappyAtavism 36 points 11 hours ago
The reason the Feds spoof is so that they can target specific devices on a white
list and only have those connect. The size of the whitelist is unknown and up fo
r debate.
We do know they don't have warrants. How many violations of the 4th Amendment do
es it take before it's considered a bad thing?
permalinkparent
load more comments (19 replies)
[ ]A530[??] 6 points 6 hours ago
I have to ask an honest question. Knowing what you know, do you live in a Farada
y cage or just eschew cell phones all together? I'm in InfoSec (I'm guessing you
are too) and with the shit I know, maintaining OPSec is just a never ending bat
tle. I can't imagine my paranoia if I went down the cellular rabbit hole (althou
gh I do know a lot about the shit happening with the carrier baseband MDM garbag
e).
Many thanks for the very informative post.
permalinkparent
[ ]tornadoRadar 1 point 1 hour ago
Gotta keep it segmented. Personal never mixes with biz
permalinkparent
[ ]the_nap_mutilator 1 point 5 hours ago
Spoofing the cell site also gives them access to the phone at something akin to
the hardware level... so unless you have rooted and or installed software to sec
ure the device, they can push new software onto your phone without your knowledg
e/consent in the same way that your carrier updates subscriber units say when th
ey make changes to the network or something. At that point your phone has been p
ermanently compromised.
permalinkparent
load more comments (13 replies)
[ ]mag17435 29 points 10 hours ago
I dont understand how people think the government can do things citizens can. Or
dering our government not to do something has no bearing on what citizens can do
.
permalinkparent
[ ]Golden-Fox 7 points 6 hours ago
Well when police are trying to visually collect evidence they can in general onl
y search from public areas. If a cop is looking for a certain car and they see i
t on the street, that's fine. If the car is parked in a closed garage and on pri
vate property, the cop wouldn't be able to see it without going onto private pro
perty and looking in a window. If the car is in the same garage and the garage d
oor is open, then anyone can see it, and the cop can legally use that informatio
n.
The FBI is trying to apply that same logic to these stingrays. Stingrays are a t
echnology that is available to the public. You could make your own and do exactl
y what the FBI does. The data being collected isn't encrypted, password protecte
d, or anything else. Everything is publicly available. You just have to have a c
ertain machine to be able to read it. The garage door has to be open.
permalinkparent
[ ]Wordygit 6 points 6 hours ago
The key word here is "public" whereas where there is the expectation of privacy,
I would think think that would carry some special considerations. That seems to
be some of what the courts are deciding about, where the expectation of privacy
holds sway over searches. Its already been determined that law enforcement cann
ot force you to unlock your phone. One such Supreme Court case, decided this pas

t summer, led to a sweeping victory for privacy rights advocates. In a rare unan
imous decision, the court found that police cannot search cellphones, and by ext
ension tablets and other digital communication devices, without first obtaining
a warrant. Smartphones, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote, hold the privacies of l
ife, and the fact that technology now allows an individual to carry such informati
on in his hand does not make the information any less worthy of the protection f
or which the Founders fought. I think, as well, that it has been established that
if there is encryption being used, that constitutes an acknowledgement that ste
ps have been taken to protect and maintain the sense of privacy, and so the expe
ctation carries onto the information being transmitted. Not sure if there is a l
egal precedent for that though.
permalinkparent
[ ]Golden-Fox 2 points 5 hours ago
Its already been determined that law enforcement cannot force you to unlock your
phone.
This is what I've heard, but to me it implies that police can access your phone
if you don't have it locked. Carrying that logic over to this argument, the poli
ce would be able to access your cell info as long as it isn't encrypted. It seem
s that you only have a "reasonable expectation to privacy" with your cell phone
if you've taken any steps to make your phone more private. If there were some wa
y to get your carrier to encrypt your data, then there'd be no question, but the
way cell providers are these days, that's not gonna happen.
permalinkparent
[ ]ThreeTimesUp 1 point 1 hour ago
Something that I have heard repeatedly (and I may yet have it wrong), is that if
your front door is closed, but unlocked, the police are free to enter without a
warrant.
This has always bothered me.
I could understand the mind-set of someone (i.e. a Justice of the Supreme court)
thinking that way if they grew up (or lived) in an area where they lived a life
always fearful of intruders and locking doors was a practical necessity.
But to me, a closed door means "Keep out, knock for admittance - no entry withou
t permission."
So, for naive, trusting, me, I would not expect the police (or anyone) to examin
e my phone (without a warrant) just to see what they could find.
permalinkparent
[ ]pion3435 1 point 3 hours ago
A technologically illiterate moron's expectation of privacy doesn't become a rea
sonable expectation of privacy just because the majority of the population is te
chnologically illiterate.
permalinkparent
[ ]F0sh 1 point 2 hours ago
This is totally wrong thinking. A private citizen can look for your car through
the garage window without legal repercussions, even though a police officer migh
t not be allowed. The police officer has to conduct his searches according to th
e expectation of privacy and you have every expectation that your private phone
conversations are private - even if you're sending your texts at the shopping ce
ntre.
This is a bullshit equivocation on the part of the FBI, who are claiming that si
nce any old person at the shops can see that you're also at the shops you have n
o expectation of privacy at all.
This logic, if extended, would also mean the FBI could clone your hard drive if
you took your laptop to a public place - after all, you have no expectation of p
rivacy there. No. Bullshit - just because you're in the park doesn't mean all yo
ur possessions and emails became public.
This has nothing to do with what an ordinary citizen is able to do in public or
in private.
permalinkparent
[ ]ThreeTimesUp 1 point 2 hours ago*
Well when police are trying to visually collect evidence they can in general onl

y search from public areas. If a cop is looking for a certain car and they see i
t on the street, that's fine.
To counterpoint this:
Infra-red light (heat) is just light that's at a lower frequency than humans can
detect.
Courts have ruled that the police using specialized equipment to detect heat sig
natures (Infra-red light) emanating from from houses for the purpose of snooping
for grow operations are an invasion of privacy.
The signals Stingray is picking up are just another frequency, even lower than I
nfra-red light, originating from inside your phone, that is your property, which
is in your possession.
Authorities are using all manner of logical distortions in an express attempt to
get around the ideals and principles expressed in the Constitution.
What law-abiding citizen would attempt such a thing?
What authority that the public has placed their trust in, would make continual a
ttempts to subvert the Constitution?
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
load more comments (2 replies)
[ ]kromem 2 points 3 hours ago
It is already criminal to capture and decrypt GSM traffic for citizens (Wiretap
Act), same as capturing and parsing WiFi data.
But I think I can point out the issue with your logic with a simple analogy:
Citizens can buy guns.
Law enforcement can be provided guns.
Citizens can practice shooting guns.
Law enforcement should do the same.
Citizens can't shoot other citizens with guns except in really specific exemptio
ns.
According to your logic, just because citizens can buy guns, and could possibly
go around shooting other people with them, law enforcement should not have any l
egal restrictions on their use of guns.
It is illegal for you to capture and decrypt anyone else's traffic, and it shoul
d be illegal for cops to do the same without a warrant. It's not that hard to ge
t a warrant when actually justified, creates a paper trail that can be examined
for abuses, and has been the case without serious issue for years now.
For what purpose does the law need to be changed to allow this? Because warrants
are inconvenient? Well then why not get rid of them for entering homes too? It'
s quite trivial to pick a lock, and even easier to smash a window and climb in.
Any citizen could do it. So why do we need to restrict the police from the same?
permalinkparent
[ ]dfioabnionjio 4 points 9 hours ago
I don't see how restricting the government's ability to do this would have any o
ther effect than to criminalize a private citizen's desire to experiment with GS
M.
Why not have it be illegal for government and legal for private citizens? Make i
t perfectly legal for private citizens to experiment with GSM, but don't let the
FBI do the same, like you can have a private citizen share something a defendan
t said in court while the police cannot do the same unless the suspect had been
told of their rights.
Of course, the problem here is not using GSM. It's tracking people who did not k
nowingly join your network. You could have it be legal to experiment with GSM an
d not legal to spoof a network, or make it so tracking someone on your network i
s illegal unless the person being tracked is aware they will be tracked and cons
ents to it.
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]confusiondiffusion 3 points 10 hours ago
Yeah, I really don't see the point in making laws against this, since they'll be
broken anyway. We need to fix the underlying technology. There is no excuse for

the sad state of cellphone security.


permalinkparent
[ ]HappyAtavism 18 points 10 hours ago
I really don't see the point in making laws against this
Then let's just flush the Constitution down the toilet. All laws get broken, the
question is what gets done about it.
since they'll be broken anyway
It's not very hard to break into my house either, but they're not supposed to do
it without a warrant.
permalinkparent
load more comments (4 replies)
[ ]HighMonster 1 point 7 hours ago
Wow that's intriguing
permalinkparent
[ ]lll_1_lll 1 point 6 hours ago
You act like this is realistically doable for the large majority of people and y
ou know that's BS.
permalinkparent
[+][deleted] 6 hours ago (1 child)
[ ]JabroniZamboni 1 point 5 hours ago
Are you suggesting that radar jammers should be legal? As well as cell phone or
wifi jammers? What if your neighbor wants to experiment with a jammer for the ne
xt 4 months? 6 years? I assume you wouldn't be too happy. There's experimentatio
n and then there's purposeful disruption and spying.
permalinkparent
[ ]egodeath92 1 point 5 hours ago
Yeah except "anyone with device X" can't prosecute people. It doesn't matter whe
n corporations do mass data collection because they are just trying to make mone
y/sell people shit. The government can create a database of people's private liv
es then prosecute them. You could even imagine a time where data collection is s
o widespread that this kind of info is used for political purposes rather then b
usting drug dealers/ other criminals which is what it's used for now.
permalinkparent
[ ]Kuusou 1 point 4 hours ago
What the people can do, and what the government can do, are no the same things,
nor should they.
permalinkparent
[ ]qdarius 1 point 4 hours ago
If a random person overhears my conversation I don't care. Even if they tell the
ir friends I'm still not too concerned.
If the government records my conversation and uses it to investigate or prosecut
e me that's clearly a different situation.
Just because someone can do something doesn't mean it should be legal. It defini
tely doesn't mean we should be okay with our government using it on us.
permalinkparent
load more comments (9 replies)
[ ]Sir_not_sir 52 points 13 hours ago
The main purpose of the stinger is to circumvent the need and time of acquiring
a warrant and getting the data from all the service providers.
Regardless of data retention plans, they should require a separate judicial warr
ant for each individual suspect in order to be deployed.
permalink
[ ]manoninternets 8 points 7 hours ago*
The time required to get a warrant is usually far less than what they make it ou
t to be, although cost is as factor. Phone companies make tons of money off poli
ce records requests.
To play devil's advocate (and I do think the STINGRAY arrangement is devilish):
once you request records from the phone companies, there's no guarantee that won
't get leaked to the people being investigated. The cartels have people everywhe

re.
permalinkparent
[ ]kevincreeperpants 6 points 6 hours ago
What if they are the cartels!?...dun dun dun
permalinkparent
[ ]tughdffvdlfhegl 1 point 3 hours ago
I don't think anyone here has a problem with STINGRAY being used, given that the
y have a warrant for the person's data they're monitoring. So in your situation,
that's easy to do.
permalinkparent
[ ]manoninternets 2 points 3 hours ago
Yeah it's the same concept as going through my private letters, or close enough
to it anyhow. (Even though letters are physically sealed and radio waves permeat
e the air freely, my intention is for my text messages to be as private as posta
l mail.)
Even a child could rip open an envelope with ease. That doesn't mean police don'
t need a warrant to do so.
permalinkparent
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[ ]turnthatfrown 9 points 7 hours ago
I think the FBI is conveniently forgetting that they are intercepting a communic
ation that is normally secured via encryption and carried privately by your wire
less provider then switched privately all the way to the party on the other end
who has similar expectations of the connection.
I mean, come on, the Stingrays themselves are impersonating the carrier that you
have a contract with and using techniques to avoid the strong encryption. The p
rove by their own design and implementation that the FBI's argument is bullshit.
permalink
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]dontbullshityourself 27 points 11 hours ago
I'm so sick of the ways these callous assholes use to crush our freedom.
What is the point of massive expensive law enforcement agencies if the law can't
protect our rights and freedoms? Hasn't the cart been put before the horse here
?
permalink
[ ]donottakethisserious 13 points 6 hours ago
If you are told you are free enough times, you start to believe it. You start at
a young age with a pledge every day and then when you grow up you attend sporti
ng events and stand for the national anthem and tear up at how free you are. Tha
t way nobody will ever question whether or not this is actually a free country.
permalinkparent
[ ]dontbullshityourself 10 points 5 hours ago
When I was a kid I started to sit during the pledge. Honestly I think I just wan
ted to test and see how free I was. I knew that saying the pledge etc wasn't in
the school handbook. I knew there was no rule saying I had to say it or stand or
anything. The powers that be at my school just used the herd instinct to keep t
his shit going.
So I started sitting down. This resulted in a lot of attention from gangs of bul
lies. My home room teacher didn't like it either and lectured/bitched about it e
very day. But she stopped short of anything more than shaming me unlike the bull
ies.
Anyway I just decided to drop out. Fuck it. Humans don't like new things that co
nfuse them and challenge them to think. How interesting that was to be the last
thing I learned in school. I found another kind of freedom. The freedom to leave
the assholes mired in their stupidity and find my own path in life.
permalinkparent
[ ]joshyfitzo90 4 points 5 hours ago
I like your style.
permalinkparent

[ ]Jack41096 3 points 4 hours ago


I applaud you. I stood but that's all I did. it was in our rulebook to stand but
fuck them if they thought I was gonna do more than that. I started a wave of pe
ople standing and doing nothing.
eventually my first period class was reduced to two people and the teacher actua
lly doing anything. they bitches about it but we all had our own reasons.
permalinkparent
[ ]dontbullshityourself 2 points 3 hours ago
eventually my first period class was reduced to two people and the teacher actua
lly doing anything. they bitches about it but we all had our own reasons.
There are lots of reasons to resist and only one reason to obey. Fear.
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]CriticalThink 3 points 5 hours ago
Government hasn't been interested in protecting our rights and freedoms in a lon
g time.
permalinkparent
[ ]jkeyser14 5 points 7 hours ago
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety
, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. - Benjamin Franklin
permalinkparent
[ ]dontbullshityourself 5 points 6 hours ago
We didn't give it up. They are taking it.
permalinkparent
[ ]jkeyser14 10 points 6 hours ago
Only because we aren't rioting. The first group of rioters to tar and feather a
politician again will bring about change very quickly.
permalinkparent
[ ]dontbullshityourself 4 points 5 hours ago
People are gonna have to get a lot more desperate. I reckon we'll get our riot s
oon enough.
permalinkparent
[ ]Jack41096 1 point 4 hours ago
take the food. that's the surefire way to cause a riot.
people will be content as long as they're fed. you take that away and suddenly t
hey have nothing to lose. they have to survive. that is the most primal response
we have. to fight tooth and nail for food. to eat no matter the cost.
permalinkparent
[ ]RamsNation 1 point 4 hours ago
America has a very stable food supply so I doubt that will happen.
permalinkparent
[ ]dontbullshityourself 1 point 3 hours ago
I don't think we have to take the food. I think that people today are a lot more
self entitled and will jump into a fit without their iphones. They can't even i
magine a world without abundant food.
permalinkparent
[ ]grungebucket 1 point 4 hours ago
bring about change very quickly. street executions very quickly.
there. Corrected that for you. After all. You wouldn't want to be mistaken for a
terrorist endorsing a terrorist act now, would you?
permalinkparent
[ ]pion3435 2 points 3 hours ago
You never had it. You're just now finding out.
permalinkparent
[ ]hershmire 7 points 7 hours ago
Ok, I get the FBI's argument. Technically, we are all choosing to carry a digita
l device around with us that uniquely identifies us via radio frequency. It's tr
ue that we could very well decide not to partake in the use of cell phones if we
're so worried about being tracked. And thus because we decide to carry these pa

rtially secure devices around with us, they FBI has every right to hack them and
track us.
But this argument is bogus. The FBI can't read our mail or tap our phones becaus
e legislators and judges at one time recognized that technology becomes indispen
sable, and therefore should be protected under privacy laws. Just because I choo
se to carry a cell phone around with me doesn't give the FBI to track my whereab
outs, or worse. That'd be like saying it's my fault for having my mail read by t
he FBI because I chose to write letters, or I chose to have my phones monitored
and recorded by the FBI because I chose to use telephones.
The FBI is part of the executive branch. They (supposedly) operate within the sc
ope of the law. If there's no specific law preventing their actions, they'll go
ahead and do it. So write your representatives and get shit like this regulated.
And use letters because they're obligated to at least open the envelope.
permalink
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]drakecherry 5 points 8 hours ago
we might as well get rid of warrants all together. they are gonna search if they
want to, and nothing will happen if they are wrong.
permalink
[ ]MeganNancySmith 6 points 6 hours ago
The FBI doesn't have the legal authority to make that determination.
It would be like if I said that murder is legal every other Sunday. I can say it
all I like, but it doesn't make it true.
permalink
[ ]Todda468 6 points 6 hours ago
Anything a private citizen can't do should require reasonable suspicion or a war
rent.
permalink
[ ]Sonotmethen 6 points 9 hours ago
Then signal jammers aren't either.
permalink
[ ]MrJDouble 4 points 9 hours ago
FBI tends to say a lot of things, doesn't mean it isn't a pile of horseshit.
permalink
[ ]blueiron0 4 points 6 hours ago
(3) cases in which the technology is used in public places or other locations at
which the FBI deems there is no reasonable expectation of privacy.
Love how the FBI gets to decide when it's ok for them to assume you shouldnt hav
e any expectation on privacy. "we saw a poop porn video on pornhub. you shouldnt
expect privacy when pooping then."
permalink
[ ]ragn4rok234 4 points 6 hours ago
Whoo! Now I don't need a warrant or sufficient reason to wire tap anyone and eve
ryone. Stalkers of the world rejoice! It's like Oprah is handing out privacy bre
aches in here
permalink
[ ]fourslaps 4 points 4 hours ago
This isn't what Steve Irwin would have wanted
permalink
[ ]knowyourbrain 7 points 8 hours ago
How sad is it that we have an R Senator trying to rein in a D president's FBI?
If Snowden et al have not been able to show the American people what a farce our
government is then I don't know how it can be demonstrated.
permalink
[ ]makingupdumbnames 1 point 5 hours ago
that's Chelsea to you, mister!
permalinkparent
[ ]StellarUsername 4 points 9 hours ago
Can someone ELI5 why my cell carrier lets this happen? Seems like it would be ea
sy enough for them to put a stop to it if they wanted.

permalink
[ ]giantgnat 13 points 8 hours ago
Because if you don't play nice with them, they don't play nice with you like wha
t happened to the CEO of quest after he refused to cooperate.
permalinkparent
[ ]lll_1_lll 6 points 6 hours ago
CEO of quest
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/09/30/a-ceo-who-resistednsa-spying-is-out-of-prison-and-he-feels-vindicated-by-snowden-leaks/
permalinkparent
[ ]WatchoutItsAllan 1 point 4 hours ago
Looks like the only way to be out of the eyes of the NSA is to go back to using
these http://imgur.com/JEFUt4h
permalinkparent
[ ]jkeyser14 4 points 7 hours ago
The cell and internet companies get paid millions by the government for direct a
ccess to their lines. This was one of the things Snowden blew the whistle on.
permalinkparent
[ ]MadPooter 2 points 7 hours ago
I believe that the technology behind our current cell phone towers needs to allo
w for widespread access to said cell phone towers from a wide array of technolog
ical devices.
The Stingray makes the cell phone tower believe that it's a cell phone--I don't
know that it's as easy as you might think to re-design all cell phone models to
differentiate themselves from what Stingrays currently are.
TL;DR: This might be a better issue for cell phone designers to solve rather the
n cell phone carriers.
permalinkparent
[ ]egalroc 2 points 6 hours ago
Maybe design a Falcon drone that homes in and locks on fake Stingray towers. Wou
ldn't the FBI just shit to see a couple sparrows zooming down on them?
permalinkparent
[ ]A530[??] 1 point 6 hours ago
Cell carriers couldn't care less. They're also packaging backdoors in their base
band software to do all kinds of functional crap, like over the air updates and
remote access.
permalinkparent
[ ]here4DaBacon 3 points 7 hours ago
So it's a honey pot for cell phones. This same method is used to intercept WiFi
internet traffic. The world is becoming a hackers paradise.
permalink
[ ]CapAnson 4 points 6 hours ago
I don't even think of the FBI's exceptions two and three are valid. And as for i
mminent danger to public safety I can't imagine when that safety hinges on inter
cepting a cell call right now this very second without a warrant
permalink
[ ]SquidwardSnowden1 3 points 6 hours ago
Let it be noted, I love big brother.
permalink
[ ]ryanknapper 3 points 6 hours ago
There was a comment asking what prevents private citizens from doing this. My re
ply was: Absolutely nothing. In fact, there are legal ways of doing exactly this
.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xKihq1fClQg
permalink
[ ]lll_1_lll 2 points 6 hours ago
inb4 this thread gets removed by the mods and/or shadowbanned
permalink
[ ]doctorshady[S] 3 points 6 hours ago
I was almost sure it was going to be removed when I submitted it.

permalinkparent
[ ]grtwatkins 1 point 3 hours ago
Wait, so mods = FBI?
permalinkparent
[ ]doctorshady[S] 2 points 2 hours ago
The mods here are quite restrictive about what is allowed to be submitted. Wheth
er or not they're under someone's influence is a question I can't answer (though
I'd honestly like to know), but you'll occasionally see high profile topics rem
oved, like the Snowden leaks back when PRISM was first pointed out.
permalinkparent
[ ]tomcat23 3 points 6 hours ago
If I had a hundred dollars for every time the FBI said it could do something une
thical or unconstitutional I'd be shooting rockets into space like Elon Musk rig
ht now.
permalink
[ ]leafygreenstuff 3 points 6 hours ago
Oh, well if they said....
permalink
[ ]wlxr 3 points 5 hours ago
Is this implying that they are going to repeatedly kill Steve Irwin?
permalink
[ ]Bulldog65 3 points 2 hours ago
Can I Use my Stingray in public places to intercept communications ?
If the answer is no, then the FBI needs a warrant.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effec
ts, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Wa
rrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, a
nd particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things t
o be seized.
This can only be changed by super majority votes in Congress and the States, not
treasonous opinions of mouthpiece lawyers in Department of Justice. This is why
prosecutions of torture memo writers is important. If they want to try and make
up laws they need to be held accountable under the law.
permalink
[ ]Do_Em_Till_They_Derp 13 points 12 hours ago
I don't think that is a good idea considering what happened to Steve Irwin.
permalink
[ ]Smgth 1 point 4 hours ago
I can't believe how far down I had to scroll to find this joke. I was worried I'
d have to make it myself. This thread is WAY too serious for my taste...
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]go1dfish 10 points 10 hours ago
This is what happens when you give a group of people authority over all else.
They use that authority to extort funds from you to pay for your own oppression.
But reddit still cheers it on. It seems to some; the concepts of roads or compas
sion cannot exist without specially anointed jack boot thugs.
permalink
[ ]Arael15th 3 points 6 hours ago
Do you see anyone in this post cheering this on? Moreover is this your first tim
e here?
permalinkparent
[ ]Flight_MH370 2 points 9 hours ago
Can the cell providers see every time this happens? If so, they could alert peop
le of fake towers or something. Alas, I'm pretty sure all the cell providers are
in bed with the feds already anyway.
permalink
[ ]leftnotracks 1 point 8 hours ago
This is why it s a good thing the FBI are not the people in charge of what is lega
l.

permalink
[ ]iluvmilfs420 3 points 7 hours ago
Ohh cool more of my taxes wasted on stupid shit...
permalink
[ ]fuzzycuffs 3 points 7 hours ago
Then I can do the same thing with wifi and not be charged with hacking, right?
permalink
[ ]endprism 2 points 7 hours ago
Use of Stringray in America: https://www.aclu.org/maps/stingray-tracking-devices
-whos-got-them
http://rt.com/usa/215735-sandiego-police-phone-tracking/
http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/First-Amendment-Coalition-Files-Lawsuit-Ab
out-Stingray-Surveillance--286092741.html
http://www.miaminewtimes.com/2012-02-16/news/cell-phone-tracking-miami-cops-know
-where-you-are/
http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/Fort-Worth-Cellphone-Tracking-Rings-Controversy
-140796693.html
http://www.wgrz.com/story/news/investigations/2014/02/13/are-local-police-spying
-on-your-cell-phone/5462273/
Tick tock...
permalink
[ ]johnnybiggs15 2 points 7 hours ago
didnt know they had that type of power
permalink
[ ]jwyche008 2 points 6 hours ago
They would fucking say that wouldn't they? The thing is it isn't supposed to be
their damn decision to make!
permalink
[ ]ICEClownfishWok 1 point 6 hours ago
Did the US government learn nothing from Nazi Germany? I honestly won't be surpr
ised if WWIII occurs when the rest of the world gets tired of our governments bu
llshit
permalink
[ ]frankenstilskin 3 points 6 hours ago
America, for the corporations by the corporations
permalink
[ ]Elephant_rhino_tiger 3 points 5 hours ago
It sounds like a 6 year old coming up with a superhero. "This is FBI man, and he
can fly and like punch through the earth, and he can y'know like intercept cell
traffic if he thinks it's important. But he is weak against himself though, so
like if he punched himself he would die."
permalink
[ ]Banana_blanket 2 points 4 hours ago
Hey who wants to just sit around and let it happen? Oh, everyone? Perfect. Ready
? Go.
permalink
[ ]poopinbutt2014 3 points 4 hours ago
Ah yes, the cops deciding what laws they are and aren't subject to.
permalink
[ ]burnerthrown 2 points 2 hours ago
Has anyone else notied a pattern of more and more laws that protect enforcement
operations from civilians, and fewer nd fewer laws protecting civilians from enf
orcement?
permalink
[ ]siquisiudices 2 points 2 hours ago
Increasingly I am astonished by the state of democracy in the developed western
countries. What has happened and how? I realise that there have always been infr
ingements of liberties by the state - always. But it seems to me that what has c
hanged is the blatent nature of the compromise of democratic norms. I'm not a hi
storian but my impression is that the origins of our current situation lie in tw

o iconic regimes in the UK and US - Reagan and Thatcher (and those that followed
) - and in the fall of the soviet regimes.
The economic philosophy that Reagan and Thatcher promoted reduced liberty to pro
perty rights while at the same time it condemned (rightly) the soviet regimes fo
r their lack of respect for democratic norms. The appeal of this economic ideolo
gy to capital, to the corporations, was obvious especially as during the 1970s t
here had been intermittent but recurring periods when profitability had fallen.
In the context of declining profitability, a roll back of the state and public e
xpenditure was a quick win.
For the rest of society, the implication that growth in personal, individual wea
lth was being held back by public spending and that the welfare state eroded ind
ividual responsibility also won the day. A key element in this process was the d
efeat and denigration of trade unionism: Thatcher going so far as to suggest tha
t trade unions (in the person of the National Union of Miners) were dangerous tr
aitors. People bought into the arguments for radical individualism ("there is no
such thing as society") because, in part, the concrete experience of collectivi
sm in trade unions declined in the face a massive anti-trade union assault.
The fall of the corrupt and totalitarian soviet regimes underpinned this all by
giving concrete expression to the notion that there is no alternative.
Economically the result has been massive widening of the discrepancy in wealth i
n many western countries and increased immiseration of labour across the world a
nd no force to counterbalance the power of the corporations and the state that t
hey (quite naturally) control. The state is the central committee of capital.
In all of this, the oft misnamed "libertarian" tendencies were accompanied by an
increasingly authoritarian and intrusive state apparatus which was promoted and
defended around quite classical nationalist ideas but recast often as the defen
se of western democracy against various external enemies.
And so, little by little, we have allowed our civil liberties to be chipped away
. Even the radical libertarians have been sidelined and fooled into irrelevant s
truggles around gun control in the US. Really, if an armed citizenry were the gu
arantee of liberty then one wold have hoped it would have done a better job. But
overall anti-welfare, anti-European and anti-immigrant rhetoric in the UK and,
for example, religious manipulation of public discourse in the US have allowed t
he authoritarian, pro-corporate state to gradually encroach on political and per
sonal freedoms. And here we are.
We can't say we didn't know - we were warned but the ruling class managed to def
ame the messengers and in other ways render us impotent.
One can only hope that we wake up in time and that our new disdain for collectiv
ism is overcome by the necessity of taking collective action.
permalink
[ ]DinglebellRock [score hidden] 49 minutes ago
You have a right to privacy according to the Constitution. Except for maybe your
cell phone calls. Or email. Or handwritten or typed letters. Or what you read f
rom the library and Amazon. Or maybe your colon and lower intestine if you are i
n New Mexico. What a fucked up nation this has become...
permalink
[ ]nstalker91 [score hidden] 38 minutes ago
Oh sure, when they do it, it's "protecting" and "morally right", but when I do i
t, it's a "federal crime" and "the FCC watches me"
permalink
[ ]The_Media_Collector 3 points 9 hours ago
This is why my phone has an app to continually report IMSI changes to me. I swit
ch one tower to another, I get a warning.
permalink
[ ]Redd575 1 point 7 hours ago
How is that helpful? Not being an ass, just curious. Seems if a Stingray can spo
of a tower then the app does little unless you are standing absolutely still.
permalinkparent
[ ]The_Media_Collector 3 points 7 hours ago
it's my understanding that Stingray "towers" do not encrypt traffic. anytime I a

m connected to an unencrypted "tower" the IMSI detector goes red and lets me kno
w.
permalinkparent
[ ]Redd575 1 point 6 hours ago
Wow. Whomever figured that out was clever.
permalinkparent
[ ]ExReverie93 1 point 7 hours ago
Which app? And would a normal person (not meaning you're not normal. You know wh
at I mean.) be able to use it?
permalinkparent
[ ]The_Media_Collector 1 point 7 hours ago
Requires Root. It's just caeld "Adnroid IMSI-Catchter"
permalinkparent
[ ]egalroc 1 point 6 hours ago
Makes a person want to be a criminal or spy just for the fun of it.
permalinkparent
[ ]Effo 3 points 7 hours ago
Goodbye America the Great, hello police state. :-[
permalink
[ ]Casemods 2 points 7 hours ago
Another reason why I don't have a cell phone.
permalink
[ ]GiveMe_TreeFiddy 3 points 7 hours ago
Things libertarians have been screaming about and offering solutions to for 500$
, Alex...
permalink
[ ]ilovesellinblow 1 point 9 hours ago
police and marshals have been running these for years.
permalink
[ ]bbelt16ag 1 point 8 hours ago
so FBI lets see what the Supreme court has to say to that. I am sure once they r
ule on this you will be going home with your tails between your legs.
permalink
[ ]Banana_blanket 1 point 4 hours ago
Do you people really have that much faith in our Supreme Court? Really?
permalinkparent
[ ]bbelt16ag 1 point 3 hours ago
gotta have some faith, other wise its just anarchy, or revolution. I am not read
y to give up quite yet.
permalinkparent
[ ]bonyponyride 1 point 8 hours ago
If digital communication in a public (and private) space is fair game, there's n
othing to stop an FBI tech specialist from stealing things like knowledge that w
ould be considered insider trading. There's an extreme potential for abuse.
permalink
[ ]jkeyser14 2 points 7 hours ago
If was fair game then hacking into wireless signals by private citizens wouldn't
be illegal.
permalinkparent
[ ]egalroc 1 point 6 hours ago
Just waiting for Anonymous to set up shop in a public park and hack into police
communications then dispatch them to bogus locations throughout the city. If any
thing goes wrong, they could always blame North Korea.
permalinkparent
[ ]coalbeeashi 1 point 3 hours ago
Aren't government agencies encrypting their digital communication - thus exhibit
ing an expectation of privacy?
I'm not sure what steps the "reasonable person" is taking to exhibit an expectat
ion of privacy over their data, tbh.
permalinkparent

[ ]hmmwhatsthisdo 1 point 8 hours ago


If you used RedPhone, Whisperpush/TextSecure, and a VPN, this wouldn't be of con
cern to you, right?
permalink
[ ]LucifersCounselNZ 1 point 7 hours ago
Wrong.
In other cases, the IMSI or equivalent identifier of a target is not known to th
e StingRay operator and the goal of the surveillance operation is to identify on
e or more cellular devices being used in a known area.[16] For example, if visua
l surveillance is being conducted on a group of protestors,[17] a StingRay can b
e used to download the IMSI or equivalent identifier from each phone within the
protest area. After identifying the phones, locating and tracking operations can
be conducted, and service providers can be forced to turn over account informat
ion identifying the phone users.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stingray_phone_tracker#Extracting_Data_From_Interna
l_Storage
Before any of that shit you're talking about comes into play, the IMSI number is
used when establishing the connection. It is uniquely identifying. With your IM
SI number and a court order (or cooperative telco) they will know who you are an
d who you were communicating with.
Then they can use that information to punish you for participating in legal prot
ests, associating with the wrong people, or simply because some Fed didn't like
the look of you.
permalinkparent
[ ]hmmwhatsthisdo 1 point 6 hours ago
So, the only way is to modify your IMEI (which is questionably legal) and use a
prepaid SIM?
permalinkparent
[ ]facepalmdude 1 point 5 hours ago
The IMSI part makes sense, but by using the mentioned tools authorities are very
unlikely to find out who you communicated with, or what the content was. All th
ey know is that you're the end point of an encrypted data connection.
permalinkparent
[ ]coalbeeashi 1 point 3 hours ago
I would assume that a court would view this as an individual exhibiting an expec
tation of privacy over their data.
permalinkparent
[ ]mambotangohandala 1 point 7 hours ago
Law?
We don't need no stinkin' law...
permalink
[ ]smilesbot 1 point 7 hours ago
You've just used a double negative! :P
permalinkparent
[ ]mambotangohandala 1 point 7 hours ago
no i did not, never would i do such a thing, nope, i don't think i ever did...
Ever see the movie 'blazing saddles'? Context kid, context
permalinkparent
[ ]smilesbot 1 point 7 hours ago
yup yup yup!
permalinkparent
[ ]mambotangohandala 1 point 7 hours ago
oh no a triple positive,what a stupendous faux pas!
permalinkparent
[ ]smilesbot 1 point 7 hours ago
yup yup yup!
permalinkparent
[ ]mambotangohandala 1 point 7 hours ago
Did mom give you too many sodas tonight?
permalinkparent

[ ]mambotangohandala 1 point 7 hours ago


Now where are those kiddy downers?
permalinkparent
[ ]mambotangohandala 1 point 7 hours ago
Remember tomorrow is a school day
permalinkparent
[ ]BigTex8900 1 point 7 hours ago
The Federal Bureau of Investigation is taking the position that court warrants a
re not required when deploying cell-site simulators in public places.
Wait so can I take the position that it's not actually illegal to suck dick for
money in public places?
permalink
[ ]AssOrca 1 point 6 hours ago
Well thank god there not doing it in my home!
permalinkparent
[ ]Drunken_Economist 1 point 7 hours ago
The FCC says they are needed, FWIW
permalink
[ ]FadingEchoes11 0 points 6 hours ago
100% true, power to the people
You should learn about and try to understand firearms more, they are just tools
after all.
permalink
[ ]winstrol 1 point 6 hours ago
Can i use a stingray? Al stick to my snoopsnitch.
permalink
[ ]fatscat84 2 points 6 hours ago
Big fucking surprise, 4th amendment=toilet paper anymore. The rights of the citi
zens arent even considered anymore since we dont have lobbyists. Maybe ill start
a kickstarter campaign to make a lobbyist group to give americans a voice in d.
c.
permalink
[ ]urbn 2 points 6 hours ago
The Obama Administration has repeatedly maintained that the public has no privac
y in public places.
And yet the excuse always used when someone records a police officer breaking th
e law and is arrested, detained and has his property stolen is that it violates
their privacy.
permalink
[ ]Vigilias 1 point 6 hours ago
If it's stealing signals being send from private residences it sure should fucki
ng be wtf.
permalink
[ ]2013palmtreepam 1 point 6 hours ago
Because stingrays automatically stop working at private property lines? Don't re
call the part of the 4th Amendment that exempts the requirement for probable cau
se and a search warrant when one happens to be in a public place.
permalink
[ ]makingupdumbnames 2 points 6 hours ago
I don't think it would be too hard to develop a stingray jammer, something that
just floods their equipment with a bunch of useless/fake cell phone numbers...I'
m in favor of a more strategic response to these types of infringements of our r
ights. We actually have a right and responsibility to fight tyranny...
permalink
[ ]ghotiaroma 1 point 3 hours ago
It's possible, but you wouldn't know where and when to use it. And it would be d
etectable you are using a jammer and anyone using one would find themselves fill
ed with SWAT bullets in no time.
permalinkparent
[ ]ononewheel 1 point 2 hours ago

Cant you rent bot net time and do this?


permalinkparent
[ ]psilontech 1 point 5 hours ago
I think that's for the courts to decide, FBI.
permalink
[ ]coalbeeashi 1 point 4 hours ago
...the only way the courts could decide is if it were practiced and a lawsuit wa
s brought against those practices.
Of course the FBI is going to finagle ways to flirt with obscure, outdated laws
for the purpose of investigating, thus practice it. Of course some group or orga
nization is going to take issue with it, thus taking it to court.
permalinkparent
[ ]cynoclast 2 points 5 hours ago
And the 4th Amendment says the FBI is wrong. And to the idea that subsequent law
s or that prededence says otherwise, I say that lawyers who make those interpret
ations were paid to do so by people with a vested interest in saying otherwise.
The constitution and amendments were intended to be read and interpreted by ever
yone, not just lawyers and judges so it matters not at all what lawyers and judg
es say.
permalink
[ ]coalbeeashi 1 point 5 hours ago
The constitution and amendments were intended to be read and interpreted by ever
yone
Uhh...interpreted by everyone? Do you know how fucked up that would be? There's
a reason for the judicial branch.
permalinkparent
[ ]cynoclast 2 points 4 hours ago
More fucked up than corporations as people? The 4th Amendment being ignored by t
he DHS, Homeland Security, and the NSA? More fucked up than than all the ridicul
ous, unconstitutional restrictions on cosmetic features of firearms that all vio
late the 2nd amendment? More fucked up than justices appointed by war criminals
refusing to recuse themselves where they have a clear conflict of interest?
The judicial branch is staffed by people, just as fallible as the rest of us. Th
e judicial branch was nly ever an attempt to reign in the other two. It was alwa
ys intended that it was the right of the people to alter or abolish the governme
nt if it gets out of hand and it has.
permalinkparent
[ ]coalbeeashi 1 point 4 hours ago
I would still rather have the fate of laws be in the hands of individuals who sp
ecifically studied the very nature of their professional practice than leave it
up to a mass of people with little-to-no understanding of the law, outside of wh
at is force-fed to them by media (comparable to your assertion of less-than-idea
l practices by lawyer/judges)
I fully agree that laws should be written in ways that the public can understand
and interpret (however, you're never going to reach a consensus on laws written
200+ years ago). And I believe that, reading most supreme court decisions, the
justices advocate for specifics in laws and understand that outdated or vague la
ws is a main reason cases are brought before them. Laws aren't concrete or stati
c. It's a court of public opinion.
permalinkparent
[ ]cynoclast 1 point 4 hours ago
I would still rather have the fate of laws be in the hands of individuals who sp
ecifically studied the very nature of their professional practice than leave it
up to a mass of people with little-to-no understanding of the law, outside of wh
at is force-fed to them by media (comparable to your assertion of less-than-idea
l practices by lawyer/judges)
I think there's balance between the two. It's similar to the balance between IT
and the user. While the IT guy is more knowledgeable about the field than most o
f the users he's supposed to facilitate, he often forgets that his purpose is to
facilitate, not to rule, and what the users are doing is what keeps the lights

on. People in congress and the senate are mislabelled when called 'lawmakers' th
eir job is representative of their constituency. And lawyers face a conflict of
interest between simplifying the law and representing people fairly and seeing a
fter their own welfare and ensuring their own job security. Simple, clear, and u
nambiguous laws have little value to the professional attorney at law. But the p
eople at large have no interest, and in fact a reason to despise laws they don't
understand, especially ones decided by decades old case law they know nothing a
bout. But for too long the balance has been swinging in favor of the lawyer seek
ing payment for services from the rich instead of the poor seeking freedom from
those with the resources to hire teams of lawyers for years to drain them of res
ources. The day a rich man could sue an innocent poor man under false pretenses
and crush him is the day the justice department ceased to function as intended.
I fully agree that laws should be written in ways that the public can understand
and interpret (however, you're never going to reach a consensus on laws written
200+ years ago). And I believe that, reading most supreme court decisions, the
justices advocate for specifics in laws and understand that outdated or vague la
ws is a main reason cases are brought before them. Laws aren't concrete or stati
c. It's a court of public opinion.
Lawyers like to pretend that they are concrete or static. Just imagine the phras
e "settled case law" coming out of their mouths and you need go no further. It's
like they forget that eventually given the dynamic equilibrium of the poor vs.
the rich that sometimes words written on paper in a dusty library somewhere mean
absolutely nothing when the pitchforks and guillotines come out, the old laws t
hrown out, and new ones written even more strongly against tyrants. You're right
, sometimes, it's a court of public opinion. But sometimes the court is brutal,
but not unjustly so:
There were two Reigns of Terror, if we would but remember it and consider it; the
one wrought murder in hot passion, the other in heartless cold blood; the one la
sted mere months, the other had lasted a thousand years; the one inflicted death
upon ten thousand persons, the other upon a hundred millions; but our shudders
are all for the horrors of the minor Terror, the momentary Terror, so to speak; wh
ereas, what is the horror of swift death by the axe, compared with lifelong deat
h from hunger, cold, insult, cruelty, and heart-break? What is swift death by li
ghtning compared with death by slow fire at the stake? A city cemetery could con
tain the coffins filled by that brief Terror which we have all been so diligentl
y taught to shiver at and mourn over; but all France could hardly contain the co
ffins filled by that older and real Terror that unspeakably bitter and awful Terro
r which none of us has been taught to see in its vastness or pity as it deserves
.
permalinkparent
[ ]DongleNocker 2 points 5 hours ago
Don't you wish government organizations would get permission from congress prior
to assuming they have the authority?
permalink
[ ]Euracil 1 point 5 hours ago
Whoops! Someone just happened to spill wine all over the Bill of Rights! Well, a
t least the Second Amendment survived!
permalink
[ ]ripvannwinkler 1 point 5 hours ago
What is the practical operational radius of one of these things?
If my place of business or residence falls in this radius of an operating device
, is my phone subject to interception by the device?
If so, you require a warrant. Period. No equivocation.
permalink
[ ]bittopia 1 point 5 hours ago
What is going to be interesting is when systems and encryptions becomes so resil
ient and powerful that nothing can be spied on AT ALL. What will they do then?
permalink
[ ]johnnybullet 1 point 5 hours ago
I thought only God was listening to me... This changes everything!

permalink
[ ]TronicTonic 2 points 5 hours ago
Thank god the FBI is in charge of the judicial branch and gets to decide what is
right vs wrong.
permalink
[ ]Vinven 1 point 5 hours ago
They can say whatever they want, it doesn't make it legal.
permalink
[ ]coffeethulhu 2 points 5 hours ago
Under this theory anybody could buy one of these devices and use it in "public s
paces" without fear of falling foul of the law....Who wants to start a kickstart
er campaign to buy one?
permalink
[ ]redditezmode 1 point 5 hours ago
Based on what, exactly? Why would they think search warrants aren't necessary?
permalink
[ ]Fucksfuturefatchicks 1 point 4 hours ago
If it stops me from downloading porn, it's a dead giveaway. If it doesn't, thank
s for the government funded and sanctioned porn.
permalink
[ ]egalroc 1 point 4 hours ago
I wonder if the FBI can upload unsanctioned porn to your computer using a stingr
ay? Interesting thought isn't it?
permalinkparent
[ ]winsomecowboy 1 point 4 hours ago
So my clandestine FBI staff list shouldn't be an issue.
permalink
[ ]Heisenpurrrrg 1 point 4 hours ago
Those guys can fuck right off, eh?
permalink
[ ]cerealcable 1 point 4 hours ago
Every time an invasion of our rights & privacy especially related to our establi
shed forms of communications happens it just terrifies me. Not because our gover
nment is throwing wind to established laws but because of what the future could
bring.
The reason why most of us are upset today over this is because we have an expect
ation of privacy when we pick up our cell phones. We expect our text messages, p
hone calls and data to be private thus protected by law requiring a warrant to "
tap" it only for Law Enforcement. Telecoms (wired, wireless, voip) will only com
ply to requests when required by law, but when it comes to the public air waves
using technology to just listen in we're starting a terrible precedent.
Essentially what I'm concerned about is that eventually it'll be so commonly acc
epted that these communications are not private (after all the government can sn
oop in on those conversations, and everyone already expects it) and thus we no l
onger have the expectation of privacy and thus no warrant is actually acquired.
The terrifying process is how it all started, with the government over stepping
their legal abilities with little to no repercussions.
Now that I'm reading that paragraph again, I honestly wouldn't be surprised if t
hat exact argument is/was/will be used in a secret court of which none of us wil
l be able to hold accountable.
It's scary to see what the future will hold for privacy related to technology. O
ur government is doing anything and everything they want and if people aren't sc
ared they need to get some tinfoil and make some hats because they're going to n
eed them.
Obligatory point: As the government snoops more and more, technology will just e
ncrypt more and more making it nearly pointless for the snooping, but it won't c
hange the expectation of privacy after say a decade of common knowledge that the
se communications are not private. Then Law Enforcement Agencies will just subpo
ena records instead of following due process of getting a warrant.
tl;dr It's a very slippery slope and I'm just watching us slowly sliding further

and further into the trap. :-(


permalink
[ ]coalbeeashi 1 point 4 hours ago
Honest question - in the eyes of laws, is our view on "expectation of privacy" i
gnorant or misguided? When I send a text - even though I don't think about it I gave permission to Apple, AT&T, my friend, their carrier, their phone, and pro
bably countless others that I don't even realize. When I download an app I give
them all sorts of permissions to access my information.
Also, what's stopping the government from creating an app, let's say some crazed
game like Trivia Crack, hide a bunch of permissions that no one looks at and do
it that way. They could have access to my photos, access to my microphone, acce
ss to my location, etc. (obviously I understand that you can retract most of tho
se permissions, but I doubt many people do)
So, I guess my question is, using multiple third parties, do I really have the r
ight to expect complete privacy?
permalinkparent
[ ]Rockerofboats 2 points 4 hours ago
I do what I wants to.
permalink
[ ]Gymshortsboner55 2 points 4 hours ago
I'm not trying to sound like the uncle that's always bitchin' at family reunions
but man is this country going down the shitter. I'm almost ashamed to live here
anymore.
permalink
[ ]kazuri85 2 points 4 hours ago
The government has no right to make your property do something you do not want i
t to do.
permalink
[ ]SpacemanLurker 2 points 3 hours ago
Crikey! Australian accent
Too soon?
permalink
[ ]Undisclosed-dopeness 1 point 3 hours ago
Really wish this was about actual stingrays
permalink
[ ]k-h 1 point 3 hours ago
Is that the "stingrays" that don't exist?
Of course they don't need a warrant on equipment that doesn't exist.
permalink
[ ]PhorTwenny 2 points 3 hours ago
if it picks up all cells text/call/info how do they know your not inside a house
or anyother private area? Either way this is disgusting!
permalink
[ ]MarxIzalias 2 points 3 hours ago
The more of these that get posted, the harder I laugh at America's freedoms.
You pretty much have the same as everybody else.
It seems as though the constitution is like bog roll to your law enforcement. Co
vered in meaningless shit that doesn't even stick to them.
What a joke.
The FBI stating that 'stingrays' don't apply to privacy laws because you're in a
public place makes no sense, otherwise you could walk around butt naked and arg
ue that "According to the FBI, personal privacy is not required in public".
Of course, they could say, what any deceitful peice of trash could say. "If you
weren't doing anything illegal then you have nothing to worry about."
Unless you were talking to you solicitor about a patent. In which case it would
be worthless the moment a third party heard about the invention.
Talking to your doctor about a condition that could prejudice a group against yo
u.
Talking to a solicitor about the details of a case.
Talking to fellow jurors over the phone about a details of a case, that's always

good to be spied on.


Talk about family history and possible ties you might have to foreign nations, w
hich could put you on a watch list.
Give personal details to bankers about foreign business accounts which have diff
erent protection laws.
Discuss plans you may have that they could interfere with.
Or just miscellaneous emails to and from your employer that could be damaging to
the companies reputation if published and could be used against them as leverag
e with a false flag operation LOOKING AT YOU SONY!
This isn't even a comprehensive list of things that you could do, but hey, it's
America, the land where freedom is a lie and the constitution is apparently wort
h less and less with each new government. XFD
permalink
[ ]NightOfTheLivingHam 1 point 3 hours ago
while we're declaring bullshit, I declare I'm owed a million dollars.
permalink
[ ]ZedOud 1 point 3 hours ago
Most warrant-less law enforcement surveillance techniques are legal because they
can be performed by members of the public, in public. (ex. tailing)
So can we also legally operate a stingray?
Yes we can!
permalink
[ ]Wulfgar_RIP 1 point 3 hours ago
FBI protecting freedoms and constitution from terrorists
permalink
[ ]CantHugEveryCat 2 points 3 hours ago
I'm surprised the FBI still feel they have to justify their actions.
permalink
[ ]bazingabrain 0 points 3 hours ago
Here I am thinking the FBI is going to be throwing real stingrays around without
a search warrant. Can't have that
permalink
[ ]tobsn 1 point 3 hours ago
and whoever said that should be immediately terminated.
permalink
[ ]joshladd 1 point 3 hours ago
Didn't the supreme court just say that searching cell phones requires a warrant?
Is this different than searching cell phones? I might be uninformed but it seem
s like a blatant disregard for court rulings.
permalink
[ ]birdington1 1 point 3 hours ago
Can anybody explain what a 'stingray' is?
permalink
[ ]one_love_silvia 1 point 2 hours ago
the article explains it in literally the first paragraph.
permalinkparent
[ ]IllegalOperator 0 points 2 hours ago
Yeah right, dropping the case rather than reveal their methods says otherwise. I
f there weren't doing anything wrong they would have nothing to hide.
permalink
[ ]HauntedBeepers 1 point 2 hours ago
FBI says FBI can do what it wants
permalink
[ ]Fig1024 1 point 2 hours ago
does that mean I, as private citizen, can also use them? After all, there are no
laws against it
permalink
[ ]Monkeibusiness 1 point 2 hours ago
"FBI - out if control since 2001" -Simpsons
permalink

[ ]skztr 1 point 2 hours ago


good test for whether or not you need a warrant:
If any random person off the street did it, would that be legal? If not, you nee
d a fucking warrant.
permalink
[ ]Rusky82 1 point 2 hours ago
Land of the free eh......
permalink
[ ]WECGEWHYAAIORTNU 1 point 2 hours ago
So in some states its "wiretapping" to record with a microphone a conversation b
etween two people happening at a table, but pretending to be a cell tower is a-o
k?
permalink
[ ]Amanoo 1 point 2 hours ago
"concerned about whether the FBI and other law enforcement agencies have adequat
ely considered the privacy interests" of Americans
Privacy interests of Americans? Is that supposed to still be a thing? I thought
that privacy interests were considered something for terrorists in the US, by no
w.
permalink
[ ]raviddadford 1 point 2 hours ago
Stingray got Steve Irwin
permalink
[ ]Homarus_Americanus 1 point 2 hours ago
It's all good 'cause I can by me all guns I want.
permalink
[ ]anshu1234 0 points 2 hours ago
This is non-news if you are not a drug-peddler. Next please.
permalink
[ ]bubbafat1155 1 point 2 hours ago
It's over. "They" have won. The only hope now is for individuals, society is los
t. Get off the grid, or join the sheep. http://imgur.com/W7CdURh
permalink
[ ]Targun 1 point 2 hours ago
And how are they going to filter out cellphones of all the people who live next
to public places where stingray is located?
permalink
[ ]riderer 1 point 2 hours ago
So can i do the same in public place? just stingray everyone?
permalink
[ ]Neker 1 point 1 hour ago
There are blueprints and tutorials out there that put "stingrays" within reach o
f an hobbyist. Law-breaking hobbyist, that is, but still : mobile phones essenti
aly broadcast your conversations.
permalink
[ ]mindwandering 1 point 1 hour ago
The flying DRT box.
permalink
[ ]SilenceGivesConsent [score hidden] 48 minutes ago
In other words, FBI says it does not need search warrants to warrant a search.
permalink
[ ]Formally_Nightman [score hidden] 46 minutes ago
FBI: "Senator we have been monitoring your calls and your exact geographical loc
ation for years ... You shouldn't find that unconstitutional or the public and y
our wife will learn how unconstitutional you've been"
permalink
[ ]ActuallyNotSparticus [score hidden] 40 minutes ago
Fuck this shit. Stingrays killed the crocodile hunter. Are we ready for the gove
rnment to use these stingrays?
permalink

[ ]Rayhueston [score hidden] 38 minutes ago


The article says the Obama administration consistently maintains that people hav
e no privacy in public. Is that true or is that hyperbole?
If I'm walking down the street, do I have the right to keep the contents of my w
allet private? My blood type? My thoughts?
If I have no privacy with regard to these and many other sensitive things, who d
oes have the right to them?
permalink
[ ]swollennode [score hidden] 37 minutes ago
People don't have privacy in public places..hmmm, I think that people are entitl
ed to privacy if something private belongs to them. Sure, people's faces aren't
private when they're in public places. But people's phone calls and texts should
be.
permalink
[ ]pomod [score hidden] 18 minutes ago
Well if the FBI says they are not needed...
Seriously, this should be a court decision not a cop one. Cops, even a fancy cop
s like the FBI, should not make the laws just enforce them.
permalink
[ ]CJ59 [score hidden] 18 minutes ago
In other news, the FBI says, "You know what, screw it. There are no more laws. W
e'll do whatever the hell we want. Not like you're going to do anything about it
."
permalink
[ ]gkiltz [score hidden] 15 minutes ago
Just because the FBI says it, that does not mean it's true!
I don't envy the poor schmuck who has to stan in front of the Supreme Court and
argue that!!
permalink
load more comments (48 replies)
about
blog
about
team
source code
advertise
jobs
help
wiki
FAQ
reddiquette
rules
contact us
tools
mobile
firefox extension
chrome extension
buttons
widget
<3
reddit gold
store
redditgifts
reddit AMA app
reddit.tv
radio reddit
Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy
. 2015 reddit inc. All rights reserved.
REDDIT and the ALIEN Logo are registered trademarks of reddit inc.

p jump to content
MY SUBREDDITS
FRONT-ALL-RANDOM | PHOTOSHOPBATTLES-HISTORY-GIFS-FOOD-PHILOSOPHY-TELEVISION-WORL
DNEWS-SHOWERTHOUGHTS-LIFEPROTIPS-ART-SPACE-NOTTHEONION-DOCUMENTARIES-NOSLEEP-GAM
ING-GADGETS-EARTHPORN-ASKREDDIT-FUNNY-MOVIES-DIY-FUTUROLOGY-FITNESS-BOOKS-LISTEN
TOTHIS-INTERNETISBEAUTIFUL-MUSIC-EXPLAINLIKEIMFIVE-UPLIFTINGNEWS-SPORTS-PICS-TOD
AYILEARNED-PERSONALFINANCE-DATAISBEAUTIFUL-IAMA-OLDSCHOOLCOOL-EUROPE-CREEPY-TWOX
CHROMOSOMES-AWW-NEWS-WRITINGPROMPTS-GETMOTIVATED-VIDEOS-TIFU-ASKSCIENCE-JOKES-MI
LDLYINTERESTING-SCIENCE
MORE
news newscommentsrelatedother discussions (15)
want to join? sign in or create an account in seconds|English
this post was submitted on 05 Jan 2015
3,152 points (95% upvoted)
shortlink:
remember mereset passwordlogin
news
unsubscribe4,562,294 readers
2,631 users here now
/r/inthenews
/r/worldnews
new submissions
new comments
Post analysis/opinion articles to /r/inthenews
Want to talk?
Chat with us on IRC
Follow @rslashnews on Twitter
See a post that violates the rules below? Had your post stuck in the spam filter
? Have a question about policy? Just want to give feedback? Send the mod team a
message.
Please post news items only, with the exception of meta posts about /r/news itse
lf. Self-posts aggregating news data and "independent reporting" each count as n
ews, but are not an excuse to editorialize.
Your post will likely be removed if it:
is not news (or a meta post).
is an opinion/analysis or advocacy piece.
primarily concerns politics.
has a title not taken from the article.
has a pay wall or steals content.
covers an already-submitted story.
violates reddit's site-wide rules, especially regarding personal info.
Your comment will likely be removed if it:
is racist, sexist, vitriolic, or overly crude.
is unnecessarily rude or provocative.
is a cheap and distracting joke or meme.
is responding to spam.
violates reddit's site-wide rules.
Extreme or repeat offenders will be banned.
Expanded Rules
If your post doesn't fit, consider finding an appropriate news article on that s
tory to submit instead, or submitting yours to lower moderation subreddits:
/r/inthenews - all news-related content
/r/AnythingGoesNews - unrestricted news
/r/truereddit - insightful articles
/r/self - any self-post
/r/misc, /r/redditdotcom - anything
or other news subreddits:
/r/worldnews - from outside the USA only
/r/SyrianCivilWar - about the conflict in Syria

/r/MidEastRegionalWar - on MidEast conflict /r/UpliftingNews - uplifting


/r/mediaquotes - the things they say
or subreddits for other topics:
/r/FoodForThought - discussion-worthy long form articles about interesting subje
cts
/r/politics - for shouting about politics
/r/moderatepolitics - less shouting
/r/politicaldiscussion - even less shouting
/r/geopolitics - intl. politics and geography
/r/entertainment - Justin Bieber updates, etc.
/r/europe - news from Europe
or check out the 200 most active subreddits, categorized by content and the full
list of subreddits by subscribers.
Recommendations:
/r/redactedcharts
/r/patriots
/r/personalfinance
/r/restorethefourth
reddit is fun for Android and its subreddit /r/redditisfun
submit analysis/opinion article
submit news article
submit something else
submit analysis/opinion article
a community for 6 years
message the moderators
moderators
douglasmacarthur
KyldeThe Janitor
AyeMatey
CandyManCan
Elderthedog
LuckyBdx4
NickWasHere09
ani625
pomosexuality
IKingJeremy
...and 1 more
3152
FBI says search warrants not needed to use stingrays in public places (arstechnica
.com)
submitted 13 hours ago by doctorshady
731 commentsshare
top 500 comments
sorted by: best
[ ]peaceshark 654 points 11 hours ago
If only there were some branch of government that would keep the FBI in check, o
ne that judged people and organizations supremely...
permalink
[ ]misogichan 641 points 8 hours ago
Unfortunately the Catholic church has its hands full dealing with its own intern
al reforms and recasting its vision and mission.
permalinkparent
[ ]wutshappening 93 points 7 hours ago
And looking at cat photos that's why they're Cat-holic. Alco-holics are addicted
to alcohol and catholics well you get the idea.
permalinkparent
[ ]TuffLuffJimmy 142 points 6 hours ago
Omg dad you're embarrassing me in front of my friends
permalinkparent
[ ]okmkz 27 points 4 hours ago

We ain't your friends, bruh


permalinkparent
[ ]Corruptionss 4 points 2 hours ago
We ain't your bruh, friends
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
load more comments (2 replies)
[ ]ROLLINGtemple 9 points 5 hours ago
What's their Dogma?
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
load more comments (9 replies)
[ ]hershmire 73 points 7 hours ago
The courts gave up about ten years ago.
permalinkparent
[ ]endprism 50 points 7 hours ago
The courts are pwned by the surveillance state.
permalinkparent
[ ]sushisection 41 points 6 hours ago
This is what I'm afraid of. Nsa is collecting data from all citizens including p
oliticians and supreme court judges.
permalinkparent
[ ]dutchguilder2 19 points 5 hours ago
Whistleblower confirms: http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=d6m1XbWOfVk
permalinkparent
[ ]TwitchTV_Subbort 1 point 3 hours ago
D.C. is Hollywood for ugly people. best line ever!!
permalinkparent
[ ]sklite 1 point 1 hour ago
Charles Augustus Magnussen approves
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]CriticalThink 1 point 6 hours ago
Skeletons in the closet are easy to find with intelligence infrastructure.
permalinkparent
[ ]HurricaneSandyHook 1 point 5 hours ago
The 10th circuit a few days ago sided with the government saying the cops use of
doppler radar to see if anyone was inside a house was legal. They did say it is
a troubling tactic that needs further review and just left it at that....
permalinkparent
[ ]-_--___-_--_--___--_ 27 points 6 hours ago
One major problem with judicial review is that there must be a case for the cour
t to review. I guess the other avenue would be to sue the government, but I'm no
t an attorney so I don't know how that would work.
permalinkparent
[ ]downvotesmakemehard 14 points 4 hours ago
I believe the current court has taken the stance that to take up a case someone
has to show they've been harmed in some way.
The police will never say that stingray is the source of the evidence. This woul
d open stingray to be scrutinized. They will use stingray to go after phone comp
any records which they will claim they requested on a hunch or some other bullsh
it excuse.
permalinkparent
[ ]great_gape [score hidden] 29 minutes ago
Anonymous tip.
permalinkparent
load more comments (2 replies)
[ ]dissonance07 8 points 6 hours ago
With is wide a latitude as the current SCOTUS seems to give to individual libert
y, this seems like the one kind of thing that they could actually usefully addre

ss, right?
permalinkparent
[ ]MrBojangles528 1 point 5 hours ago
Scalia and the rest of the SCOTUS is bought and sold just like the rest of our g
overnment. They answer first and foremost to the parties that nominated them as
well as the corporations that own them.
permalinkparent
[ ]psilontech 12 points 5 hours ago
See, I don't get that. You get into the Supreme Court and you're golden. Unless
you are actively breaking the law and can be impeached, you're untouchable. Why
not, you know, do what's best for your country instead of remaining beholden to
the parasites that leveraged you into that position?
permalinkparent
[ ]Ratbasher88 14 points 4 hours ago
Yep, Supreme Court justices have a well established history of turning out way d
ifferent than their supporters thought they'd be. For whatever reason this curre
nt batch of justices seems more comfortable with the security state than their p
redecessors, however that's true for most Americans in general so I suppose it s
houldn't be shocking.
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]MrBojangles528 2 points 4 hours ago
Good question, but you'd have to ask them about it.
permalinkparent
[ ]cynoclast 0 points 3 hours ago
Unless you are actively breaking the law and can be impeached, you're untouchabl
e.
But you can get richer. Or have your personal communications made public.
permalinkparent
[ ]tughdffvdlfhegl 1 point 3 hours ago
Honestly? Because they run in those social circles. They're friends with the peo
ple at the top. They don't actively associate with "regular folk" that much.
They've been ingratiated into the upper echelons of society long before ever rea
ching the supreme court through lifetimes spent at the forefront of the legal pr
ofession. This insulates them from others, and leaves them in an echo chamber of
their peers.
Now, when a case comes up that pits one of their friends, or friends' friends ag
ainst some random angry dude who's only making 50k a year, who do you think they
automatically side with, when the case isn't cut and dried? I'm not even saying
it's conscious, but prejudices come in all kinds and run deep. Tribalism happen
s all the time in subtle ways.
Plus there's Scalia taking paid for hunting trips with people who are directly a
ffected by cases in front of him, all of them getting invited to dinners and fun
ctions of the DC elite, etc.
permalinkparent
[ ]pion3435 1 point 3 hours ago
They do. It's possible to disagree with you without being corrupt.
permalinkparent
[ ]Jagoonder 1 point 2 hours ago
Not in an omnipotent surveillance state, however.
permalinkparent
[ ]DownFromYesBad 1 point 2 hours ago
Money, bribery.
permalinkparent
[ ]neotropic9 1 point 1 hour ago
Because they are selected to be the type of people who think whats "best for the
ir country" is serving the parasites, the corporate oligarchs, and the surveilla
nce state. They support the status quo, and the status quo supports them. It wou
ld be a miracle if someone with real principles was actually brought into the Su
preme Court, let alone enough of them to form a majority.

permalinkparent
[ ]isprobablyatwork 1 point 1 hour ago
This does happen, sometimes. Good examples would be Justices Warren and Stevens.
They played along with the GOP right up until they were put on the Court, then
immediately started voting their actual conscience (or if not their conscience,
then at least not as their political backers wanted).
permalinkparent
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[ ]cynoclast 2 points 3 hours ago
You mean the press?
permalinkparent
[ ]scrapinpeg 3 points 6 hours ago*
Obligatory link to illustrated law.
EDIT: fixed link
permalinkparent
[ ]ducttapejedi 3 points 6 hours ago*
error 404, check the link.
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[+][deleted] 13 hours ago (56 children)
[ ]sunbolts 701 points 12 hours ago
Glad to see the FBI is tearing up the constitution to increase their own powers
and authority. /s
permalink
[ ]dontbullshityourself 325 points 11 hours ago
Glad to see the FBI is tearing up the constitution to increase their own powers
and authority
I wish this was just the FBI. Pretty much everybody in the federal, state and lo
cals are doing this. Have been doing for this quite some time too.
permalinkparent
[ ]sunbolts 136 points 10 hours ago
Precisely, and that's what makes this very frightening. The whole club's in on i
t.
permalinkparent
[ ]radonthetyrant 75 points 7 hours ago
but why.. I realize that these "zomg the terrorists!!!11" is only a PR-lie. What
do they really accomplish with this? Industry espionage? Bribes from the indust
ries which create the espionage hardware? Feeling of total control? Control the
masses so it all stays as conservative and corrupt as possible?
Why would you amass such a criminal energy to break constitutional laws just to
be able to see through everyone's communication?
permalinkparent
[ ]BettyRubbleIsHot 151 points 7 hours ago
Total control.
That way when the state has it, they can really put the boot on our necks. Think
they treat us poorly now? Just wait until they have the infrastructure in place
where they feel confident there are absolutely zero threats to their power. Tha
t's when shit is going to get BAD.
permalinkparent
[ ]b-LE-z_it 106 points 6 hours ago
And that's why, despite being terrified of some gun owners, despite being terrif
ied of mass shootings, I don't think we should ban guns, even combat rifles. It
can happen here, and we should at least make it hurt if and when it happens.
permalinkparent
[ ]7V3N 47 points 6 hours ago
Welcome to the list.
permalinkparent

[ ]M00glemuffins 10 points 5 hours ago


Sign me up too. If they try to pull a fast one on the public I'm not standing fo
r their bullshit.
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]FadingEchoes11 26 points 6 hours ago
*rifle. No "combat" rifles are owned by citizens
permalinkparent
[ ]b-LE-z_it 39 points 6 hours ago
Did I mention I don't know anything about guns? I don't know anything about guns
.
Point is, force is not something only people in power should have.
permalinkparent
[ ]teefour 19 points 6 hours ago
You should go to a shooting range and take a class. You won't be so unnecessaril
y afraid of them after that.
permalinkparent
[ ]Pullo_T 27 points 6 hours ago
He's not afraid of guns. He's afraid of some gun owners. At least, as far as we
know.
permalinkparent
continue this thread
load more comments (3 replies)
[ ]Bootsncatsn4 5 points 5 hours ago
i understand where youre coming from, but what will a bunch of angry townsfolk d
o to a predator drone strike?
permalinkparent
[ ]Oeboues 18 points 4 hours ago
You should ask the angry townsfolk of Iraq and Afghanistan.
Once the US military is done slinking away in shame, I mean.
permalinkparent
continue this thread
[ ]nuesuh 1 point 1 hour ago
Remove them. Predator drones are being operated from the ground, and has to land
after a couple hours to refuel.
permalinkparent
[ ]joe_m107 4 points 6 hours ago
Maybe we should change that. Repeal the NFA.
permalinkparent
load more comments (2 replies)
[ ]4nco1j 0 points 2 hours ago
You don't know much about guns, do you now.
permalinkparent
load more comments (6 replies)
[ ]conquer69 15 points 4 hours ago
You can have all the guns you want. That won't stop them from labeling you a "su
spected school shooter, pedophile or terrorist".
A gun can't protect you from that. A gun can't teach your fellow countryman to t
hink by themselves or see through propaganda.
Good luck destroying a drone, plane or tank with a rifle. Not sure how useful a
gun is against your own trained military with even better guns and more.
People thinking they can start a revolution and win with a handgun don't realize
this isn't the 1700's anymore.
permalinkparent
[ ]JimmyBuffer 14 points 4 hours ago
Better tell the Middle East they haven't had a bout of revolutions then
permalinkparent
load more comments (2 replies)
[ ]b-LE-z_it 7 points 4 hours ago
Didn't say we would win, I said we could at least make it hurt. Assuming, of cou

rse, that the American people themselves aren't the ones willingly handing in th
eir freedoms, which would mean we're all fucked immediately.
permalinkparent
[ ]theothercoolfish 13 points 2 hours ago
Assuming, of course, that the American people themselves aren't the ones willing
ly handing in their freedoms, which would mean we're all fucked immediately.
Err, you guys gave up much of your freedoms long ago. And it isn't just the US politicians everywhere are taking as much as they can get, because it's simply
more power for them. More power, more money, more control. It's not a conspiracy
- this is just how an imperfect system with inadequate controls eventually goes
. We need to start re-examining our systems and look at alternatives that are no
w possible with the internet.
permalinkparent
[ ]vynusmagnus 3 points 2 hours ago
Tell that to the insurgents in Afghanistan. It seems to me that the US military
has been unable to defeat them in over a decade of war, despite its overwhelming
technological superiority. Tanks and fighter jets are nice, but they do little
against a small guerrilla force that can disappear into the woodwork.
permalinkparent
[ ]Qoix 3 points 3 hours ago
I think the main issue with that line of thinking is that the military would gun
down the civilians it pledges to protect. How many people in the armed forces d
o you know? Now, are any of them willing to murder innocent people? Probably not
.
permalinkparent
[ ]ihcn 6 points 2 hours ago
They're not innocent people, they're armed revolutionaries, suspected terrorists
permalinkparent
[ ]chance-- 4 points 3 hours ago
You say that as if there isn't insurmountable evidence to the contrary.
Military coups are thoroughly woven into the fabric of humanity's history.
permalinkparent
[ ]theothercoolfish 1 point 2 hours ago
gun down the civilians it pledges to protect.
Err, they don't pledge to protect civilians. They pledge to protect the constitu
tion. And if they are convinced that these people are attempting to "subvert" th
e constitution, then they are enemies. Nevermind that their leaders have shat al
l over the constitution - soldiers take their orders and follow 'em.
Now, are any of them willing to murder innocent people?
lol.
permalinkparent
load more comments (2 replies)
[ ]eloquentnemesis [score hidden] 33 minutes ago
Welcome to 4th generation warfare. You don't need a better gun, or the ability t
o kill a drone, or anything else like that. You just need A gun and more commitm
ent than the other side.
permalinkparent
[ ]homegrowncountryboy [score hidden] 16 minutes ago*
Good luck with those tanks, planes and drones when the American people stop supp
lying fuel and ammunition. My brother is in the Army and he will tell you about
75%, or more of the military will disband and fight to protect the American peop
le. All you have to do is look at New Orleans during Katrina, when they got the
order to start confiscating guns almost all of them refused, instead it was main
ly police stealing people's weapons.
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]Hermit_ 2 points 5 hours ago
Yeah but if it does happen all people would be doing is creating the chaos one o
f the armed and militarized militias needs to take power. For example, The KKK.
permalinkparent

[ ]b-LE-z_it 1 point 5 hours ago


Hopefully not the KKK.
permalinkparent
[ ]AussieArcher 1 point 3 hours ago
Fuck me there's always one of you. I'm starting to think the gun club spends mor
e time on reddit than anyone.
permalinkparent
[ ]astronautg117 1 point 1 hour ago
What's a combat rifle going to do against a drone?
permalinkparent
[ ]datbino 1 point 1 hour ago
i think thats where 2nd ammendment people miss the mark- you owning a rifle will
do nothing against the government.
you becoming an active participating member in that government can help fix it,
the goal is to make you a kony2012 fb sharer rather than a person who gets to wo
rk and fixes shit
permalinkparent
[ ]mpg1846 1 point 1 hour ago
You think 50 guys with hand guns are going to do anything to anyone? Gun laws ar
e a joke.
permalinkparent
[ ]Actionbuilding 1 point 1 hour ago
The founders of the United States of America WANTED the citizens to rise up and
overthrow the government if it approached the levels of corruption it is current
ly working toward.
permalinkparent
load more comments (11 replies)
[ ]nuesuh 1 point 1 hour ago
Ever seen "Das Leben der Anderen"? Imagine this, just with total corruption and
100 times better technology. This is what we are moving towards. Imagine this sy
stem getting in the hands of someone like Hitler or Stalin.. And it can happen.
Before Hitler came to power Germany was a modern, western, christian nation. We
need safety with this technology. And when i say safety, i don't mean surveillan
ce. I mean the opposite.
permalinkparent
[ ]know_comment [score hidden] 14 minutes ago
I agree, but I think the reason for the infrastructure development is because it
is going to get bad. As we are forced to compete more globally, quality of life
stagnates. Even the slightest hint of austerity is going to be very painful for
the lower classes in a society with a large income disparity.
That's why we see the race baiting and divisive rhetoric being used so much. Kee
p the poor and working classes quibbling at each other.
I want you to consider the daffodil. And while you're doing that, I'll be over h
ere, looking through your stuff.
permalinkparent
[ ]mzackler 19 points 7 hours ago
It takes a really complicated answer to truly understand but you often get into
the us vs them mentality in siloed areas of law enforcement. You also often get
frustrated with the levels of proof you need to put the bad guy in jail. Thus an
y method you can use you feel justified in using. Although I think there are a l
ot of issues with The Wire, it's a great starting off point for a discussion if
you want a serious answer.
permalinkparent
load more comments (2 replies)
[ ]hershmire 30 points 7 hours ago
Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts, absolutely.
permalinkparent
[ ]TheNewRavager 70 points 6 hours ago
"All governments suffer a recurring problem: Power attracts pathological persona
lities. It is not that power corrupts but that it is magnetic to the corruptible

. Such people have a tendency to become drunk on violence, a condition to which


they are quickly addicted."
permalinkparent
[ ]gee_iwonderwhy 22 points 6 hours ago
Oh shit, a Dune quote outside /r/dune not about spice.
permalinkparent
[ ]TheNumberMuncher 3 points 6 hours ago
This is pretty cool.
permalinkparent
[ ]YawnDogg 1 point 3 hours ago
Gene Hackman was so kinky in that movie.
permalinkparent
[ ]ThreeTimesUp 2 points 2 hours ago
From a Guardian article by Glenn Greenwald I came across recently:
Inside the mind of NSA chief Gen Keith Alexander
Any casual review of human history proves how deeply irrational it is to believe
that powerful factions can be trusted to exercise vast surveillance power with
little accountability or transparency.
But the more they proudly flaunt their warped imperial hubris, the more irration
al it becomes.
permalinkparent
[ ]Epsilox 3 points 2 hours ago
I'm going to take an unpopular stance here and argue that they get more effectiv
e investigations. Which isn't to say I have no reservations about this stuff, be
cause I do.
I've worked in a field tangential to law enforcement, and I've had the unpleasan
t experience of watching very bad people act with impunity because law enforceme
nt had to play by the rules and they didn't. Does that justify the modern trend
towards more invasive government? Maybe that's just the price we pay to live in
a free society. I don't know. I'm a fan of the H.L. Mencken quote:
"The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's ti
me defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are f
irst aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopp
ed at all."
On the other hand, it's very hard to watch members of organized crime and other
monsters literally get away with murder.
In part the difficulty the lies in the infrastructure of modern society. Communi
cations move at such speed and in such quantity that the sort of pinpoint accura
cy required for effective investigations and prosecutions becomes much more diff
icult.
None of which is to say that what we're doing is necessarily right. I've felt th
e fear of writing an opinion online and knowing that the NSA can see it and ever
ything else I've ever written if they so choose. I've had that feeling of always
being watched. I know exactly what is meant by the danger of chilling free spee
ch, because it's happened to me. But I do tend to trust (perhaps naively) that,
for the most part, most of the people making these decisions have good intention
s. I've worked with many of them, and I believe that it more than anything is th
e result of them trying to do their jobs well. Whether they are actually protect
ing the American people or simply paving the road to hell, only time will really
tell.
permalinkparent
[ ]eyeforgot 4 points 6 hours ago
Think of all the blackmail material they have for any future politicians. They w
ill firmly be in check by the powers that be.
permalinkparent
[ ]ademnus 3 points 7 hours ago
Total control.
permalinkparent
[ ]NotAnotherDecoy 4 points 7 hours ago
Total control?

permalinkparent
[ ]leamas666 2 points 5 hours ago
Why would you amass such a criminal energy to break constitutional laws just to
be able to see through everyone's communication?
It's the deep state attempting to preserve its own regime continuity in the even
t of violent revolution.
permalinkparent
[ ]sunbolts 3 points 6 hours ago
Because those in power try to keep it and in addition, there is always a lust fo
r more power. One who is wealthy seeks to increase his riches usually, right? Sa
me thing going on here. In terms of practicality, there's no reason for breaking
constitutional laws, but when you realize how human nature functions in regards
to ambitions and power, well, what we see going on explains itself.
permalinkparent
[ ]Martenz05 1 point 3 hours ago
So, in order to become a political leader who really does work for the benefit o
f the people, one would somehow have to lose every shred of their humanity so th
ey wouldn't have a human nature that could be corrupted by ambition and power?
That sounds ominous, when I put it like that
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]RuthlessDickTater 1 point 5 hours ago
but why.. I realize that these "zomg the terrorists!!!11" is only a PR-lie.
Well pretty soon they might have their terrorists, but they'll be the domestic k
ind.
permalinkparent
[ ]karadan100 1 point 4 hours ago
More money.
permalinkparent
[ ]cynoclast 1 point 3 hours ago
What do they really accomplish with this?
Get rich.
permalinkparent
load more comments (7 replies)
[ ]TGlucifer 50 points 10 hours ago
Criminals learned it's just way easier to do their lawbreaking with a government
salary.
permalinkparent
[ ]pete1729 22 points 9 hours ago
Well, the benefits package is far more attractive.
permalinkparent
[ ]__ghostpants 25 points 7 hours ago
and somehow snitches go to jail instead of the criminals
permalinkparent
[ ]iismitch55 1 point 3 hours ago
Snitches get stitches. Whistleblowers get their mouth sowed shut.
permalinkparent
[ ]HandsOffMyDitka 5 points 5 hours ago
Why break a law, when you can just change it.
permalinkparent
[ ]moresmarterthanyou 2 points 5 hours ago
except when they have to answer questions themselves...
permalinkparent
[ ]dontbullshityourself 1 point 5 hours ago
Well you know liberty is wasted on peasant swine 'eh?
permalinkparent
[ ]ButterflyAttack 1 point 4 hours ago
Sounds like the constitution doesn't mean much at this point. . .
permalinkparent
[ ]dontbullshityourself 1 point 3 hours ago

Sounds like the constitution doesn't mean much at this point. . .


All it means is that the scum who rule us have a legal contract that they say ba
cks up all their power. But their actions shit all over that document.
President Obama, a constitutional law professor ordered the deaths of two US cit
izens without trial in EXPRESS and DIRECT violation of the constitution.
permalinkparent
load more comments (4 replies)
[ ]Eurynom0s 68 points 9 hours ago
And on top of it, even if being in public was a justification for this, how the
fuck do you prevent the device from nabbing people who are inside their own hous
e or apartment as well?
Oh right, you can't, because that's not how radio waves work.
permalinkparent
[ ]Ioneos 18 points 8 hours ago
You can increase the noise gate to reduce range on purpose, but what good would
that do to keep the terrorists citizens under scrutiny.
permalinkparent
[ ]Eurynom0s 20 points 8 hours ago
Even if they were going to do that, I can't imagine that you could do it to a su
fficient degree in a place like NYC to not scoop up at least some people inside
of buildings.
permalinkparent
load more comments (5 replies)
[ ]Codoro 1 point 4 hours ago
I foresee turning your house into a Faraday Cage being the cop radar finder of t
omorrow.
permalinkparent
[ ]Kenny_Login 23 points 7 hours ago
Taxation without representation, an income far below what the productivity was v
alued at, government intrusion? The founding fathers (you know, those "heroes" o
f our nation) got much more pissed off for much less.
permalinkparent
[ ]Socialdem 8 points 5 hours ago
Can you really blame them? The Constitution was written when people were still r
iding on horses. There's no way the founding fathers could have anticipated the
advances in technology and the way people communicate. I think we're due for a f
irmware upgrade.
permalinkparent
[ ]upandrunning 11 points 3 hours ago
Yes, it's called 'replacing congress'. What we're seeing is a natural consequenc
e of career politicians. Most of the people in office have gotten so comfortable
with the idea that they'll get reelected that what they actually do during thei
r term is almost irrelevent.
permalinkparent
[ ]theothercoolfish 2 points 2 hours ago
Exactly. I think we should look at sortition - with an approval vote, and extrem
ely strict rules on what sort of laws can be passed (eg any law must apply equal
ly to everyone - protecting the minority), and a approval bonus for the randomly
selected representatives if the public approves. Fuck career politicians - they
've proven themselves wholly incapable, and the system that supports them is too
corruptible. I don't think campaign finance reform will 1) ever happen 2) adequ
ately deal with institutional corruption.
permalinkparent
[ ]NuclearWookiee 0 points 2 hours ago
All of this should be covered, in any reasonable interpretation, by the Fourth a
mendment. Rebooting who change anything if the limits on government are ignored.
permalinkparent
[ ]KalAl 1 point 1 hour ago
Do you update your firmware by smashing your bios chip with a hammer?
permalinkparent

[ ]FireFromTheWire 4 points 6 hours ago


You're just another Steve Irwin to them.
permalinkparent
[ ]iismitch55 2 points 3 hours ago
Too soon mate :'(
permalinkparent
[ ]Penguin_in_the_sand 1 point 1 hour ago*
I am curious to know what this comment means?... Oh! Steve Irwin was killed by a
stingray. I thought you may have been referring to some conspiracy relating the
Steve Irwin's death. He had an American wife and both were invited to Howard's
Bush BBQ. http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/10/27/1067233100397.html
permalinkparent
[ ]gloubenterder 2 points 1 hour ago
Steve Irwin was a wildlife documentary filmmaker who was well-known for getting
up close and personal with dangerous animals such as crocodiles and komodo drago
ns.
He was pierced through a heart by a stingray in 2006, while shooting footage for
a documentary called Ocean's Deadliest.
After his death, stingrays had a period of great infamy, and there were even rep
orts of people killing and mutilating stingrays as vengeance for Steve Irwin. ..
.which, of course, is the last thing Irwin would have wanted; he was a conservat
ionist, and whenever he was injured by an animal he was studying, he would alway
s clarify to the viewer that that was his own fault and a risk he was aware of.
permalinkparent
[ ]Agent-BurtMacklinFBI 1 point 5 hours ago
Don't worry I'm keeping a look out
permalinkparent
[ ]pion3435 1 point 3 hours ago
It's not a constitutional issue. It might be an FCC one, but they just do whatev
er they're told anyway.
permalinkparent
[ ]dntur 1 point 3 hours ago
theoretically, every cell tower is in a public place. Why not just attach a stin
gray to all of them? Think of the money mobile companies could make renting towe
r space! next comes google who wants to know who you are calling on your iphone
and windows phone for better directed advertising, followed by Bing. /s
permalinkparent
[ ]Brian3232 [score hidden] 46 minutes ago
Why are they wrong? You already can take pictures of people in public places wit
hout warrant
permalinkparent
[ ]GaltsGulchTouristInf [score hidden] 24 minutes ago
When the constitution, the supreme law of the land, the contract between the gov
ernment and the people, is violated, this violating it should be banned from 'pu
blic service' for life, should be personally liable to those whose rights they v
iolated, and should forfeit their government pension and benefits.
permalinkparent
[ ]wtfmuck [score hidden] 17 minutes ago
It's sad how they shirk doing what is right for what is easy.
permalinkparent
load more comments (8 replies)
[ ]quiteintriguing 127 points 12 hours ago
I think it's about time these fuckers provided some evidence that privacy invadi
ng is helping stop crime or terrorism. As far as I can see, there is an Islamic
army in the middle east right now filled with westerners that simply flew over a
nd caught a bus. Nice job government agencies, you sure showed us.
permalink
[ ]HappyAtavism 81 points 11 hours ago
I think it's about time these fuckers provided some evidence that privacy invadi
ng is helping stop crime or terrorism.

Even more importantly they should provide evidence that they're not violating th
e 4th Amendment. The Bill of Rights doesn't say it applies only when convenient.
P.S. I agree that repeated failures to demonstrate the effectiveness of these th
ings, or lies which get "corrected", is yet another reason why this stuff is BS,
but the Constitution is first and foremost. Don't like the 4th Amendment? Try t
o repeal it. Until then it's in force.
permalinkparent
[ ]7u5 3 points 5 hours ago
The "checks and balances" of the judiciary are a farce. They are free to "interp
ret" the Constitution as they see fit.
permalinkparent
load more comments (3 replies)
[ ]DiaperParty 9 points 3 hours ago
Fuck that. FUUUCK that. If this did stop terrorists, it would still not be worth
the violation of rights. We absolutely CANNOT start OKing this shit as long as
it "stops bad guys."
permalinkparent
[ ]quiteintriguing 1 point 3 hours ago
I think you misunderstood. I think they should have to back up their justificati
on, which they obviously can't.
permalinkparent
[ ]DiaperParty 4 points 3 hours ago
But if we ask them to, we lend legitimacy to that claim. We need to say from the
get go that no justification is needed because none will be sufficient.
permalinkparent
[ ]ebouwman 7 points 5 hours ago
In Canada we had the Ottawa shooting and that dude that ran over some soldiers.
Correct me if I'm wrong but both these guys had had their passports revoked.
I'm not a fan of letting them just go over and fight a dirty war but wtf.
permalinkparent
[ ]Ceejae 4 points 4 hours ago
But so what if it is? How successful the program is is irrelevant.
I'm sure if they set up a government camera in every home they'd stop plenty of
murders and rapes.
permalinkparent
load more comments (2 replies)
[ ]cassieloveseffie 5 points 2 hours ago
Well we all know that the FBI has followed people like John Lennon who believed
in radical peace, urged MLK to kill himself and was prepared to assassinate occu
py members. It is not about crime, it is about maintaining a status quo.
permalinkparent
[ ]monopixel 2 points 1 hour ago
was prepared to assassinate occupy members.
Interesting, where can I read up about this?
permalinkparent
[ ]wirepants 4 points 4 hours ago
Locking everyone in solitary could stop crime and terrorism too. That's not a go
od enough reason to violate our rights even if it was working.
permalinkparent
[ ]egodeath92 2 points 5 hours ago
Shh that's classified. This entire country would be a post-apocalyptic dirt-patc
h is not for the heroic NSA collecting dirt on most of the country.
permalinkparent
[ ]pion3435 1 point 3 hours ago
You had no privacy in the first place. That's not how cell phones work.
permalinkparent
load more comments (6 replies)
[ ]MashItMatt 143 points 13 hours ago
Obviously these are constitution free zones, citizen.
permalink

[ ]THANKS-FOR-THE-GOLD 22 points 7 hours ago


Embrace democracy or you will be eradicated
permalinkparent
[ ]jroddie4 14 points 5 hours ago
Citizen, pick up that can.
permalinkparent
[ ]douko 3 points 5 hours ago
This image won't even load (here's another one), but I still know what it is.
DEATH IS A PREFERABLE ALTERNATIVE TO COMMUNISM.
COMMUNISM IS THE VERY DEFINITION OF FAILURE!
permalinkparent
[ ]chewysquirrel 15 points 6 hours ago
Approximately 2/3 of Americans live in a "constitution free zone"
permalinkparent
[ ]newpolitics 50 points 10 hours ago
The Federal Bureau of Investigation is taking the position that court warrants a
re not required when deploying cell-site simulators in public places. Nicknamed
"stingrays," the devices are decoy cell towers that capture locations and identi
ties of mobile phone users and can intercept calls and texts.
So nobody has any expectation of privacy? Talking out of their asses. The implic
ation that a warrant shouldn't be needed to intercept someone's text messages, i
s outrageous.
permalink
[ ]acerplatanoides [score hidden] 16 minutes ago
The implication that a warrant shouldn't be needed to intercept someone's text m
essages, is outrageous.
The implication of intercepting a PRESS related text message, and thus also supp
ressing a free press.
I think many of these are used to stop uploading of images to social medial. You
ever tried that during a demonstration?
permalinkparent
[ ]dalasocatyemerc 67 points 9 hours ago
Hmm, I didn't realize the FBI had the authority to ignore the constitution of th
e United States of America.
Maybe this organization doesn't actually serve Americans. That's what I think
permalink
[ ]Jagoonder 17 points 2 hours ago
They don't. However, lets look at their 3rd criteria:
(3) cases in which the technology is used in public places or other locations at
which the FBI deems there is no reasonable expectation of privacy.
In public, noone has an expectation to privacy. SCOTUS has ruled on such. Theref
ore, it could be argued that phone conversations in public places forfeits at le
ast one party's rights to privacy.
There are a couple of problems with this. First, Stingray is indiscriminate. Sec
ond, the other party of the phone conversation may be in their own home thus hav
ing an expectation of privacy.
I don't know how law works in regards to phone tapping. But, I would assume that
any warrant to do so would provide the agency a waiver on a second party's priv
acy protections when conversing with the target of the warrant. Except in the ca
se of Stingray no warrant was ever obtained thus, no waiver, thus the second par
ty probably still has privacy protections.
So, I think it's bullshit. I'm no lawyer. I suspect the FBI also knows it's bull
shit. But, the more excuses they can come up with to bend the law around their w
ill the more time it takes to try to stop them since each instance requires anot
her court decision.
permalinkparent
[ ]punkrampant 13 points 1 hour ago
There's only "no expectation of privacy" in public in terms of video+camera surv
eillance. People still get disturbed if you look over their shoulder at their ph
one, or listen to a conversation.

Text messages, emails, phone calls, all of it, are the modern day written letter
s. What the FBI is trying to do is the equivalent of setting up a post office th
at opens everyone's envelopes and makes copies of all the contents.
permalinkparent
[ ]Jagoonder 5 points 1 hour ago
Text messages, emails, phone calls, all of it, are the modern day written letter
s. What the FBI is trying to do is the equivalent of setting up a post office th
at opens everyone's envelopes and makes copies of all the contents.
You're right. I was focusing on an actual phone conversation where one party cou
ld be overheard by others, thus no expectation to privacy.
permalinkparent
[ ]Cambodian_Drug_Mule 2 points 1 hour ago
Surely there are people with technical expertise that can just fuck their shit u
p. If I'm not mistaken the stingrays were detected with consumer grade electroni
cs. If everyone just looked out for them and pinned where they are at on a map,
couldn't some people with the technical know how take them offline?
permalinkparent
[ ]monopixel 1 point 1 hour ago
Hmm, I didn't realize the FBI had the authority to ignore the constitution of th
e United States of America.
The US government and its agencies has been doing it for ages.
permalinkparent
[ ]rtpg 40 points 6 hours ago
Surprised nobody's mentioned Kyllo v. United States yet.
This is fairly recent (2001) jurisprudence. The gov't used a thermal imager, and
saw that there were heat lamps inside of a house, and used that to get a search
warrant. The gov't argued that, well, the heat was outside, so pretty much publ
ic information.
The courts disagreed and ruled this an illegal search. Main reason being that no
t many people have thermal imagers, so there's a reasonable expectation of priva
cy. I think even less people have stingrays, so even from the "discovering that
someone has a cell phone" aspect, there's unreasonableness in the search.
Now to the wiretapping aspect... there's Katz v. United States. Here, somebody w
as in a phone booth, and the feds had set a microphone outside the phone booth w
ithout warrant (so not exactly a wiretap). Again, the courts ruled this an unrea
sonable search.
A part of the ruling:
Regardless of the location, a conversation is protected from unreasonable search
and seizure under the Fourth Amendment if it is made with a "reasonable expecta
tion of privacy".
Text messages definitely fall under this. I can't see this holding up for 2 seco
nds in court.
The article goes into it into detail, but few of the FBI's interpretations on pr
ivacy have been holding up in courts recently. The system is kind of working, an
d this interpretation will be shut down as well. Now, if only everyone had good
lawyers...
permalink
[ ]ryewheats 7 points 4 hours ago
But the biggest problem I see would be them not declaring how they gathered any
information they collected in the first place. It would be pretty easy to skirt
around the system and act like you caught the suspect red-handed (because you we
re tipped off by illegal searches). That is the really scary part.
permalinkparent
[ ]argv_minus_one 5 points 3 hours ago
This practice is known as "parallel construction".
permalinkparent
[ ]tughdffvdlfhegl 3 points 3 hours ago
Honestly, this is the biggest concern. The courts won't allow a challenge becaus
e no one will have standing, because the feds/police won't actively declare this
as evidence in a trial. Meanwhile, they'll continue to use it, having a chillin

g effect on the press and others (which the courts have not seen in recent histo
ry as sufficient to provide legal standing).
permalinkparent
[ ]JustaChimp 3 points 5 hours ago
With the Katz v US case, it took them 39 years to overturn the Olmstead v US rul
ing. Let's hope it takes a little less time for this medium.
The recent Romano v Steelcase Inc. court case could indicate how the courts will
rule in the short term with regards to "reasonable expectation of privacy" thou
gh this ruling was in the context of social media and not text messages. The ana
logy was made that much like a letter writer has no reasonable expectation of pr
ivacy once the recipient is in possession of the letter, neither does the post's
author. Same could be extended to text messages and would be equally as trouble
some.
permalinkparent
[ ]qdarius 1 point 3 hours ago
Damn, that doesn't seem right at all. If I send someone a letter I definitely ex
pect that only they will read it.
Could anyone expand on the logic that a letter writer has no reasonable expectat
ion of privacy?
permalinkparent
[ ]Boltaeg 1 point 3 hours ago
After that letter is given to the recipient, they can do whatever they want with
it without you knowing. They could copy it, show it to friends, frame it and pu
t it on their wall....etc. You have no control over that and must assume that an
ything you write in a letter can be disclosed in some manner, simply because you
have no control over that persons actions.
As to why that is the case, I have no idea. Especially considering it is illegal
to open someone elses mail, but perfectly legal to read someone else's letter o
nce they open it. At least that is my understanding of it.
permalinkparent
[ ]TheMightyBarbarian 1 point 3 hours ago
Its fairly simple, you sent a letter, until it is received by the intended recip
ient it has federal protections. Once the recipient receives it, they are free t
o do with it as they wish, even if you disagree with what they do, specifically
because the letter is now their property, even though you wrote it.
permalinkparent
[ ]qdarius 1 point 2 hours ago
I understand that. But if someone else intercepts my letter shouldn't that still
be illegal?
Maybe I'm misunderstanding how stingrays work but it seems like they're basicall
y designed to intercept hundreds of messages.
permalinkparent
[ ]TheMightyBarbarian 1 point 2 hours ago
Intercept isn't illegal, its sketchy but not illegal. As for reading it, it's a
grey area since texts are not encrypted and even if they were it would do shit i
f billions of devices can decrypt them. So unless you use something like a messe
nger system that can use basic encrypting. It won't stop the FBI from reading it
, but it does show you took steps to have a private conversation and that's what
matters to the court.
permalinkparent
[ ]coalbeeashi 1 point 3 hours ago
Re: Katz v. United States
Certain details, such as shutting the door on the telephone booth, help determin
e if a person intends for a conversation to be private. Thus, private conversati
ons can be made in public areas.
What steps is the average Joe taking to exhibit a reasonable expectation of priv
acy regarding his/her data usage? Honest question.
permalinkparent
[ ]TheMightyBarbarian 1 point 2 hours ago
Beyond using a VPN to mimic another location, not much really. Since there are m

any devices involved in the process of just looking up a website. Ex. You google
Microsoft. Here are all the parties involved: You, Your ISP, Google, Microsoft.
That's four parties involved and that's assuming you are not using a Phones Mob
ile Data plan and are using WiFi. Because then it can add a few more people invo
lved.
Sure you should have protection just the same, but currently the law doesn't rec
ognize that, because the people in charge dont understand how any of it works.
permalinkparent
[ ]rtpg [score hidden] 54 minutes ago
I would say that cultural norms kind of define that in that it is extremely rude
to look at another stranger's phone while they are using it to browse/look at t
heir emails/whatever. Not the most solid argument, I know.
permalinkparent
[ ]Sic_SemperTyrannis 1 point 2 hours ago
When the use of stingrays is challenged in court police have dropped the cases r
ather than explain their use of stingrays.
permalinkparent
[ ]cassieloveseffie 1 point 2 hours ago
I have seen a printed record of every one of someone's txt messages for 6 months
. Never assume txt messages are private.
permalinkparent
[ ]Ladderjack 29 points 12 hours ago
I'm sorry, have they gone ahead and combined the FBI and the Supreme Court of th
e United States of America? No? Well, we will see how long this lasts. . .
permalink
[ ]butitssnot 46 points 7 hours ago
Its ok. In 2016 we can vote for hope and change and transparency and fix all thi
s.
permalinkparent
[ ]CriticalThink 3 points 5 hours ago
yeah. I bet Hillary will fix this mess, right Reddit?
permalinkparent
[ ]TheMightyBarbarian 1 point 2 hours ago
We still got time before they can start promoting themselves for President, lega
lly actually, they can't start until a certain number of days from the election.
permalinkparent
[ ]looneybandito 5 points 6 hours ago
Haha. As if our votes matter.
permalinkparent
[ ]atomofconsumption 9 points 5 hours ago
thatsthejoke.jpg
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]dichroeyes 1 point 4 hours ago
You are right. I give up. Long live the hegemony.
permalinkparent
[ ]Pikaflu 1 point 3 hours ago
America is an irradiated wasteland. Within it lies a city. Outside the boundary
walls, a desert. A cursed earth. Inside the walls, a cursed city, stretching fro
m Boston to Washington D.C. An unbroken concrete landscape. 800 million people l
iving in the ruin of the old world and the mega structures of the new one. Mega
blocks. Mega highways. Mega City One. Convulsing. Choking. Breaking under its ow
n weight. Citizens in fear of the street. The gun. The gang. Only one thing figh
ting for order in the chaos: the men and women of the Hall of Justice. Juries. E
xecutioners. Judges.
permalinkparent
[ ]Ago_Solvo 36 points 9 hours ago
I'm sure that means that stingrays are also open for public hacking in that case
, because they're in a public place, and doing so can't be considered an intrusi
on on government properties or a violation of any Federal Law.

permalink
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]whysopositive 57 points 12 hours ago
Say whatever you want, you don't think big brother is going to find every way to
spy on you?
The thing is I bet every time we the people get upset about some "new" trespass
against our rights there's already something technologically beyond our knowledg
e being put to use to on us now.
permalink
[ ]I_SPLIT_INFINITIVES 16 points 7 hours ago
My dad always said, "If that's what they're telling us they have now, they proba
bly had it ten years ago. Just imagine what they really have."
permalinkparent
[ ]oOTHX1138Oo 28 points 9 hours ago
Thats why we need to add to the bill of rights, so that we continue to be protec
ted in the digital age.
permalinkparent
[ ]TheBlueWaffleHouse 18 points 8 hours ago
At this point in time the bill of rights only shrinks. It doesn't get bigger.
permalinkparent
[ ]tallerthanunicorngod 33 points 7 hours ago
Not with that attitude.
permalinkparent
[ ]mattacular2001 3 points 5 hours ago
Doesn't matter unless you're wealthy
permalinkparent
[ ]tallerthanunicorngod 1 point 2 hours ago
Wealthy people don't like to be spied on either. Honestly, they probably like it
even less.
permalinkparent
[ ]sockgorilla 1 point 5 hours ago
He's John Titor, he's watched it before.
permalinkparent
[ ]mastahslayah 1 point 4 hours ago
Well he isn't getting any of my Dr. Pepper.
permalinkparent
[ ]Poor__Yorick 1 point 2 hours ago
Wow that's a name I haven't heard in a while.
We've got a world war this year though.
3 billion dead by the end of it.
permalinkparent
load more comments (5 replies)
[ ]pion3435 1 point 3 hours ago
We already did. That's the point of laws like HIPAA. There's just no equivalent
for things like email or cell phones so it's legal to see whatever people are na
ively broadcasting.
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]ZomNomNomBeeZ 5 points 7 hours ago
This technology is not particularly new. The man-in-the-middle attack is a class
ic hacking technique. I remember reading an article after one of the security co
nventions detailing a small group of participants that used a remote control air
plane to do this exact thing to convention attendees. This was years ago.
permalinkparent
[ ]hershmire 4 points 7 hours ago
Which is why it's illegality could be successfully code into law.
permalinkparent
[ ]TheMightyBarbarian 1 point 3 hours ago
That's the problem, the people who make the laws don't understand how the techno
logy works, and the people making and using it are telling them its fine, so the

y don't feel like they need to make a law about.


And as such making a law about it would be bad, since the law would need specifi
c language to prevent certain technologies and usage of such. But the biggest is
sue is that some of the technology and uses are too general that it would never
work to stop anything. Since they can't just write a law preventing man in the m
iddle because they need to get a definitive wording on what that is exactly and
then word it so a slight variation doesn't just immediately skirt the new law.
Our technology grew faster than our laws did, but now it's grown faster than our
ability to properly define what it is we do. So controlling it is incredibly ha
rd and will take a long time, so for now we kinda have to suck it up and wait, b
ecause the worst possible thing is them putting out ineffective laws that do les
s than nothing to prevent stuff like that and hearing us complain and think we a
re whining when they just put out a law. I would rather wait a little longer to
make sure the law is proper and effective than to have a crap law screw everythi
ng up.
permalinkparent
[ ]ScorpionPool 1 point 6 hours ago
Serious question. What benefits does the government get from spying on us? Power
? Information for corporations? Shits and giggles? Some kind of profit?
permalinkparent
[ ]swingmemallet 2 points 5 hours ago
All of the above
permalinkparent
[ ]eyeforgot 1 point 5 hours ago*
What like complete access to what anyone posts/chats about on facebook/skype bei
ng dumped into a database? Anyone who work with cisco routers notice anything fu
nny like carefully crafted packets fucking w. the settings and not creating logs
. Maybe like there is a back door that someone has that doesn't require a passwo
rd.
permalinkparent
load more comments (3 replies)
[ ]philtech 26 points 10 hours ago
You can scan for stingray use.
Only works on rooted phones with Qualcomm chipset however. https://play.google.c
om/store/apps/details?id=de.srlabs.snoopsnitch&hl=en
permalink
[ ]vamper 2 points 6 hours ago
damn, no go for my nexus 5
permalinkparent
[ ]Ice_Pirate 1 point 5 hours ago
Should work on my 20 dollar ZTE's with dualies :). Overclocks to 1.8 like butta.
http://www.phonearena.com/phones/ZTE-N800_id8191
permalinkparent
[ ]willyboxc 1 point 2 hours ago
we need a version that will work without root :(
permalinkparent
[ ]networklackey 49 points 11 hours ago*
Bullshit... it's radio. They have no way of determining whether the person they
are monitoring is in public or not.
They shouldn't be able to use this without a warrant any more than they should b
e able to point a laser mic at your window.
The fact that they are in public is irrelevant... the subject they are monitorin
g has to be in public.
permalink
[ ]lll_1_lll 29 points 6 hours ago
Even if we are in public, what the fuck gives them the right to look through my
texts, phone calls, voicemails, emails, call history, etc?
permalinkparent
[ ]zoidbug 5 points 3 hours ago
It should be protected the level of paper mail. It is your private communication

s.
permalinkparent
[ ]networklackey 1 point 2 hours ago
Technically... because you are in public and are broadcasting. But I feel the sa
me way. None of this shit should be legal.
permalinkparent
load more comments (6 replies)
[ ]goatmagic 2 points 3 hours ago
laser mic
Well, TIL this exists :/
permalinkparent
[ ]networklackey 2 points 2 hours ago
They absolutely exist and they are freaking awesome. They should not however be
used by law enforcement without a warrant.
permalinkparent
[ ]makingupdumbnames 1 point 5 hours ago
I think it's that their airwaves cross public space. pls correct me if I'm wrong
, though
permalinkparent
[ ]networklackey 1 point 2 hours ago
That's certainly the argument they are making.
permalinkparent
[ ]wirepants 1 point 4 hours ago
Even assuming you are in public, who's to say the guy on the other side is too?
permalinkparent
[ ]networklackey 1 point 2 hours ago
Nothing but their log books but that doesn't really matter. It's your right to p
rivacy they are violating.
permalinkparent
[ ]Sarah_Connor 9 points 9 hours ago
We need a way to be able to identify, then jamm, stingrays.
permalink
[ ]cookie_nrk 8 points 7 hours ago
This Jammer made in sweden should do the trick. From what I have read it complet
ely blocks all signals, so using a phone wouldn't work at all, but if you were i
n a position to not want to be tracked during a certain time, you could use this
: http://www.jammer-store.com/monstro-10-all-frequencies-portable-jammer.html
permalinkparent
[ ]hershmire 10 points 7 hours ago
We're talking about blanket monitoring of civilians. It needs to be outlawed imm
ediately. Hoping each and every Joe Schmoe is going to buy an illegal cell phone
jammer to protect his identity is, well, ridiculous.
permalinkparent
[ ]davidverner 6 points 7 hours ago
Jammers are illegal in the US on the cellphone frequency. Good luck importing on
e.
permalinkparent
[ ]wicard 5 points 6 hours ago
had one from deal extreme i bought when i was younger to prank friends, was alot
of fun. But if you are worried about being tracked wouldn't just shutting your
phone off do the trick? If you are jamming your phone you arnt going to be talki
ng to anyone.
permalinkparent
[ ]RellenD 4 points 5 hours ago
You have to do more than just turn it off, unfortunately.
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]willyboxc 1 point 2 hours ago
we need the schematics so we can build one... also include 700 mhz jam for lte
permalinkparent

load more comments (1 reply)


[ ]ademnus 11 points 7 hours ago
That's nice but it's not up to the FBI if it is illegal or not.
permalink
[ ]MonitoredCitizen 21 points 7 hours ago
Come on Google and Apple, stop being so lame. Make the phones themselves defend
against this by always displaying the negotiated encryption level and allowing u
ser to configure the phone to refuse to connect if the GSM encryption level is A
5/0.
permalink
[ ]argv_minus_one 2 points 2 hours ago
If they do that, these same spooks will have some words with their CEOs. Otherwi
se, yeah, they likely would.
permalinkparent
[ ]vzzzbux 2 points 1 hour ago
Not sure on the technical specifics but my old Nokia from 10 years ago used to s
how a padlock if the call was "secure", which I guess meant it was encrypted in
some way.
Sounds like yet another way we've gone backwards with the rise of Google and App
le
permalinkparent
[ ]cryptovariable 180 points 12 hours ago
This seems icky, but anyone with a Raspberry Pi ($48.00), an RTL-SDR ($17.00), a
nd an ability to follow written step-by-step instructions on how to install and
configure some open source software ($0.00) can do this, albeit on a smaller sca
le.
That tutorial doesn't cover decrypting GSM traffic. This one does. You'll need s
omething faster than a Raspberry Pi, though. Maybe a $200 netbook.
And you can do it on the same scale as the police with a surplus commercial ante
nna and three or four friends.
I don't see how restricting the government's ability to do this would have any o
ther effect than to criminalize a private citizen's desire to experiment with GS
M.
permalink
[ ]HappyAtavism 113 points 11 hours ago
I don't see how restricting the government's ability to do this would have any o
ther effect than to criminalize a private citizen's desire to experiment with GS
M.
Experiment with GSM all you want, just don't eavesdrop or commit fraud by preten
ding to be part of a legitimate business.
I like to play with miniature cameras, microphones and transmitters. That's a fi
ne hobby as long as I don't use it to spy on my neighbors.
permalinkparent
load more comments (5 replies)
[ ]mr___ 50 points 12 hours ago
But theirs has a transmitter, and actively spoofs cell sites
permalinkparent
[ ]cryptovariable 55 points 12 hours ago
It you want to spoof rather than just eavesdrop all you have to do is buy any of
the SDR kits that are coming on to the market like a bladeRF or something and h
ave GNUradio (which hilariously autocorrects to FBI radio on my phone) pretend t
o be a tower, the credentials of which you sniffed with your Pi setup.
The reason the Feds spoof is so that they can target specific devices on a white
list and only have those connect. The size of the whitelist is unknown and up fo
r debate.
If you're capturing and decrypting all the GSM your antenna can receive you don'
t care if you're spoofing the tower unless you want to modify the traffic in som
e way. To quote Sir Patrick Stewart: "It's too late, I've seen everything."
If you just scoop up everything using cheap/free and publicly available tools yo
u don't really care about spoofing.

It should be noted that the Feds have a leg up with CDMA because of its smaller
global footprint and the scarcity of developers working on it, as well as UMTS (
3G) and LTE.
But people are poking at LTE every day: http://www.rtl-sdr.com/analyzing-td-ltertl-sdr/
permalinkparent
[ ]HappyAtavism 36 points 11 hours ago
The reason the Feds spoof is so that they can target specific devices on a white
list and only have those connect. The size of the whitelist is unknown and up fo
r debate.
We do know they don't have warrants. How many violations of the 4th Amendment do
es it take before it's considered a bad thing?
permalinkparent
load more comments (19 replies)
[ ]A530[??] 6 points 6 hours ago
I have to ask an honest question. Knowing what you know, do you live in a Farada
y cage or just eschew cell phones all together? I'm in InfoSec (I'm guessing you
are too) and with the shit I know, maintaining OPSec is just a never ending bat
tle. I can't imagine my paranoia if I went down the cellular rabbit hole (althou
gh I do know a lot about the shit happening with the carrier baseband MDM garbag
e).
Many thanks for the very informative post.
permalinkparent
[ ]tornadoRadar 1 point 1 hour ago
Gotta keep it segmented. Personal never mixes with biz
permalinkparent
[ ]the_nap_mutilator 1 point 5 hours ago
Spoofing the cell site also gives them access to the phone at something akin to
the hardware level... so unless you have rooted and or installed software to sec
ure the device, they can push new software onto your phone without your knowledg
e/consent in the same way that your carrier updates subscriber units say when th
ey make changes to the network or something. At that point your phone has been p
ermanently compromised.
permalinkparent
load more comments (13 replies)
[ ]mag17435 29 points 10 hours ago
I dont understand how people think the government can do things citizens can. Or
dering our government not to do something has no bearing on what citizens can do
.
permalinkparent
[ ]Golden-Fox 7 points 6 hours ago
Well when police are trying to visually collect evidence they can in general onl
y search from public areas. If a cop is looking for a certain car and they see i
t on the street, that's fine. If the car is parked in a closed garage and on pri
vate property, the cop wouldn't be able to see it without going onto private pro
perty and looking in a window. If the car is in the same garage and the garage d
oor is open, then anyone can see it, and the cop can legally use that informatio
n.
The FBI is trying to apply that same logic to these stingrays. Stingrays are a t
echnology that is available to the public. You could make your own and do exactl
y what the FBI does. The data being collected isn't encrypted, password protecte
d, or anything else. Everything is publicly available. You just have to have a c
ertain machine to be able to read it. The garage door has to be open.
permalinkparent
[ ]Wordygit 6 points 6 hours ago
The key word here is "public" whereas where there is the expectation of privacy,
I would think think that would carry some special considerations. That seems to
be some of what the courts are deciding about, where the expectation of privacy
holds sway over searches. Its already been determined that law enforcement cann
ot force you to unlock your phone. One such Supreme Court case, decided this pas

t summer, led to a sweeping victory for privacy rights advocates. In a rare unan
imous decision, the court found that police cannot search cellphones, and by ext
ension tablets and other digital communication devices, without first obtaining
a warrant. Smartphones, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote, hold the privacies of l
ife, and the fact that technology now allows an individual to carry such informati
on in his hand does not make the information any less worthy of the protection f
or which the Founders fought. I think, as well, that it has been established that
if there is encryption being used, that constitutes an acknowledgement that ste
ps have been taken to protect and maintain the sense of privacy, and so the expe
ctation carries onto the information being transmitted. Not sure if there is a l
egal precedent for that though.
permalinkparent
[ ]Golden-Fox 2 points 5 hours ago
Its already been determined that law enforcement cannot force you to unlock your
phone.
This is what I've heard, but to me it implies that police can access your phone
if you don't have it locked. Carrying that logic over to this argument, the poli
ce would be able to access your cell info as long as it isn't encrypted. It seem
s that you only have a "reasonable expectation to privacy" with your cell phone
if you've taken any steps to make your phone more private. If there were some wa
y to get your carrier to encrypt your data, then there'd be no question, but the
way cell providers are these days, that's not gonna happen.
permalinkparent
[ ]ThreeTimesUp 1 point 1 hour ago
Something that I have heard repeatedly (and I may yet have it wrong), is that if
your front door is closed, but unlocked, the police are free to enter without a
warrant.
This has always bothered me.
I could understand the mind-set of someone (i.e. a Justice of the Supreme court)
thinking that way if they grew up (or lived) in an area where they lived a life
always fearful of intruders and locking doors was a practical necessity.
But to me, a closed door means "Keep out, knock for admittance - no entry withou
t permission."
So, for naive, trusting, me, I would not expect the police (or anyone) to examin
e my phone (without a warrant) just to see what they could find.
permalinkparent
[ ]pion3435 1 point 3 hours ago
A technologically illiterate moron's expectation of privacy doesn't become a rea
sonable expectation of privacy just because the majority of the population is te
chnologically illiterate.
permalinkparent
[ ]F0sh 1 point 2 hours ago
This is totally wrong thinking. A private citizen can look for your car through
the garage window without legal repercussions, even though a police officer migh
t not be allowed. The police officer has to conduct his searches according to th
e expectation of privacy and you have every expectation that your private phone
conversations are private - even if you're sending your texts at the shopping ce
ntre.
This is a bullshit equivocation on the part of the FBI, who are claiming that si
nce any old person at the shops can see that you're also at the shops you have n
o expectation of privacy at all.
This logic, if extended, would also mean the FBI could clone your hard drive if
you took your laptop to a public place - after all, you have no expectation of p
rivacy there. No. Bullshit - just because you're in the park doesn't mean all yo
ur possessions and emails became public.
This has nothing to do with what an ordinary citizen is able to do in public or
in private.
permalinkparent
[ ]ThreeTimesUp 1 point 2 hours ago*
Well when police are trying to visually collect evidence they can in general onl

y search from public areas. If a cop is looking for a certain car and they see i
t on the street, that's fine.
To counterpoint this:
Infra-red light (heat) is just light that's at a lower frequency than humans can
detect.
Courts have ruled that the police using specialized equipment to detect heat sig
natures (Infra-red light) emanating from from houses for the purpose of snooping
for grow operations are an invasion of privacy.
The signals Stingray is picking up are just another frequency, even lower than I
nfra-red light, originating from inside your phone, that is your property, which
is in your possession.
Authorities are using all manner of logical distortions in an express attempt to
get around the ideals and principles expressed in the Constitution.
What law-abiding citizen would attempt such a thing?
What authority that the public has placed their trust in, would make continual a
ttempts to subvert the Constitution?
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
load more comments (2 replies)
[ ]kromem 2 points 3 hours ago
It is already criminal to capture and decrypt GSM traffic for citizens (Wiretap
Act), same as capturing and parsing WiFi data.
But I think I can point out the issue with your logic with a simple analogy:
Citizens can buy guns.
Law enforcement can be provided guns.
Citizens can practice shooting guns.
Law enforcement should do the same.
Citizens can't shoot other citizens with guns except in really specific exemptio
ns.
According to your logic, just because citizens can buy guns, and could possibly
go around shooting other people with them, law enforcement should not have any l
egal restrictions on their use of guns.
It is illegal for you to capture and decrypt anyone else's traffic, and it shoul
d be illegal for cops to do the same without a warrant. It's not that hard to ge
t a warrant when actually justified, creates a paper trail that can be examined
for abuses, and has been the case without serious issue for years now.
For what purpose does the law need to be changed to allow this? Because warrants
are inconvenient? Well then why not get rid of them for entering homes too? It'
s quite trivial to pick a lock, and even easier to smash a window and climb in.
Any citizen could do it. So why do we need to restrict the police from the same?
permalinkparent
[ ]dfioabnionjio 4 points 9 hours ago
I don't see how restricting the government's ability to do this would have any o
ther effect than to criminalize a private citizen's desire to experiment with GS
M.
Why not have it be illegal for government and legal for private citizens? Make i
t perfectly legal for private citizens to experiment with GSM, but don't let the
FBI do the same, like you can have a private citizen share something a defendan
t said in court while the police cannot do the same unless the suspect had been
told of their rights.
Of course, the problem here is not using GSM. It's tracking people who did not k
nowingly join your network. You could have it be legal to experiment with GSM an
d not legal to spoof a network, or make it so tracking someone on your network i
s illegal unless the person being tracked is aware they will be tracked and cons
ents to it.
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]confusiondiffusion 3 points 10 hours ago
Yeah, I really don't see the point in making laws against this, since they'll be
broken anyway. We need to fix the underlying technology. There is no excuse for

the sad state of cellphone security.


permalinkparent
[ ]HappyAtavism 18 points 10 hours ago
I really don't see the point in making laws against this
Then let's just flush the Constitution down the toilet. All laws get broken, the
question is what gets done about it.
since they'll be broken anyway
It's not very hard to break into my house either, but they're not supposed to do
it without a warrant.
permalinkparent
load more comments (4 replies)
[ ]HighMonster 1 point 7 hours ago
Wow that's intriguing
permalinkparent
[ ]lll_1_lll 1 point 6 hours ago
You act like this is realistically doable for the large majority of people and y
ou know that's BS.
permalinkparent
[+][deleted] 6 hours ago (1 child)
[ ]JabroniZamboni 1 point 5 hours ago
Are you suggesting that radar jammers should be legal? As well as cell phone or
wifi jammers? What if your neighbor wants to experiment with a jammer for the ne
xt 4 months? 6 years? I assume you wouldn't be too happy. There's experimentatio
n and then there's purposeful disruption and spying.
permalinkparent
[ ]egodeath92 1 point 5 hours ago
Yeah except "anyone with device X" can't prosecute people. It doesn't matter whe
n corporations do mass data collection because they are just trying to make mone
y/sell people shit. The government can create a database of people's private liv
es then prosecute them. You could even imagine a time where data collection is s
o widespread that this kind of info is used for political purposes rather then b
usting drug dealers/ other criminals which is what it's used for now.
permalinkparent
[ ]Kuusou 1 point 4 hours ago
What the people can do, and what the government can do, are no the same things,
nor should they.
permalinkparent
[ ]qdarius 1 point 4 hours ago
If a random person overhears my conversation I don't care. Even if they tell the
ir friends I'm still not too concerned.
If the government records my conversation and uses it to investigate or prosecut
e me that's clearly a different situation.
Just because someone can do something doesn't mean it should be legal. It defini
tely doesn't mean we should be okay with our government using it on us.
permalinkparent
load more comments (9 replies)
[ ]Sir_not_sir 52 points 13 hours ago
The main purpose of the stinger is to circumvent the need and time of acquiring
a warrant and getting the data from all the service providers.
Regardless of data retention plans, they should require a separate judicial warr
ant for each individual suspect in order to be deployed.
permalink
[ ]manoninternets 8 points 7 hours ago*
The time required to get a warrant is usually far less than what they make it ou
t to be, although cost is as factor. Phone companies make tons of money off poli
ce records requests.
To play devil's advocate (and I do think the STINGRAY arrangement is devilish):
once you request records from the phone companies, there's no guarantee that won
't get leaked to the people being investigated. The cartels have people everywhe

re.
permalinkparent
[ ]kevincreeperpants 6 points 6 hours ago
What if they are the cartels!?...dun dun dun
permalinkparent
[ ]tughdffvdlfhegl 1 point 3 hours ago
I don't think anyone here has a problem with STINGRAY being used, given that the
y have a warrant for the person's data they're monitoring. So in your situation,
that's easy to do.
permalinkparent
[ ]manoninternets 2 points 3 hours ago
Yeah it's the same concept as going through my private letters, or close enough
to it anyhow. (Even though letters are physically sealed and radio waves permeat
e the air freely, my intention is for my text messages to be as private as posta
l mail.)
Even a child could rip open an envelope with ease. That doesn't mean police don'
t need a warrant to do so.
permalinkparent
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[ ]turnthatfrown 9 points 7 hours ago
I think the FBI is conveniently forgetting that they are intercepting a communic
ation that is normally secured via encryption and carried privately by your wire
less provider then switched privately all the way to the party on the other end
who has similar expectations of the connection.
I mean, come on, the Stingrays themselves are impersonating the carrier that you
have a contract with and using techniques to avoid the strong encryption. The p
rove by their own design and implementation that the FBI's argument is bullshit.
permalink
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]dontbullshityourself 27 points 11 hours ago
I'm so sick of the ways these callous assholes use to crush our freedom.
What is the point of massive expensive law enforcement agencies if the law can't
protect our rights and freedoms? Hasn't the cart been put before the horse here
?
permalink
[ ]donottakethisserious 13 points 6 hours ago
If you are told you are free enough times, you start to believe it. You start at
a young age with a pledge every day and then when you grow up you attend sporti
ng events and stand for the national anthem and tear up at how free you are. Tha
t way nobody will ever question whether or not this is actually a free country.
permalinkparent
[ ]dontbullshityourself 10 points 5 hours ago
When I was a kid I started to sit during the pledge. Honestly I think I just wan
ted to test and see how free I was. I knew that saying the pledge etc wasn't in
the school handbook. I knew there was no rule saying I had to say it or stand or
anything. The powers that be at my school just used the herd instinct to keep t
his shit going.
So I started sitting down. This resulted in a lot of attention from gangs of bul
lies. My home room teacher didn't like it either and lectured/bitched about it e
very day. But she stopped short of anything more than shaming me unlike the bull
ies.
Anyway I just decided to drop out. Fuck it. Humans don't like new things that co
nfuse them and challenge them to think. How interesting that was to be the last
thing I learned in school. I found another kind of freedom. The freedom to leave
the assholes mired in their stupidity and find my own path in life.
permalinkparent
[ ]joshyfitzo90 4 points 5 hours ago
I like your style.
permalinkparent

[ ]Jack41096 3 points 4 hours ago


I applaud you. I stood but that's all I did. it was in our rulebook to stand but
fuck them if they thought I was gonna do more than that. I started a wave of pe
ople standing and doing nothing.
eventually my first period class was reduced to two people and the teacher actua
lly doing anything. they bitches about it but we all had our own reasons.
permalinkparent
[ ]dontbullshityourself 2 points 3 hours ago
eventually my first period class was reduced to two people and the teacher actua
lly doing anything. they bitches about it but we all had our own reasons.
There are lots of reasons to resist and only one reason to obey. Fear.
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]CriticalThink 3 points 5 hours ago
Government hasn't been interested in protecting our rights and freedoms in a lon
g time.
permalinkparent
[ ]jkeyser14 5 points 7 hours ago
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety
, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. - Benjamin Franklin
permalinkparent
[ ]dontbullshityourself 5 points 6 hours ago
We didn't give it up. They are taking it.
permalinkparent
[ ]jkeyser14 10 points 6 hours ago
Only because we aren't rioting. The first group of rioters to tar and feather a
politician again will bring about change very quickly.
permalinkparent
[ ]dontbullshityourself 4 points 5 hours ago
People are gonna have to get a lot more desperate. I reckon we'll get our riot s
oon enough.
permalinkparent
[ ]Jack41096 1 point 4 hours ago
take the food. that's the surefire way to cause a riot.
people will be content as long as they're fed. you take that away and suddenly t
hey have nothing to lose. they have to survive. that is the most primal response
we have. to fight tooth and nail for food. to eat no matter the cost.
permalinkparent
[ ]RamsNation 1 point 4 hours ago
America has a very stable food supply so I doubt that will happen.
permalinkparent
[ ]dontbullshityourself 1 point 3 hours ago
I don't think we have to take the food. I think that people today are a lot more
self entitled and will jump into a fit without their iphones. They can't even i
magine a world without abundant food.
permalinkparent
[ ]grungebucket 1 point 4 hours ago
bring about change very quickly. street executions very quickly.
there. Corrected that for you. After all. You wouldn't want to be mistaken for a
terrorist endorsing a terrorist act now, would you?
permalinkparent
[ ]pion3435 2 points 3 hours ago
You never had it. You're just now finding out.
permalinkparent
[ ]hershmire 7 points 7 hours ago
Ok, I get the FBI's argument. Technically, we are all choosing to carry a digita
l device around with us that uniquely identifies us via radio frequency. It's tr
ue that we could very well decide not to partake in the use of cell phones if we
're so worried about being tracked. And thus because we decide to carry these pa

rtially secure devices around with us, they FBI has every right to hack them and
track us.
But this argument is bogus. The FBI can't read our mail or tap our phones becaus
e legislators and judges at one time recognized that technology becomes indispen
sable, and therefore should be protected under privacy laws. Just because I choo
se to carry a cell phone around with me doesn't give the FBI to track my whereab
outs, or worse. That'd be like saying it's my fault for having my mail read by t
he FBI because I chose to write letters, or I chose to have my phones monitored
and recorded by the FBI because I chose to use telephones.
The FBI is part of the executive branch. They (supposedly) operate within the sc
ope of the law. If there's no specific law preventing their actions, they'll go
ahead and do it. So write your representatives and get shit like this regulated.
And use letters because they're obligated to at least open the envelope.
permalink
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]drakecherry 5 points 8 hours ago
we might as well get rid of warrants all together. they are gonna search if they
want to, and nothing will happen if they are wrong.
permalink
[ ]MeganNancySmith 6 points 6 hours ago
The FBI doesn't have the legal authority to make that determination.
It would be like if I said that murder is legal every other Sunday. I can say it
all I like, but it doesn't make it true.
permalink
[ ]Todda468 6 points 6 hours ago
Anything a private citizen can't do should require reasonable suspicion or a war
rent.
permalink
[ ]Sonotmethen 6 points 9 hours ago
Then signal jammers aren't either.
permalink
[ ]MrJDouble 4 points 9 hours ago
FBI tends to say a lot of things, doesn't mean it isn't a pile of horseshit.
permalink
[ ]blueiron0 4 points 6 hours ago
(3) cases in which the technology is used in public places or other locations at
which the FBI deems there is no reasonable expectation of privacy.
Love how the FBI gets to decide when it's ok for them to assume you shouldnt hav
e any expectation on privacy. "we saw a poop porn video on pornhub. you shouldnt
expect privacy when pooping then."
permalink
[ ]ragn4rok234 4 points 6 hours ago
Whoo! Now I don't need a warrant or sufficient reason to wire tap anyone and eve
ryone. Stalkers of the world rejoice! It's like Oprah is handing out privacy bre
aches in here
permalink
[ ]fourslaps 4 points 4 hours ago
This isn't what Steve Irwin would have wanted
permalink
[ ]knowyourbrain 7 points 8 hours ago
How sad is it that we have an R Senator trying to rein in a D president's FBI?
If Snowden et al have not been able to show the American people what a farce our
government is then I don't know how it can be demonstrated.
permalink
[ ]makingupdumbnames 1 point 5 hours ago
that's Chelsea to you, mister!
permalinkparent
[ ]StellarUsername 4 points 9 hours ago
Can someone ELI5 why my cell carrier lets this happen? Seems like it would be ea
sy enough for them to put a stop to it if they wanted.

permalink
[ ]giantgnat 13 points 8 hours ago
Because if you don't play nice with them, they don't play nice with you like wha
t happened to the CEO of quest after he refused to cooperate.
permalinkparent
[ ]lll_1_lll 6 points 6 hours ago
CEO of quest
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/09/30/a-ceo-who-resistednsa-spying-is-out-of-prison-and-he-feels-vindicated-by-snowden-leaks/
permalinkparent
[ ]WatchoutItsAllan 1 point 4 hours ago
Looks like the only way to be out of the eyes of the NSA is to go back to using
these http://imgur.com/JEFUt4h
permalinkparent
[ ]jkeyser14 4 points 7 hours ago
The cell and internet companies get paid millions by the government for direct a
ccess to their lines. This was one of the things Snowden blew the whistle on.
permalinkparent
[ ]MadPooter 2 points 7 hours ago
I believe that the technology behind our current cell phone towers needs to allo
w for widespread access to said cell phone towers from a wide array of technolog
ical devices.
The Stingray makes the cell phone tower believe that it's a cell phone--I don't
know that it's as easy as you might think to re-design all cell phone models to
differentiate themselves from what Stingrays currently are.
TL;DR: This might be a better issue for cell phone designers to solve rather the
n cell phone carriers.
permalinkparent
[ ]egalroc 2 points 6 hours ago
Maybe design a Falcon drone that homes in and locks on fake Stingray towers. Wou
ldn't the FBI just shit to see a couple sparrows zooming down on them?
permalinkparent
[ ]A530[??] 1 point 6 hours ago
Cell carriers couldn't care less. They're also packaging backdoors in their base
band software to do all kinds of functional crap, like over the air updates and
remote access.
permalinkparent
[ ]here4DaBacon 3 points 7 hours ago
So it's a honey pot for cell phones. This same method is used to intercept WiFi
internet traffic. The world is becoming a hackers paradise.
permalink
[ ]CapAnson 4 points 6 hours ago
I don't even think of the FBI's exceptions two and three are valid. And as for i
mminent danger to public safety I can't imagine when that safety hinges on inter
cepting a cell call right now this very second without a warrant
permalink
[ ]SquidwardSnowden1 3 points 6 hours ago
Let it be noted, I love big brother.
permalink
[ ]ryanknapper 3 points 6 hours ago
There was a comment asking what prevents private citizens from doing this. My re
ply was: Absolutely nothing. In fact, there are legal ways of doing exactly this
.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xKihq1fClQg
permalink
[ ]lll_1_lll 2 points 6 hours ago
inb4 this thread gets removed by the mods and/or shadowbanned
permalink
[ ]doctorshady[S] 3 points 6 hours ago
I was almost sure it was going to be removed when I submitted it.

permalinkparent
[ ]grtwatkins 1 point 3 hours ago
Wait, so mods = FBI?
permalinkparent
[ ]doctorshady[S] 2 points 2 hours ago
The mods here are quite restrictive about what is allowed to be submitted. Wheth
er or not they're under someone's influence is a question I can't answer (though
I'd honestly like to know), but you'll occasionally see high profile topics rem
oved, like the Snowden leaks back when PRISM was first pointed out.
permalinkparent
[ ]tomcat23 3 points 6 hours ago
If I had a hundred dollars for every time the FBI said it could do something une
thical or unconstitutional I'd be shooting rockets into space like Elon Musk rig
ht now.
permalink
[ ]leafygreenstuff 3 points 6 hours ago
Oh, well if they said....
permalink
[ ]wlxr 3 points 5 hours ago
Is this implying that they are going to repeatedly kill Steve Irwin?
permalink
[ ]Bulldog65 3 points 2 hours ago
Can I Use my Stingray in public places to intercept communications ?
If the answer is no, then the FBI needs a warrant.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effec
ts, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Wa
rrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, a
nd particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things t
o be seized.
This can only be changed by super majority votes in Congress and the States, not
treasonous opinions of mouthpiece lawyers in Department of Justice. This is why
prosecutions of torture memo writers is important. If they want to try and make
up laws they need to be held accountable under the law.
permalink
[ ]Do_Em_Till_They_Derp 13 points 12 hours ago
I don't think that is a good idea considering what happened to Steve Irwin.
permalink
[ ]Smgth 1 point 4 hours ago
I can't believe how far down I had to scroll to find this joke. I was worried I'
d have to make it myself. This thread is WAY too serious for my taste...
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]go1dfish 10 points 10 hours ago
This is what happens when you give a group of people authority over all else.
They use that authority to extort funds from you to pay for your own oppression.
But reddit still cheers it on. It seems to some; the concepts of roads or compas
sion cannot exist without specially anointed jack boot thugs.
permalink
[ ]Arael15th 3 points 6 hours ago
Do you see anyone in this post cheering this on? Moreover is this your first tim
e here?
permalinkparent
[ ]Flight_MH370 2 points 9 hours ago
Can the cell providers see every time this happens? If so, they could alert peop
le of fake towers or something. Alas, I'm pretty sure all the cell providers are
in bed with the feds already anyway.
permalink
[ ]leftnotracks 1 point 8 hours ago
This is why it s a good thing the FBI are not the people in charge of what is lega
l.

permalink
[ ]iluvmilfs420 3 points 7 hours ago
Ohh cool more of my taxes wasted on stupid shit...
permalink
[ ]fuzzycuffs 3 points 7 hours ago
Then I can do the same thing with wifi and not be charged with hacking, right?
permalink
[ ]endprism 2 points 7 hours ago
Use of Stringray in America: https://www.aclu.org/maps/stingray-tracking-devices
-whos-got-them
http://rt.com/usa/215735-sandiego-police-phone-tracking/
http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/First-Amendment-Coalition-Files-Lawsuit-Ab
out-Stingray-Surveillance--286092741.html
http://www.miaminewtimes.com/2012-02-16/news/cell-phone-tracking-miami-cops-know
-where-you-are/
http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/Fort-Worth-Cellphone-Tracking-Rings-Controversy
-140796693.html
http://www.wgrz.com/story/news/investigations/2014/02/13/are-local-police-spying
-on-your-cell-phone/5462273/
Tick tock...
permalink
[ ]johnnybiggs15 2 points 7 hours ago
didnt know they had that type of power
permalink
[ ]jwyche008 2 points 6 hours ago
They would fucking say that wouldn't they? The thing is it isn't supposed to be
their damn decision to make!
permalink
[ ]ICEClownfishWok 1 point 6 hours ago
Did the US government learn nothing from Nazi Germany? I honestly won't be surpr
ised if WWIII occurs when the rest of the world gets tired of our governments bu
llshit
permalink
[ ]frankenstilskin 3 points 6 hours ago
America, for the corporations by the corporations
permalink
[ ]Elephant_rhino_tiger 3 points 5 hours ago
It sounds like a 6 year old coming up with a superhero. "This is FBI man, and he
can fly and like punch through the earth, and he can y'know like intercept cell
traffic if he thinks it's important. But he is weak against himself though, so
like if he punched himself he would die."
permalink
[ ]Banana_blanket 2 points 4 hours ago
Hey who wants to just sit around and let it happen? Oh, everyone? Perfect. Ready
? Go.
permalink
[ ]poopinbutt2014 3 points 4 hours ago
Ah yes, the cops deciding what laws they are and aren't subject to.
permalink
[ ]burnerthrown 2 points 2 hours ago
Has anyone else notied a pattern of more and more laws that protect enforcement
operations from civilians, and fewer nd fewer laws protecting civilians from enf
orcement?
permalink
[ ]siquisiudices 2 points 2 hours ago
Increasingly I am astonished by the state of democracy in the developed western
countries. What has happened and how? I realise that there have always been infr
ingements of liberties by the state - always. But it seems to me that what has c
hanged is the blatent nature of the compromise of democratic norms. I'm not a hi
storian but my impression is that the origins of our current situation lie in tw

o iconic regimes in the UK and US - Reagan and Thatcher (and those that followed
) - and in the fall of the soviet regimes.
The economic philosophy that Reagan and Thatcher promoted reduced liberty to pro
perty rights while at the same time it condemned (rightly) the soviet regimes fo
r their lack of respect for democratic norms. The appeal of this economic ideolo
gy to capital, to the corporations, was obvious especially as during the 1970s t
here had been intermittent but recurring periods when profitability had fallen.
In the context of declining profitability, a roll back of the state and public e
xpenditure was a quick win.
For the rest of society, the implication that growth in personal, individual wea
lth was being held back by public spending and that the welfare state eroded ind
ividual responsibility also won the day. A key element in this process was the d
efeat and denigration of trade unionism: Thatcher going so far as to suggest tha
t trade unions (in the person of the National Union of Miners) were dangerous tr
aitors. People bought into the arguments for radical individualism ("there is no
such thing as society") because, in part, the concrete experience of collectivi
sm in trade unions declined in the face a massive anti-trade union assault.
The fall of the corrupt and totalitarian soviet regimes underpinned this all by
giving concrete expression to the notion that there is no alternative.
Economically the result has been massive widening of the discrepancy in wealth i
n many western countries and increased immiseration of labour across the world a
nd no force to counterbalance the power of the corporations and the state that t
hey (quite naturally) control. The state is the central committee of capital.
In all of this, the oft misnamed "libertarian" tendencies were accompanied by an
increasingly authoritarian and intrusive state apparatus which was promoted and
defended around quite classical nationalist ideas but recast often as the defen
se of western democracy against various external enemies.
And so, little by little, we have allowed our civil liberties to be chipped away
. Even the radical libertarians have been sidelined and fooled into irrelevant s
truggles around gun control in the US. Really, if an armed citizenry were the gu
arantee of liberty then one wold have hoped it would have done a better job. But
overall anti-welfare, anti-European and anti-immigrant rhetoric in the UK and,
for example, religious manipulation of public discourse in the US have allowed t
he authoritarian, pro-corporate state to gradually encroach on political and per
sonal freedoms. And here we are.
We can't say we didn't know - we were warned but the ruling class managed to def
ame the messengers and in other ways render us impotent.
One can only hope that we wake up in time and that our new disdain for collectiv
ism is overcome by the necessity of taking collective action.
permalink
[ ]DinglebellRock [score hidden] 49 minutes ago
You have a right to privacy according to the Constitution. Except for maybe your
cell phone calls. Or email. Or handwritten or typed letters. Or what you read f
rom the library and Amazon. Or maybe your colon and lower intestine if you are i
n New Mexico. What a fucked up nation this has become...
permalink
[ ]nstalker91 [score hidden] 38 minutes ago
Oh sure, when they do it, it's "protecting" and "morally right", but when I do i
t, it's a "federal crime" and "the FCC watches me"
permalink
[ ]The_Media_Collector 3 points 9 hours ago
This is why my phone has an app to continually report IMSI changes to me. I swit
ch one tower to another, I get a warning.
permalink
[ ]Redd575 1 point 7 hours ago
How is that helpful? Not being an ass, just curious. Seems if a Stingray can spo
of a tower then the app does little unless you are standing absolutely still.
permalinkparent
[ ]The_Media_Collector 3 points 7 hours ago
it's my understanding that Stingray "towers" do not encrypt traffic. anytime I a

m connected to an unencrypted "tower" the IMSI detector goes red and lets me kno
w.
permalinkparent
[ ]Redd575 1 point 6 hours ago
Wow. Whomever figured that out was clever.
permalinkparent
[ ]ExReverie93 1 point 7 hours ago
Which app? And would a normal person (not meaning you're not normal. You know wh
at I mean.) be able to use it?
permalinkparent
[ ]The_Media_Collector 1 point 7 hours ago
Requires Root. It's just caeld "Adnroid IMSI-Catchter"
permalinkparent
[ ]egalroc 1 point 6 hours ago
Makes a person want to be a criminal or spy just for the fun of it.
permalinkparent
[ ]Effo 3 points 7 hours ago
Goodbye America the Great, hello police state. :-[
permalink
[ ]Casemods 2 points 7 hours ago
Another reason why I don't have a cell phone.
permalink
[ ]GiveMe_TreeFiddy 3 points 7 hours ago
Things libertarians have been screaming about and offering solutions to for 500$
, Alex...
permalink
[ ]ilovesellinblow 1 point 9 hours ago
police and marshals have been running these for years.
permalink
[ ]bbelt16ag 1 point 8 hours ago
so FBI lets see what the Supreme court has to say to that. I am sure once they r
ule on this you will be going home with your tails between your legs.
permalink
[ ]Banana_blanket 1 point 4 hours ago
Do you people really have that much faith in our Supreme Court? Really?
permalinkparent
[ ]bbelt16ag 1 point 3 hours ago
gotta have some faith, other wise its just anarchy, or revolution. I am not read
y to give up quite yet.
permalinkparent
[ ]bonyponyride 1 point 8 hours ago
If digital communication in a public (and private) space is fair game, there's n
othing to stop an FBI tech specialist from stealing things like knowledge that w
ould be considered insider trading. There's an extreme potential for abuse.
permalink
[ ]jkeyser14 2 points 7 hours ago
If was fair game then hacking into wireless signals by private citizens wouldn't
be illegal.
permalinkparent
[ ]egalroc 1 point 6 hours ago
Just waiting for Anonymous to set up shop in a public park and hack into police
communications then dispatch them to bogus locations throughout the city. If any
thing goes wrong, they could always blame North Korea.
permalinkparent
[ ]coalbeeashi 1 point 3 hours ago
Aren't government agencies encrypting their digital communication - thus exhibit
ing an expectation of privacy?
I'm not sure what steps the "reasonable person" is taking to exhibit an expectat
ion of privacy over their data, tbh.
permalinkparent

[ ]hmmwhatsthisdo 1 point 8 hours ago


If you used RedPhone, Whisperpush/TextSecure, and a VPN, this wouldn't be of con
cern to you, right?
permalink
[ ]LucifersCounselNZ 1 point 7 hours ago
Wrong.
In other cases, the IMSI or equivalent identifier of a target is not known to th
e StingRay operator and the goal of the surveillance operation is to identify on
e or more cellular devices being used in a known area.[16] For example, if visua
l surveillance is being conducted on a group of protestors,[17] a StingRay can b
e used to download the IMSI or equivalent identifier from each phone within the
protest area. After identifying the phones, locating and tracking operations can
be conducted, and service providers can be forced to turn over account informat
ion identifying the phone users.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stingray_phone_tracker#Extracting_Data_From_Interna
l_Storage
Before any of that shit you're talking about comes into play, the IMSI number is
used when establishing the connection. It is uniquely identifying. With your IM
SI number and a court order (or cooperative telco) they will know who you are an
d who you were communicating with.
Then they can use that information to punish you for participating in legal prot
ests, associating with the wrong people, or simply because some Fed didn't like
the look of you.
permalinkparent
[ ]hmmwhatsthisdo 1 point 6 hours ago
So, the only way is to modify your IMEI (which is questionably legal) and use a
prepaid SIM?
permalinkparent
[ ]facepalmdude 1 point 5 hours ago
The IMSI part makes sense, but by using the mentioned tools authorities are very
unlikely to find out who you communicated with, or what the content was. All th
ey know is that you're the end point of an encrypted data connection.
permalinkparent
[ ]coalbeeashi 1 point 3 hours ago
I would assume that a court would view this as an individual exhibiting an expec
tation of privacy over their data.
permalinkparent
[ ]mambotangohandala 1 point 7 hours ago
Law?
We don't need no stinkin' law...
permalink
[ ]smilesbot 1 point 7 hours ago
You've just used a double negative! :P
permalinkparent
[ ]mambotangohandala 1 point 7 hours ago
no i did not, never would i do such a thing, nope, i don't think i ever did...
Ever see the movie 'blazing saddles'? Context kid, context
permalinkparent
[ ]smilesbot 1 point 7 hours ago
yup yup yup!
permalinkparent
[ ]mambotangohandala 1 point 7 hours ago
oh no a triple positive,what a stupendous faux pas!
permalinkparent
[ ]smilesbot 1 point 7 hours ago
yup yup yup!
permalinkparent
[ ]mambotangohandala 1 point 7 hours ago
Did mom give you too many sodas tonight?
permalinkparent

[ ]mambotangohandala 1 point 7 hours ago


Now where are those kiddy downers?
permalinkparent
[ ]mambotangohandala 1 point 7 hours ago
Remember tomorrow is a school day
permalinkparent
[ ]BigTex8900 1 point 7 hours ago
The Federal Bureau of Investigation is taking the position that court warrants a
re not required when deploying cell-site simulators in public places.
Wait so can I take the position that it's not actually illegal to suck dick for
money in public places?
permalink
[ ]AssOrca 1 point 6 hours ago
Well thank god there not doing it in my home!
permalinkparent
[ ]Drunken_Economist 1 point 7 hours ago
The FCC says they are needed, FWIW
permalink
[ ]FadingEchoes11 0 points 6 hours ago
100% true, power to the people
You should learn about and try to understand firearms more, they are just tools
after all.
permalink
[ ]winstrol 1 point 6 hours ago
Can i use a stingray? Al stick to my snoopsnitch.
permalink
[ ]fatscat84 2 points 6 hours ago
Big fucking surprise, 4th amendment=toilet paper anymore. The rights of the citi
zens arent even considered anymore since we dont have lobbyists. Maybe ill start
a kickstarter campaign to make a lobbyist group to give americans a voice in d.
c.
permalink
[ ]urbn 2 points 6 hours ago
The Obama Administration has repeatedly maintained that the public has no privac
y in public places.
And yet the excuse always used when someone records a police officer breaking th
e law and is arrested, detained and has his property stolen is that it violates
their privacy.
permalink
[ ]Vigilias 1 point 6 hours ago
If it's stealing signals being send from private residences it sure should fucki
ng be wtf.
permalink
[ ]2013palmtreepam 1 point 6 hours ago
Because stingrays automatically stop working at private property lines? Don't re
call the part of the 4th Amendment that exempts the requirement for probable cau
se and a search warrant when one happens to be in a public place.
permalink
[ ]makingupdumbnames 2 points 6 hours ago
I don't think it would be too hard to develop a stingray jammer, something that
just floods their equipment with a bunch of useless/fake cell phone numbers...I'
m in favor of a more strategic response to these types of infringements of our r
ights. We actually have a right and responsibility to fight tyranny...
permalink
[ ]ghotiaroma 1 point 3 hours ago
It's possible, but you wouldn't know where and when to use it. And it would be d
etectable you are using a jammer and anyone using one would find themselves fill
ed with SWAT bullets in no time.
permalinkparent
[ ]ononewheel 1 point 2 hours ago

Cant you rent bot net time and do this?


permalinkparent
[ ]psilontech 1 point 5 hours ago
I think that's for the courts to decide, FBI.
permalink
[ ]coalbeeashi 1 point 4 hours ago
...the only way the courts could decide is if it were practiced and a lawsuit wa
s brought against those practices.
Of course the FBI is going to finagle ways to flirt with obscure, outdated laws
for the purpose of investigating, thus practice it. Of course some group or orga
nization is going to take issue with it, thus taking it to court.
permalinkparent
[ ]cynoclast 2 points 5 hours ago
And the 4th Amendment says the FBI is wrong. And to the idea that subsequent law
s or that prededence says otherwise, I say that lawyers who make those interpret
ations were paid to do so by people with a vested interest in saying otherwise.
The constitution and amendments were intended to be read and interpreted by ever
yone, not just lawyers and judges so it matters not at all what lawyers and judg
es say.
permalink
[ ]coalbeeashi 1 point 5 hours ago
The constitution and amendments were intended to be read and interpreted by ever
yone
Uhh...interpreted by everyone? Do you know how fucked up that would be? There's
a reason for the judicial branch.
permalinkparent
[ ]cynoclast 2 points 4 hours ago
More fucked up than corporations as people? The 4th Amendment being ignored by t
he DHS, Homeland Security, and the NSA? More fucked up than than all the ridicul
ous, unconstitutional restrictions on cosmetic features of firearms that all vio
late the 2nd amendment? More fucked up than justices appointed by war criminals
refusing to recuse themselves where they have a clear conflict of interest?
The judicial branch is staffed by people, just as fallible as the rest of us. Th
e judicial branch was nly ever an attempt to reign in the other two. It was alwa
ys intended that it was the right of the people to alter or abolish the governme
nt if it gets out of hand and it has.
permalinkparent
[ ]coalbeeashi 1 point 4 hours ago
I would still rather have the fate of laws be in the hands of individuals who sp
ecifically studied the very nature of their professional practice than leave it
up to a mass of people with little-to-no understanding of the law, outside of wh
at is force-fed to them by media (comparable to your assertion of less-than-idea
l practices by lawyer/judges)
I fully agree that laws should be written in ways that the public can understand
and interpret (however, you're never going to reach a consensus on laws written
200+ years ago). And I believe that, reading most supreme court decisions, the
justices advocate for specifics in laws and understand that outdated or vague la
ws is a main reason cases are brought before them. Laws aren't concrete or stati
c. It's a court of public opinion.
permalinkparent
[ ]cynoclast 1 point 4 hours ago
I would still rather have the fate of laws be in the hands of individuals who sp
ecifically studied the very nature of their professional practice than leave it
up to a mass of people with little-to-no understanding of the law, outside of wh
at is force-fed to them by media (comparable to your assertion of less-than-idea
l practices by lawyer/judges)
I think there's balance between the two. It's similar to the balance between IT
and the user. While the IT guy is more knowledgeable about the field than most o
f the users he's supposed to facilitate, he often forgets that his purpose is to
facilitate, not to rule, and what the users are doing is what keeps the lights

on. People in congress and the senate are mislabelled when called 'lawmakers' th
eir job is representative of their constituency. And lawyers face a conflict of
interest between simplifying the law and representing people fairly and seeing a
fter their own welfare and ensuring their own job security. Simple, clear, and u
nambiguous laws have little value to the professional attorney at law. But the p
eople at large have no interest, and in fact a reason to despise laws they don't
understand, especially ones decided by decades old case law they know nothing a
bout. But for too long the balance has been swinging in favor of the lawyer seek
ing payment for services from the rich instead of the poor seeking freedom from
those with the resources to hire teams of lawyers for years to drain them of res
ources. The day a rich man could sue an innocent poor man under false pretenses
and crush him is the day the justice department ceased to function as intended.
I fully agree that laws should be written in ways that the public can understand
and interpret (however, you're never going to reach a consensus on laws written
200+ years ago). And I believe that, reading most supreme court decisions, the
justices advocate for specifics in laws and understand that outdated or vague la
ws is a main reason cases are brought before them. Laws aren't concrete or stati
c. It's a court of public opinion.
Lawyers like to pretend that they are concrete or static. Just imagine the phras
e "settled case law" coming out of their mouths and you need go no further. It's
like they forget that eventually given the dynamic equilibrium of the poor vs.
the rich that sometimes words written on paper in a dusty library somewhere mean
absolutely nothing when the pitchforks and guillotines come out, the old laws t
hrown out, and new ones written even more strongly against tyrants. You're right
, sometimes, it's a court of public opinion. But sometimes the court is brutal,
but not unjustly so:
There were two Reigns of Terror, if we would but remember it and consider it; the
one wrought murder in hot passion, the other in heartless cold blood; the one la
sted mere months, the other had lasted a thousand years; the one inflicted death
upon ten thousand persons, the other upon a hundred millions; but our shudders
are all for the horrors of the minor Terror, the momentary Terror, so to speak; wh
ereas, what is the horror of swift death by the axe, compared with lifelong deat
h from hunger, cold, insult, cruelty, and heart-break? What is swift death by li
ghtning compared with death by slow fire at the stake? A city cemetery could con
tain the coffins filled by that brief Terror which we have all been so diligentl
y taught to shiver at and mourn over; but all France could hardly contain the co
ffins filled by that older and real Terror that unspeakably bitter and awful Terro
r which none of us has been taught to see in its vastness or pity as it deserves
.
permalinkparent
[ ]DongleNocker 2 points 5 hours ago
Don't you wish government organizations would get permission from congress prior
to assuming they have the authority?
permalink
[ ]Euracil 1 point 5 hours ago
Whoops! Someone just happened to spill wine all over the Bill of Rights! Well, a
t least the Second Amendment survived!
permalink
[ ]ripvannwinkler 1 point 5 hours ago
What is the practical operational radius of one of these things?
If my place of business or residence falls in this radius of an operating device
, is my phone subject to interception by the device?
If so, you require a warrant. Period. No equivocation.
permalink
[ ]bittopia 1 point 5 hours ago
What is going to be interesting is when systems and encryptions becomes so resil
ient and powerful that nothing can be spied on AT ALL. What will they do then?
permalink
[ ]johnnybullet 1 point 5 hours ago
I thought only God was listening to me... This changes everything!

permalink
[ ]TronicTonic 2 points 5 hours ago
Thank god the FBI is in charge of the judicial branch and gets to decide what is
right vs wrong.
permalink
[ ]Vinven 1 point 5 hours ago
They can say whatever they want, it doesn't make it legal.
permalink
[ ]coffeethulhu 2 points 5 hours ago
Under this theory anybody could buy one of these devices and use it in "public s
paces" without fear of falling foul of the law....Who wants to start a kickstart
er campaign to buy one?
permalink
[ ]redditezmode 1 point 5 hours ago
Based on what, exactly? Why would they think search warrants aren't necessary?
permalink
[ ]Fucksfuturefatchicks 1 point 4 hours ago
If it stops me from downloading porn, it's a dead giveaway. If it doesn't, thank
s for the government funded and sanctioned porn.
permalink
[ ]egalroc 1 point 4 hours ago
I wonder if the FBI can upload unsanctioned porn to your computer using a stingr
ay? Interesting thought isn't it?
permalinkparent
[ ]winsomecowboy 1 point 4 hours ago
So my clandestine FBI staff list shouldn't be an issue.
permalink
[ ]Heisenpurrrrg 1 point 4 hours ago
Those guys can fuck right off, eh?
permalink
[ ]cerealcable 1 point 4 hours ago
Every time an invasion of our rights & privacy especially related to our establi
shed forms of communications happens it just terrifies me. Not because our gover
nment is throwing wind to established laws but because of what the future could
bring.
The reason why most of us are upset today over this is because we have an expect
ation of privacy when we pick up our cell phones. We expect our text messages, p
hone calls and data to be private thus protected by law requiring a warrant to "
tap" it only for Law Enforcement. Telecoms (wired, wireless, voip) will only com
ply to requests when required by law, but when it comes to the public air waves
using technology to just listen in we're starting a terrible precedent.
Essentially what I'm concerned about is that eventually it'll be so commonly acc
epted that these communications are not private (after all the government can sn
oop in on those conversations, and everyone already expects it) and thus we no l
onger have the expectation of privacy and thus no warrant is actually acquired.
The terrifying process is how it all started, with the government over stepping
their legal abilities with little to no repercussions.
Now that I'm reading that paragraph again, I honestly wouldn't be surprised if t
hat exact argument is/was/will be used in a secret court of which none of us wil
l be able to hold accountable.
It's scary to see what the future will hold for privacy related to technology. O
ur government is doing anything and everything they want and if people aren't sc
ared they need to get some tinfoil and make some hats because they're going to n
eed them.
Obligatory point: As the government snoops more and more, technology will just e
ncrypt more and more making it nearly pointless for the snooping, but it won't c
hange the expectation of privacy after say a decade of common knowledge that the
se communications are not private. Then Law Enforcement Agencies will just subpo
ena records instead of following due process of getting a warrant.
tl;dr It's a very slippery slope and I'm just watching us slowly sliding further

and further into the trap. :-(


permalink
[ ]coalbeeashi 1 point 4 hours ago
Honest question - in the eyes of laws, is our view on "expectation of privacy" i
gnorant or misguided? When I send a text - even though I don't think about it I gave permission to Apple, AT&T, my friend, their carrier, their phone, and pro
bably countless others that I don't even realize. When I download an app I give
them all sorts of permissions to access my information.
Also, what's stopping the government from creating an app, let's say some crazed
game like Trivia Crack, hide a bunch of permissions that no one looks at and do
it that way. They could have access to my photos, access to my microphone, acce
ss to my location, etc. (obviously I understand that you can retract most of tho
se permissions, but I doubt many people do)
So, I guess my question is, using multiple third parties, do I really have the r
ight to expect complete privacy?
permalinkparent
[ ]Rockerofboats 2 points 4 hours ago
I do what I wants to.
permalink
[ ]Gymshortsboner55 2 points 4 hours ago
I'm not trying to sound like the uncle that's always bitchin' at family reunions
but man is this country going down the shitter. I'm almost ashamed to live here
anymore.
permalink
[ ]kazuri85 2 points 4 hours ago
The government has no right to make your property do something you do not want i
t to do.
permalink
[ ]SpacemanLurker 2 points 3 hours ago
Crikey! Australian accent
Too soon?
permalink
[ ]Undisclosed-dopeness 1 point 3 hours ago
Really wish this was about actual stingrays
permalink
[ ]k-h 1 point 3 hours ago
Is that the "stingrays" that don't exist?
Of course they don't need a warrant on equipment that doesn't exist.
permalink
[ ]PhorTwenny 2 points 3 hours ago
if it picks up all cells text/call/info how do they know your not inside a house
or anyother private area? Either way this is disgusting!
permalink
[ ]MarxIzalias 2 points 3 hours ago
The more of these that get posted, the harder I laugh at America's freedoms.
You pretty much have the same as everybody else.
It seems as though the constitution is like bog roll to your law enforcement. Co
vered in meaningless shit that doesn't even stick to them.
What a joke.
The FBI stating that 'stingrays' don't apply to privacy laws because you're in a
public place makes no sense, otherwise you could walk around butt naked and arg
ue that "According to the FBI, personal privacy is not required in public".
Of course, they could say, what any deceitful peice of trash could say. "If you
weren't doing anything illegal then you have nothing to worry about."
Unless you were talking to you solicitor about a patent. In which case it would
be worthless the moment a third party heard about the invention.
Talking to your doctor about a condition that could prejudice a group against yo
u.
Talking to a solicitor about the details of a case.
Talking to fellow jurors over the phone about a details of a case, that's always

good to be spied on.


Talk about family history and possible ties you might have to foreign nations, w
hich could put you on a watch list.
Give personal details to bankers about foreign business accounts which have diff
erent protection laws.
Discuss plans you may have that they could interfere with.
Or just miscellaneous emails to and from your employer that could be damaging to
the companies reputation if published and could be used against them as leverag
e with a false flag operation LOOKING AT YOU SONY!
This isn't even a comprehensive list of things that you could do, but hey, it's
America, the land where freedom is a lie and the constitution is apparently wort
h less and less with each new government. XFD
permalink
[ ]NightOfTheLivingHam 1 point 3 hours ago
while we're declaring bullshit, I declare I'm owed a million dollars.
permalink
[ ]ZedOud 1 point 3 hours ago
Most warrant-less law enforcement surveillance techniques are legal because they
can be performed by members of the public, in public. (ex. tailing)
So can we also legally operate a stingray?
Yes we can!
permalink
[ ]Wulfgar_RIP 1 point 3 hours ago
FBI protecting freedoms and constitution from terrorists
permalink
[ ]CantHugEveryCat 2 points 3 hours ago
I'm surprised the FBI still feel they have to justify their actions.
permalink
[ ]bazingabrain 0 points 3 hours ago
Here I am thinking the FBI is going to be throwing real stingrays around without
a search warrant. Can't have that
permalink
[ ]tobsn 1 point 3 hours ago
and whoever said that should be immediately terminated.
permalink
[ ]joshladd 1 point 3 hours ago
Didn't the supreme court just say that searching cell phones requires a warrant?
Is this different than searching cell phones? I might be uninformed but it seem
s like a blatant disregard for court rulings.
permalink
[ ]birdington1 1 point 3 hours ago
Can anybody explain what a 'stingray' is?
permalink
[ ]one_love_silvia 1 point 2 hours ago
the article explains it in literally the first paragraph.
permalinkparent
[ ]IllegalOperator 0 points 2 hours ago
Yeah right, dropping the case rather than reveal their methods says otherwise. I
f there weren't doing anything wrong they would have nothing to hide.
permalink
[ ]HauntedBeepers 1 point 2 hours ago
FBI says FBI can do what it wants
permalink
[ ]Fig1024 1 point 2 hours ago
does that mean I, as private citizen, can also use them? After all, there are no
laws against it
permalink
[ ]Monkeibusiness 1 point 2 hours ago
"FBI - out if control since 2001" -Simpsons
permalink

[ ]skztr 1 point 2 hours ago


good test for whether or not you need a warrant:
If any random person off the street did it, would that be legal? If not, you nee
d a fucking warrant.
permalink
[ ]Rusky82 1 point 2 hours ago
Land of the free eh......
permalink
[ ]WECGEWHYAAIORTNU 1 point 2 hours ago
So in some states its "wiretapping" to record with a microphone a conversation b
etween two people happening at a table, but pretending to be a cell tower is a-o
k?
permalink
[ ]Amanoo 1 point 2 hours ago
"concerned about whether the FBI and other law enforcement agencies have adequat
ely considered the privacy interests" of Americans
Privacy interests of Americans? Is that supposed to still be a thing? I thought
that privacy interests were considered something for terrorists in the US, by no
w.
permalink
[ ]raviddadford 1 point 2 hours ago
Stingray got Steve Irwin
permalink
[ ]Homarus_Americanus 1 point 2 hours ago
It's all good 'cause I can by me all guns I want.
permalink
[ ]anshu1234 0 points 2 hours ago
This is non-news if you are not a drug-peddler. Next please.
permalink
[ ]bubbafat1155 1 point 2 hours ago
It's over. "They" have won. The only hope now is for individuals, society is los
t. Get off the grid, or join the sheep. http://imgur.com/W7CdURh
permalink
[ ]Targun 1 point 2 hours ago
And how are they going to filter out cellphones of all the people who live next
to public places where stingray is located?
permalink
[ ]riderer 1 point 2 hours ago
So can i do the same in public place? just stingray everyone?
permalink
[ ]Neker 1 point 1 hour ago
There are blueprints and tutorials out there that put "stingrays" within reach o
f an hobbyist. Law-breaking hobbyist, that is, but still : mobile phones essenti
aly broadcast your conversations.
permalink
[ ]mindwandering 1 point 1 hour ago
The flying DRT box.
permalink
[ ]SilenceGivesConsent [score hidden] 48 minutes ago
In other words, FBI says it does not need search warrants to warrant a search.
permalink
[ ]Formally_Nightman [score hidden] 46 minutes ago
FBI: "Senator we have been monitoring your calls and your exact geographical loc
ation for years ... You shouldn't find that unconstitutional or the public and y
our wife will learn how unconstitutional you've been"
permalink
[ ]ActuallyNotSparticus [score hidden] 40 minutes ago
Fuck this shit. Stingrays killed the crocodile hunter. Are we ready for the gove
rnment to use these stingrays?
permalink

[ ]Rayhueston [score hidden] 38 minutes ago


The article says the Obama administration consistently maintains that people hav
e no privacy in public. Is that true or is that hyperbole?
If I'm walking down the street, do I have the right to keep the contents of my w
allet private? My blood type? My thoughts?
If I have no privacy with regard to these and many other sensitive things, who d
oes have the right to them?
permalink
[ ]swollennode [score hidden] 37 minutes ago
People don't have privacy in public places..hmmm, I think that people are entitl
ed to privacy if something private belongs to them. Sure, people's faces aren't
private when they're in public places. But people's phone calls and texts should
be.
permalink
[ ]pomod [score hidden] 18 minutes ago
Well if the FBI says they are not needed...
Seriously, this should be a court decision not a cop one. Cops, even a fancy cop
s like the FBI, should not make the laws just enforce them.
permalink
[ ]CJ59 [score hidden] 18 minutes ago
In other news, the FBI says, "You know what, screw it. There are no more laws. W
e'll do whatever the hell we want. Not like you're going to do anything about it
."
permalink
[ ]gkiltz [score hidden] 15 minutes ago
Just because the FBI says it, that does not mean it's true!
I don't envy the poor schmuck who has to stan in front of the Supreme Court and
argue that!!
permalink
load more comments (48 replies)
about
blog
about
team
source code
advertise
jobs
help
wiki
FAQ
reddiquette
rules
contact us
tools
mobile
firefox extension
chrome extension
buttons
widget
<3
reddit gold
store
redditgifts
reddit AMA app
reddit.tv
radio reddit
Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy
. 2015 reddit inc. All rights reserved.
REDDIT and the ALIEN Logo are registered trademarks of reddit inc.

p jump to content
MY SUBREDDITS
FRONT-ALL-RANDOM | PHOTOSHOPBATTLES-HISTORY-GIFS-FOOD-PHILOSOPHY-TELEVISION-WORL
DNEWS-SHOWERTHOUGHTS-LIFEPROTIPS-ART-SPACE-NOTTHEONION-DOCUMENTARIES-NOSLEEP-GAM
ING-GADGETS-EARTHPORN-ASKREDDIT-FUNNY-MOVIES-DIY-FUTUROLOGY-FITNESS-BOOKS-LISTEN
TOTHIS-INTERNETISBEAUTIFUL-MUSIC-EXPLAINLIKEIMFIVE-UPLIFTINGNEWS-SPORTS-PICS-TOD
AYILEARNED-PERSONALFINANCE-DATAISBEAUTIFUL-IAMA-OLDSCHOOLCOOL-EUROPE-CREEPY-TWOX
CHROMOSOMES-AWW-NEWS-WRITINGPROMPTS-GETMOTIVATED-VIDEOS-TIFU-ASKSCIENCE-JOKES-MI
LDLYINTERESTING-SCIENCE
MORE
news newscommentsrelatedother discussions (15)
want to join? sign in or create an account in seconds|English
this post was submitted on 05 Jan 2015
3,152 points (95% upvoted)
shortlink:
remember mereset passwordlogin
news
unsubscribe4,562,294 readers
2,631 users here now
/r/inthenews
/r/worldnews
new submissions
new comments
Post analysis/opinion articles to /r/inthenews
Want to talk?
Chat with us on IRC
Follow @rslashnews on Twitter
See a post that violates the rules below? Had your post stuck in the spam filter
? Have a question about policy? Just want to give feedback? Send the mod team a
message.
Please post news items only, with the exception of meta posts about /r/news itse
lf. Self-posts aggregating news data and "independent reporting" each count as n
ews, but are not an excuse to editorialize.
Your post will likely be removed if it:
is not news (or a meta post).
is an opinion/analysis or advocacy piece.
primarily concerns politics.
has a title not taken from the article.
has a pay wall or steals content.
covers an already-submitted story.
violates reddit's site-wide rules, especially regarding personal info.
Your comment will likely be removed if it:
is racist, sexist, vitriolic, or overly crude.
is unnecessarily rude or provocative.
is a cheap and distracting joke or meme.
is responding to spam.
violates reddit's site-wide rules.
Extreme or repeat offenders will be banned.
Expanded Rules
If your post doesn't fit, consider finding an appropriate news article on that s
tory to submit instead, or submitting yours to lower moderation subreddits:
/r/inthenews - all news-related content
/r/AnythingGoesNews - unrestricted news
/r/truereddit - insightful articles
/r/self - any self-post
/r/misc, /r/redditdotcom - anything
or other news subreddits:
/r/worldnews - from outside the USA only
/r/SyrianCivilWar - about the conflict in Syria

/r/MidEastRegionalWar - on MidEast conflict /r/UpliftingNews - uplifting


/r/mediaquotes - the things they say
or subreddits for other topics:
/r/FoodForThought - discussion-worthy long form articles about interesting subje
cts
/r/politics - for shouting about politics
/r/moderatepolitics - less shouting
/r/politicaldiscussion - even less shouting
/r/geopolitics - intl. politics and geography
/r/entertainment - Justin Bieber updates, etc.
/r/europe - news from Europe
or check out the 200 most active subreddits, categorized by content and the full
list of subreddits by subscribers.
Recommendations:
/r/redactedcharts
/r/patriots
/r/personalfinance
/r/restorethefourth
reddit is fun for Android and its subreddit /r/redditisfun
submit analysis/opinion article
submit news article
submit something else
submit analysis/opinion article
a community for 6 years
message the moderators
moderators
douglasmacarthur
KyldeThe Janitor
AyeMatey
CandyManCan
Elderthedog
LuckyBdx4
NickWasHere09
ani625
pomosexuality
IKingJeremy
...and 1 more
3152
FBI says search warrants not needed to use stingrays in public places (arstechnica
.com)
submitted 13 hours ago by doctorshady
731 commentsshare
top 500 comments
sorted by: best
[ ]peaceshark 654 points 11 hours ago
If only there were some branch of government that would keep the FBI in check, o
ne that judged people and organizations supremely...
permalink
[ ]misogichan 641 points 8 hours ago
Unfortunately the Catholic church has its hands full dealing with its own intern
al reforms and recasting its vision and mission.
permalinkparent
[ ]wutshappening 93 points 7 hours ago
And looking at cat photos that's why they're Cat-holic. Alco-holics are addicted
to alcohol and catholics well you get the idea.
permalinkparent
[ ]TuffLuffJimmy 142 points 6 hours ago
Omg dad you're embarrassing me in front of my friends
permalinkparent
[ ]okmkz 27 points 4 hours ago

We ain't your friends, bruh


permalinkparent
[ ]Corruptionss 4 points 2 hours ago
We ain't your bruh, friends
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
load more comments (2 replies)
[ ]ROLLINGtemple 9 points 5 hours ago
What's their Dogma?
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
load more comments (9 replies)
[ ]hershmire 73 points 7 hours ago
The courts gave up about ten years ago.
permalinkparent
[ ]endprism 50 points 7 hours ago
The courts are pwned by the surveillance state.
permalinkparent
[ ]sushisection 41 points 6 hours ago
This is what I'm afraid of. Nsa is collecting data from all citizens including p
oliticians and supreme court judges.
permalinkparent
[ ]dutchguilder2 19 points 5 hours ago
Whistleblower confirms: http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=d6m1XbWOfVk
permalinkparent
[ ]TwitchTV_Subbort 1 point 3 hours ago
D.C. is Hollywood for ugly people. best line ever!!
permalinkparent
[ ]sklite 1 point 1 hour ago
Charles Augustus Magnussen approves
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]CriticalThink 1 point 6 hours ago
Skeletons in the closet are easy to find with intelligence infrastructure.
permalinkparent
[ ]HurricaneSandyHook 1 point 5 hours ago
The 10th circuit a few days ago sided with the government saying the cops use of
doppler radar to see if anyone was inside a house was legal. They did say it is
a troubling tactic that needs further review and just left it at that....
permalinkparent
[ ]-_--___-_--_--___--_ 27 points 6 hours ago
One major problem with judicial review is that there must be a case for the cour
t to review. I guess the other avenue would be to sue the government, but I'm no
t an attorney so I don't know how that would work.
permalinkparent
[ ]downvotesmakemehard 14 points 4 hours ago
I believe the current court has taken the stance that to take up a case someone
has to show they've been harmed in some way.
The police will never say that stingray is the source of the evidence. This woul
d open stingray to be scrutinized. They will use stingray to go after phone comp
any records which they will claim they requested on a hunch or some other bullsh
it excuse.
permalinkparent
[ ]great_gape [score hidden] 29 minutes ago
Anonymous tip.
permalinkparent
load more comments (2 replies)
[ ]dissonance07 8 points 6 hours ago
With is wide a latitude as the current SCOTUS seems to give to individual libert
y, this seems like the one kind of thing that they could actually usefully addre

ss, right?
permalinkparent
[ ]MrBojangles528 1 point 5 hours ago
Scalia and the rest of the SCOTUS is bought and sold just like the rest of our g
overnment. They answer first and foremost to the parties that nominated them as
well as the corporations that own them.
permalinkparent
[ ]psilontech 12 points 5 hours ago
See, I don't get that. You get into the Supreme Court and you're golden. Unless
you are actively breaking the law and can be impeached, you're untouchable. Why
not, you know, do what's best for your country instead of remaining beholden to
the parasites that leveraged you into that position?
permalinkparent
[ ]Ratbasher88 14 points 4 hours ago
Yep, Supreme Court justices have a well established history of turning out way d
ifferent than their supporters thought they'd be. For whatever reason this curre
nt batch of justices seems more comfortable with the security state than their p
redecessors, however that's true for most Americans in general so I suppose it s
houldn't be shocking.
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]MrBojangles528 2 points 4 hours ago
Good question, but you'd have to ask them about it.
permalinkparent
[ ]cynoclast 0 points 3 hours ago
Unless you are actively breaking the law and can be impeached, you're untouchabl
e.
But you can get richer. Or have your personal communications made public.
permalinkparent
[ ]tughdffvdlfhegl 1 point 3 hours ago
Honestly? Because they run in those social circles. They're friends with the peo
ple at the top. They don't actively associate with "regular folk" that much.
They've been ingratiated into the upper echelons of society long before ever rea
ching the supreme court through lifetimes spent at the forefront of the legal pr
ofession. This insulates them from others, and leaves them in an echo chamber of
their peers.
Now, when a case comes up that pits one of their friends, or friends' friends ag
ainst some random angry dude who's only making 50k a year, who do you think they
automatically side with, when the case isn't cut and dried? I'm not even saying
it's conscious, but prejudices come in all kinds and run deep. Tribalism happen
s all the time in subtle ways.
Plus there's Scalia taking paid for hunting trips with people who are directly a
ffected by cases in front of him, all of them getting invited to dinners and fun
ctions of the DC elite, etc.
permalinkparent
[ ]pion3435 1 point 3 hours ago
They do. It's possible to disagree with you without being corrupt.
permalinkparent
[ ]Jagoonder 1 point 2 hours ago
Not in an omnipotent surveillance state, however.
permalinkparent
[ ]DownFromYesBad 1 point 2 hours ago
Money, bribery.
permalinkparent
[ ]neotropic9 1 point 1 hour ago
Because they are selected to be the type of people who think whats "best for the
ir country" is serving the parasites, the corporate oligarchs, and the surveilla
nce state. They support the status quo, and the status quo supports them. It wou
ld be a miracle if someone with real principles was actually brought into the Su
preme Court, let alone enough of them to form a majority.

permalinkparent
[ ]isprobablyatwork 1 point 1 hour ago
This does happen, sometimes. Good examples would be Justices Warren and Stevens.
They played along with the GOP right up until they were put on the Court, then
immediately started voting their actual conscience (or if not their conscience,
then at least not as their political backers wanted).
permalinkparent
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[ ]cynoclast 2 points 3 hours ago
You mean the press?
permalinkparent
[ ]scrapinpeg 3 points 6 hours ago*
Obligatory link to illustrated law.
EDIT: fixed link
permalinkparent
[ ]ducttapejedi 3 points 6 hours ago*
error 404, check the link.
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[+][deleted] 13 hours ago (56 children)
[ ]sunbolts 701 points 12 hours ago
Glad to see the FBI is tearing up the constitution to increase their own powers
and authority. /s
permalink
[ ]dontbullshityourself 325 points 11 hours ago
Glad to see the FBI is tearing up the constitution to increase their own powers
and authority
I wish this was just the FBI. Pretty much everybody in the federal, state and lo
cals are doing this. Have been doing for this quite some time too.
permalinkparent
[ ]sunbolts 136 points 10 hours ago
Precisely, and that's what makes this very frightening. The whole club's in on i
t.
permalinkparent
[ ]radonthetyrant 75 points 7 hours ago
but why.. I realize that these "zomg the terrorists!!!11" is only a PR-lie. What
do they really accomplish with this? Industry espionage? Bribes from the indust
ries which create the espionage hardware? Feeling of total control? Control the
masses so it all stays as conservative and corrupt as possible?
Why would you amass such a criminal energy to break constitutional laws just to
be able to see through everyone's communication?
permalinkparent
[ ]BettyRubbleIsHot 151 points 7 hours ago
Total control.
That way when the state has it, they can really put the boot on our necks. Think
they treat us poorly now? Just wait until they have the infrastructure in place
where they feel confident there are absolutely zero threats to their power. Tha
t's when shit is going to get BAD.
permalinkparent
[ ]b-LE-z_it 106 points 6 hours ago
And that's why, despite being terrified of some gun owners, despite being terrif
ied of mass shootings, I don't think we should ban guns, even combat rifles. It
can happen here, and we should at least make it hurt if and when it happens.
permalinkparent
[ ]7V3N 47 points 6 hours ago
Welcome to the list.
permalinkparent

[ ]M00glemuffins 10 points 5 hours ago


Sign me up too. If they try to pull a fast one on the public I'm not standing fo
r their bullshit.
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]FadingEchoes11 26 points 6 hours ago
*rifle. No "combat" rifles are owned by citizens
permalinkparent
[ ]b-LE-z_it 39 points 6 hours ago
Did I mention I don't know anything about guns? I don't know anything about guns
.
Point is, force is not something only people in power should have.
permalinkparent
[ ]teefour 19 points 6 hours ago
You should go to a shooting range and take a class. You won't be so unnecessaril
y afraid of them after that.
permalinkparent
[ ]Pullo_T 27 points 6 hours ago
He's not afraid of guns. He's afraid of some gun owners. At least, as far as we
know.
permalinkparent
continue this thread
load more comments (3 replies)
[ ]Bootsncatsn4 5 points 5 hours ago
i understand where youre coming from, but what will a bunch of angry townsfolk d
o to a predator drone strike?
permalinkparent
[ ]Oeboues 18 points 4 hours ago
You should ask the angry townsfolk of Iraq and Afghanistan.
Once the US military is done slinking away in shame, I mean.
permalinkparent
continue this thread
[ ]nuesuh 1 point 1 hour ago
Remove them. Predator drones are being operated from the ground, and has to land
after a couple hours to refuel.
permalinkparent
[ ]joe_m107 4 points 6 hours ago
Maybe we should change that. Repeal the NFA.
permalinkparent
load more comments (2 replies)
[ ]4nco1j 0 points 2 hours ago
You don't know much about guns, do you now.
permalinkparent
load more comments (6 replies)
[ ]conquer69 15 points 4 hours ago
You can have all the guns you want. That won't stop them from labeling you a "su
spected school shooter, pedophile or terrorist".
A gun can't protect you from that. A gun can't teach your fellow countryman to t
hink by themselves or see through propaganda.
Good luck destroying a drone, plane or tank with a rifle. Not sure how useful a
gun is against your own trained military with even better guns and more.
People thinking they can start a revolution and win with a handgun don't realize
this isn't the 1700's anymore.
permalinkparent
[ ]JimmyBuffer 14 points 4 hours ago
Better tell the Middle East they haven't had a bout of revolutions then
permalinkparent
load more comments (2 replies)
[ ]b-LE-z_it 7 points 4 hours ago
Didn't say we would win, I said we could at least make it hurt. Assuming, of cou

rse, that the American people themselves aren't the ones willingly handing in th
eir freedoms, which would mean we're all fucked immediately.
permalinkparent
[ ]theothercoolfish 13 points 2 hours ago
Assuming, of course, that the American people themselves aren't the ones willing
ly handing in their freedoms, which would mean we're all fucked immediately.
Err, you guys gave up much of your freedoms long ago. And it isn't just the US politicians everywhere are taking as much as they can get, because it's simply
more power for them. More power, more money, more control. It's not a conspiracy
- this is just how an imperfect system with inadequate controls eventually goes
. We need to start re-examining our systems and look at alternatives that are no
w possible with the internet.
permalinkparent
[ ]vynusmagnus 3 points 2 hours ago
Tell that to the insurgents in Afghanistan. It seems to me that the US military
has been unable to defeat them in over a decade of war, despite its overwhelming
technological superiority. Tanks and fighter jets are nice, but they do little
against a small guerrilla force that can disappear into the woodwork.
permalinkparent
[ ]Qoix 3 points 3 hours ago
I think the main issue with that line of thinking is that the military would gun
down the civilians it pledges to protect. How many people in the armed forces d
o you know? Now, are any of them willing to murder innocent people? Probably not
.
permalinkparent
[ ]ihcn 6 points 2 hours ago
They're not innocent people, they're armed revolutionaries, suspected terrorists
permalinkparent
[ ]chance-- 4 points 3 hours ago
You say that as if there isn't insurmountable evidence to the contrary.
Military coups are thoroughly woven into the fabric of humanity's history.
permalinkparent
[ ]theothercoolfish 1 point 2 hours ago
gun down the civilians it pledges to protect.
Err, they don't pledge to protect civilians. They pledge to protect the constitu
tion. And if they are convinced that these people are attempting to "subvert" th
e constitution, then they are enemies. Nevermind that their leaders have shat al
l over the constitution - soldiers take their orders and follow 'em.
Now, are any of them willing to murder innocent people?
lol.
permalinkparent
load more comments (2 replies)
[ ]eloquentnemesis [score hidden] 33 minutes ago
Welcome to 4th generation warfare. You don't need a better gun, or the ability t
o kill a drone, or anything else like that. You just need A gun and more commitm
ent than the other side.
permalinkparent
[ ]homegrowncountryboy [score hidden] 16 minutes ago*
Good luck with those tanks, planes and drones when the American people stop supp
lying fuel and ammunition. My brother is in the Army and he will tell you about
75%, or more of the military will disband and fight to protect the American peop
le. All you have to do is look at New Orleans during Katrina, when they got the
order to start confiscating guns almost all of them refused, instead it was main
ly police stealing people's weapons.
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]Hermit_ 2 points 5 hours ago
Yeah but if it does happen all people would be doing is creating the chaos one o
f the armed and militarized militias needs to take power. For example, The KKK.
permalinkparent

[ ]b-LE-z_it 1 point 5 hours ago


Hopefully not the KKK.
permalinkparent
[ ]AussieArcher 1 point 3 hours ago
Fuck me there's always one of you. I'm starting to think the gun club spends mor
e time on reddit than anyone.
permalinkparent
[ ]astronautg117 1 point 1 hour ago
What's a combat rifle going to do against a drone?
permalinkparent
[ ]datbino 1 point 1 hour ago
i think thats where 2nd ammendment people miss the mark- you owning a rifle will
do nothing against the government.
you becoming an active participating member in that government can help fix it,
the goal is to make you a kony2012 fb sharer rather than a person who gets to wo
rk and fixes shit
permalinkparent
[ ]mpg1846 1 point 1 hour ago
You think 50 guys with hand guns are going to do anything to anyone? Gun laws ar
e a joke.
permalinkparent
[ ]Actionbuilding 1 point 1 hour ago
The founders of the United States of America WANTED the citizens to rise up and
overthrow the government if it approached the levels of corruption it is current
ly working toward.
permalinkparent
load more comments (11 replies)
[ ]nuesuh 1 point 1 hour ago
Ever seen "Das Leben der Anderen"? Imagine this, just with total corruption and
100 times better technology. This is what we are moving towards. Imagine this sy
stem getting in the hands of someone like Hitler or Stalin.. And it can happen.
Before Hitler came to power Germany was a modern, western, christian nation. We
need safety with this technology. And when i say safety, i don't mean surveillan
ce. I mean the opposite.
permalinkparent
[ ]know_comment [score hidden] 14 minutes ago
I agree, but I think the reason for the infrastructure development is because it
is going to get bad. As we are forced to compete more globally, quality of life
stagnates. Even the slightest hint of austerity is going to be very painful for
the lower classes in a society with a large income disparity.
That's why we see the race baiting and divisive rhetoric being used so much. Kee
p the poor and working classes quibbling at each other.
I want you to consider the daffodil. And while you're doing that, I'll be over h
ere, looking through your stuff.
permalinkparent
[ ]mzackler 19 points 7 hours ago
It takes a really complicated answer to truly understand but you often get into
the us vs them mentality in siloed areas of law enforcement. You also often get
frustrated with the levels of proof you need to put the bad guy in jail. Thus an
y method you can use you feel justified in using. Although I think there are a l
ot of issues with The Wire, it's a great starting off point for a discussion if
you want a serious answer.
permalinkparent
load more comments (2 replies)
[ ]hershmire 30 points 7 hours ago
Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts, absolutely.
permalinkparent
[ ]TheNewRavager 70 points 6 hours ago
"All governments suffer a recurring problem: Power attracts pathological persona
lities. It is not that power corrupts but that it is magnetic to the corruptible

. Such people have a tendency to become drunk on violence, a condition to which


they are quickly addicted."
permalinkparent
[ ]gee_iwonderwhy 22 points 6 hours ago
Oh shit, a Dune quote outside /r/dune not about spice.
permalinkparent
[ ]TheNumberMuncher 3 points 6 hours ago
This is pretty cool.
permalinkparent
[ ]YawnDogg 1 point 3 hours ago
Gene Hackman was so kinky in that movie.
permalinkparent
[ ]ThreeTimesUp 2 points 2 hours ago
From a Guardian article by Glenn Greenwald I came across recently:
Inside the mind of NSA chief Gen Keith Alexander
Any casual review of human history proves how deeply irrational it is to believe
that powerful factions can be trusted to exercise vast surveillance power with
little accountability or transparency.
But the more they proudly flaunt their warped imperial hubris, the more irration
al it becomes.
permalinkparent
[ ]Epsilox 3 points 2 hours ago
I'm going to take an unpopular stance here and argue that they get more effectiv
e investigations. Which isn't to say I have no reservations about this stuff, be
cause I do.
I've worked in a field tangential to law enforcement, and I've had the unpleasan
t experience of watching very bad people act with impunity because law enforceme
nt had to play by the rules and they didn't. Does that justify the modern trend
towards more invasive government? Maybe that's just the price we pay to live in
a free society. I don't know. I'm a fan of the H.L. Mencken quote:
"The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's ti
me defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are f
irst aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopp
ed at all."
On the other hand, it's very hard to watch members of organized crime and other
monsters literally get away with murder.
In part the difficulty the lies in the infrastructure of modern society. Communi
cations move at such speed and in such quantity that the sort of pinpoint accura
cy required for effective investigations and prosecutions becomes much more diff
icult.
None of which is to say that what we're doing is necessarily right. I've felt th
e fear of writing an opinion online and knowing that the NSA can see it and ever
ything else I've ever written if they so choose. I've had that feeling of always
being watched. I know exactly what is meant by the danger of chilling free spee
ch, because it's happened to me. But I do tend to trust (perhaps naively) that,
for the most part, most of the people making these decisions have good intention
s. I've worked with many of them, and I believe that it more than anything is th
e result of them trying to do their jobs well. Whether they are actually protect
ing the American people or simply paving the road to hell, only time will really
tell.
permalinkparent
[ ]eyeforgot 4 points 6 hours ago
Think of all the blackmail material they have for any future politicians. They w
ill firmly be in check by the powers that be.
permalinkparent
[ ]ademnus 3 points 7 hours ago
Total control.
permalinkparent
[ ]NotAnotherDecoy 4 points 7 hours ago
Total control?

permalinkparent
[ ]leamas666 2 points 5 hours ago
Why would you amass such a criminal energy to break constitutional laws just to
be able to see through everyone's communication?
It's the deep state attempting to preserve its own regime continuity in the even
t of violent revolution.
permalinkparent
[ ]sunbolts 3 points 6 hours ago
Because those in power try to keep it and in addition, there is always a lust fo
r more power. One who is wealthy seeks to increase his riches usually, right? Sa
me thing going on here. In terms of practicality, there's no reason for breaking
constitutional laws, but when you realize how human nature functions in regards
to ambitions and power, well, what we see going on explains itself.
permalinkparent
[ ]Martenz05 1 point 3 hours ago
So, in order to become a political leader who really does work for the benefit o
f the people, one would somehow have to lose every shred of their humanity so th
ey wouldn't have a human nature that could be corrupted by ambition and power?
That sounds ominous, when I put it like that
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]RuthlessDickTater 1 point 5 hours ago
but why.. I realize that these "zomg the terrorists!!!11" is only a PR-lie.
Well pretty soon they might have their terrorists, but they'll be the domestic k
ind.
permalinkparent
[ ]karadan100 1 point 4 hours ago
More money.
permalinkparent
[ ]cynoclast 1 point 3 hours ago
What do they really accomplish with this?
Get rich.
permalinkparent
load more comments (7 replies)
[ ]TGlucifer 50 points 10 hours ago
Criminals learned it's just way easier to do their lawbreaking with a government
salary.
permalinkparent
[ ]pete1729 22 points 9 hours ago
Well, the benefits package is far more attractive.
permalinkparent
[ ]__ghostpants 25 points 7 hours ago
and somehow snitches go to jail instead of the criminals
permalinkparent
[ ]iismitch55 1 point 3 hours ago
Snitches get stitches. Whistleblowers get their mouth sowed shut.
permalinkparent
[ ]HandsOffMyDitka 5 points 5 hours ago
Why break a law, when you can just change it.
permalinkparent
[ ]moresmarterthanyou 2 points 5 hours ago
except when they have to answer questions themselves...
permalinkparent
[ ]dontbullshityourself 1 point 5 hours ago
Well you know liberty is wasted on peasant swine 'eh?
permalinkparent
[ ]ButterflyAttack 1 point 4 hours ago
Sounds like the constitution doesn't mean much at this point. . .
permalinkparent
[ ]dontbullshityourself 1 point 3 hours ago

Sounds like the constitution doesn't mean much at this point. . .


All it means is that the scum who rule us have a legal contract that they say ba
cks up all their power. But their actions shit all over that document.
President Obama, a constitutional law professor ordered the deaths of two US cit
izens without trial in EXPRESS and DIRECT violation of the constitution.
permalinkparent
load more comments (4 replies)
[ ]Eurynom0s 68 points 9 hours ago
And on top of it, even if being in public was a justification for this, how the
fuck do you prevent the device from nabbing people who are inside their own hous
e or apartment as well?
Oh right, you can't, because that's not how radio waves work.
permalinkparent
[ ]Ioneos 18 points 8 hours ago
You can increase the noise gate to reduce range on purpose, but what good would
that do to keep the terrorists citizens under scrutiny.
permalinkparent
[ ]Eurynom0s 20 points 8 hours ago
Even if they were going to do that, I can't imagine that you could do it to a su
fficient degree in a place like NYC to not scoop up at least some people inside
of buildings.
permalinkparent
load more comments (5 replies)
[ ]Codoro 1 point 4 hours ago
I foresee turning your house into a Faraday Cage being the cop radar finder of t
omorrow.
permalinkparent
[ ]Kenny_Login 23 points 7 hours ago
Taxation without representation, an income far below what the productivity was v
alued at, government intrusion? The founding fathers (you know, those "heroes" o
f our nation) got much more pissed off for much less.
permalinkparent
[ ]Socialdem 8 points 5 hours ago
Can you really blame them? The Constitution was written when people were still r
iding on horses. There's no way the founding fathers could have anticipated the
advances in technology and the way people communicate. I think we're due for a f
irmware upgrade.
permalinkparent
[ ]upandrunning 11 points 3 hours ago
Yes, it's called 'replacing congress'. What we're seeing is a natural consequenc
e of career politicians. Most of the people in office have gotten so comfortable
with the idea that they'll get reelected that what they actually do during thei
r term is almost irrelevent.
permalinkparent
[ ]theothercoolfish 2 points 2 hours ago
Exactly. I think we should look at sortition - with an approval vote, and extrem
ely strict rules on what sort of laws can be passed (eg any law must apply equal
ly to everyone - protecting the minority), and a approval bonus for the randomly
selected representatives if the public approves. Fuck career politicians - they
've proven themselves wholly incapable, and the system that supports them is too
corruptible. I don't think campaign finance reform will 1) ever happen 2) adequ
ately deal with institutional corruption.
permalinkparent
[ ]NuclearWookiee 0 points 2 hours ago
All of this should be covered, in any reasonable interpretation, by the Fourth a
mendment. Rebooting who change anything if the limits on government are ignored.
permalinkparent
[ ]KalAl 1 point 1 hour ago
Do you update your firmware by smashing your bios chip with a hammer?
permalinkparent

[ ]FireFromTheWire 4 points 6 hours ago


You're just another Steve Irwin to them.
permalinkparent
[ ]iismitch55 2 points 3 hours ago
Too soon mate :'(
permalinkparent
[ ]Penguin_in_the_sand 1 point 1 hour ago*
I am curious to know what this comment means?... Oh! Steve Irwin was killed by a
stingray. I thought you may have been referring to some conspiracy relating the
Steve Irwin's death. He had an American wife and both were invited to Howard's
Bush BBQ. http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/10/27/1067233100397.html
permalinkparent
[ ]gloubenterder 2 points 1 hour ago
Steve Irwin was a wildlife documentary filmmaker who was well-known for getting
up close and personal with dangerous animals such as crocodiles and komodo drago
ns.
He was pierced through a heart by a stingray in 2006, while shooting footage for
a documentary called Ocean's Deadliest.
After his death, stingrays had a period of great infamy, and there were even rep
orts of people killing and mutilating stingrays as vengeance for Steve Irwin. ..
.which, of course, is the last thing Irwin would have wanted; he was a conservat
ionist, and whenever he was injured by an animal he was studying, he would alway
s clarify to the viewer that that was his own fault and a risk he was aware of.
permalinkparent
[ ]Agent-BurtMacklinFBI 1 point 5 hours ago
Don't worry I'm keeping a look out
permalinkparent
[ ]pion3435 1 point 3 hours ago
It's not a constitutional issue. It might be an FCC one, but they just do whatev
er they're told anyway.
permalinkparent
[ ]dntur 1 point 3 hours ago
theoretically, every cell tower is in a public place. Why not just attach a stin
gray to all of them? Think of the money mobile companies could make renting towe
r space! next comes google who wants to know who you are calling on your iphone
and windows phone for better directed advertising, followed by Bing. /s
permalinkparent
[ ]Brian3232 [score hidden] 46 minutes ago
Why are they wrong? You already can take pictures of people in public places wit
hout warrant
permalinkparent
[ ]GaltsGulchTouristInf [score hidden] 24 minutes ago
When the constitution, the supreme law of the land, the contract between the gov
ernment and the people, is violated, this violating it should be banned from 'pu
blic service' for life, should be personally liable to those whose rights they v
iolated, and should forfeit their government pension and benefits.
permalinkparent
[ ]wtfmuck [score hidden] 17 minutes ago
It's sad how they shirk doing what is right for what is easy.
permalinkparent
load more comments (8 replies)
[ ]quiteintriguing 127 points 12 hours ago
I think it's about time these fuckers provided some evidence that privacy invadi
ng is helping stop crime or terrorism. As far as I can see, there is an Islamic
army in the middle east right now filled with westerners that simply flew over a
nd caught a bus. Nice job government agencies, you sure showed us.
permalink
[ ]HappyAtavism 81 points 11 hours ago
I think it's about time these fuckers provided some evidence that privacy invadi
ng is helping stop crime or terrorism.

Even more importantly they should provide evidence that they're not violating th
e 4th Amendment. The Bill of Rights doesn't say it applies only when convenient.
P.S. I agree that repeated failures to demonstrate the effectiveness of these th
ings, or lies which get "corrected", is yet another reason why this stuff is BS,
but the Constitution is first and foremost. Don't like the 4th Amendment? Try t
o repeal it. Until then it's in force.
permalinkparent
[ ]7u5 3 points 5 hours ago
The "checks and balances" of the judiciary are a farce. They are free to "interp
ret" the Constitution as they see fit.
permalinkparent
load more comments (3 replies)
[ ]DiaperParty 9 points 3 hours ago
Fuck that. FUUUCK that. If this did stop terrorists, it would still not be worth
the violation of rights. We absolutely CANNOT start OKing this shit as long as
it "stops bad guys."
permalinkparent
[ ]quiteintriguing 1 point 3 hours ago
I think you misunderstood. I think they should have to back up their justificati
on, which they obviously can't.
permalinkparent
[ ]DiaperParty 4 points 3 hours ago
But if we ask them to, we lend legitimacy to that claim. We need to say from the
get go that no justification is needed because none will be sufficient.
permalinkparent
[ ]ebouwman 7 points 5 hours ago
In Canada we had the Ottawa shooting and that dude that ran over some soldiers.
Correct me if I'm wrong but both these guys had had their passports revoked.
I'm not a fan of letting them just go over and fight a dirty war but wtf.
permalinkparent
[ ]Ceejae 4 points 4 hours ago
But so what if it is? How successful the program is is irrelevant.
I'm sure if they set up a government camera in every home they'd stop plenty of
murders and rapes.
permalinkparent
load more comments (2 replies)
[ ]cassieloveseffie 5 points 2 hours ago
Well we all know that the FBI has followed people like John Lennon who believed
in radical peace, urged MLK to kill himself and was prepared to assassinate occu
py members. It is not about crime, it is about maintaining a status quo.
permalinkparent
[ ]monopixel 2 points 1 hour ago
was prepared to assassinate occupy members.
Interesting, where can I read up about this?
permalinkparent
[ ]wirepants 4 points 4 hours ago
Locking everyone in solitary could stop crime and terrorism too. That's not a go
od enough reason to violate our rights even if it was working.
permalinkparent
[ ]egodeath92 2 points 5 hours ago
Shh that's classified. This entire country would be a post-apocalyptic dirt-patc
h is not for the heroic NSA collecting dirt on most of the country.
permalinkparent
[ ]pion3435 1 point 3 hours ago
You had no privacy in the first place. That's not how cell phones work.
permalinkparent
load more comments (6 replies)
[ ]MashItMatt 143 points 13 hours ago
Obviously these are constitution free zones, citizen.
permalink

[ ]THANKS-FOR-THE-GOLD 22 points 7 hours ago


Embrace democracy or you will be eradicated
permalinkparent
[ ]jroddie4 14 points 5 hours ago
Citizen, pick up that can.
permalinkparent
[ ]douko 3 points 5 hours ago
This image won't even load (here's another one), but I still know what it is.
DEATH IS A PREFERABLE ALTERNATIVE TO COMMUNISM.
COMMUNISM IS THE VERY DEFINITION OF FAILURE!
permalinkparent
[ ]chewysquirrel 15 points 6 hours ago
Approximately 2/3 of Americans live in a "constitution free zone"
permalinkparent
[ ]newpolitics 50 points 10 hours ago
The Federal Bureau of Investigation is taking the position that court warrants a
re not required when deploying cell-site simulators in public places. Nicknamed
"stingrays," the devices are decoy cell towers that capture locations and identi
ties of mobile phone users and can intercept calls and texts.
So nobody has any expectation of privacy? Talking out of their asses. The implic
ation that a warrant shouldn't be needed to intercept someone's text messages, i
s outrageous.
permalink
[ ]acerplatanoides [score hidden] 16 minutes ago
The implication that a warrant shouldn't be needed to intercept someone's text m
essages, is outrageous.
The implication of intercepting a PRESS related text message, and thus also supp
ressing a free press.
I think many of these are used to stop uploading of images to social medial. You
ever tried that during a demonstration?
permalinkparent
[ ]dalasocatyemerc 67 points 9 hours ago
Hmm, I didn't realize the FBI had the authority to ignore the constitution of th
e United States of America.
Maybe this organization doesn't actually serve Americans. That's what I think
permalink
[ ]Jagoonder 17 points 2 hours ago
They don't. However, lets look at their 3rd criteria:
(3) cases in which the technology is used in public places or other locations at
which the FBI deems there is no reasonable expectation of privacy.
In public, noone has an expectation to privacy. SCOTUS has ruled on such. Theref
ore, it could be argued that phone conversations in public places forfeits at le
ast one party's rights to privacy.
There are a couple of problems with this. First, Stingray is indiscriminate. Sec
ond, the other party of the phone conversation may be in their own home thus hav
ing an expectation of privacy.
I don't know how law works in regards to phone tapping. But, I would assume that
any warrant to do so would provide the agency a waiver on a second party's priv
acy protections when conversing with the target of the warrant. Except in the ca
se of Stingray no warrant was ever obtained thus, no waiver, thus the second par
ty probably still has privacy protections.
So, I think it's bullshit. I'm no lawyer. I suspect the FBI also knows it's bull
shit. But, the more excuses they can come up with to bend the law around their w
ill the more time it takes to try to stop them since each instance requires anot
her court decision.
permalinkparent
[ ]punkrampant 13 points 1 hour ago
There's only "no expectation of privacy" in public in terms of video+camera surv
eillance. People still get disturbed if you look over their shoulder at their ph
one, or listen to a conversation.

Text messages, emails, phone calls, all of it, are the modern day written letter
s. What the FBI is trying to do is the equivalent of setting up a post office th
at opens everyone's envelopes and makes copies of all the contents.
permalinkparent
[ ]Jagoonder 5 points 1 hour ago
Text messages, emails, phone calls, all of it, are the modern day written letter
s. What the FBI is trying to do is the equivalent of setting up a post office th
at opens everyone's envelopes and makes copies of all the contents.
You're right. I was focusing on an actual phone conversation where one party cou
ld be overheard by others, thus no expectation to privacy.
permalinkparent
[ ]Cambodian_Drug_Mule 2 points 1 hour ago
Surely there are people with technical expertise that can just fuck their shit u
p. If I'm not mistaken the stingrays were detected with consumer grade electroni
cs. If everyone just looked out for them and pinned where they are at on a map,
couldn't some people with the technical know how take them offline?
permalinkparent
[ ]monopixel 1 point 1 hour ago
Hmm, I didn't realize the FBI had the authority to ignore the constitution of th
e United States of America.
The US government and its agencies has been doing it for ages.
permalinkparent
[ ]rtpg 40 points 6 hours ago
Surprised nobody's mentioned Kyllo v. United States yet.
This is fairly recent (2001) jurisprudence. The gov't used a thermal imager, and
saw that there were heat lamps inside of a house, and used that to get a search
warrant. The gov't argued that, well, the heat was outside, so pretty much publ
ic information.
The courts disagreed and ruled this an illegal search. Main reason being that no
t many people have thermal imagers, so there's a reasonable expectation of priva
cy. I think even less people have stingrays, so even from the "discovering that
someone has a cell phone" aspect, there's unreasonableness in the search.
Now to the wiretapping aspect... there's Katz v. United States. Here, somebody w
as in a phone booth, and the feds had set a microphone outside the phone booth w
ithout warrant (so not exactly a wiretap). Again, the courts ruled this an unrea
sonable search.
A part of the ruling:
Regardless of the location, a conversation is protected from unreasonable search
and seizure under the Fourth Amendment if it is made with a "reasonable expecta
tion of privacy".
Text messages definitely fall under this. I can't see this holding up for 2 seco
nds in court.
The article goes into it into detail, but few of the FBI's interpretations on pr
ivacy have been holding up in courts recently. The system is kind of working, an
d this interpretation will be shut down as well. Now, if only everyone had good
lawyers...
permalink
[ ]ryewheats 7 points 4 hours ago
But the biggest problem I see would be them not declaring how they gathered any
information they collected in the first place. It would be pretty easy to skirt
around the system and act like you caught the suspect red-handed (because you we
re tipped off by illegal searches). That is the really scary part.
permalinkparent
[ ]argv_minus_one 5 points 3 hours ago
This practice is known as "parallel construction".
permalinkparent
[ ]tughdffvdlfhegl 3 points 3 hours ago
Honestly, this is the biggest concern. The courts won't allow a challenge becaus
e no one will have standing, because the feds/police won't actively declare this
as evidence in a trial. Meanwhile, they'll continue to use it, having a chillin

g effect on the press and others (which the courts have not seen in recent histo
ry as sufficient to provide legal standing).
permalinkparent
[ ]JustaChimp 3 points 5 hours ago
With the Katz v US case, it took them 39 years to overturn the Olmstead v US rul
ing. Let's hope it takes a little less time for this medium.
The recent Romano v Steelcase Inc. court case could indicate how the courts will
rule in the short term with regards to "reasonable expectation of privacy" thou
gh this ruling was in the context of social media and not text messages. The ana
logy was made that much like a letter writer has no reasonable expectation of pr
ivacy once the recipient is in possession of the letter, neither does the post's
author. Same could be extended to text messages and would be equally as trouble
some.
permalinkparent
[ ]qdarius 1 point 3 hours ago
Damn, that doesn't seem right at all. If I send someone a letter I definitely ex
pect that only they will read it.
Could anyone expand on the logic that a letter writer has no reasonable expectat
ion of privacy?
permalinkparent
[ ]Boltaeg 1 point 3 hours ago
After that letter is given to the recipient, they can do whatever they want with
it without you knowing. They could copy it, show it to friends, frame it and pu
t it on their wall....etc. You have no control over that and must assume that an
ything you write in a letter can be disclosed in some manner, simply because you
have no control over that persons actions.
As to why that is the case, I have no idea. Especially considering it is illegal
to open someone elses mail, but perfectly legal to read someone else's letter o
nce they open it. At least that is my understanding of it.
permalinkparent
[ ]TheMightyBarbarian 1 point 3 hours ago
Its fairly simple, you sent a letter, until it is received by the intended recip
ient it has federal protections. Once the recipient receives it, they are free t
o do with it as they wish, even if you disagree with what they do, specifically
because the letter is now their property, even though you wrote it.
permalinkparent
[ ]qdarius 1 point 2 hours ago
I understand that. But if someone else intercepts my letter shouldn't that still
be illegal?
Maybe I'm misunderstanding how stingrays work but it seems like they're basicall
y designed to intercept hundreds of messages.
permalinkparent
[ ]TheMightyBarbarian 1 point 2 hours ago
Intercept isn't illegal, its sketchy but not illegal. As for reading it, it's a
grey area since texts are not encrypted and even if they were it would do shit i
f billions of devices can decrypt them. So unless you use something like a messe
nger system that can use basic encrypting. It won't stop the FBI from reading it
, but it does show you took steps to have a private conversation and that's what
matters to the court.
permalinkparent
[ ]coalbeeashi 1 point 3 hours ago
Re: Katz v. United States
Certain details, such as shutting the door on the telephone booth, help determin
e if a person intends for a conversation to be private. Thus, private conversati
ons can be made in public areas.
What steps is the average Joe taking to exhibit a reasonable expectation of priv
acy regarding his/her data usage? Honest question.
permalinkparent
[ ]TheMightyBarbarian 1 point 2 hours ago
Beyond using a VPN to mimic another location, not much really. Since there are m

any devices involved in the process of just looking up a website. Ex. You google
Microsoft. Here are all the parties involved: You, Your ISP, Google, Microsoft.
That's four parties involved and that's assuming you are not using a Phones Mob
ile Data plan and are using WiFi. Because then it can add a few more people invo
lved.
Sure you should have protection just the same, but currently the law doesn't rec
ognize that, because the people in charge dont understand how any of it works.
permalinkparent
[ ]rtpg [score hidden] 54 minutes ago
I would say that cultural norms kind of define that in that it is extremely rude
to look at another stranger's phone while they are using it to browse/look at t
heir emails/whatever. Not the most solid argument, I know.
permalinkparent
[ ]Sic_SemperTyrannis 1 point 2 hours ago
When the use of stingrays is challenged in court police have dropped the cases r
ather than explain their use of stingrays.
permalinkparent
[ ]cassieloveseffie 1 point 2 hours ago
I have seen a printed record of every one of someone's txt messages for 6 months
. Never assume txt messages are private.
permalinkparent
[ ]Ladderjack 29 points 12 hours ago
I'm sorry, have they gone ahead and combined the FBI and the Supreme Court of th
e United States of America? No? Well, we will see how long this lasts. . .
permalink
[ ]butitssnot 46 points 7 hours ago
Its ok. In 2016 we can vote for hope and change and transparency and fix all thi
s.
permalinkparent
[ ]CriticalThink 3 points 5 hours ago
yeah. I bet Hillary will fix this mess, right Reddit?
permalinkparent
[ ]TheMightyBarbarian 1 point 2 hours ago
We still got time before they can start promoting themselves for President, lega
lly actually, they can't start until a certain number of days from the election.
permalinkparent
[ ]looneybandito 5 points 6 hours ago
Haha. As if our votes matter.
permalinkparent
[ ]atomofconsumption 9 points 5 hours ago
thatsthejoke.jpg
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]dichroeyes 1 point 4 hours ago
You are right. I give up. Long live the hegemony.
permalinkparent
[ ]Pikaflu 1 point 3 hours ago
America is an irradiated wasteland. Within it lies a city. Outside the boundary
walls, a desert. A cursed earth. Inside the walls, a cursed city, stretching fro
m Boston to Washington D.C. An unbroken concrete landscape. 800 million people l
iving in the ruin of the old world and the mega structures of the new one. Mega
blocks. Mega highways. Mega City One. Convulsing. Choking. Breaking under its ow
n weight. Citizens in fear of the street. The gun. The gang. Only one thing figh
ting for order in the chaos: the men and women of the Hall of Justice. Juries. E
xecutioners. Judges.
permalinkparent
[ ]Ago_Solvo 36 points 9 hours ago
I'm sure that means that stingrays are also open for public hacking in that case
, because they're in a public place, and doing so can't be considered an intrusi
on on government properties or a violation of any Federal Law.

permalink
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]whysopositive 57 points 12 hours ago
Say whatever you want, you don't think big brother is going to find every way to
spy on you?
The thing is I bet every time we the people get upset about some "new" trespass
against our rights there's already something technologically beyond our knowledg
e being put to use to on us now.
permalink
[ ]I_SPLIT_INFINITIVES 16 points 7 hours ago
My dad always said, "If that's what they're telling us they have now, they proba
bly had it ten years ago. Just imagine what they really have."
permalinkparent
[ ]oOTHX1138Oo 28 points 9 hours ago
Thats why we need to add to the bill of rights, so that we continue to be protec
ted in the digital age.
permalinkparent
[ ]TheBlueWaffleHouse 18 points 8 hours ago
At this point in time the bill of rights only shrinks. It doesn't get bigger.
permalinkparent
[ ]tallerthanunicorngod 33 points 7 hours ago
Not with that attitude.
permalinkparent
[ ]mattacular2001 3 points 5 hours ago
Doesn't matter unless you're wealthy
permalinkparent
[ ]tallerthanunicorngod 1 point 2 hours ago
Wealthy people don't like to be spied on either. Honestly, they probably like it
even less.
permalinkparent
[ ]sockgorilla 1 point 5 hours ago
He's John Titor, he's watched it before.
permalinkparent
[ ]mastahslayah 1 point 4 hours ago
Well he isn't getting any of my Dr. Pepper.
permalinkparent
[ ]Poor__Yorick 1 point 2 hours ago
Wow that's a name I haven't heard in a while.
We've got a world war this year though.
3 billion dead by the end of it.
permalinkparent
load more comments (5 replies)
[ ]pion3435 1 point 3 hours ago
We already did. That's the point of laws like HIPAA. There's just no equivalent
for things like email or cell phones so it's legal to see whatever people are na
ively broadcasting.
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]ZomNomNomBeeZ 5 points 7 hours ago
This technology is not particularly new. The man-in-the-middle attack is a class
ic hacking technique. I remember reading an article after one of the security co
nventions detailing a small group of participants that used a remote control air
plane to do this exact thing to convention attendees. This was years ago.
permalinkparent
[ ]hershmire 4 points 7 hours ago
Which is why it's illegality could be successfully code into law.
permalinkparent
[ ]TheMightyBarbarian 1 point 3 hours ago
That's the problem, the people who make the laws don't understand how the techno
logy works, and the people making and using it are telling them its fine, so the

y don't feel like they need to make a law about.


And as such making a law about it would be bad, since the law would need specifi
c language to prevent certain technologies and usage of such. But the biggest is
sue is that some of the technology and uses are too general that it would never
work to stop anything. Since they can't just write a law preventing man in the m
iddle because they need to get a definitive wording on what that is exactly and
then word it so a slight variation doesn't just immediately skirt the new law.
Our technology grew faster than our laws did, but now it's grown faster than our
ability to properly define what it is we do. So controlling it is incredibly ha
rd and will take a long time, so for now we kinda have to suck it up and wait, b
ecause the worst possible thing is them putting out ineffective laws that do les
s than nothing to prevent stuff like that and hearing us complain and think we a
re whining when they just put out a law. I would rather wait a little longer to
make sure the law is proper and effective than to have a crap law screw everythi
ng up.
permalinkparent
[ ]ScorpionPool 1 point 6 hours ago
Serious question. What benefits does the government get from spying on us? Power
? Information for corporations? Shits and giggles? Some kind of profit?
permalinkparent
[ ]swingmemallet 2 points 5 hours ago
All of the above
permalinkparent
[ ]eyeforgot 1 point 5 hours ago*
What like complete access to what anyone posts/chats about on facebook/skype bei
ng dumped into a database? Anyone who work with cisco routers notice anything fu
nny like carefully crafted packets fucking w. the settings and not creating logs
. Maybe like there is a back door that someone has that doesn't require a passwo
rd.
permalinkparent
load more comments (3 replies)
[ ]philtech 26 points 10 hours ago
You can scan for stingray use.
Only works on rooted phones with Qualcomm chipset however. https://play.google.c
om/store/apps/details?id=de.srlabs.snoopsnitch&hl=en
permalink
[ ]vamper 2 points 6 hours ago
damn, no go for my nexus 5
permalinkparent
[ ]Ice_Pirate 1 point 5 hours ago
Should work on my 20 dollar ZTE's with dualies :). Overclocks to 1.8 like butta.
http://www.phonearena.com/phones/ZTE-N800_id8191
permalinkparent
[ ]willyboxc 1 point 2 hours ago
we need a version that will work without root :(
permalinkparent
[ ]networklackey 49 points 11 hours ago*
Bullshit... it's radio. They have no way of determining whether the person they
are monitoring is in public or not.
They shouldn't be able to use this without a warrant any more than they should b
e able to point a laser mic at your window.
The fact that they are in public is irrelevant... the subject they are monitorin
g has to be in public.
permalink
[ ]lll_1_lll 29 points 6 hours ago
Even if we are in public, what the fuck gives them the right to look through my
texts, phone calls, voicemails, emails, call history, etc?
permalinkparent
[ ]zoidbug 5 points 3 hours ago
It should be protected the level of paper mail. It is your private communication

s.
permalinkparent
[ ]networklackey 1 point 2 hours ago
Technically... because you are in public and are broadcasting. But I feel the sa
me way. None of this shit should be legal.
permalinkparent
load more comments (6 replies)
[ ]goatmagic 2 points 3 hours ago
laser mic
Well, TIL this exists :/
permalinkparent
[ ]networklackey 2 points 2 hours ago
They absolutely exist and they are freaking awesome. They should not however be
used by law enforcement without a warrant.
permalinkparent
[ ]makingupdumbnames 1 point 5 hours ago
I think it's that their airwaves cross public space. pls correct me if I'm wrong
, though
permalinkparent
[ ]networklackey 1 point 2 hours ago
That's certainly the argument they are making.
permalinkparent
[ ]wirepants 1 point 4 hours ago
Even assuming you are in public, who's to say the guy on the other side is too?
permalinkparent
[ ]networklackey 1 point 2 hours ago
Nothing but their log books but that doesn't really matter. It's your right to p
rivacy they are violating.
permalinkparent
[ ]Sarah_Connor 9 points 9 hours ago
We need a way to be able to identify, then jamm, stingrays.
permalink
[ ]cookie_nrk 8 points 7 hours ago
This Jammer made in sweden should do the trick. From what I have read it complet
ely blocks all signals, so using a phone wouldn't work at all, but if you were i
n a position to not want to be tracked during a certain time, you could use this
: http://www.jammer-store.com/monstro-10-all-frequencies-portable-jammer.html
permalinkparent
[ ]hershmire 10 points 7 hours ago
We're talking about blanket monitoring of civilians. It needs to be outlawed imm
ediately. Hoping each and every Joe Schmoe is going to buy an illegal cell phone
jammer to protect his identity is, well, ridiculous.
permalinkparent
[ ]davidverner 6 points 7 hours ago
Jammers are illegal in the US on the cellphone frequency. Good luck importing on
e.
permalinkparent
[ ]wicard 5 points 6 hours ago
had one from deal extreme i bought when i was younger to prank friends, was alot
of fun. But if you are worried about being tracked wouldn't just shutting your
phone off do the trick? If you are jamming your phone you arnt going to be talki
ng to anyone.
permalinkparent
[ ]RellenD 4 points 5 hours ago
You have to do more than just turn it off, unfortunately.
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]willyboxc 1 point 2 hours ago
we need the schematics so we can build one... also include 700 mhz jam for lte
permalinkparent

load more comments (1 reply)


[ ]ademnus 11 points 7 hours ago
That's nice but it's not up to the FBI if it is illegal or not.
permalink
[ ]MonitoredCitizen 21 points 7 hours ago
Come on Google and Apple, stop being so lame. Make the phones themselves defend
against this by always displaying the negotiated encryption level and allowing u
ser to configure the phone to refuse to connect if the GSM encryption level is A
5/0.
permalink
[ ]argv_minus_one 2 points 2 hours ago
If they do that, these same spooks will have some words with their CEOs. Otherwi
se, yeah, they likely would.
permalinkparent
[ ]vzzzbux 2 points 1 hour ago
Not sure on the technical specifics but my old Nokia from 10 years ago used to s
how a padlock if the call was "secure", which I guess meant it was encrypted in
some way.
Sounds like yet another way we've gone backwards with the rise of Google and App
le
permalinkparent
[ ]cryptovariable 180 points 12 hours ago
This seems icky, but anyone with a Raspberry Pi ($48.00), an RTL-SDR ($17.00), a
nd an ability to follow written step-by-step instructions on how to install and
configure some open source software ($0.00) can do this, albeit on a smaller sca
le.
That tutorial doesn't cover decrypting GSM traffic. This one does. You'll need s
omething faster than a Raspberry Pi, though. Maybe a $200 netbook.
And you can do it on the same scale as the police with a surplus commercial ante
nna and three or four friends.
I don't see how restricting the government's ability to do this would have any o
ther effect than to criminalize a private citizen's desire to experiment with GS
M.
permalink
[ ]HappyAtavism 113 points 11 hours ago
I don't see how restricting the government's ability to do this would have any o
ther effect than to criminalize a private citizen's desire to experiment with GS
M.
Experiment with GSM all you want, just don't eavesdrop or commit fraud by preten
ding to be part of a legitimate business.
I like to play with miniature cameras, microphones and transmitters. That's a fi
ne hobby as long as I don't use it to spy on my neighbors.
permalinkparent
load more comments (5 replies)
[ ]mr___ 50 points 12 hours ago
But theirs has a transmitter, and actively spoofs cell sites
permalinkparent
[ ]cryptovariable 55 points 12 hours ago
It you want to spoof rather than just eavesdrop all you have to do is buy any of
the SDR kits that are coming on to the market like a bladeRF or something and h
ave GNUradio (which hilariously autocorrects to FBI radio on my phone) pretend t
o be a tower, the credentials of which you sniffed with your Pi setup.
The reason the Feds spoof is so that they can target specific devices on a white
list and only have those connect. The size of the whitelist is unknown and up fo
r debate.
If you're capturing and decrypting all the GSM your antenna can receive you don'
t care if you're spoofing the tower unless you want to modify the traffic in som
e way. To quote Sir Patrick Stewart: "It's too late, I've seen everything."
If you just scoop up everything using cheap/free and publicly available tools yo
u don't really care about spoofing.

It should be noted that the Feds have a leg up with CDMA because of its smaller
global footprint and the scarcity of developers working on it, as well as UMTS (
3G) and LTE.
But people are poking at LTE every day: http://www.rtl-sdr.com/analyzing-td-ltertl-sdr/
permalinkparent
[ ]HappyAtavism 36 points 11 hours ago
The reason the Feds spoof is so that they can target specific devices on a white
list and only have those connect. The size of the whitelist is unknown and up fo
r debate.
We do know they don't have warrants. How many violations of the 4th Amendment do
es it take before it's considered a bad thing?
permalinkparent
load more comments (19 replies)
[ ]A530[??] 6 points 6 hours ago
I have to ask an honest question. Knowing what you know, do you live in a Farada
y cage or just eschew cell phones all together? I'm in InfoSec (I'm guessing you
are too) and with the shit I know, maintaining OPSec is just a never ending bat
tle. I can't imagine my paranoia if I went down the cellular rabbit hole (althou
gh I do know a lot about the shit happening with the carrier baseband MDM garbag
e).
Many thanks for the very informative post.
permalinkparent
[ ]tornadoRadar 1 point 1 hour ago
Gotta keep it segmented. Personal never mixes with biz
permalinkparent
[ ]the_nap_mutilator 1 point 5 hours ago
Spoofing the cell site also gives them access to the phone at something akin to
the hardware level... so unless you have rooted and or installed software to sec
ure the device, they can push new software onto your phone without your knowledg
e/consent in the same way that your carrier updates subscriber units say when th
ey make changes to the network or something. At that point your phone has been p
ermanently compromised.
permalinkparent
load more comments (13 replies)
[ ]mag17435 29 points 10 hours ago
I dont understand how people think the government can do things citizens can. Or
dering our government not to do something has no bearing on what citizens can do
.
permalinkparent
[ ]Golden-Fox 7 points 6 hours ago
Well when police are trying to visually collect evidence they can in general onl
y search from public areas. If a cop is looking for a certain car and they see i
t on the street, that's fine. If the car is parked in a closed garage and on pri
vate property, the cop wouldn't be able to see it without going onto private pro
perty and looking in a window. If the car is in the same garage and the garage d
oor is open, then anyone can see it, and the cop can legally use that informatio
n.
The FBI is trying to apply that same logic to these stingrays. Stingrays are a t
echnology that is available to the public. You could make your own and do exactl
y what the FBI does. The data being collected isn't encrypted, password protecte
d, or anything else. Everything is publicly available. You just have to have a c
ertain machine to be able to read it. The garage door has to be open.
permalinkparent
[ ]Wordygit 6 points 6 hours ago
The key word here is "public" whereas where there is the expectation of privacy,
I would think think that would carry some special considerations. That seems to
be some of what the courts are deciding about, where the expectation of privacy
holds sway over searches. Its already been determined that law enforcement cann
ot force you to unlock your phone. One such Supreme Court case, decided this pas

t summer, led to a sweeping victory for privacy rights advocates. In a rare unan
imous decision, the court found that police cannot search cellphones, and by ext
ension tablets and other digital communication devices, without first obtaining
a warrant. Smartphones, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote, hold the privacies of l
ife, and the fact that technology now allows an individual to carry such informati
on in his hand does not make the information any less worthy of the protection f
or which the Founders fought. I think, as well, that it has been established that
if there is encryption being used, that constitutes an acknowledgement that ste
ps have been taken to protect and maintain the sense of privacy, and so the expe
ctation carries onto the information being transmitted. Not sure if there is a l
egal precedent for that though.
permalinkparent
[ ]Golden-Fox 2 points 5 hours ago
Its already been determined that law enforcement cannot force you to unlock your
phone.
This is what I've heard, but to me it implies that police can access your phone
if you don't have it locked. Carrying that logic over to this argument, the poli
ce would be able to access your cell info as long as it isn't encrypted. It seem
s that you only have a "reasonable expectation to privacy" with your cell phone
if you've taken any steps to make your phone more private. If there were some wa
y to get your carrier to encrypt your data, then there'd be no question, but the
way cell providers are these days, that's not gonna happen.
permalinkparent
[ ]ThreeTimesUp 1 point 1 hour ago
Something that I have heard repeatedly (and I may yet have it wrong), is that if
your front door is closed, but unlocked, the police are free to enter without a
warrant.
This has always bothered me.
I could understand the mind-set of someone (i.e. a Justice of the Supreme court)
thinking that way if they grew up (or lived) in an area where they lived a life
always fearful of intruders and locking doors was a practical necessity.
But to me, a closed door means "Keep out, knock for admittance - no entry withou
t permission."
So, for naive, trusting, me, I would not expect the police (or anyone) to examin
e my phone (without a warrant) just to see what they could find.
permalinkparent
[ ]pion3435 1 point 3 hours ago
A technologically illiterate moron's expectation of privacy doesn't become a rea
sonable expectation of privacy just because the majority of the population is te
chnologically illiterate.
permalinkparent
[ ]F0sh 1 point 2 hours ago
This is totally wrong thinking. A private citizen can look for your car through
the garage window without legal repercussions, even though a police officer migh
t not be allowed. The police officer has to conduct his searches according to th
e expectation of privacy and you have every expectation that your private phone
conversations are private - even if you're sending your texts at the shopping ce
ntre.
This is a bullshit equivocation on the part of the FBI, who are claiming that si
nce any old person at the shops can see that you're also at the shops you have n
o expectation of privacy at all.
This logic, if extended, would also mean the FBI could clone your hard drive if
you took your laptop to a public place - after all, you have no expectation of p
rivacy there. No. Bullshit - just because you're in the park doesn't mean all yo
ur possessions and emails became public.
This has nothing to do with what an ordinary citizen is able to do in public or
in private.
permalinkparent
[ ]ThreeTimesUp 1 point 2 hours ago*
Well when police are trying to visually collect evidence they can in general onl

y search from public areas. If a cop is looking for a certain car and they see i
t on the street, that's fine.
To counterpoint this:
Infra-red light (heat) is just light that's at a lower frequency than humans can
detect.
Courts have ruled that the police using specialized equipment to detect heat sig
natures (Infra-red light) emanating from from houses for the purpose of snooping
for grow operations are an invasion of privacy.
The signals Stingray is picking up are just another frequency, even lower than I
nfra-red light, originating from inside your phone, that is your property, which
is in your possession.
Authorities are using all manner of logical distortions in an express attempt to
get around the ideals and principles expressed in the Constitution.
What law-abiding citizen would attempt such a thing?
What authority that the public has placed their trust in, would make continual a
ttempts to subvert the Constitution?
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
load more comments (2 replies)
[ ]kromem 2 points 3 hours ago
It is already criminal to capture and decrypt GSM traffic for citizens (Wiretap
Act), same as capturing and parsing WiFi data.
But I think I can point out the issue with your logic with a simple analogy:
Citizens can buy guns.
Law enforcement can be provided guns.
Citizens can practice shooting guns.
Law enforcement should do the same.
Citizens can't shoot other citizens with guns except in really specific exemptio
ns.
According to your logic, just because citizens can buy guns, and could possibly
go around shooting other people with them, law enforcement should not have any l
egal restrictions on their use of guns.
It is illegal for you to capture and decrypt anyone else's traffic, and it shoul
d be illegal for cops to do the same without a warrant. It's not that hard to ge
t a warrant when actually justified, creates a paper trail that can be examined
for abuses, and has been the case without serious issue for years now.
For what purpose does the law need to be changed to allow this? Because warrants
are inconvenient? Well then why not get rid of them for entering homes too? It'
s quite trivial to pick a lock, and even easier to smash a window and climb in.
Any citizen could do it. So why do we need to restrict the police from the same?
permalinkparent
[ ]dfioabnionjio 4 points 9 hours ago
I don't see how restricting the government's ability to do this would have any o
ther effect than to criminalize a private citizen's desire to experiment with GS
M.
Why not have it be illegal for government and legal for private citizens? Make i
t perfectly legal for private citizens to experiment with GSM, but don't let the
FBI do the same, like you can have a private citizen share something a defendan
t said in court while the police cannot do the same unless the suspect had been
told of their rights.
Of course, the problem here is not using GSM. It's tracking people who did not k
nowingly join your network. You could have it be legal to experiment with GSM an
d not legal to spoof a network, or make it so tracking someone on your network i
s illegal unless the person being tracked is aware they will be tracked and cons
ents to it.
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]confusiondiffusion 3 points 10 hours ago
Yeah, I really don't see the point in making laws against this, since they'll be
broken anyway. We need to fix the underlying technology. There is no excuse for

the sad state of cellphone security.


permalinkparent
[ ]HappyAtavism 18 points 10 hours ago
I really don't see the point in making laws against this
Then let's just flush the Constitution down the toilet. All laws get broken, the
question is what gets done about it.
since they'll be broken anyway
It's not very hard to break into my house either, but they're not supposed to do
it without a warrant.
permalinkparent
load more comments (4 replies)
[ ]HighMonster 1 point 7 hours ago
Wow that's intriguing
permalinkparent
[ ]lll_1_lll 1 point 6 hours ago
You act like this is realistically doable for the large majority of people and y
ou know that's BS.
permalinkparent
[+][deleted] 6 hours ago (1 child)
[ ]JabroniZamboni 1 point 5 hours ago
Are you suggesting that radar jammers should be legal? As well as cell phone or
wifi jammers? What if your neighbor wants to experiment with a jammer for the ne
xt 4 months? 6 years? I assume you wouldn't be too happy. There's experimentatio
n and then there's purposeful disruption and spying.
permalinkparent
[ ]egodeath92 1 point 5 hours ago
Yeah except "anyone with device X" can't prosecute people. It doesn't matter whe
n corporations do mass data collection because they are just trying to make mone
y/sell people shit. The government can create a database of people's private liv
es then prosecute them. You could even imagine a time where data collection is s
o widespread that this kind of info is used for political purposes rather then b
usting drug dealers/ other criminals which is what it's used for now.
permalinkparent
[ ]Kuusou 1 point 4 hours ago
What the people can do, and what the government can do, are no the same things,
nor should they.
permalinkparent
[ ]qdarius 1 point 4 hours ago
If a random person overhears my conversation I don't care. Even if they tell the
ir friends I'm still not too concerned.
If the government records my conversation and uses it to investigate or prosecut
e me that's clearly a different situation.
Just because someone can do something doesn't mean it should be legal. It defini
tely doesn't mean we should be okay with our government using it on us.
permalinkparent
load more comments (9 replies)
[ ]Sir_not_sir 52 points 13 hours ago
The main purpose of the stinger is to circumvent the need and time of acquiring
a warrant and getting the data from all the service providers.
Regardless of data retention plans, they should require a separate judicial warr
ant for each individual suspect in order to be deployed.
permalink
[ ]manoninternets 8 points 7 hours ago*
The time required to get a warrant is usually far less than what they make it ou
t to be, although cost is as factor. Phone companies make tons of money off poli
ce records requests.
To play devil's advocate (and I do think the STINGRAY arrangement is devilish):
once you request records from the phone companies, there's no guarantee that won
't get leaked to the people being investigated. The cartels have people everywhe

re.
permalinkparent
[ ]kevincreeperpants 6 points 6 hours ago
What if they are the cartels!?...dun dun dun
permalinkparent
[ ]tughdffvdlfhegl 1 point 3 hours ago
I don't think anyone here has a problem with STINGRAY being used, given that the
y have a warrant for the person's data they're monitoring. So in your situation,
that's easy to do.
permalinkparent
[ ]manoninternets 2 points 3 hours ago
Yeah it's the same concept as going through my private letters, or close enough
to it anyhow. (Even though letters are physically sealed and radio waves permeat
e the air freely, my intention is for my text messages to be as private as posta
l mail.)
Even a child could rip open an envelope with ease. That doesn't mean police don'
t need a warrant to do so.
permalinkparent
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[ ]turnthatfrown 9 points 7 hours ago
I think the FBI is conveniently forgetting that they are intercepting a communic
ation that is normally secured via encryption and carried privately by your wire
less provider then switched privately all the way to the party on the other end
who has similar expectations of the connection.
I mean, come on, the Stingrays themselves are impersonating the carrier that you
have a contract with and using techniques to avoid the strong encryption. The p
rove by their own design and implementation that the FBI's argument is bullshit.
permalink
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]dontbullshityourself 27 points 11 hours ago
I'm so sick of the ways these callous assholes use to crush our freedom.
What is the point of massive expensive law enforcement agencies if the law can't
protect our rights and freedoms? Hasn't the cart been put before the horse here
?
permalink
[ ]donottakethisserious 13 points 6 hours ago
If you are told you are free enough times, you start to believe it. You start at
a young age with a pledge every day and then when you grow up you attend sporti
ng events and stand for the national anthem and tear up at how free you are. Tha
t way nobody will ever question whether or not this is actually a free country.
permalinkparent
[ ]dontbullshityourself 10 points 5 hours ago
When I was a kid I started to sit during the pledge. Honestly I think I just wan
ted to test and see how free I was. I knew that saying the pledge etc wasn't in
the school handbook. I knew there was no rule saying I had to say it or stand or
anything. The powers that be at my school just used the herd instinct to keep t
his shit going.
So I started sitting down. This resulted in a lot of attention from gangs of bul
lies. My home room teacher didn't like it either and lectured/bitched about it e
very day. But she stopped short of anything more than shaming me unlike the bull
ies.
Anyway I just decided to drop out. Fuck it. Humans don't like new things that co
nfuse them and challenge them to think. How interesting that was to be the last
thing I learned in school. I found another kind of freedom. The freedom to leave
the assholes mired in their stupidity and find my own path in life.
permalinkparent
[ ]joshyfitzo90 4 points 5 hours ago
I like your style.
permalinkparent

[ ]Jack41096 3 points 4 hours ago


I applaud you. I stood but that's all I did. it was in our rulebook to stand but
fuck them if they thought I was gonna do more than that. I started a wave of pe
ople standing and doing nothing.
eventually my first period class was reduced to two people and the teacher actua
lly doing anything. they bitches about it but we all had our own reasons.
permalinkparent
[ ]dontbullshityourself 2 points 3 hours ago
eventually my first period class was reduced to two people and the teacher actua
lly doing anything. they bitches about it but we all had our own reasons.
There are lots of reasons to resist and only one reason to obey. Fear.
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]CriticalThink 3 points 5 hours ago
Government hasn't been interested in protecting our rights and freedoms in a lon
g time.
permalinkparent
[ ]jkeyser14 5 points 7 hours ago
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety
, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. - Benjamin Franklin
permalinkparent
[ ]dontbullshityourself 5 points 6 hours ago
We didn't give it up. They are taking it.
permalinkparent
[ ]jkeyser14 10 points 6 hours ago
Only because we aren't rioting. The first group of rioters to tar and feather a
politician again will bring about change very quickly.
permalinkparent
[ ]dontbullshityourself 4 points 5 hours ago
People are gonna have to get a lot more desperate. I reckon we'll get our riot s
oon enough.
permalinkparent
[ ]Jack41096 1 point 4 hours ago
take the food. that's the surefire way to cause a riot.
people will be content as long as they're fed. you take that away and suddenly t
hey have nothing to lose. they have to survive. that is the most primal response
we have. to fight tooth and nail for food. to eat no matter the cost.
permalinkparent
[ ]RamsNation 1 point 4 hours ago
America has a very stable food supply so I doubt that will happen.
permalinkparent
[ ]dontbullshityourself 1 point 3 hours ago
I don't think we have to take the food. I think that people today are a lot more
self entitled and will jump into a fit without their iphones. They can't even i
magine a world without abundant food.
permalinkparent
[ ]grungebucket 1 point 4 hours ago
bring about change very quickly. street executions very quickly.
there. Corrected that for you. After all. You wouldn't want to be mistaken for a
terrorist endorsing a terrorist act now, would you?
permalinkparent
[ ]pion3435 2 points 3 hours ago
You never had it. You're just now finding out.
permalinkparent
[ ]hershmire 7 points 7 hours ago
Ok, I get the FBI's argument. Technically, we are all choosing to carry a digita
l device around with us that uniquely identifies us via radio frequency. It's tr
ue that we could very well decide not to partake in the use of cell phones if we
're so worried about being tracked. And thus because we decide to carry these pa

rtially secure devices around with us, they FBI has every right to hack them and
track us.
But this argument is bogus. The FBI can't read our mail or tap our phones becaus
e legislators and judges at one time recognized that technology becomes indispen
sable, and therefore should be protected under privacy laws. Just because I choo
se to carry a cell phone around with me doesn't give the FBI to track my whereab
outs, or worse. That'd be like saying it's my fault for having my mail read by t
he FBI because I chose to write letters, or I chose to have my phones monitored
and recorded by the FBI because I chose to use telephones.
The FBI is part of the executive branch. They (supposedly) operate within the sc
ope of the law. If there's no specific law preventing their actions, they'll go
ahead and do it. So write your representatives and get shit like this regulated.
And use letters because they're obligated to at least open the envelope.
permalink
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]drakecherry 5 points 8 hours ago
we might as well get rid of warrants all together. they are gonna search if they
want to, and nothing will happen if they are wrong.
permalink
[ ]MeganNancySmith 6 points 6 hours ago
The FBI doesn't have the legal authority to make that determination.
It would be like if I said that murder is legal every other Sunday. I can say it
all I like, but it doesn't make it true.
permalink
[ ]Todda468 6 points 6 hours ago
Anything a private citizen can't do should require reasonable suspicion or a war
rent.
permalink
[ ]Sonotmethen 6 points 9 hours ago
Then signal jammers aren't either.
permalink
[ ]MrJDouble 4 points 9 hours ago
FBI tends to say a lot of things, doesn't mean it isn't a pile of horseshit.
permalink
[ ]blueiron0 4 points 6 hours ago
(3) cases in which the technology is used in public places or other locations at
which the FBI deems there is no reasonable expectation of privacy.
Love how the FBI gets to decide when it's ok for them to assume you shouldnt hav
e any expectation on privacy. "we saw a poop porn video on pornhub. you shouldnt
expect privacy when pooping then."
permalink
[ ]ragn4rok234 4 points 6 hours ago
Whoo! Now I don't need a warrant or sufficient reason to wire tap anyone and eve
ryone. Stalkers of the world rejoice! It's like Oprah is handing out privacy bre
aches in here
permalink
[ ]fourslaps 4 points 4 hours ago
This isn't what Steve Irwin would have wanted
permalink
[ ]knowyourbrain 7 points 8 hours ago
How sad is it that we have an R Senator trying to rein in a D president's FBI?
If Snowden et al have not been able to show the American people what a farce our
government is then I don't know how it can be demonstrated.
permalink
[ ]makingupdumbnames 1 point 5 hours ago
that's Chelsea to you, mister!
permalinkparent
[ ]StellarUsername 4 points 9 hours ago
Can someone ELI5 why my cell carrier lets this happen? Seems like it would be ea
sy enough for them to put a stop to it if they wanted.

permalink
[ ]giantgnat 13 points 8 hours ago
Because if you don't play nice with them, they don't play nice with you like wha
t happened to the CEO of quest after he refused to cooperate.
permalinkparent
[ ]lll_1_lll 6 points 6 hours ago
CEO of quest
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/09/30/a-ceo-who-resistednsa-spying-is-out-of-prison-and-he-feels-vindicated-by-snowden-leaks/
permalinkparent
[ ]WatchoutItsAllan 1 point 4 hours ago
Looks like the only way to be out of the eyes of the NSA is to go back to using
these http://imgur.com/JEFUt4h
permalinkparent
[ ]jkeyser14 4 points 7 hours ago
The cell and internet companies get paid millions by the government for direct a
ccess to their lines. This was one of the things Snowden blew the whistle on.
permalinkparent
[ ]MadPooter 2 points 7 hours ago
I believe that the technology behind our current cell phone towers needs to allo
w for widespread access to said cell phone towers from a wide array of technolog
ical devices.
The Stingray makes the cell phone tower believe that it's a cell phone--I don't
know that it's as easy as you might think to re-design all cell phone models to
differentiate themselves from what Stingrays currently are.
TL;DR: This might be a better issue for cell phone designers to solve rather the
n cell phone carriers.
permalinkparent
[ ]egalroc 2 points 6 hours ago
Maybe design a Falcon drone that homes in and locks on fake Stingray towers. Wou
ldn't the FBI just shit to see a couple sparrows zooming down on them?
permalinkparent
[ ]A530[??] 1 point 6 hours ago
Cell carriers couldn't care less. They're also packaging backdoors in their base
band software to do all kinds of functional crap, like over the air updates and
remote access.
permalinkparent
[ ]here4DaBacon 3 points 7 hours ago
So it's a honey pot for cell phones. This same method is used to intercept WiFi
internet traffic. The world is becoming a hackers paradise.
permalink
[ ]CapAnson 4 points 6 hours ago
I don't even think of the FBI's exceptions two and three are valid. And as for i
mminent danger to public safety I can't imagine when that safety hinges on inter
cepting a cell call right now this very second without a warrant
permalink
[ ]SquidwardSnowden1 3 points 6 hours ago
Let it be noted, I love big brother.
permalink
[ ]ryanknapper 3 points 6 hours ago
There was a comment asking what prevents private citizens from doing this. My re
ply was: Absolutely nothing. In fact, there are legal ways of doing exactly this
.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xKihq1fClQg
permalink
[ ]lll_1_lll 2 points 6 hours ago
inb4 this thread gets removed by the mods and/or shadowbanned
permalink
[ ]doctorshady[S] 3 points 6 hours ago
I was almost sure it was going to be removed when I submitted it.

permalinkparent
[ ]grtwatkins 1 point 3 hours ago
Wait, so mods = FBI?
permalinkparent
[ ]doctorshady[S] 2 points 2 hours ago
The mods here are quite restrictive about what is allowed to be submitted. Wheth
er or not they're under someone's influence is a question I can't answer (though
I'd honestly like to know), but you'll occasionally see high profile topics rem
oved, like the Snowden leaks back when PRISM was first pointed out.
permalinkparent
[ ]tomcat23 3 points 6 hours ago
If I had a hundred dollars for every time the FBI said it could do something une
thical or unconstitutional I'd be shooting rockets into space like Elon Musk rig
ht now.
permalink
[ ]leafygreenstuff 3 points 6 hours ago
Oh, well if they said....
permalink
[ ]wlxr 3 points 5 hours ago
Is this implying that they are going to repeatedly kill Steve Irwin?
permalink
[ ]Bulldog65 3 points 2 hours ago
Can I Use my Stingray in public places to intercept communications ?
If the answer is no, then the FBI needs a warrant.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effec
ts, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Wa
rrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, a
nd particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things t
o be seized.
This can only be changed by super majority votes in Congress and the States, not
treasonous opinions of mouthpiece lawyers in Department of Justice. This is why
prosecutions of torture memo writers is important. If they want to try and make
up laws they need to be held accountable under the law.
permalink
[ ]Do_Em_Till_They_Derp 13 points 12 hours ago
I don't think that is a good idea considering what happened to Steve Irwin.
permalink
[ ]Smgth 1 point 4 hours ago
I can't believe how far down I had to scroll to find this joke. I was worried I'
d have to make it myself. This thread is WAY too serious for my taste...
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]go1dfish 10 points 10 hours ago
This is what happens when you give a group of people authority over all else.
They use that authority to extort funds from you to pay for your own oppression.
But reddit still cheers it on. It seems to some; the concepts of roads or compas
sion cannot exist without specially anointed jack boot thugs.
permalink
[ ]Arael15th 3 points 6 hours ago
Do you see anyone in this post cheering this on? Moreover is this your first tim
e here?
permalinkparent
[ ]Flight_MH370 2 points 9 hours ago
Can the cell providers see every time this happens? If so, they could alert peop
le of fake towers or something. Alas, I'm pretty sure all the cell providers are
in bed with the feds already anyway.
permalink
[ ]leftnotracks 1 point 8 hours ago
This is why it s a good thing the FBI are not the people in charge of what is lega
l.

permalink
[ ]iluvmilfs420 3 points 7 hours ago
Ohh cool more of my taxes wasted on stupid shit...
permalink
[ ]fuzzycuffs 3 points 7 hours ago
Then I can do the same thing with wifi and not be charged with hacking, right?
permalink
[ ]endprism 2 points 7 hours ago
Use of Stringray in America: https://www.aclu.org/maps/stingray-tracking-devices
-whos-got-them
http://rt.com/usa/215735-sandiego-police-phone-tracking/
http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/First-Amendment-Coalition-Files-Lawsuit-Ab
out-Stingray-Surveillance--286092741.html
http://www.miaminewtimes.com/2012-02-16/news/cell-phone-tracking-miami-cops-know
-where-you-are/
http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/Fort-Worth-Cellphone-Tracking-Rings-Controversy
-140796693.html
http://www.wgrz.com/story/news/investigations/2014/02/13/are-local-police-spying
-on-your-cell-phone/5462273/
Tick tock...
permalink
[ ]johnnybiggs15 2 points 7 hours ago
didnt know they had that type of power
permalink
[ ]jwyche008 2 points 6 hours ago
They would fucking say that wouldn't they? The thing is it isn't supposed to be
their damn decision to make!
permalink
[ ]ICEClownfishWok 1 point 6 hours ago
Did the US government learn nothing from Nazi Germany? I honestly won't be surpr
ised if WWIII occurs when the rest of the world gets tired of our governments bu
llshit
permalink
[ ]frankenstilskin 3 points 6 hours ago
America, for the corporations by the corporations
permalink
[ ]Elephant_rhino_tiger 3 points 5 hours ago
It sounds like a 6 year old coming up with a superhero. "This is FBI man, and he
can fly and like punch through the earth, and he can y'know like intercept cell
traffic if he thinks it's important. But he is weak against himself though, so
like if he punched himself he would die."
permalink
[ ]Banana_blanket 2 points 4 hours ago
Hey who wants to just sit around and let it happen? Oh, everyone? Perfect. Ready
? Go.
permalink
[ ]poopinbutt2014 3 points 4 hours ago
Ah yes, the cops deciding what laws they are and aren't subject to.
permalink
[ ]burnerthrown 2 points 2 hours ago
Has anyone else notied a pattern of more and more laws that protect enforcement
operations from civilians, and fewer nd fewer laws protecting civilians from enf
orcement?
permalink
[ ]siquisiudices 2 points 2 hours ago
Increasingly I am astonished by the state of democracy in the developed western
countries. What has happened and how? I realise that there have always been infr
ingements of liberties by the state - always. But it seems to me that what has c
hanged is the blatent nature of the compromise of democratic norms. I'm not a hi
storian but my impression is that the origins of our current situation lie in tw

o iconic regimes in the UK and US - Reagan and Thatcher (and those that followed
) - and in the fall of the soviet regimes.
The economic philosophy that Reagan and Thatcher promoted reduced liberty to pro
perty rights while at the same time it condemned (rightly) the soviet regimes fo
r their lack of respect for democratic norms. The appeal of this economic ideolo
gy to capital, to the corporations, was obvious especially as during the 1970s t
here had been intermittent but recurring periods when profitability had fallen.
In the context of declining profitability, a roll back of the state and public e
xpenditure was a quick win.
For the rest of society, the implication that growth in personal, individual wea
lth was being held back by public spending and that the welfare state eroded ind
ividual responsibility also won the day. A key element in this process was the d
efeat and denigration of trade unionism: Thatcher going so far as to suggest tha
t trade unions (in the person of the National Union of Miners) were dangerous tr
aitors. People bought into the arguments for radical individualism ("there is no
such thing as society") because, in part, the concrete experience of collectivi
sm in trade unions declined in the face a massive anti-trade union assault.
The fall of the corrupt and totalitarian soviet regimes underpinned this all by
giving concrete expression to the notion that there is no alternative.
Economically the result has been massive widening of the discrepancy in wealth i
n many western countries and increased immiseration of labour across the world a
nd no force to counterbalance the power of the corporations and the state that t
hey (quite naturally) control. The state is the central committee of capital.
In all of this, the oft misnamed "libertarian" tendencies were accompanied by an
increasingly authoritarian and intrusive state apparatus which was promoted and
defended around quite classical nationalist ideas but recast often as the defen
se of western democracy against various external enemies.
And so, little by little, we have allowed our civil liberties to be chipped away
. Even the radical libertarians have been sidelined and fooled into irrelevant s
truggles around gun control in the US. Really, if an armed citizenry were the gu
arantee of liberty then one wold have hoped it would have done a better job. But
overall anti-welfare, anti-European and anti-immigrant rhetoric in the UK and,
for example, religious manipulation of public discourse in the US have allowed t
he authoritarian, pro-corporate state to gradually encroach on political and per
sonal freedoms. And here we are.
We can't say we didn't know - we were warned but the ruling class managed to def
ame the messengers and in other ways render us impotent.
One can only hope that we wake up in time and that our new disdain for collectiv
ism is overcome by the necessity of taking collective action.
permalink
[ ]DinglebellRock [score hidden] 49 minutes ago
You have a right to privacy according to the Constitution. Except for maybe your
cell phone calls. Or email. Or handwritten or typed letters. Or what you read f
rom the library and Amazon. Or maybe your colon and lower intestine if you are i
n New Mexico. What a fucked up nation this has become...
permalink
[ ]nstalker91 [score hidden] 38 minutes ago
Oh sure, when they do it, it's "protecting" and "morally right", but when I do i
t, it's a "federal crime" and "the FCC watches me"
permalink
[ ]The_Media_Collector 3 points 9 hours ago
This is why my phone has an app to continually report IMSI changes to me. I swit
ch one tower to another, I get a warning.
permalink
[ ]Redd575 1 point 7 hours ago
How is that helpful? Not being an ass, just curious. Seems if a Stingray can spo
of a tower then the app does little unless you are standing absolutely still.
permalinkparent
[ ]The_Media_Collector 3 points 7 hours ago
it's my understanding that Stingray "towers" do not encrypt traffic. anytime I a

m connected to an unencrypted "tower" the IMSI detector goes red and lets me kno
w.
permalinkparent
[ ]Redd575 1 point 6 hours ago
Wow. Whomever figured that out was clever.
permalinkparent
[ ]ExReverie93 1 point 7 hours ago
Which app? And would a normal person (not meaning you're not normal. You know wh
at I mean.) be able to use it?
permalinkparent
[ ]The_Media_Collector 1 point 7 hours ago
Requires Root. It's just caeld "Adnroid IMSI-Catchter"
permalinkparent
[ ]egalroc 1 point 6 hours ago
Makes a person want to be a criminal or spy just for the fun of it.
permalinkparent
[ ]Effo 3 points 7 hours ago
Goodbye America the Great, hello police state. :-[
permalink
[ ]Casemods 2 points 7 hours ago
Another reason why I don't have a cell phone.
permalink
[ ]GiveMe_TreeFiddy 3 points 7 hours ago
Things libertarians have been screaming about and offering solutions to for 500$
, Alex...
permalink
[ ]ilovesellinblow 1 point 9 hours ago
police and marshals have been running these for years.
permalink
[ ]bbelt16ag 1 point 8 hours ago
so FBI lets see what the Supreme court has to say to that. I am sure once they r
ule on this you will be going home with your tails between your legs.
permalink
[ ]Banana_blanket 1 point 4 hours ago
Do you people really have that much faith in our Supreme Court? Really?
permalinkparent
[ ]bbelt16ag 1 point 3 hours ago
gotta have some faith, other wise its just anarchy, or revolution. I am not read
y to give up quite yet.
permalinkparent
[ ]bonyponyride 1 point 8 hours ago
If digital communication in a public (and private) space is fair game, there's n
othing to stop an FBI tech specialist from stealing things like knowledge that w
ould be considered insider trading. There's an extreme potential for abuse.
permalink
[ ]jkeyser14 2 points 7 hours ago
If was fair game then hacking into wireless signals by private citizens wouldn't
be illegal.
permalinkparent
[ ]egalroc 1 point 6 hours ago
Just waiting for Anonymous to set up shop in a public park and hack into police
communications then dispatch them to bogus locations throughout the city. If any
thing goes wrong, they could always blame North Korea.
permalinkparent
[ ]coalbeeashi 1 point 3 hours ago
Aren't government agencies encrypting their digital communication - thus exhibit
ing an expectation of privacy?
I'm not sure what steps the "reasonable person" is taking to exhibit an expectat
ion of privacy over their data, tbh.
permalinkparent

[ ]hmmwhatsthisdo 1 point 8 hours ago


If you used RedPhone, Whisperpush/TextSecure, and a VPN, this wouldn't be of con
cern to you, right?
permalink
[ ]LucifersCounselNZ 1 point 7 hours ago
Wrong.
In other cases, the IMSI or equivalent identifier of a target is not known to th
e StingRay operator and the goal of the surveillance operation is to identify on
e or more cellular devices being used in a known area.[16] For example, if visua
l surveillance is being conducted on a group of protestors,[17] a StingRay can b
e used to download the IMSI or equivalent identifier from each phone within the
protest area. After identifying the phones, locating and tracking operations can
be conducted, and service providers can be forced to turn over account informat
ion identifying the phone users.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stingray_phone_tracker#Extracting_Data_From_Interna
l_Storage
Before any of that shit you're talking about comes into play, the IMSI number is
used when establishing the connection. It is uniquely identifying. With your IM
SI number and a court order (or cooperative telco) they will know who you are an
d who you were communicating with.
Then they can use that information to punish you for participating in legal prot
ests, associating with the wrong people, or simply because some Fed didn't like
the look of you.
permalinkparent
[ ]hmmwhatsthisdo 1 point 6 hours ago
So, the only way is to modify your IMEI (which is questionably legal) and use a
prepaid SIM?
permalinkparent
[ ]facepalmdude 1 point 5 hours ago
The IMSI part makes sense, but by using the mentioned tools authorities are very
unlikely to find out who you communicated with, or what the content was. All th
ey know is that you're the end point of an encrypted data connection.
permalinkparent
[ ]coalbeeashi 1 point 3 hours ago
I would assume that a court would view this as an individual exhibiting an expec
tation of privacy over their data.
permalinkparent
[ ]mambotangohandala 1 point 7 hours ago
Law?
We don't need no stinkin' law...
permalink
[ ]smilesbot 1 point 7 hours ago
You've just used a double negative! :P
permalinkparent
[ ]mambotangohandala 1 point 7 hours ago
no i did not, never would i do such a thing, nope, i don't think i ever did...
Ever see the movie 'blazing saddles'? Context kid, context
permalinkparent
[ ]smilesbot 1 point 7 hours ago
yup yup yup!
permalinkparent
[ ]mambotangohandala 1 point 7 hours ago
oh no a triple positive,what a stupendous faux pas!
permalinkparent
[ ]smilesbot 1 point 7 hours ago
yup yup yup!
permalinkparent
[ ]mambotangohandala 1 point 7 hours ago
Did mom give you too many sodas tonight?
permalinkparent

[ ]mambotangohandala 1 point 7 hours ago


Now where are those kiddy downers?
permalinkparent
[ ]mambotangohandala 1 point 7 hours ago
Remember tomorrow is a school day
permalinkparent
[ ]BigTex8900 1 point 7 hours ago
The Federal Bureau of Investigation is taking the position that court warrants a
re not required when deploying cell-site simulators in public places.
Wait so can I take the position that it's not actually illegal to suck dick for
money in public places?
permalink
[ ]AssOrca 1 point 6 hours ago
Well thank god there not doing it in my home!
permalinkparent
[ ]Drunken_Economist 1 point 7 hours ago
The FCC says they are needed, FWIW
permalink
[ ]FadingEchoes11 0 points 6 hours ago
100% true, power to the people
You should learn about and try to understand firearms more, they are just tools
after all.
permalink
[ ]winstrol 1 point 6 hours ago
Can i use a stingray? Al stick to my snoopsnitch.
permalink
[ ]fatscat84 2 points 6 hours ago
Big fucking surprise, 4th amendment=toilet paper anymore. The rights of the citi
zens arent even considered anymore since we dont have lobbyists. Maybe ill start
a kickstarter campaign to make a lobbyist group to give americans a voice in d.
c.
permalink
[ ]urbn 2 points 6 hours ago
The Obama Administration has repeatedly maintained that the public has no privac
y in public places.
And yet the excuse always used when someone records a police officer breaking th
e law and is arrested, detained and has his property stolen is that it violates
their privacy.
permalink
[ ]Vigilias 1 point 6 hours ago
If it's stealing signals being send from private residences it sure should fucki
ng be wtf.
permalink
[ ]2013palmtreepam 1 point 6 hours ago
Because stingrays automatically stop working at private property lines? Don't re
call the part of the 4th Amendment that exempts the requirement for probable cau
se and a search warrant when one happens to be in a public place.
permalink
[ ]makingupdumbnames 2 points 6 hours ago
I don't think it would be too hard to develop a stingray jammer, something that
just floods their equipment with a bunch of useless/fake cell phone numbers...I'
m in favor of a more strategic response to these types of infringements of our r
ights. We actually have a right and responsibility to fight tyranny...
permalink
[ ]ghotiaroma 1 point 3 hours ago
It's possible, but you wouldn't know where and when to use it. And it would be d
etectable you are using a jammer and anyone using one would find themselves fill
ed with SWAT bullets in no time.
permalinkparent
[ ]ononewheel 1 point 2 hours ago

Cant you rent bot net time and do this?


permalinkparent
[ ]psilontech 1 point 5 hours ago
I think that's for the courts to decide, FBI.
permalink
[ ]coalbeeashi 1 point 4 hours ago
...the only way the courts could decide is if it were practiced and a lawsuit wa
s brought against those practices.
Of course the FBI is going to finagle ways to flirt with obscure, outdated laws
for the purpose of investigating, thus practice it. Of course some group or orga
nization is going to take issue with it, thus taking it to court.
permalinkparent
[ ]cynoclast 2 points 5 hours ago
And the 4th Amendment says the FBI is wrong. And to the idea that subsequent law
s or that prededence says otherwise, I say that lawyers who make those interpret
ations were paid to do so by people with a vested interest in saying otherwise.
The constitution and amendments were intended to be read and interpreted by ever
yone, not just lawyers and judges so it matters not at all what lawyers and judg
es say.
permalink
[ ]coalbeeashi 1 point 5 hours ago
The constitution and amendments were intended to be read and interpreted by ever
yone
Uhh...interpreted by everyone? Do you know how fucked up that would be? There's
a reason for the judicial branch.
permalinkparent
[ ]cynoclast 2 points 4 hours ago
More fucked up than corporations as people? The 4th Amendment being ignored by t
he DHS, Homeland Security, and the NSA? More fucked up than than all the ridicul
ous, unconstitutional restrictions on cosmetic features of firearms that all vio
late the 2nd amendment? More fucked up than justices appointed by war criminals
refusing to recuse themselves where they have a clear conflict of interest?
The judicial branch is staffed by people, just as fallible as the rest of us. Th
e judicial branch was nly ever an attempt to reign in the other two. It was alwa
ys intended that it was the right of the people to alter or abolish the governme
nt if it gets out of hand and it has.
permalinkparent
[ ]coalbeeashi 1 point 4 hours ago
I would still rather have the fate of laws be in the hands of individuals who sp
ecifically studied the very nature of their professional practice than leave it
up to a mass of people with little-to-no understanding of the law, outside of wh
at is force-fed to them by media (comparable to your assertion of less-than-idea
l practices by lawyer/judges)
I fully agree that laws should be written in ways that the public can understand
and interpret (however, you're never going to reach a consensus on laws written
200+ years ago). And I believe that, reading most supreme court decisions, the
justices advocate for specifics in laws and understand that outdated or vague la
ws is a main reason cases are brought before them. Laws aren't concrete or stati
c. It's a court of public opinion.
permalinkparent
[ ]cynoclast 1 point 4 hours ago
I would still rather have the fate of laws be in the hands of individuals who sp
ecifically studied the very nature of their professional practice than leave it
up to a mass of people with little-to-no understanding of the law, outside of wh
at is force-fed to them by media (comparable to your assertion of less-than-idea
l practices by lawyer/judges)
I think there's balance between the two. It's similar to the balance between IT
and the user. While the IT guy is more knowledgeable about the field than most o
f the users he's supposed to facilitate, he often forgets that his purpose is to
facilitate, not to rule, and what the users are doing is what keeps the lights

on. People in congress and the senate are mislabelled when called 'lawmakers' th
eir job is representative of their constituency. And lawyers face a conflict of
interest between simplifying the law and representing people fairly and seeing a
fter their own welfare and ensuring their own job security. Simple, clear, and u
nambiguous laws have little value to the professional attorney at law. But the p
eople at large have no interest, and in fact a reason to despise laws they don't
understand, especially ones decided by decades old case law they know nothing a
bout. But for too long the balance has been swinging in favor of the lawyer seek
ing payment for services from the rich instead of the poor seeking freedom from
those with the resources to hire teams of lawyers for years to drain them of res
ources. The day a rich man could sue an innocent poor man under false pretenses
and crush him is the day the justice department ceased to function as intended.
I fully agree that laws should be written in ways that the public can understand
and interpret (however, you're never going to reach a consensus on laws written
200+ years ago). And I believe that, reading most supreme court decisions, the
justices advocate for specifics in laws and understand that outdated or vague la
ws is a main reason cases are brought before them. Laws aren't concrete or stati
c. It's a court of public opinion.
Lawyers like to pretend that they are concrete or static. Just imagine the phras
e "settled case law" coming out of their mouths and you need go no further. It's
like they forget that eventually given the dynamic equilibrium of the poor vs.
the rich that sometimes words written on paper in a dusty library somewhere mean
absolutely nothing when the pitchforks and guillotines come out, the old laws t
hrown out, and new ones written even more strongly against tyrants. You're right
, sometimes, it's a court of public opinion. But sometimes the court is brutal,
but not unjustly so:
There were two Reigns of Terror, if we would but remember it and consider it; the
one wrought murder in hot passion, the other in heartless cold blood; the one la
sted mere months, the other had lasted a thousand years; the one inflicted death
upon ten thousand persons, the other upon a hundred millions; but our shudders
are all for the horrors of the minor Terror, the momentary Terror, so to speak; wh
ereas, what is the horror of swift death by the axe, compared with lifelong deat
h from hunger, cold, insult, cruelty, and heart-break? What is swift death by li
ghtning compared with death by slow fire at the stake? A city cemetery could con
tain the coffins filled by that brief Terror which we have all been so diligentl
y taught to shiver at and mourn over; but all France could hardly contain the co
ffins filled by that older and real Terror that unspeakably bitter and awful Terro
r which none of us has been taught to see in its vastness or pity as it deserves
.
permalinkparent
[ ]DongleNocker 2 points 5 hours ago
Don't you wish government organizations would get permission from congress prior
to assuming they have the authority?
permalink
[ ]Euracil 1 point 5 hours ago
Whoops! Someone just happened to spill wine all over the Bill of Rights! Well, a
t least the Second Amendment survived!
permalink
[ ]ripvannwinkler 1 point 5 hours ago
What is the practical operational radius of one of these things?
If my place of business or residence falls in this radius of an operating device
, is my phone subject to interception by the device?
If so, you require a warrant. Period. No equivocation.
permalink
[ ]bittopia 1 point 5 hours ago
What is going to be interesting is when systems and encryptions becomes so resil
ient and powerful that nothing can be spied on AT ALL. What will they do then?
permalink
[ ]johnnybullet 1 point 5 hours ago
I thought only God was listening to me... This changes everything!

permalink
[ ]TronicTonic 2 points 5 hours ago
Thank god the FBI is in charge of the judicial branch and gets to decide what is
right vs wrong.
permalink
[ ]Vinven 1 point 5 hours ago
They can say whatever they want, it doesn't make it legal.
permalink
[ ]coffeethulhu 2 points 5 hours ago
Under this theory anybody could buy one of these devices and use it in "public s
paces" without fear of falling foul of the law....Who wants to start a kickstart
er campaign to buy one?
permalink
[ ]redditezmode 1 point 5 hours ago
Based on what, exactly? Why would they think search warrants aren't necessary?
permalink
[ ]Fucksfuturefatchicks 1 point 4 hours ago
If it stops me from downloading porn, it's a dead giveaway. If it doesn't, thank
s for the government funded and sanctioned porn.
permalink
[ ]egalroc 1 point 4 hours ago
I wonder if the FBI can upload unsanctioned porn to your computer using a stingr
ay? Interesting thought isn't it?
permalinkparent
[ ]winsomecowboy 1 point 4 hours ago
So my clandestine FBI staff list shouldn't be an issue.
permalink
[ ]Heisenpurrrrg 1 point 4 hours ago
Those guys can fuck right off, eh?
permalink
[ ]cerealcable 1 point 4 hours ago
Every time an invasion of our rights & privacy especially related to our establi
shed forms of communications happens it just terrifies me. Not because our gover
nment is throwing wind to established laws but because of what the future could
bring.
The reason why most of us are upset today over this is because we have an expect
ation of privacy when we pick up our cell phones. We expect our text messages, p
hone calls and data to be private thus protected by law requiring a warrant to "
tap" it only for Law Enforcement. Telecoms (wired, wireless, voip) will only com
ply to requests when required by law, but when it comes to the public air waves
using technology to just listen in we're starting a terrible precedent.
Essentially what I'm concerned about is that eventually it'll be so commonly acc
epted that these communications are not private (after all the government can sn
oop in on those conversations, and everyone already expects it) and thus we no l
onger have the expectation of privacy and thus no warrant is actually acquired.
The terrifying process is how it all started, with the government over stepping
their legal abilities with little to no repercussions.
Now that I'm reading that paragraph again, I honestly wouldn't be surprised if t
hat exact argument is/was/will be used in a secret court of which none of us wil
l be able to hold accountable.
It's scary to see what the future will hold for privacy related to technology. O
ur government is doing anything and everything they want and if people aren't sc
ared they need to get some tinfoil and make some hats because they're going to n
eed them.
Obligatory point: As the government snoops more and more, technology will just e
ncrypt more and more making it nearly pointless for the snooping, but it won't c
hange the expectation of privacy after say a decade of common knowledge that the
se communications are not private. Then Law Enforcement Agencies will just subpo
ena records instead of following due process of getting a warrant.
tl;dr It's a very slippery slope and I'm just watching us slowly sliding further

and further into the trap. :-(


permalink
[ ]coalbeeashi 1 point 4 hours ago
Honest question - in the eyes of laws, is our view on "expectation of privacy" i
gnorant or misguided? When I send a text - even though I don't think about it I gave permission to Apple, AT&T, my friend, their carrier, their phone, and pro
bably countless others that I don't even realize. When I download an app I give
them all sorts of permissions to access my information.
Also, what's stopping the government from creating an app, let's say some crazed
game like Trivia Crack, hide a bunch of permissions that no one looks at and do
it that way. They could have access to my photos, access to my microphone, acce
ss to my location, etc. (obviously I understand that you can retract most of tho
se permissions, but I doubt many people do)
So, I guess my question is, using multiple third parties, do I really have the r
ight to expect complete privacy?
permalinkparent
[ ]Rockerofboats 2 points 4 hours ago
I do what I wants to.
permalink
[ ]Gymshortsboner55 2 points 4 hours ago
I'm not trying to sound like the uncle that's always bitchin' at family reunions
but man is this country going down the shitter. I'm almost ashamed to live here
anymore.
permalink
[ ]kazuri85 2 points 4 hours ago
The government has no right to make your property do something you do not want i
t to do.
permalink
[ ]SpacemanLurker 2 points 3 hours ago
Crikey! Australian accent
Too soon?
permalink
[ ]Undisclosed-dopeness 1 point 3 hours ago
Really wish this was about actual stingrays
permalink
[ ]k-h 1 point 3 hours ago
Is that the "stingrays" that don't exist?
Of course they don't need a warrant on equipment that doesn't exist.
permalink
[ ]PhorTwenny 2 points 3 hours ago
if it picks up all cells text/call/info how do they know your not inside a house
or anyother private area? Either way this is disgusting!
permalink
[ ]MarxIzalias 2 points 3 hours ago
The more of these that get posted, the harder I laugh at America's freedoms.
You pretty much have the same as everybody else.
It seems as though the constitution is like bog roll to your law enforcement. Co
vered in meaningless shit that doesn't even stick to them.
What a joke.
The FBI stating that 'stingrays' don't apply to privacy laws because you're in a
public place makes no sense, otherwise you could walk around butt naked and arg
ue that "According to the FBI, personal privacy is not required in public".
Of course, they could say, what any deceitful peice of trash could say. "If you
weren't doing anything illegal then you have nothing to worry about."
Unless you were talking to you solicitor about a patent. In which case it would
be worthless the moment a third party heard about the invention.
Talking to your doctor about a condition that could prejudice a group against yo
u.
Talking to a solicitor about the details of a case.
Talking to fellow jurors over the phone about a details of a case, that's always

good to be spied on.


Talk about family history and possible ties you might have to foreign nations, w
hich could put you on a watch list.
Give personal details to bankers about foreign business accounts which have diff
erent protection laws.
Discuss plans you may have that they could interfere with.
Or just miscellaneous emails to and from your employer that could be damaging to
the companies reputation if published and could be used against them as leverag
e with a false flag operation LOOKING AT YOU SONY!
This isn't even a comprehensive list of things that you could do, but hey, it's
America, the land where freedom is a lie and the constitution is apparently wort
h less and less with each new government. XFD
permalink
[ ]NightOfTheLivingHam 1 point 3 hours ago
while we're declaring bullshit, I declare I'm owed a million dollars.
permalink
[ ]ZedOud 1 point 3 hours ago
Most warrant-less law enforcement surveillance techniques are legal because they
can be performed by members of the public, in public. (ex. tailing)
So can we also legally operate a stingray?
Yes we can!
permalink
[ ]Wulfgar_RIP 1 point 3 hours ago
FBI protecting freedoms and constitution from terrorists
permalink
[ ]CantHugEveryCat 2 points 3 hours ago
I'm surprised the FBI still feel they have to justify their actions.
permalink
[ ]bazingabrain 0 points 3 hours ago
Here I am thinking the FBI is going to be throwing real stingrays around without
a search warrant. Can't have that
permalink
[ ]tobsn 1 point 3 hours ago
and whoever said that should be immediately terminated.
permalink
[ ]joshladd 1 point 3 hours ago
Didn't the supreme court just say that searching cell phones requires a warrant?
Is this different than searching cell phones? I might be uninformed but it seem
s like a blatant disregard for court rulings.
permalink
[ ]birdington1 1 point 3 hours ago
Can anybody explain what a 'stingray' is?
permalink
[ ]one_love_silvia 1 point 2 hours ago
the article explains it in literally the first paragraph.
permalinkparent
[ ]IllegalOperator 0 points 2 hours ago
Yeah right, dropping the case rather than reveal their methods says otherwise. I
f there weren't doing anything wrong they would have nothing to hide.
permalink
[ ]HauntedBeepers 1 point 2 hours ago
FBI says FBI can do what it wants
permalink
[ ]Fig1024 1 point 2 hours ago
does that mean I, as private citizen, can also use them? After all, there are no
laws against it
permalink
[ ]Monkeibusiness 1 point 2 hours ago
"FBI - out if control since 2001" -Simpsons
permalink

[ ]skztr 1 point 2 hours ago


good test for whether or not you need a warrant:
If any random person off the street did it, would that be legal? If not, you nee
d a fucking warrant.
permalink
[ ]Rusky82 1 point 2 hours ago
Land of the free eh......
permalink
[ ]WECGEWHYAAIORTNU 1 point 2 hours ago
So in some states its "wiretapping" to record with a microphone a conversation b
etween two people happening at a table, but pretending to be a cell tower is a-o
k?
permalink
[ ]Amanoo 1 point 2 hours ago
"concerned about whether the FBI and other law enforcement agencies have adequat
ely considered the privacy interests" of Americans
Privacy interests of Americans? Is that supposed to still be a thing? I thought
that privacy interests were considered something for terrorists in the US, by no
w.
permalink
[ ]raviddadford 1 point 2 hours ago
Stingray got Steve Irwin
permalink
[ ]Homarus_Americanus 1 point 2 hours ago
It's all good 'cause I can by me all guns I want.
permalink
[ ]anshu1234 0 points 2 hours ago
This is non-news if you are not a drug-peddler. Next please.
permalink
[ ]bubbafat1155 1 point 2 hours ago
It's over. "They" have won. The only hope now is for individuals, society is los
t. Get off the grid, or join the sheep. http://imgur.com/W7CdURh
permalink
[ ]Targun 1 point 2 hours ago
And how are they going to filter out cellphones of all the people who live next
to public places where stingray is located?
permalink
[ ]riderer 1 point 2 hours ago
So can i do the same in public place? just stingray everyone?
permalink
[ ]Neker 1 point 1 hour ago
There are blueprints and tutorials out there that put "stingrays" within reach o
f an hobbyist. Law-breaking hobbyist, that is, but still : mobile phones essenti
aly broadcast your conversations.
permalink
[ ]mindwandering 1 point 1 hour ago
The flying DRT box.
permalink
[ ]SilenceGivesConsent [score hidden] 48 minutes ago
In other words, FBI says it does not need search warrants to warrant a search.
permalink
[ ]Formally_Nightman [score hidden] 46 minutes ago
FBI: "Senator we have been monitoring your calls and your exact geographical loc
ation for years ... You shouldn't find that unconstitutional or the public and y
our wife will learn how unconstitutional you've been"
permalink
[ ]ActuallyNotSparticus [score hidden] 40 minutes ago
Fuck this shit. Stingrays killed the crocodile hunter. Are we ready for the gove
rnment to use these stingrays?
permalink

[ ]Rayhueston [score hidden] 38 minutes ago


The article says the Obama administration consistently maintains that people hav
e no privacy in public. Is that true or is that hyperbole?
If I'm walking down the street, do I have the right to keep the contents of my w
allet private? My blood type? My thoughts?
If I have no privacy with regard to these and many other sensitive things, who d
oes have the right to them?
permalink
[ ]swollennode [score hidden] 37 minutes ago
People don't have privacy in public places..hmmm, I think that people are entitl
ed to privacy if something private belongs to them. Sure, people's faces aren't
private when they're in public places. But people's phone calls and texts should
be.
permalink
[ ]pomod [score hidden] 18 minutes ago
Well if the FBI says they are not needed...
Seriously, this should be a court decision not a cop one. Cops, even a fancy cop
s like the FBI, should not make the laws just enforce them.
permalink
[ ]CJ59 [score hidden] 18 minutes ago
In other news, the FBI says, "You know what, screw it. There are no more laws. W
e'll do whatever the hell we want. Not like you're going to do anything about it
."
permalink
[ ]gkiltz [score hidden] 15 minutes ago
Just because the FBI says it, that does not mean it's true!
I don't envy the poor schmuck who has to stan in front of the Supreme Court and
argue that!!
permalink
load more comments (48 replies)
about
blog
about
team
source code
advertise
jobs
help
wiki
FAQ
reddiquette
rules
contact us
tools
mobile
firefox extension
chrome extension
buttons
widget
<3
reddit gold
store
redditgifts
reddit AMA app
reddit.tv
radio reddit
Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy
. 2015 reddit inc. All rights reserved.
REDDIT and the ALIEN Logo are registered trademarks of reddit inc.

p jump to content
MY SUBREDDITS
FRONT-ALL-RANDOM | PHOTOSHOPBATTLES-HISTORY-GIFS-FOOD-PHILOSOPHY-TELEVISION-WORL
DNEWS-SHOWERTHOUGHTS-LIFEPROTIPS-ART-SPACE-NOTTHEONION-DOCUMENTARIES-NOSLEEP-GAM
ING-GADGETS-EARTHPORN-ASKREDDIT-FUNNY-MOVIES-DIY-FUTUROLOGY-FITNESS-BOOKS-LISTEN
TOTHIS-INTERNETISBEAUTIFUL-MUSIC-EXPLAINLIKEIMFIVE-UPLIFTINGNEWS-SPORTS-PICS-TOD
AYILEARNED-PERSONALFINANCE-DATAISBEAUTIFUL-IAMA-OLDSCHOOLCOOL-EUROPE-CREEPY-TWOX
CHROMOSOMES-AWW-NEWS-WRITINGPROMPTS-GETMOTIVATED-VIDEOS-TIFU-ASKSCIENCE-JOKES-MI
LDLYINTERESTING-SCIENCE
MORE
news newscommentsrelatedother discussions (15)
want to join? sign in or create an account in seconds|English
this post was submitted on 05 Jan 2015
3,152 points (95% upvoted)
shortlink:
remember mereset passwordlogin
news
unsubscribe4,562,294 readers
2,631 users here now
/r/inthenews
/r/worldnews
new submissions
new comments
Post analysis/opinion articles to /r/inthenews
Want to talk?
Chat with us on IRC
Follow @rslashnews on Twitter
See a post that violates the rules below? Had your post stuck in the spam filter
? Have a question about policy? Just want to give feedback? Send the mod team a
message.
Please post news items only, with the exception of meta posts about /r/news itse
lf. Self-posts aggregating news data and "independent reporting" each count as n
ews, but are not an excuse to editorialize.
Your post will likely be removed if it:
is not news (or a meta post).
is an opinion/analysis or advocacy piece.
primarily concerns politics.
has a title not taken from the article.
has a pay wall or steals content.
covers an already-submitted story.
violates reddit's site-wide rules, especially regarding personal info.
Your comment will likely be removed if it:
is racist, sexist, vitriolic, or overly crude.
is unnecessarily rude or provocative.
is a cheap and distracting joke or meme.
is responding to spam.
violates reddit's site-wide rules.
Extreme or repeat offenders will be banned.
Expanded Rules
If your post doesn't fit, consider finding an appropriate news article on that s
tory to submit instead, or submitting yours to lower moderation subreddits:
/r/inthenews - all news-related content
/r/AnythingGoesNews - unrestricted news
/r/truereddit - insightful articles
/r/self - any self-post
/r/misc, /r/redditdotcom - anything
or other news subreddits:
/r/worldnews - from outside the USA only
/r/SyrianCivilWar - about the conflict in Syria

/r/MidEastRegionalWar - on MidEast conflict /r/UpliftingNews - uplifting


/r/mediaquotes - the things they say
or subreddits for other topics:
/r/FoodForThought - discussion-worthy long form articles about interesting subje
cts
/r/politics - for shouting about politics
/r/moderatepolitics - less shouting
/r/politicaldiscussion - even less shouting
/r/geopolitics - intl. politics and geography
/r/entertainment - Justin Bieber updates, etc.
/r/europe - news from Europe
or check out the 200 most active subreddits, categorized by content and the full
list of subreddits by subscribers.
Recommendations:
/r/redactedcharts
/r/patriots
/r/personalfinance
/r/restorethefourth
reddit is fun for Android and its subreddit /r/redditisfun
submit analysis/opinion article
submit news article
submit something else
submit analysis/opinion article
a community for 6 years
message the moderators
moderators
douglasmacarthur
KyldeThe Janitor
AyeMatey
CandyManCan
Elderthedog
LuckyBdx4
NickWasHere09
ani625
pomosexuality
IKingJeremy
...and 1 more
3152
FBI says search warrants not needed to use stingrays in public places (arstechnica
.com)
submitted 13 hours ago by doctorshady
731 commentsshare
top 500 comments
sorted by: best
[ ]peaceshark 654 points 11 hours ago
If only there were some branch of government that would keep the FBI in check, o
ne that judged people and organizations supremely...
permalink
[ ]misogichan 641 points 8 hours ago
Unfortunately the Catholic church has its hands full dealing with its own intern
al reforms and recasting its vision and mission.
permalinkparent
[ ]wutshappening 93 points 7 hours ago
And looking at cat photos that's why they're Cat-holic. Alco-holics are addicted
to alcohol and catholics well you get the idea.
permalinkparent
[ ]TuffLuffJimmy 142 points 6 hours ago
Omg dad you're embarrassing me in front of my friends
permalinkparent
[ ]okmkz 27 points 4 hours ago

We ain't your friends, bruh


permalinkparent
[ ]Corruptionss 4 points 2 hours ago
We ain't your bruh, friends
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
load more comments (2 replies)
[ ]ROLLINGtemple 9 points 5 hours ago
What's their Dogma?
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
load more comments (9 replies)
[ ]hershmire 73 points 7 hours ago
The courts gave up about ten years ago.
permalinkparent
[ ]endprism 50 points 7 hours ago
The courts are pwned by the surveillance state.
permalinkparent
[ ]sushisection 41 points 6 hours ago
This is what I'm afraid of. Nsa is collecting data from all citizens including p
oliticians and supreme court judges.
permalinkparent
[ ]dutchguilder2 19 points 5 hours ago
Whistleblower confirms: http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=d6m1XbWOfVk
permalinkparent
[ ]TwitchTV_Subbort 1 point 3 hours ago
D.C. is Hollywood for ugly people. best line ever!!
permalinkparent
[ ]sklite 1 point 1 hour ago
Charles Augustus Magnussen approves
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]CriticalThink 1 point 6 hours ago
Skeletons in the closet are easy to find with intelligence infrastructure.
permalinkparent
[ ]HurricaneSandyHook 1 point 5 hours ago
The 10th circuit a few days ago sided with the government saying the cops use of
doppler radar to see if anyone was inside a house was legal. They did say it is
a troubling tactic that needs further review and just left it at that....
permalinkparent
[ ]-_--___-_--_--___--_ 27 points 6 hours ago
One major problem with judicial review is that there must be a case for the cour
t to review. I guess the other avenue would be to sue the government, but I'm no
t an attorney so I don't know how that would work.
permalinkparent
[ ]downvotesmakemehard 14 points 4 hours ago
I believe the current court has taken the stance that to take up a case someone
has to show they've been harmed in some way.
The police will never say that stingray is the source of the evidence. This woul
d open stingray to be scrutinized. They will use stingray to go after phone comp
any records which they will claim they requested on a hunch or some other bullsh
it excuse.
permalinkparent
[ ]great_gape [score hidden] 29 minutes ago
Anonymous tip.
permalinkparent
load more comments (2 replies)
[ ]dissonance07 8 points 6 hours ago
With is wide a latitude as the current SCOTUS seems to give to individual libert
y, this seems like the one kind of thing that they could actually usefully addre

ss, right?
permalinkparent
[ ]MrBojangles528 1 point 5 hours ago
Scalia and the rest of the SCOTUS is bought and sold just like the rest of our g
overnment. They answer first and foremost to the parties that nominated them as
well as the corporations that own them.
permalinkparent
[ ]psilontech 12 points 5 hours ago
See, I don't get that. You get into the Supreme Court and you're golden. Unless
you are actively breaking the law and can be impeached, you're untouchable. Why
not, you know, do what's best for your country instead of remaining beholden to
the parasites that leveraged you into that position?
permalinkparent
[ ]Ratbasher88 14 points 4 hours ago
Yep, Supreme Court justices have a well established history of turning out way d
ifferent than their supporters thought they'd be. For whatever reason this curre
nt batch of justices seems more comfortable with the security state than their p
redecessors, however that's true for most Americans in general so I suppose it s
houldn't be shocking.
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]MrBojangles528 2 points 4 hours ago
Good question, but you'd have to ask them about it.
permalinkparent
[ ]cynoclast 0 points 3 hours ago
Unless you are actively breaking the law and can be impeached, you're untouchabl
e.
But you can get richer. Or have your personal communications made public.
permalinkparent
[ ]tughdffvdlfhegl 1 point 3 hours ago
Honestly? Because they run in those social circles. They're friends with the peo
ple at the top. They don't actively associate with "regular folk" that much.
They've been ingratiated into the upper echelons of society long before ever rea
ching the supreme court through lifetimes spent at the forefront of the legal pr
ofession. This insulates them from others, and leaves them in an echo chamber of
their peers.
Now, when a case comes up that pits one of their friends, or friends' friends ag
ainst some random angry dude who's only making 50k a year, who do you think they
automatically side with, when the case isn't cut and dried? I'm not even saying
it's conscious, but prejudices come in all kinds and run deep. Tribalism happen
s all the time in subtle ways.
Plus there's Scalia taking paid for hunting trips with people who are directly a
ffected by cases in front of him, all of them getting invited to dinners and fun
ctions of the DC elite, etc.
permalinkparent
[ ]pion3435 1 point 3 hours ago
They do. It's possible to disagree with you without being corrupt.
permalinkparent
[ ]Jagoonder 1 point 2 hours ago
Not in an omnipotent surveillance state, however.
permalinkparent
[ ]DownFromYesBad 1 point 2 hours ago
Money, bribery.
permalinkparent
[ ]neotropic9 1 point 1 hour ago
Because they are selected to be the type of people who think whats "best for the
ir country" is serving the parasites, the corporate oligarchs, and the surveilla
nce state. They support the status quo, and the status quo supports them. It wou
ld be a miracle if someone with real principles was actually brought into the Su
preme Court, let alone enough of them to form a majority.

permalinkparent
[ ]isprobablyatwork 1 point 1 hour ago
This does happen, sometimes. Good examples would be Justices Warren and Stevens.
They played along with the GOP right up until they were put on the Court, then
immediately started voting their actual conscience (or if not their conscience,
then at least not as their political backers wanted).
permalinkparent
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[ ]cynoclast 2 points 3 hours ago
You mean the press?
permalinkparent
[ ]scrapinpeg 3 points 6 hours ago*
Obligatory link to illustrated law.
EDIT: fixed link
permalinkparent
[ ]ducttapejedi 3 points 6 hours ago*
error 404, check the link.
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[+][deleted] 13 hours ago (56 children)
[ ]sunbolts 701 points 12 hours ago
Glad to see the FBI is tearing up the constitution to increase their own powers
and authority. /s
permalink
[ ]dontbullshityourself 325 points 11 hours ago
Glad to see the FBI is tearing up the constitution to increase their own powers
and authority
I wish this was just the FBI. Pretty much everybody in the federal, state and lo
cals are doing this. Have been doing for this quite some time too.
permalinkparent
[ ]sunbolts 136 points 10 hours ago
Precisely, and that's what makes this very frightening. The whole club's in on i
t.
permalinkparent
[ ]radonthetyrant 75 points 7 hours ago
but why.. I realize that these "zomg the terrorists!!!11" is only a PR-lie. What
do they really accomplish with this? Industry espionage? Bribes from the indust
ries which create the espionage hardware? Feeling of total control? Control the
masses so it all stays as conservative and corrupt as possible?
Why would you amass such a criminal energy to break constitutional laws just to
be able to see through everyone's communication?
permalinkparent
[ ]BettyRubbleIsHot 151 points 7 hours ago
Total control.
That way when the state has it, they can really put the boot on our necks. Think
they treat us poorly now? Just wait until they have the infrastructure in place
where they feel confident there are absolutely zero threats to their power. Tha
t's when shit is going to get BAD.
permalinkparent
[ ]b-LE-z_it 106 points 6 hours ago
And that's why, despite being terrified of some gun owners, despite being terrif
ied of mass shootings, I don't think we should ban guns, even combat rifles. It
can happen here, and we should at least make it hurt if and when it happens.
permalinkparent
[ ]7V3N 47 points 6 hours ago
Welcome to the list.
permalinkparent

[ ]M00glemuffins 10 points 5 hours ago


Sign me up too. If they try to pull a fast one on the public I'm not standing fo
r their bullshit.
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]FadingEchoes11 26 points 6 hours ago
*rifle. No "combat" rifles are owned by citizens
permalinkparent
[ ]b-LE-z_it 39 points 6 hours ago
Did I mention I don't know anything about guns? I don't know anything about guns
.
Point is, force is not something only people in power should have.
permalinkparent
[ ]teefour 19 points 6 hours ago
You should go to a shooting range and take a class. You won't be so unnecessaril
y afraid of them after that.
permalinkparent
[ ]Pullo_T 27 points 6 hours ago
He's not afraid of guns. He's afraid of some gun owners. At least, as far as we
know.
permalinkparent
continue this thread
load more comments (3 replies)
[ ]Bootsncatsn4 5 points 5 hours ago
i understand where youre coming from, but what will a bunch of angry townsfolk d
o to a predator drone strike?
permalinkparent
[ ]Oeboues 18 points 4 hours ago
You should ask the angry townsfolk of Iraq and Afghanistan.
Once the US military is done slinking away in shame, I mean.
permalinkparent
continue this thread
[ ]nuesuh 1 point 1 hour ago
Remove them. Predator drones are being operated from the ground, and has to land
after a couple hours to refuel.
permalinkparent
[ ]joe_m107 4 points 6 hours ago
Maybe we should change that. Repeal the NFA.
permalinkparent
load more comments (2 replies)
[ ]4nco1j 0 points 2 hours ago
You don't know much about guns, do you now.
permalinkparent
load more comments (6 replies)
[ ]conquer69 15 points 4 hours ago
You can have all the guns you want. That won't stop them from labeling you a "su
spected school shooter, pedophile or terrorist".
A gun can't protect you from that. A gun can't teach your fellow countryman to t
hink by themselves or see through propaganda.
Good luck destroying a drone, plane or tank with a rifle. Not sure how useful a
gun is against your own trained military with even better guns and more.
People thinking they can start a revolution and win with a handgun don't realize
this isn't the 1700's anymore.
permalinkparent
[ ]JimmyBuffer 14 points 4 hours ago
Better tell the Middle East they haven't had a bout of revolutions then
permalinkparent
load more comments (2 replies)
[ ]b-LE-z_it 7 points 4 hours ago
Didn't say we would win, I said we could at least make it hurt. Assuming, of cou

rse, that the American people themselves aren't the ones willingly handing in th
eir freedoms, which would mean we're all fucked immediately.
permalinkparent
[ ]theothercoolfish 13 points 2 hours ago
Assuming, of course, that the American people themselves aren't the ones willing
ly handing in their freedoms, which would mean we're all fucked immediately.
Err, you guys gave up much of your freedoms long ago. And it isn't just the US politicians everywhere are taking as much as they can get, because it's simply
more power for them. More power, more money, more control. It's not a conspiracy
- this is just how an imperfect system with inadequate controls eventually goes
. We need to start re-examining our systems and look at alternatives that are no
w possible with the internet.
permalinkparent
[ ]vynusmagnus 3 points 2 hours ago
Tell that to the insurgents in Afghanistan. It seems to me that the US military
has been unable to defeat them in over a decade of war, despite its overwhelming
technological superiority. Tanks and fighter jets are nice, but they do little
against a small guerrilla force that can disappear into the woodwork.
permalinkparent
[ ]Qoix 3 points 3 hours ago
I think the main issue with that line of thinking is that the military would gun
down the civilians it pledges to protect. How many people in the armed forces d
o you know? Now, are any of them willing to murder innocent people? Probably not
.
permalinkparent
[ ]ihcn 6 points 2 hours ago
They're not innocent people, they're armed revolutionaries, suspected terrorists
permalinkparent
[ ]chance-- 4 points 3 hours ago
You say that as if there isn't insurmountable evidence to the contrary.
Military coups are thoroughly woven into the fabric of humanity's history.
permalinkparent
[ ]theothercoolfish 1 point 2 hours ago
gun down the civilians it pledges to protect.
Err, they don't pledge to protect civilians. They pledge to protect the constitu
tion. And if they are convinced that these people are attempting to "subvert" th
e constitution, then they are enemies. Nevermind that their leaders have shat al
l over the constitution - soldiers take their orders and follow 'em.
Now, are any of them willing to murder innocent people?
lol.
permalinkparent
load more comments (2 replies)
[ ]eloquentnemesis [score hidden] 33 minutes ago
Welcome to 4th generation warfare. You don't need a better gun, or the ability t
o kill a drone, or anything else like that. You just need A gun and more commitm
ent than the other side.
permalinkparent
[ ]homegrowncountryboy [score hidden] 16 minutes ago*
Good luck with those tanks, planes and drones when the American people stop supp
lying fuel and ammunition. My brother is in the Army and he will tell you about
75%, or more of the military will disband and fight to protect the American peop
le. All you have to do is look at New Orleans during Katrina, when they got the
order to start confiscating guns almost all of them refused, instead it was main
ly police stealing people's weapons.
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]Hermit_ 2 points 5 hours ago
Yeah but if it does happen all people would be doing is creating the chaos one o
f the armed and militarized militias needs to take power. For example, The KKK.
permalinkparent

[ ]b-LE-z_it 1 point 5 hours ago


Hopefully not the KKK.
permalinkparent
[ ]AussieArcher 1 point 3 hours ago
Fuck me there's always one of you. I'm starting to think the gun club spends mor
e time on reddit than anyone.
permalinkparent
[ ]astronautg117 1 point 1 hour ago
What's a combat rifle going to do against a drone?
permalinkparent
[ ]datbino 1 point 1 hour ago
i think thats where 2nd ammendment people miss the mark- you owning a rifle will
do nothing against the government.
you becoming an active participating member in that government can help fix it,
the goal is to make you a kony2012 fb sharer rather than a person who gets to wo
rk and fixes shit
permalinkparent
[ ]mpg1846 1 point 1 hour ago
You think 50 guys with hand guns are going to do anything to anyone? Gun laws ar
e a joke.
permalinkparent
[ ]Actionbuilding 1 point 1 hour ago
The founders of the United States of America WANTED the citizens to rise up and
overthrow the government if it approached the levels of corruption it is current
ly working toward.
permalinkparent
load more comments (11 replies)
[ ]nuesuh 1 point 1 hour ago
Ever seen "Das Leben der Anderen"? Imagine this, just with total corruption and
100 times better technology. This is what we are moving towards. Imagine this sy
stem getting in the hands of someone like Hitler or Stalin.. And it can happen.
Before Hitler came to power Germany was a modern, western, christian nation. We
need safety with this technology. And when i say safety, i don't mean surveillan
ce. I mean the opposite.
permalinkparent
[ ]know_comment [score hidden] 14 minutes ago
I agree, but I think the reason for the infrastructure development is because it
is going to get bad. As we are forced to compete more globally, quality of life
stagnates. Even the slightest hint of austerity is going to be very painful for
the lower classes in a society with a large income disparity.
That's why we see the race baiting and divisive rhetoric being used so much. Kee
p the poor and working classes quibbling at each other.
I want you to consider the daffodil. And while you're doing that, I'll be over h
ere, looking through your stuff.
permalinkparent
[ ]mzackler 19 points 7 hours ago
It takes a really complicated answer to truly understand but you often get into
the us vs them mentality in siloed areas of law enforcement. You also often get
frustrated with the levels of proof you need to put the bad guy in jail. Thus an
y method you can use you feel justified in using. Although I think there are a l
ot of issues with The Wire, it's a great starting off point for a discussion if
you want a serious answer.
permalinkparent
load more comments (2 replies)
[ ]hershmire 30 points 7 hours ago
Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts, absolutely.
permalinkparent
[ ]TheNewRavager 70 points 6 hours ago
"All governments suffer a recurring problem: Power attracts pathological persona
lities. It is not that power corrupts but that it is magnetic to the corruptible

. Such people have a tendency to become drunk on violence, a condition to which


they are quickly addicted."
permalinkparent
[ ]gee_iwonderwhy 22 points 6 hours ago
Oh shit, a Dune quote outside /r/dune not about spice.
permalinkparent
[ ]TheNumberMuncher 3 points 6 hours ago
This is pretty cool.
permalinkparent
[ ]YawnDogg 1 point 3 hours ago
Gene Hackman was so kinky in that movie.
permalinkparent
[ ]ThreeTimesUp 2 points 2 hours ago
From a Guardian article by Glenn Greenwald I came across recently:
Inside the mind of NSA chief Gen Keith Alexander
Any casual review of human history proves how deeply irrational it is to believe
that powerful factions can be trusted to exercise vast surveillance power with
little accountability or transparency.
But the more they proudly flaunt their warped imperial hubris, the more irration
al it becomes.
permalinkparent
[ ]Epsilox 3 points 2 hours ago
I'm going to take an unpopular stance here and argue that they get more effectiv
e investigations. Which isn't to say I have no reservations about this stuff, be
cause I do.
I've worked in a field tangential to law enforcement, and I've had the unpleasan
t experience of watching very bad people act with impunity because law enforceme
nt had to play by the rules and they didn't. Does that justify the modern trend
towards more invasive government? Maybe that's just the price we pay to live in
a free society. I don't know. I'm a fan of the H.L. Mencken quote:
"The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's ti
me defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are f
irst aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopp
ed at all."
On the other hand, it's very hard to watch members of organized crime and other
monsters literally get away with murder.
In part the difficulty the lies in the infrastructure of modern society. Communi
cations move at such speed and in such quantity that the sort of pinpoint accura
cy required for effective investigations and prosecutions becomes much more diff
icult.
None of which is to say that what we're doing is necessarily right. I've felt th
e fear of writing an opinion online and knowing that the NSA can see it and ever
ything else I've ever written if they so choose. I've had that feeling of always
being watched. I know exactly what is meant by the danger of chilling free spee
ch, because it's happened to me. But I do tend to trust (perhaps naively) that,
for the most part, most of the people making these decisions have good intention
s. I've worked with many of them, and I believe that it more than anything is th
e result of them trying to do their jobs well. Whether they are actually protect
ing the American people or simply paving the road to hell, only time will really
tell.
permalinkparent
[ ]eyeforgot 4 points 6 hours ago
Think of all the blackmail material they have for any future politicians. They w
ill firmly be in check by the powers that be.
permalinkparent
[ ]ademnus 3 points 7 hours ago
Total control.
permalinkparent
[ ]NotAnotherDecoy 4 points 7 hours ago
Total control?

permalinkparent
[ ]leamas666 2 points 5 hours ago
Why would you amass such a criminal energy to break constitutional laws just to
be able to see through everyone's communication?
It's the deep state attempting to preserve its own regime continuity in the even
t of violent revolution.
permalinkparent
[ ]sunbolts 3 points 6 hours ago
Because those in power try to keep it and in addition, there is always a lust fo
r more power. One who is wealthy seeks to increase his riches usually, right? Sa
me thing going on here. In terms of practicality, there's no reason for breaking
constitutional laws, but when you realize how human nature functions in regards
to ambitions and power, well, what we see going on explains itself.
permalinkparent
[ ]Martenz05 1 point 3 hours ago
So, in order to become a political leader who really does work for the benefit o
f the people, one would somehow have to lose every shred of their humanity so th
ey wouldn't have a human nature that could be corrupted by ambition and power?
That sounds ominous, when I put it like that
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]RuthlessDickTater 1 point 5 hours ago
but why.. I realize that these "zomg the terrorists!!!11" is only a PR-lie.
Well pretty soon they might have their terrorists, but they'll be the domestic k
ind.
permalinkparent
[ ]karadan100 1 point 4 hours ago
More money.
permalinkparent
[ ]cynoclast 1 point 3 hours ago
What do they really accomplish with this?
Get rich.
permalinkparent
load more comments (7 replies)
[ ]TGlucifer 50 points 10 hours ago
Criminals learned it's just way easier to do their lawbreaking with a government
salary.
permalinkparent
[ ]pete1729 22 points 9 hours ago
Well, the benefits package is far more attractive.
permalinkparent
[ ]__ghostpants 25 points 7 hours ago
and somehow snitches go to jail instead of the criminals
permalinkparent
[ ]iismitch55 1 point 3 hours ago
Snitches get stitches. Whistleblowers get their mouth sowed shut.
permalinkparent
[ ]HandsOffMyDitka 5 points 5 hours ago
Why break a law, when you can just change it.
permalinkparent
[ ]moresmarterthanyou 2 points 5 hours ago
except when they have to answer questions themselves...
permalinkparent
[ ]dontbullshityourself 1 point 5 hours ago
Well you know liberty is wasted on peasant swine 'eh?
permalinkparent
[ ]ButterflyAttack 1 point 4 hours ago
Sounds like the constitution doesn't mean much at this point. . .
permalinkparent
[ ]dontbullshityourself 1 point 3 hours ago

Sounds like the constitution doesn't mean much at this point. . .


All it means is that the scum who rule us have a legal contract that they say ba
cks up all their power. But their actions shit all over that document.
President Obama, a constitutional law professor ordered the deaths of two US cit
izens without trial in EXPRESS and DIRECT violation of the constitution.
permalinkparent
load more comments (4 replies)
[ ]Eurynom0s 68 points 9 hours ago
And on top of it, even if being in public was a justification for this, how the
fuck do you prevent the device from nabbing people who are inside their own hous
e or apartment as well?
Oh right, you can't, because that's not how radio waves work.
permalinkparent
[ ]Ioneos 18 points 8 hours ago
You can increase the noise gate to reduce range on purpose, but what good would
that do to keep the terrorists citizens under scrutiny.
permalinkparent
[ ]Eurynom0s 20 points 8 hours ago
Even if they were going to do that, I can't imagine that you could do it to a su
fficient degree in a place like NYC to not scoop up at least some people inside
of buildings.
permalinkparent
load more comments (5 replies)
[ ]Codoro 1 point 4 hours ago
I foresee turning your house into a Faraday Cage being the cop radar finder of t
omorrow.
permalinkparent
[ ]Kenny_Login 23 points 7 hours ago
Taxation without representation, an income far below what the productivity was v
alued at, government intrusion? The founding fathers (you know, those "heroes" o
f our nation) got much more pissed off for much less.
permalinkparent
[ ]Socialdem 8 points 5 hours ago
Can you really blame them? The Constitution was written when people were still r
iding on horses. There's no way the founding fathers could have anticipated the
advances in technology and the way people communicate. I think we're due for a f
irmware upgrade.
permalinkparent
[ ]upandrunning 11 points 3 hours ago
Yes, it's called 'replacing congress'. What we're seeing is a natural consequenc
e of career politicians. Most of the people in office have gotten so comfortable
with the idea that they'll get reelected that what they actually do during thei
r term is almost irrelevent.
permalinkparent
[ ]theothercoolfish 2 points 2 hours ago
Exactly. I think we should look at sortition - with an approval vote, and extrem
ely strict rules on what sort of laws can be passed (eg any law must apply equal
ly to everyone - protecting the minority), and a approval bonus for the randomly
selected representatives if the public approves. Fuck career politicians - they
've proven themselves wholly incapable, and the system that supports them is too
corruptible. I don't think campaign finance reform will 1) ever happen 2) adequ
ately deal with institutional corruption.
permalinkparent
[ ]NuclearWookiee 0 points 2 hours ago
All of this should be covered, in any reasonable interpretation, by the Fourth a
mendment. Rebooting who change anything if the limits on government are ignored.
permalinkparent
[ ]KalAl 1 point 1 hour ago
Do you update your firmware by smashing your bios chip with a hammer?
permalinkparent

[ ]FireFromTheWire 4 points 6 hours ago


You're just another Steve Irwin to them.
permalinkparent
[ ]iismitch55 2 points 3 hours ago
Too soon mate :'(
permalinkparent
[ ]Penguin_in_the_sand 1 point 1 hour ago*
I am curious to know what this comment means?... Oh! Steve Irwin was killed by a
stingray. I thought you may have been referring to some conspiracy relating the
Steve Irwin's death. He had an American wife and both were invited to Howard's
Bush BBQ. http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/10/27/1067233100397.html
permalinkparent
[ ]gloubenterder 2 points 1 hour ago
Steve Irwin was a wildlife documentary filmmaker who was well-known for getting
up close and personal with dangerous animals such as crocodiles and komodo drago
ns.
He was pierced through a heart by a stingray in 2006, while shooting footage for
a documentary called Ocean's Deadliest.
After his death, stingrays had a period of great infamy, and there were even rep
orts of people killing and mutilating stingrays as vengeance for Steve Irwin. ..
.which, of course, is the last thing Irwin would have wanted; he was a conservat
ionist, and whenever he was injured by an animal he was studying, he would alway
s clarify to the viewer that that was his own fault and a risk he was aware of.
permalinkparent
[ ]Agent-BurtMacklinFBI 1 point 5 hours ago
Don't worry I'm keeping a look out
permalinkparent
[ ]pion3435 1 point 3 hours ago
It's not a constitutional issue. It might be an FCC one, but they just do whatev
er they're told anyway.
permalinkparent
[ ]dntur 1 point 3 hours ago
theoretically, every cell tower is in a public place. Why not just attach a stin
gray to all of them? Think of the money mobile companies could make renting towe
r space! next comes google who wants to know who you are calling on your iphone
and windows phone for better directed advertising, followed by Bing. /s
permalinkparent
[ ]Brian3232 [score hidden] 46 minutes ago
Why are they wrong? You already can take pictures of people in public places wit
hout warrant
permalinkparent
[ ]GaltsGulchTouristInf [score hidden] 24 minutes ago
When the constitution, the supreme law of the land, the contract between the gov
ernment and the people, is violated, this violating it should be banned from 'pu
blic service' for life, should be personally liable to those whose rights they v
iolated, and should forfeit their government pension and benefits.
permalinkparent
[ ]wtfmuck [score hidden] 17 minutes ago
It's sad how they shirk doing what is right for what is easy.
permalinkparent
load more comments (8 replies)
[ ]quiteintriguing 127 points 12 hours ago
I think it's about time these fuckers provided some evidence that privacy invadi
ng is helping stop crime or terrorism. As far as I can see, there is an Islamic
army in the middle east right now filled with westerners that simply flew over a
nd caught a bus. Nice job government agencies, you sure showed us.
permalink
[ ]HappyAtavism 81 points 11 hours ago
I think it's about time these fuckers provided some evidence that privacy invadi
ng is helping stop crime or terrorism.

Even more importantly they should provide evidence that they're not violating th
e 4th Amendment. The Bill of Rights doesn't say it applies only when convenient.
P.S. I agree that repeated failures to demonstrate the effectiveness of these th
ings, or lies which get "corrected", is yet another reason why this stuff is BS,
but the Constitution is first and foremost. Don't like the 4th Amendment? Try t
o repeal it. Until then it's in force.
permalinkparent
[ ]7u5 3 points 5 hours ago
The "checks and balances" of the judiciary are a farce. They are free to "interp
ret" the Constitution as they see fit.
permalinkparent
load more comments (3 replies)
[ ]DiaperParty 9 points 3 hours ago
Fuck that. FUUUCK that. If this did stop terrorists, it would still not be worth
the violation of rights. We absolutely CANNOT start OKing this shit as long as
it "stops bad guys."
permalinkparent
[ ]quiteintriguing 1 point 3 hours ago
I think you misunderstood. I think they should have to back up their justificati
on, which they obviously can't.
permalinkparent
[ ]DiaperParty 4 points 3 hours ago
But if we ask them to, we lend legitimacy to that claim. We need to say from the
get go that no justification is needed because none will be sufficient.
permalinkparent
[ ]ebouwman 7 points 5 hours ago
In Canada we had the Ottawa shooting and that dude that ran over some soldiers.
Correct me if I'm wrong but both these guys had had their passports revoked.
I'm not a fan of letting them just go over and fight a dirty war but wtf.
permalinkparent
[ ]Ceejae 4 points 4 hours ago
But so what if it is? How successful the program is is irrelevant.
I'm sure if they set up a government camera in every home they'd stop plenty of
murders and rapes.
permalinkparent
load more comments (2 replies)
[ ]cassieloveseffie 5 points 2 hours ago
Well we all know that the FBI has followed people like John Lennon who believed
in radical peace, urged MLK to kill himself and was prepared to assassinate occu
py members. It is not about crime, it is about maintaining a status quo.
permalinkparent
[ ]monopixel 2 points 1 hour ago
was prepared to assassinate occupy members.
Interesting, where can I read up about this?
permalinkparent
[ ]wirepants 4 points 4 hours ago
Locking everyone in solitary could stop crime and terrorism too. That's not a go
od enough reason to violate our rights even if it was working.
permalinkparent
[ ]egodeath92 2 points 5 hours ago
Shh that's classified. This entire country would be a post-apocalyptic dirt-patc
h is not for the heroic NSA collecting dirt on most of the country.
permalinkparent
[ ]pion3435 1 point 3 hours ago
You had no privacy in the first place. That's not how cell phones work.
permalinkparent
load more comments (6 replies)
[ ]MashItMatt 143 points 13 hours ago
Obviously these are constitution free zones, citizen.
permalink

[ ]THANKS-FOR-THE-GOLD 22 points 7 hours ago


Embrace democracy or you will be eradicated
permalinkparent
[ ]jroddie4 14 points 5 hours ago
Citizen, pick up that can.
permalinkparent
[ ]douko 3 points 5 hours ago
This image won't even load (here's another one), but I still know what it is.
DEATH IS A PREFERABLE ALTERNATIVE TO COMMUNISM.
COMMUNISM IS THE VERY DEFINITION OF FAILURE!
permalinkparent
[ ]chewysquirrel 15 points 6 hours ago
Approximately 2/3 of Americans live in a "constitution free zone"
permalinkparent
[ ]newpolitics 50 points 10 hours ago
The Federal Bureau of Investigation is taking the position that court warrants a
re not required when deploying cell-site simulators in public places. Nicknamed
"stingrays," the devices are decoy cell towers that capture locations and identi
ties of mobile phone users and can intercept calls and texts.
So nobody has any expectation of privacy? Talking out of their asses. The implic
ation that a warrant shouldn't be needed to intercept someone's text messages, i
s outrageous.
permalink
[ ]acerplatanoides [score hidden] 16 minutes ago
The implication that a warrant shouldn't be needed to intercept someone's text m
essages, is outrageous.
The implication of intercepting a PRESS related text message, and thus also supp
ressing a free press.
I think many of these are used to stop uploading of images to social medial. You
ever tried that during a demonstration?
permalinkparent
[ ]dalasocatyemerc 67 points 9 hours ago
Hmm, I didn't realize the FBI had the authority to ignore the constitution of th
e United States of America.
Maybe this organization doesn't actually serve Americans. That's what I think
permalink
[ ]Jagoonder 17 points 2 hours ago
They don't. However, lets look at their 3rd criteria:
(3) cases in which the technology is used in public places or other locations at
which the FBI deems there is no reasonable expectation of privacy.
In public, noone has an expectation to privacy. SCOTUS has ruled on such. Theref
ore, it could be argued that phone conversations in public places forfeits at le
ast one party's rights to privacy.
There are a couple of problems with this. First, Stingray is indiscriminate. Sec
ond, the other party of the phone conversation may be in their own home thus hav
ing an expectation of privacy.
I don't know how law works in regards to phone tapping. But, I would assume that
any warrant to do so would provide the agency a waiver on a second party's priv
acy protections when conversing with the target of the warrant. Except in the ca
se of Stingray no warrant was ever obtained thus, no waiver, thus the second par
ty probably still has privacy protections.
So, I think it's bullshit. I'm no lawyer. I suspect the FBI also knows it's bull
shit. But, the more excuses they can come up with to bend the law around their w
ill the more time it takes to try to stop them since each instance requires anot
her court decision.
permalinkparent
[ ]punkrampant 13 points 1 hour ago
There's only "no expectation of privacy" in public in terms of video+camera surv
eillance. People still get disturbed if you look over their shoulder at their ph
one, or listen to a conversation.

Text messages, emails, phone calls, all of it, are the modern day written letter
s. What the FBI is trying to do is the equivalent of setting up a post office th
at opens everyone's envelopes and makes copies of all the contents.
permalinkparent
[ ]Jagoonder 5 points 1 hour ago
Text messages, emails, phone calls, all of it, are the modern day written letter
s. What the FBI is trying to do is the equivalent of setting up a post office th
at opens everyone's envelopes and makes copies of all the contents.
You're right. I was focusing on an actual phone conversation where one party cou
ld be overheard by others, thus no expectation to privacy.
permalinkparent
[ ]Cambodian_Drug_Mule 2 points 1 hour ago
Surely there are people with technical expertise that can just fuck their shit u
p. If I'm not mistaken the stingrays were detected with consumer grade electroni
cs. If everyone just looked out for them and pinned where they are at on a map,
couldn't some people with the technical know how take them offline?
permalinkparent
[ ]monopixel 1 point 1 hour ago
Hmm, I didn't realize the FBI had the authority to ignore the constitution of th
e United States of America.
The US government and its agencies has been doing it for ages.
permalinkparent
[ ]rtpg 40 points 6 hours ago
Surprised nobody's mentioned Kyllo v. United States yet.
This is fairly recent (2001) jurisprudence. The gov't used a thermal imager, and
saw that there were heat lamps inside of a house, and used that to get a search
warrant. The gov't argued that, well, the heat was outside, so pretty much publ
ic information.
The courts disagreed and ruled this an illegal search. Main reason being that no
t many people have thermal imagers, so there's a reasonable expectation of priva
cy. I think even less people have stingrays, so even from the "discovering that
someone has a cell phone" aspect, there's unreasonableness in the search.
Now to the wiretapping aspect... there's Katz v. United States. Here, somebody w
as in a phone booth, and the feds had set a microphone outside the phone booth w
ithout warrant (so not exactly a wiretap). Again, the courts ruled this an unrea
sonable search.
A part of the ruling:
Regardless of the location, a conversation is protected from unreasonable search
and seizure under the Fourth Amendment if it is made with a "reasonable expecta
tion of privacy".
Text messages definitely fall under this. I can't see this holding up for 2 seco
nds in court.
The article goes into it into detail, but few of the FBI's interpretations on pr
ivacy have been holding up in courts recently. The system is kind of working, an
d this interpretation will be shut down as well. Now, if only everyone had good
lawyers...
permalink
[ ]ryewheats 7 points 4 hours ago
But the biggest problem I see would be them not declaring how they gathered any
information they collected in the first place. It would be pretty easy to skirt
around the system and act like you caught the suspect red-handed (because you we
re tipped off by illegal searches). That is the really scary part.
permalinkparent
[ ]argv_minus_one 5 points 3 hours ago
This practice is known as "parallel construction".
permalinkparent
[ ]tughdffvdlfhegl 3 points 3 hours ago
Honestly, this is the biggest concern. The courts won't allow a challenge becaus
e no one will have standing, because the feds/police won't actively declare this
as evidence in a trial. Meanwhile, they'll continue to use it, having a chillin

g effect on the press and others (which the courts have not seen in recent histo
ry as sufficient to provide legal standing).
permalinkparent
[ ]JustaChimp 3 points 5 hours ago
With the Katz v US case, it took them 39 years to overturn the Olmstead v US rul
ing. Let's hope it takes a little less time for this medium.
The recent Romano v Steelcase Inc. court case could indicate how the courts will
rule in the short term with regards to "reasonable expectation of privacy" thou
gh this ruling was in the context of social media and not text messages. The ana
logy was made that much like a letter writer has no reasonable expectation of pr
ivacy once the recipient is in possession of the letter, neither does the post's
author. Same could be extended to text messages and would be equally as trouble
some.
permalinkparent
[ ]qdarius 1 point 3 hours ago
Damn, that doesn't seem right at all. If I send someone a letter I definitely ex
pect that only they will read it.
Could anyone expand on the logic that a letter writer has no reasonable expectat
ion of privacy?
permalinkparent
[ ]Boltaeg 1 point 3 hours ago
After that letter is given to the recipient, they can do whatever they want with
it without you knowing. They could copy it, show it to friends, frame it and pu
t it on their wall....etc. You have no control over that and must assume that an
ything you write in a letter can be disclosed in some manner, simply because you
have no control over that persons actions.
As to why that is the case, I have no idea. Especially considering it is illegal
to open someone elses mail, but perfectly legal to read someone else's letter o
nce they open it. At least that is my understanding of it.
permalinkparent
[ ]TheMightyBarbarian 1 point 3 hours ago
Its fairly simple, you sent a letter, until it is received by the intended recip
ient it has federal protections. Once the recipient receives it, they are free t
o do with it as they wish, even if you disagree with what they do, specifically
because the letter is now their property, even though you wrote it.
permalinkparent
[ ]qdarius 1 point 2 hours ago
I understand that. But if someone else intercepts my letter shouldn't that still
be illegal?
Maybe I'm misunderstanding how stingrays work but it seems like they're basicall
y designed to intercept hundreds of messages.
permalinkparent
[ ]TheMightyBarbarian 1 point 2 hours ago
Intercept isn't illegal, its sketchy but not illegal. As for reading it, it's a
grey area since texts are not encrypted and even if they were it would do shit i
f billions of devices can decrypt them. So unless you use something like a messe
nger system that can use basic encrypting. It won't stop the FBI from reading it
, but it does show you took steps to have a private conversation and that's what
matters to the court.
permalinkparent
[ ]coalbeeashi 1 point 3 hours ago
Re: Katz v. United States
Certain details, such as shutting the door on the telephone booth, help determin
e if a person intends for a conversation to be private. Thus, private conversati
ons can be made in public areas.
What steps is the average Joe taking to exhibit a reasonable expectation of priv
acy regarding his/her data usage? Honest question.
permalinkparent
[ ]TheMightyBarbarian 1 point 2 hours ago
Beyond using a VPN to mimic another location, not much really. Since there are m

any devices involved in the process of just looking up a website. Ex. You google
Microsoft. Here are all the parties involved: You, Your ISP, Google, Microsoft.
That's four parties involved and that's assuming you are not using a Phones Mob
ile Data plan and are using WiFi. Because then it can add a few more people invo
lved.
Sure you should have protection just the same, but currently the law doesn't rec
ognize that, because the people in charge dont understand how any of it works.
permalinkparent
[ ]rtpg [score hidden] 54 minutes ago
I would say that cultural norms kind of define that in that it is extremely rude
to look at another stranger's phone while they are using it to browse/look at t
heir emails/whatever. Not the most solid argument, I know.
permalinkparent
[ ]Sic_SemperTyrannis 1 point 2 hours ago
When the use of stingrays is challenged in court police have dropped the cases r
ather than explain their use of stingrays.
permalinkparent
[ ]cassieloveseffie 1 point 2 hours ago
I have seen a printed record of every one of someone's txt messages for 6 months
. Never assume txt messages are private.
permalinkparent
[ ]Ladderjack 29 points 12 hours ago
I'm sorry, have they gone ahead and combined the FBI and the Supreme Court of th
e United States of America? No? Well, we will see how long this lasts. . .
permalink
[ ]butitssnot 46 points 7 hours ago
Its ok. In 2016 we can vote for hope and change and transparency and fix all thi
s.
permalinkparent
[ ]CriticalThink 3 points 5 hours ago
yeah. I bet Hillary will fix this mess, right Reddit?
permalinkparent
[ ]TheMightyBarbarian 1 point 2 hours ago
We still got time before they can start promoting themselves for President, lega
lly actually, they can't start until a certain number of days from the election.
permalinkparent
[ ]looneybandito 5 points 6 hours ago
Haha. As if our votes matter.
permalinkparent
[ ]atomofconsumption 9 points 5 hours ago
thatsthejoke.jpg
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]dichroeyes 1 point 4 hours ago
You are right. I give up. Long live the hegemony.
permalinkparent
[ ]Pikaflu 1 point 3 hours ago
America is an irradiated wasteland. Within it lies a city. Outside the boundary
walls, a desert. A cursed earth. Inside the walls, a cursed city, stretching fro
m Boston to Washington D.C. An unbroken concrete landscape. 800 million people l
iving in the ruin of the old world and the mega structures of the new one. Mega
blocks. Mega highways. Mega City One. Convulsing. Choking. Breaking under its ow
n weight. Citizens in fear of the street. The gun. The gang. Only one thing figh
ting for order in the chaos: the men and women of the Hall of Justice. Juries. E
xecutioners. Judges.
permalinkparent
[ ]Ago_Solvo 36 points 9 hours ago
I'm sure that means that stingrays are also open for public hacking in that case
, because they're in a public place, and doing so can't be considered an intrusi
on on government properties or a violation of any Federal Law.

permalink
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]whysopositive 57 points 12 hours ago
Say whatever you want, you don't think big brother is going to find every way to
spy on you?
The thing is I bet every time we the people get upset about some "new" trespass
against our rights there's already something technologically beyond our knowledg
e being put to use to on us now.
permalink
[ ]I_SPLIT_INFINITIVES 16 points 7 hours ago
My dad always said, "If that's what they're telling us they have now, they proba
bly had it ten years ago. Just imagine what they really have."
permalinkparent
[ ]oOTHX1138Oo 28 points 9 hours ago
Thats why we need to add to the bill of rights, so that we continue to be protec
ted in the digital age.
permalinkparent
[ ]TheBlueWaffleHouse 18 points 8 hours ago
At this point in time the bill of rights only shrinks. It doesn't get bigger.
permalinkparent
[ ]tallerthanunicorngod 33 points 7 hours ago
Not with that attitude.
permalinkparent
[ ]mattacular2001 3 points 5 hours ago
Doesn't matter unless you're wealthy
permalinkparent
[ ]tallerthanunicorngod 1 point 2 hours ago
Wealthy people don't like to be spied on either. Honestly, they probably like it
even less.
permalinkparent
[ ]sockgorilla 1 point 5 hours ago
He's John Titor, he's watched it before.
permalinkparent
[ ]mastahslayah 1 point 4 hours ago
Well he isn't getting any of my Dr. Pepper.
permalinkparent
[ ]Poor__Yorick 1 point 2 hours ago
Wow that's a name I haven't heard in a while.
We've got a world war this year though.
3 billion dead by the end of it.
permalinkparent
load more comments (5 replies)
[ ]pion3435 1 point 3 hours ago
We already did. That's the point of laws like HIPAA. There's just no equivalent
for things like email or cell phones so it's legal to see whatever people are na
ively broadcasting.
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]ZomNomNomBeeZ 5 points 7 hours ago
This technology is not particularly new. The man-in-the-middle attack is a class
ic hacking technique. I remember reading an article after one of the security co
nventions detailing a small group of participants that used a remote control air
plane to do this exact thing to convention attendees. This was years ago.
permalinkparent
[ ]hershmire 4 points 7 hours ago
Which is why it's illegality could be successfully code into law.
permalinkparent
[ ]TheMightyBarbarian 1 point 3 hours ago
That's the problem, the people who make the laws don't understand how the techno
logy works, and the people making and using it are telling them its fine, so the

y don't feel like they need to make a law about.


And as such making a law about it would be bad, since the law would need specifi
c language to prevent certain technologies and usage of such. But the biggest is
sue is that some of the technology and uses are too general that it would never
work to stop anything. Since they can't just write a law preventing man in the m
iddle because they need to get a definitive wording on what that is exactly and
then word it so a slight variation doesn't just immediately skirt the new law.
Our technology grew faster than our laws did, but now it's grown faster than our
ability to properly define what it is we do. So controlling it is incredibly ha
rd and will take a long time, so for now we kinda have to suck it up and wait, b
ecause the worst possible thing is them putting out ineffective laws that do les
s than nothing to prevent stuff like that and hearing us complain and think we a
re whining when they just put out a law. I would rather wait a little longer to
make sure the law is proper and effective than to have a crap law screw everythi
ng up.
permalinkparent
[ ]ScorpionPool 1 point 6 hours ago
Serious question. What benefits does the government get from spying on us? Power
? Information for corporations? Shits and giggles? Some kind of profit?
permalinkparent
[ ]swingmemallet 2 points 5 hours ago
All of the above
permalinkparent
[ ]eyeforgot 1 point 5 hours ago*
What like complete access to what anyone posts/chats about on facebook/skype bei
ng dumped into a database? Anyone who work with cisco routers notice anything fu
nny like carefully crafted packets fucking w. the settings and not creating logs
. Maybe like there is a back door that someone has that doesn't require a passwo
rd.
permalinkparent
load more comments (3 replies)
[ ]philtech 26 points 10 hours ago
You can scan for stingray use.
Only works on rooted phones with Qualcomm chipset however. https://play.google.c
om/store/apps/details?id=de.srlabs.snoopsnitch&hl=en
permalink
[ ]vamper 2 points 6 hours ago
damn, no go for my nexus 5
permalinkparent
[ ]Ice_Pirate 1 point 5 hours ago
Should work on my 20 dollar ZTE's with dualies :). Overclocks to 1.8 like butta.
http://www.phonearena.com/phones/ZTE-N800_id8191
permalinkparent
[ ]willyboxc 1 point 2 hours ago
we need a version that will work without root :(
permalinkparent
[ ]networklackey 49 points 11 hours ago*
Bullshit... it's radio. They have no way of determining whether the person they
are monitoring is in public or not.
They shouldn't be able to use this without a warrant any more than they should b
e able to point a laser mic at your window.
The fact that they are in public is irrelevant... the subject they are monitorin
g has to be in public.
permalink
[ ]lll_1_lll 29 points 6 hours ago
Even if we are in public, what the fuck gives them the right to look through my
texts, phone calls, voicemails, emails, call history, etc?
permalinkparent
[ ]zoidbug 5 points 3 hours ago
It should be protected the level of paper mail. It is your private communication

s.
permalinkparent
[ ]networklackey 1 point 2 hours ago
Technically... because you are in public and are broadcasting. But I feel the sa
me way. None of this shit should be legal.
permalinkparent
load more comments (6 replies)
[ ]goatmagic 2 points 3 hours ago
laser mic
Well, TIL this exists :/
permalinkparent
[ ]networklackey 2 points 2 hours ago
They absolutely exist and they are freaking awesome. They should not however be
used by law enforcement without a warrant.
permalinkparent
[ ]makingupdumbnames 1 point 5 hours ago
I think it's that their airwaves cross public space. pls correct me if I'm wrong
, though
permalinkparent
[ ]networklackey 1 point 2 hours ago
That's certainly the argument they are making.
permalinkparent
[ ]wirepants 1 point 4 hours ago
Even assuming you are in public, who's to say the guy on the other side is too?
permalinkparent
[ ]networklackey 1 point 2 hours ago
Nothing but their log books but that doesn't really matter. It's your right to p
rivacy they are violating.
permalinkparent
[ ]Sarah_Connor 9 points 9 hours ago
We need a way to be able to identify, then jamm, stingrays.
permalink
[ ]cookie_nrk 8 points 7 hours ago
This Jammer made in sweden should do the trick. From what I have read it complet
ely blocks all signals, so using a phone wouldn't work at all, but if you were i
n a position to not want to be tracked during a certain time, you could use this
: http://www.jammer-store.com/monstro-10-all-frequencies-portable-jammer.html
permalinkparent
[ ]hershmire 10 points 7 hours ago
We're talking about blanket monitoring of civilians. It needs to be outlawed imm
ediately. Hoping each and every Joe Schmoe is going to buy an illegal cell phone
jammer to protect his identity is, well, ridiculous.
permalinkparent
[ ]davidverner 6 points 7 hours ago
Jammers are illegal in the US on the cellphone frequency. Good luck importing on
e.
permalinkparent
[ ]wicard 5 points 6 hours ago
had one from deal extreme i bought when i was younger to prank friends, was alot
of fun. But if you are worried about being tracked wouldn't just shutting your
phone off do the trick? If you are jamming your phone you arnt going to be talki
ng to anyone.
permalinkparent
[ ]RellenD 4 points 5 hours ago
You have to do more than just turn it off, unfortunately.
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]willyboxc 1 point 2 hours ago
we need the schematics so we can build one... also include 700 mhz jam for lte
permalinkparent

load more comments (1 reply)


[ ]ademnus 11 points 7 hours ago
That's nice but it's not up to the FBI if it is illegal or not.
permalink
[ ]MonitoredCitizen 21 points 7 hours ago
Come on Google and Apple, stop being so lame. Make the phones themselves defend
against this by always displaying the negotiated encryption level and allowing u
ser to configure the phone to refuse to connect if the GSM encryption level is A
5/0.
permalink
[ ]argv_minus_one 2 points 2 hours ago
If they do that, these same spooks will have some words with their CEOs. Otherwi
se, yeah, they likely would.
permalinkparent
[ ]vzzzbux 2 points 1 hour ago
Not sure on the technical specifics but my old Nokia from 10 years ago used to s
how a padlock if the call was "secure", which I guess meant it was encrypted in
some way.
Sounds like yet another way we've gone backwards with the rise of Google and App
le
permalinkparent
[ ]cryptovariable 180 points 12 hours ago
This seems icky, but anyone with a Raspberry Pi ($48.00), an RTL-SDR ($17.00), a
nd an ability to follow written step-by-step instructions on how to install and
configure some open source software ($0.00) can do this, albeit on a smaller sca
le.
That tutorial doesn't cover decrypting GSM traffic. This one does. You'll need s
omething faster than a Raspberry Pi, though. Maybe a $200 netbook.
And you can do it on the same scale as the police with a surplus commercial ante
nna and three or four friends.
I don't see how restricting the government's ability to do this would have any o
ther effect than to criminalize a private citizen's desire to experiment with GS
M.
permalink
[ ]HappyAtavism 113 points 11 hours ago
I don't see how restricting the government's ability to do this would have any o
ther effect than to criminalize a private citizen's desire to experiment with GS
M.
Experiment with GSM all you want, just don't eavesdrop or commit fraud by preten
ding to be part of a legitimate business.
I like to play with miniature cameras, microphones and transmitters. That's a fi
ne hobby as long as I don't use it to spy on my neighbors.
permalinkparent
load more comments (5 replies)
[ ]mr___ 50 points 12 hours ago
But theirs has a transmitter, and actively spoofs cell sites
permalinkparent
[ ]cryptovariable 55 points 12 hours ago
It you want to spoof rather than just eavesdrop all you have to do is buy any of
the SDR kits that are coming on to the market like a bladeRF or something and h
ave GNUradio (which hilariously autocorrects to FBI radio on my phone) pretend t
o be a tower, the credentials of which you sniffed with your Pi setup.
The reason the Feds spoof is so that they can target specific devices on a white
list and only have those connect. The size of the whitelist is unknown and up fo
r debate.
If you're capturing and decrypting all the GSM your antenna can receive you don'
t care if you're spoofing the tower unless you want to modify the traffic in som
e way. To quote Sir Patrick Stewart: "It's too late, I've seen everything."
If you just scoop up everything using cheap/free and publicly available tools yo
u don't really care about spoofing.

It should be noted that the Feds have a leg up with CDMA because of its smaller
global footprint and the scarcity of developers working on it, as well as UMTS (
3G) and LTE.
But people are poking at LTE every day: http://www.rtl-sdr.com/analyzing-td-ltertl-sdr/
permalinkparent
[ ]HappyAtavism 36 points 11 hours ago
The reason the Feds spoof is so that they can target specific devices on a white
list and only have those connect. The size of the whitelist is unknown and up fo
r debate.
We do know they don't have warrants. How many violations of the 4th Amendment do
es it take before it's considered a bad thing?
permalinkparent
load more comments (19 replies)
[ ]A530[??] 6 points 6 hours ago
I have to ask an honest question. Knowing what you know, do you live in a Farada
y cage or just eschew cell phones all together? I'm in InfoSec (I'm guessing you
are too) and with the shit I know, maintaining OPSec is just a never ending bat
tle. I can't imagine my paranoia if I went down the cellular rabbit hole (althou
gh I do know a lot about the shit happening with the carrier baseband MDM garbag
e).
Many thanks for the very informative post.
permalinkparent
[ ]tornadoRadar 1 point 1 hour ago
Gotta keep it segmented. Personal never mixes with biz
permalinkparent
[ ]the_nap_mutilator 1 point 5 hours ago
Spoofing the cell site also gives them access to the phone at something akin to
the hardware level... so unless you have rooted and or installed software to sec
ure the device, they can push new software onto your phone without your knowledg
e/consent in the same way that your carrier updates subscriber units say when th
ey make changes to the network or something. At that point your phone has been p
ermanently compromised.
permalinkparent
load more comments (13 replies)
[ ]mag17435 29 points 10 hours ago
I dont understand how people think the government can do things citizens can. Or
dering our government not to do something has no bearing on what citizens can do
.
permalinkparent
[ ]Golden-Fox 7 points 6 hours ago
Well when police are trying to visually collect evidence they can in general onl
y search from public areas. If a cop is looking for a certain car and they see i
t on the street, that's fine. If the car is parked in a closed garage and on pri
vate property, the cop wouldn't be able to see it without going onto private pro
perty and looking in a window. If the car is in the same garage and the garage d
oor is open, then anyone can see it, and the cop can legally use that informatio
n.
The FBI is trying to apply that same logic to these stingrays. Stingrays are a t
echnology that is available to the public. You could make your own and do exactl
y what the FBI does. The data being collected isn't encrypted, password protecte
d, or anything else. Everything is publicly available. You just have to have a c
ertain machine to be able to read it. The garage door has to be open.
permalinkparent
[ ]Wordygit 6 points 6 hours ago
The key word here is "public" whereas where there is the expectation of privacy,
I would think think that would carry some special considerations. That seems to
be some of what the courts are deciding about, where the expectation of privacy
holds sway over searches. Its already been determined that law enforcement cann
ot force you to unlock your phone. One such Supreme Court case, decided this pas

t summer, led to a sweeping victory for privacy rights advocates. In a rare unan
imous decision, the court found that police cannot search cellphones, and by ext
ension tablets and other digital communication devices, without first obtaining
a warrant. Smartphones, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote, hold the privacies of l
ife, and the fact that technology now allows an individual to carry such informati
on in his hand does not make the information any less worthy of the protection f
or which the Founders fought. I think, as well, that it has been established that
if there is encryption being used, that constitutes an acknowledgement that ste
ps have been taken to protect and maintain the sense of privacy, and so the expe
ctation carries onto the information being transmitted. Not sure if there is a l
egal precedent for that though.
permalinkparent
[ ]Golden-Fox 2 points 5 hours ago
Its already been determined that law enforcement cannot force you to unlock your
phone.
This is what I've heard, but to me it implies that police can access your phone
if you don't have it locked. Carrying that logic over to this argument, the poli
ce would be able to access your cell info as long as it isn't encrypted. It seem
s that you only have a "reasonable expectation to privacy" with your cell phone
if you've taken any steps to make your phone more private. If there were some wa
y to get your carrier to encrypt your data, then there'd be no question, but the
way cell providers are these days, that's not gonna happen.
permalinkparent
[ ]ThreeTimesUp 1 point 1 hour ago
Something that I have heard repeatedly (and I may yet have it wrong), is that if
your front door is closed, but unlocked, the police are free to enter without a
warrant.
This has always bothered me.
I could understand the mind-set of someone (i.e. a Justice of the Supreme court)
thinking that way if they grew up (or lived) in an area where they lived a life
always fearful of intruders and locking doors was a practical necessity.
But to me, a closed door means "Keep out, knock for admittance - no entry withou
t permission."
So, for naive, trusting, me, I would not expect the police (or anyone) to examin
e my phone (without a warrant) just to see what they could find.
permalinkparent
[ ]pion3435 1 point 3 hours ago
A technologically illiterate moron's expectation of privacy doesn't become a rea
sonable expectation of privacy just because the majority of the population is te
chnologically illiterate.
permalinkparent
[ ]F0sh 1 point 2 hours ago
This is totally wrong thinking. A private citizen can look for your car through
the garage window without legal repercussions, even though a police officer migh
t not be allowed. The police officer has to conduct his searches according to th
e expectation of privacy and you have every expectation that your private phone
conversations are private - even if you're sending your texts at the shopping ce
ntre.
This is a bullshit equivocation on the part of the FBI, who are claiming that si
nce any old person at the shops can see that you're also at the shops you have n
o expectation of privacy at all.
This logic, if extended, would also mean the FBI could clone your hard drive if
you took your laptop to a public place - after all, you have no expectation of p
rivacy there. No. Bullshit - just because you're in the park doesn't mean all yo
ur possessions and emails became public.
This has nothing to do with what an ordinary citizen is able to do in public or
in private.
permalinkparent
[ ]ThreeTimesUp 1 point 2 hours ago*
Well when police are trying to visually collect evidence they can in general onl

y search from public areas. If a cop is looking for a certain car and they see i
t on the street, that's fine.
To counterpoint this:
Infra-red light (heat) is just light that's at a lower frequency than humans can
detect.
Courts have ruled that the police using specialized equipment to detect heat sig
natures (Infra-red light) emanating from from houses for the purpose of snooping
for grow operations are an invasion of privacy.
The signals Stingray is picking up are just another frequency, even lower than I
nfra-red light, originating from inside your phone, that is your property, which
is in your possession.
Authorities are using all manner of logical distortions in an express attempt to
get around the ideals and principles expressed in the Constitution.
What law-abiding citizen would attempt such a thing?
What authority that the public has placed their trust in, would make continual a
ttempts to subvert the Constitution?
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
load more comments (2 replies)
[ ]kromem 2 points 3 hours ago
It is already criminal to capture and decrypt GSM traffic for citizens (Wiretap
Act), same as capturing and parsing WiFi data.
But I think I can point out the issue with your logic with a simple analogy:
Citizens can buy guns.
Law enforcement can be provided guns.
Citizens can practice shooting guns.
Law enforcement should do the same.
Citizens can't shoot other citizens with guns except in really specific exemptio
ns.
According to your logic, just because citizens can buy guns, and could possibly
go around shooting other people with them, law enforcement should not have any l
egal restrictions on their use of guns.
It is illegal for you to capture and decrypt anyone else's traffic, and it shoul
d be illegal for cops to do the same without a warrant. It's not that hard to ge
t a warrant when actually justified, creates a paper trail that can be examined
for abuses, and has been the case without serious issue for years now.
For what purpose does the law need to be changed to allow this? Because warrants
are inconvenient? Well then why not get rid of them for entering homes too? It'
s quite trivial to pick a lock, and even easier to smash a window and climb in.
Any citizen could do it. So why do we need to restrict the police from the same?
permalinkparent
[ ]dfioabnionjio 4 points 9 hours ago
I don't see how restricting the government's ability to do this would have any o
ther effect than to criminalize a private citizen's desire to experiment with GS
M.
Why not have it be illegal for government and legal for private citizens? Make i
t perfectly legal for private citizens to experiment with GSM, but don't let the
FBI do the same, like you can have a private citizen share something a defendan
t said in court while the police cannot do the same unless the suspect had been
told of their rights.
Of course, the problem here is not using GSM. It's tracking people who did not k
nowingly join your network. You could have it be legal to experiment with GSM an
d not legal to spoof a network, or make it so tracking someone on your network i
s illegal unless the person being tracked is aware they will be tracked and cons
ents to it.
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]confusiondiffusion 3 points 10 hours ago
Yeah, I really don't see the point in making laws against this, since they'll be
broken anyway. We need to fix the underlying technology. There is no excuse for

the sad state of cellphone security.


permalinkparent
[ ]HappyAtavism 18 points 10 hours ago
I really don't see the point in making laws against this
Then let's just flush the Constitution down the toilet. All laws get broken, the
question is what gets done about it.
since they'll be broken anyway
It's not very hard to break into my house either, but they're not supposed to do
it without a warrant.
permalinkparent
load more comments (4 replies)
[ ]HighMonster 1 point 7 hours ago
Wow that's intriguing
permalinkparent
[ ]lll_1_lll 1 point 6 hours ago
You act like this is realistically doable for the large majority of people and y
ou know that's BS.
permalinkparent
[+][deleted] 6 hours ago (1 child)
[ ]JabroniZamboni 1 point 5 hours ago
Are you suggesting that radar jammers should be legal? As well as cell phone or
wifi jammers? What if your neighbor wants to experiment with a jammer for the ne
xt 4 months? 6 years? I assume you wouldn't be too happy. There's experimentatio
n and then there's purposeful disruption and spying.
permalinkparent
[ ]egodeath92 1 point 5 hours ago
Yeah except "anyone with device X" can't prosecute people. It doesn't matter whe
n corporations do mass data collection because they are just trying to make mone
y/sell people shit. The government can create a database of people's private liv
es then prosecute them. You could even imagine a time where data collection is s
o widespread that this kind of info is used for political purposes rather then b
usting drug dealers/ other criminals which is what it's used for now.
permalinkparent
[ ]Kuusou 1 point 4 hours ago
What the people can do, and what the government can do, are no the same things,
nor should they.
permalinkparent
[ ]qdarius 1 point 4 hours ago
If a random person overhears my conversation I don't care. Even if they tell the
ir friends I'm still not too concerned.
If the government records my conversation and uses it to investigate or prosecut
e me that's clearly a different situation.
Just because someone can do something doesn't mean it should be legal. It defini
tely doesn't mean we should be okay with our government using it on us.
permalinkparent
load more comments (9 replies)
[ ]Sir_not_sir 52 points 13 hours ago
The main purpose of the stinger is to circumvent the need and time of acquiring
a warrant and getting the data from all the service providers.
Regardless of data retention plans, they should require a separate judicial warr
ant for each individual suspect in order to be deployed.
permalink
[ ]manoninternets 8 points 7 hours ago*
The time required to get a warrant is usually far less than what they make it ou
t to be, although cost is as factor. Phone companies make tons of money off poli
ce records requests.
To play devil's advocate (and I do think the STINGRAY arrangement is devilish):
once you request records from the phone companies, there's no guarantee that won
't get leaked to the people being investigated. The cartels have people everywhe

re.
permalinkparent
[ ]kevincreeperpants 6 points 6 hours ago
What if they are the cartels!?...dun dun dun
permalinkparent
[ ]tughdffvdlfhegl 1 point 3 hours ago
I don't think anyone here has a problem with STINGRAY being used, given that the
y have a warrant for the person's data they're monitoring. So in your situation,
that's easy to do.
permalinkparent
[ ]manoninternets 2 points 3 hours ago
Yeah it's the same concept as going through my private letters, or close enough
to it anyhow. (Even though letters are physically sealed and radio waves permeat
e the air freely, my intention is for my text messages to be as private as posta
l mail.)
Even a child could rip open an envelope with ease. That doesn't mean police don'
t need a warrant to do so.
permalinkparent
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[ ]turnthatfrown 9 points 7 hours ago
I think the FBI is conveniently forgetting that they are intercepting a communic
ation that is normally secured via encryption and carried privately by your wire
less provider then switched privately all the way to the party on the other end
who has similar expectations of the connection.
I mean, come on, the Stingrays themselves are impersonating the carrier that you
have a contract with and using techniques to avoid the strong encryption. The p
rove by their own design and implementation that the FBI's argument is bullshit.
permalink
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]dontbullshityourself 27 points 11 hours ago
I'm so sick of the ways these callous assholes use to crush our freedom.
What is the point of massive expensive law enforcement agencies if the law can't
protect our rights and freedoms? Hasn't the cart been put before the horse here
?
permalink
[ ]donottakethisserious 13 points 6 hours ago
If you are told you are free enough times, you start to believe it. You start at
a young age with a pledge every day and then when you grow up you attend sporti
ng events and stand for the national anthem and tear up at how free you are. Tha
t way nobody will ever question whether or not this is actually a free country.
permalinkparent
[ ]dontbullshityourself 10 points 5 hours ago
When I was a kid I started to sit during the pledge. Honestly I think I just wan
ted to test and see how free I was. I knew that saying the pledge etc wasn't in
the school handbook. I knew there was no rule saying I had to say it or stand or
anything. The powers that be at my school just used the herd instinct to keep t
his shit going.
So I started sitting down. This resulted in a lot of attention from gangs of bul
lies. My home room teacher didn't like it either and lectured/bitched about it e
very day. But she stopped short of anything more than shaming me unlike the bull
ies.
Anyway I just decided to drop out. Fuck it. Humans don't like new things that co
nfuse them and challenge them to think. How interesting that was to be the last
thing I learned in school. I found another kind of freedom. The freedom to leave
the assholes mired in their stupidity and find my own path in life.
permalinkparent
[ ]joshyfitzo90 4 points 5 hours ago
I like your style.
permalinkparent

[ ]Jack41096 3 points 4 hours ago


I applaud you. I stood but that's all I did. it was in our rulebook to stand but
fuck them if they thought I was gonna do more than that. I started a wave of pe
ople standing and doing nothing.
eventually my first period class was reduced to two people and the teacher actua
lly doing anything. they bitches about it but we all had our own reasons.
permalinkparent
[ ]dontbullshityourself 2 points 3 hours ago
eventually my first period class was reduced to two people and the teacher actua
lly doing anything. they bitches about it but we all had our own reasons.
There are lots of reasons to resist and only one reason to obey. Fear.
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]CriticalThink 3 points 5 hours ago
Government hasn't been interested in protecting our rights and freedoms in a lon
g time.
permalinkparent
[ ]jkeyser14 5 points 7 hours ago
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety
, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. - Benjamin Franklin
permalinkparent
[ ]dontbullshityourself 5 points 6 hours ago
We didn't give it up. They are taking it.
permalinkparent
[ ]jkeyser14 10 points 6 hours ago
Only because we aren't rioting. The first group of rioters to tar and feather a
politician again will bring about change very quickly.
permalinkparent
[ ]dontbullshityourself 4 points 5 hours ago
People are gonna have to get a lot more desperate. I reckon we'll get our riot s
oon enough.
permalinkparent
[ ]Jack41096 1 point 4 hours ago
take the food. that's the surefire way to cause a riot.
people will be content as long as they're fed. you take that away and suddenly t
hey have nothing to lose. they have to survive. that is the most primal response
we have. to fight tooth and nail for food. to eat no matter the cost.
permalinkparent
[ ]RamsNation 1 point 4 hours ago
America has a very stable food supply so I doubt that will happen.
permalinkparent
[ ]dontbullshityourself 1 point 3 hours ago
I don't think we have to take the food. I think that people today are a lot more
self entitled and will jump into a fit without their iphones. They can't even i
magine a world without abundant food.
permalinkparent
[ ]grungebucket 1 point 4 hours ago
bring about change very quickly. street executions very quickly.
there. Corrected that for you. After all. You wouldn't want to be mistaken for a
terrorist endorsing a terrorist act now, would you?
permalinkparent
[ ]pion3435 2 points 3 hours ago
You never had it. You're just now finding out.
permalinkparent
[ ]hershmire 7 points 7 hours ago
Ok, I get the FBI's argument. Technically, we are all choosing to carry a digita
l device around with us that uniquely identifies us via radio frequency. It's tr
ue that we could very well decide not to partake in the use of cell phones if we
're so worried about being tracked. And thus because we decide to carry these pa

rtially secure devices around with us, they FBI has every right to hack them and
track us.
But this argument is bogus. The FBI can't read our mail or tap our phones becaus
e legislators and judges at one time recognized that technology becomes indispen
sable, and therefore should be protected under privacy laws. Just because I choo
se to carry a cell phone around with me doesn't give the FBI to track my whereab
outs, or worse. That'd be like saying it's my fault for having my mail read by t
he FBI because I chose to write letters, or I chose to have my phones monitored
and recorded by the FBI because I chose to use telephones.
The FBI is part of the executive branch. They (supposedly) operate within the sc
ope of the law. If there's no specific law preventing their actions, they'll go
ahead and do it. So write your representatives and get shit like this regulated.
And use letters because they're obligated to at least open the envelope.
permalink
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]drakecherry 5 points 8 hours ago
we might as well get rid of warrants all together. they are gonna search if they
want to, and nothing will happen if they are wrong.
permalink
[ ]MeganNancySmith 6 points 6 hours ago
The FBI doesn't have the legal authority to make that determination.
It would be like if I said that murder is legal every other Sunday. I can say it
all I like, but it doesn't make it true.
permalink
[ ]Todda468 6 points 6 hours ago
Anything a private citizen can't do should require reasonable suspicion or a war
rent.
permalink
[ ]Sonotmethen 6 points 9 hours ago
Then signal jammers aren't either.
permalink
[ ]MrJDouble 4 points 9 hours ago
FBI tends to say a lot of things, doesn't mean it isn't a pile of horseshit.
permalink
[ ]blueiron0 4 points 6 hours ago
(3) cases in which the technology is used in public places or other locations at
which the FBI deems there is no reasonable expectation of privacy.
Love how the FBI gets to decide when it's ok for them to assume you shouldnt hav
e any expectation on privacy. "we saw a poop porn video on pornhub. you shouldnt
expect privacy when pooping then."
permalink
[ ]ragn4rok234 4 points 6 hours ago
Whoo! Now I don't need a warrant or sufficient reason to wire tap anyone and eve
ryone. Stalkers of the world rejoice! It's like Oprah is handing out privacy bre
aches in here
permalink
[ ]fourslaps 4 points 4 hours ago
This isn't what Steve Irwin would have wanted
permalink
[ ]knowyourbrain 7 points 8 hours ago
How sad is it that we have an R Senator trying to rein in a D president's FBI?
If Snowden et al have not been able to show the American people what a farce our
government is then I don't know how it can be demonstrated.
permalink
[ ]makingupdumbnames 1 point 5 hours ago
that's Chelsea to you, mister!
permalinkparent
[ ]StellarUsername 4 points 9 hours ago
Can someone ELI5 why my cell carrier lets this happen? Seems like it would be ea
sy enough for them to put a stop to it if they wanted.

permalink
[ ]giantgnat 13 points 8 hours ago
Because if you don't play nice with them, they don't play nice with you like wha
t happened to the CEO of quest after he refused to cooperate.
permalinkparent
[ ]lll_1_lll 6 points 6 hours ago
CEO of quest
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/09/30/a-ceo-who-resistednsa-spying-is-out-of-prison-and-he-feels-vindicated-by-snowden-leaks/
permalinkparent
[ ]WatchoutItsAllan 1 point 4 hours ago
Looks like the only way to be out of the eyes of the NSA is to go back to using
these http://imgur.com/JEFUt4h
permalinkparent
[ ]jkeyser14 4 points 7 hours ago
The cell and internet companies get paid millions by the government for direct a
ccess to their lines. This was one of the things Snowden blew the whistle on.
permalinkparent
[ ]MadPooter 2 points 7 hours ago
I believe that the technology behind our current cell phone towers needs to allo
w for widespread access to said cell phone towers from a wide array of technolog
ical devices.
The Stingray makes the cell phone tower believe that it's a cell phone--I don't
know that it's as easy as you might think to re-design all cell phone models to
differentiate themselves from what Stingrays currently are.
TL;DR: This might be a better issue for cell phone designers to solve rather the
n cell phone carriers.
permalinkparent
[ ]egalroc 2 points 6 hours ago
Maybe design a Falcon drone that homes in and locks on fake Stingray towers. Wou
ldn't the FBI just shit to see a couple sparrows zooming down on them?
permalinkparent
[ ]A530[??] 1 point 6 hours ago
Cell carriers couldn't care less. They're also packaging backdoors in their base
band software to do all kinds of functional crap, like over the air updates and
remote access.
permalinkparent
[ ]here4DaBacon 3 points 7 hours ago
So it's a honey pot for cell phones. This same method is used to intercept WiFi
internet traffic. The world is becoming a hackers paradise.
permalink
[ ]CapAnson 4 points 6 hours ago
I don't even think of the FBI's exceptions two and three are valid. And as for i
mminent danger to public safety I can't imagine when that safety hinges on inter
cepting a cell call right now this very second without a warrant
permalink
[ ]SquidwardSnowden1 3 points 6 hours ago
Let it be noted, I love big brother.
permalink
[ ]ryanknapper 3 points 6 hours ago
There was a comment asking what prevents private citizens from doing this. My re
ply was: Absolutely nothing. In fact, there are legal ways of doing exactly this
.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xKihq1fClQg
permalink
[ ]lll_1_lll 2 points 6 hours ago
inb4 this thread gets removed by the mods and/or shadowbanned
permalink
[ ]doctorshady[S] 3 points 6 hours ago
I was almost sure it was going to be removed when I submitted it.

permalinkparent
[ ]grtwatkins 1 point 3 hours ago
Wait, so mods = FBI?
permalinkparent
[ ]doctorshady[S] 2 points 2 hours ago
The mods here are quite restrictive about what is allowed to be submitted. Wheth
er or not they're under someone's influence is a question I can't answer (though
I'd honestly like to know), but you'll occasionally see high profile topics rem
oved, like the Snowden leaks back when PRISM was first pointed out.
permalinkparent
[ ]tomcat23 3 points 6 hours ago
If I had a hundred dollars for every time the FBI said it could do something une
thical or unconstitutional I'd be shooting rockets into space like Elon Musk rig
ht now.
permalink
[ ]leafygreenstuff 3 points 6 hours ago
Oh, well if they said....
permalink
[ ]wlxr 3 points 5 hours ago
Is this implying that they are going to repeatedly kill Steve Irwin?
permalink
[ ]Bulldog65 3 points 2 hours ago
Can I Use my Stingray in public places to intercept communications ?
If the answer is no, then the FBI needs a warrant.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effec
ts, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Wa
rrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, a
nd particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things t
o be seized.
This can only be changed by super majority votes in Congress and the States, not
treasonous opinions of mouthpiece lawyers in Department of Justice. This is why
prosecutions of torture memo writers is important. If they want to try and make
up laws they need to be held accountable under the law.
permalink
[ ]Do_Em_Till_They_Derp 13 points 12 hours ago
I don't think that is a good idea considering what happened to Steve Irwin.
permalink
[ ]Smgth 1 point 4 hours ago
I can't believe how far down I had to scroll to find this joke. I was worried I'
d have to make it myself. This thread is WAY too serious for my taste...
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]go1dfish 10 points 10 hours ago
This is what happens when you give a group of people authority over all else.
They use that authority to extort funds from you to pay for your own oppression.
But reddit still cheers it on. It seems to some; the concepts of roads or compas
sion cannot exist without specially anointed jack boot thugs.
permalink
[ ]Arael15th 3 points 6 hours ago
Do you see anyone in this post cheering this on? Moreover is this your first tim
e here?
permalinkparent
[ ]Flight_MH370 2 points 9 hours ago
Can the cell providers see every time this happens? If so, they could alert peop
le of fake towers or something. Alas, I'm pretty sure all the cell providers are
in bed with the feds already anyway.
permalink
[ ]leftnotracks 1 point 8 hours ago
This is why it s a good thing the FBI are not the people in charge of what is lega
l.

permalink
[ ]iluvmilfs420 3 points 7 hours ago
Ohh cool more of my taxes wasted on stupid shit...
permalink
[ ]fuzzycuffs 3 points 7 hours ago
Then I can do the same thing with wifi and not be charged with hacking, right?
permalink
[ ]endprism 2 points 7 hours ago
Use of Stringray in America: https://www.aclu.org/maps/stingray-tracking-devices
-whos-got-them
http://rt.com/usa/215735-sandiego-police-phone-tracking/
http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/First-Amendment-Coalition-Files-Lawsuit-Ab
out-Stingray-Surveillance--286092741.html
http://www.miaminewtimes.com/2012-02-16/news/cell-phone-tracking-miami-cops-know
-where-you-are/
http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/Fort-Worth-Cellphone-Tracking-Rings-Controversy
-140796693.html
http://www.wgrz.com/story/news/investigations/2014/02/13/are-local-police-spying
-on-your-cell-phone/5462273/
Tick tock...
permalink
[ ]johnnybiggs15 2 points 7 hours ago
didnt know they had that type of power
permalink
[ ]jwyche008 2 points 6 hours ago
They would fucking say that wouldn't they? The thing is it isn't supposed to be
their damn decision to make!
permalink
[ ]ICEClownfishWok 1 point 6 hours ago
Did the US government learn nothing from Nazi Germany? I honestly won't be surpr
ised if WWIII occurs when the rest of the world gets tired of our governments bu
llshit
permalink
[ ]frankenstilskin 3 points 6 hours ago
America, for the corporations by the corporations
permalink
[ ]Elephant_rhino_tiger 3 points 5 hours ago
It sounds like a 6 year old coming up with a superhero. "This is FBI man, and he
can fly and like punch through the earth, and he can y'know like intercept cell
traffic if he thinks it's important. But he is weak against himself though, so
like if he punched himself he would die."
permalink
[ ]Banana_blanket 2 points 4 hours ago
Hey who wants to just sit around and let it happen? Oh, everyone? Perfect. Ready
? Go.
permalink
[ ]poopinbutt2014 3 points 4 hours ago
Ah yes, the cops deciding what laws they are and aren't subject to.
permalink
[ ]burnerthrown 2 points 2 hours ago
Has anyone else notied a pattern of more and more laws that protect enforcement
operations from civilians, and fewer nd fewer laws protecting civilians from enf
orcement?
permalink
[ ]siquisiudices 2 points 2 hours ago
Increasingly I am astonished by the state of democracy in the developed western
countries. What has happened and how? I realise that there have always been infr
ingements of liberties by the state - always. But it seems to me that what has c
hanged is the blatent nature of the compromise of democratic norms. I'm not a hi
storian but my impression is that the origins of our current situation lie in tw

o iconic regimes in the UK and US - Reagan and Thatcher (and those that followed
) - and in the fall of the soviet regimes.
The economic philosophy that Reagan and Thatcher promoted reduced liberty to pro
perty rights while at the same time it condemned (rightly) the soviet regimes fo
r their lack of respect for democratic norms. The appeal of this economic ideolo
gy to capital, to the corporations, was obvious especially as during the 1970s t
here had been intermittent but recurring periods when profitability had fallen.
In the context of declining profitability, a roll back of the state and public e
xpenditure was a quick win.
For the rest of society, the implication that growth in personal, individual wea
lth was being held back by public spending and that the welfare state eroded ind
ividual responsibility also won the day. A key element in this process was the d
efeat and denigration of trade unionism: Thatcher going so far as to suggest tha
t trade unions (in the person of the National Union of Miners) were dangerous tr
aitors. People bought into the arguments for radical individualism ("there is no
such thing as society") because, in part, the concrete experience of collectivi
sm in trade unions declined in the face a massive anti-trade union assault.
The fall of the corrupt and totalitarian soviet regimes underpinned this all by
giving concrete expression to the notion that there is no alternative.
Economically the result has been massive widening of the discrepancy in wealth i
n many western countries and increased immiseration of labour across the world a
nd no force to counterbalance the power of the corporations and the state that t
hey (quite naturally) control. The state is the central committee of capital.
In all of this, the oft misnamed "libertarian" tendencies were accompanied by an
increasingly authoritarian and intrusive state apparatus which was promoted and
defended around quite classical nationalist ideas but recast often as the defen
se of western democracy against various external enemies.
And so, little by little, we have allowed our civil liberties to be chipped away
. Even the radical libertarians have been sidelined and fooled into irrelevant s
truggles around gun control in the US. Really, if an armed citizenry were the gu
arantee of liberty then one wold have hoped it would have done a better job. But
overall anti-welfare, anti-European and anti-immigrant rhetoric in the UK and,
for example, religious manipulation of public discourse in the US have allowed t
he authoritarian, pro-corporate state to gradually encroach on political and per
sonal freedoms. And here we are.
We can't say we didn't know - we were warned but the ruling class managed to def
ame the messengers and in other ways render us impotent.
One can only hope that we wake up in time and that our new disdain for collectiv
ism is overcome by the necessity of taking collective action.
permalink
[ ]DinglebellRock [score hidden] 49 minutes ago
You have a right to privacy according to the Constitution. Except for maybe your
cell phone calls. Or email. Or handwritten or typed letters. Or what you read f
rom the library and Amazon. Or maybe your colon and lower intestine if you are i
n New Mexico. What a fucked up nation this has become...
permalink
[ ]nstalker91 [score hidden] 38 minutes ago
Oh sure, when they do it, it's "protecting" and "morally right", but when I do i
t, it's a "federal crime" and "the FCC watches me"
permalink
[ ]The_Media_Collector 3 points 9 hours ago
This is why my phone has an app to continually report IMSI changes to me. I swit
ch one tower to another, I get a warning.
permalink
[ ]Redd575 1 point 7 hours ago
How is that helpful? Not being an ass, just curious. Seems if a Stingray can spo
of a tower then the app does little unless you are standing absolutely still.
permalinkparent
[ ]The_Media_Collector 3 points 7 hours ago
it's my understanding that Stingray "towers" do not encrypt traffic. anytime I a

m connected to an unencrypted "tower" the IMSI detector goes red and lets me kno
w.
permalinkparent
[ ]Redd575 1 point 6 hours ago
Wow. Whomever figured that out was clever.
permalinkparent
[ ]ExReverie93 1 point 7 hours ago
Which app? And would a normal person (not meaning you're not normal. You know wh
at I mean.) be able to use it?
permalinkparent
[ ]The_Media_Collector 1 point 7 hours ago
Requires Root. It's just caeld "Adnroid IMSI-Catchter"
permalinkparent
[ ]egalroc 1 point 6 hours ago
Makes a person want to be a criminal or spy just for the fun of it.
permalinkparent
[ ]Effo 3 points 7 hours ago
Goodbye America the Great, hello police state. :-[
permalink
[ ]Casemods 2 points 7 hours ago
Another reason why I don't have a cell phone.
permalink
[ ]GiveMe_TreeFiddy 3 points 7 hours ago
Things libertarians have been screaming about and offering solutions to for 500$
, Alex...
permalink
[ ]ilovesellinblow 1 point 9 hours ago
police and marshals have been running these for years.
permalink
[ ]bbelt16ag 1 point 8 hours ago
so FBI lets see what the Supreme court has to say to that. I am sure once they r
ule on this you will be going home with your tails between your legs.
permalink
[ ]Banana_blanket 1 point 4 hours ago
Do you people really have that much faith in our Supreme Court? Really?
permalinkparent
[ ]bbelt16ag 1 point 3 hours ago
gotta have some faith, other wise its just anarchy, or revolution. I am not read
y to give up quite yet.
permalinkparent
[ ]bonyponyride 1 point 8 hours ago
If digital communication in a public (and private) space is fair game, there's n
othing to stop an FBI tech specialist from stealing things like knowledge that w
ould be considered insider trading. There's an extreme potential for abuse.
permalink
[ ]jkeyser14 2 points 7 hours ago
If was fair game then hacking into wireless signals by private citizens wouldn't
be illegal.
permalinkparent
[ ]egalroc 1 point 6 hours ago
Just waiting for Anonymous to set up shop in a public park and hack into police
communications then dispatch them to bogus locations throughout the city. If any
thing goes wrong, they could always blame North Korea.
permalinkparent
[ ]coalbeeashi 1 point 3 hours ago
Aren't government agencies encrypting their digital communication - thus exhibit
ing an expectation of privacy?
I'm not sure what steps the "reasonable person" is taking to exhibit an expectat
ion of privacy over their data, tbh.
permalinkparent

[ ]hmmwhatsthisdo 1 point 8 hours ago


If you used RedPhone, Whisperpush/TextSecure, and a VPN, this wouldn't be of con
cern to you, right?
permalink
[ ]LucifersCounselNZ 1 point 7 hours ago
Wrong.
In other cases, the IMSI or equivalent identifier of a target is not known to th
e StingRay operator and the goal of the surveillance operation is to identify on
e or more cellular devices being used in a known area.[16] For example, if visua
l surveillance is being conducted on a group of protestors,[17] a StingRay can b
e used to download the IMSI or equivalent identifier from each phone within the
protest area. After identifying the phones, locating and tracking operations can
be conducted, and service providers can be forced to turn over account informat
ion identifying the phone users.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stingray_phone_tracker#Extracting_Data_From_Interna
l_Storage
Before any of that shit you're talking about comes into play, the IMSI number is
used when establishing the connection. It is uniquely identifying. With your IM
SI number and a court order (or cooperative telco) they will know who you are an
d who you were communicating with.
Then they can use that information to punish you for participating in legal prot
ests, associating with the wrong people, or simply because some Fed didn't like
the look of you.
permalinkparent
[ ]hmmwhatsthisdo 1 point 6 hours ago
So, the only way is to modify your IMEI (which is questionably legal) and use a
prepaid SIM?
permalinkparent
[ ]facepalmdude 1 point 5 hours ago
The IMSI part makes sense, but by using the mentioned tools authorities are very
unlikely to find out who you communicated with, or what the content was. All th
ey know is that you're the end point of an encrypted data connection.
permalinkparent
[ ]coalbeeashi 1 point 3 hours ago
I would assume that a court would view this as an individual exhibiting an expec
tation of privacy over their data.
permalinkparent
[ ]mambotangohandala 1 point 7 hours ago
Law?
We don't need no stinkin' law...
permalink
[ ]smilesbot 1 point 7 hours ago
You've just used a double negative! :P
permalinkparent
[ ]mambotangohandala 1 point 7 hours ago
no i did not, never would i do such a thing, nope, i don't think i ever did...
Ever see the movie 'blazing saddles'? Context kid, context
permalinkparent
[ ]smilesbot 1 point 7 hours ago
yup yup yup!
permalinkparent
[ ]mambotangohandala 1 point 7 hours ago
oh no a triple positive,what a stupendous faux pas!
permalinkparent
[ ]smilesbot 1 point 7 hours ago
yup yup yup!
permalinkparent
[ ]mambotangohandala 1 point 7 hours ago
Did mom give you too many sodas tonight?
permalinkparent

[ ]mambotangohandala 1 point 7 hours ago


Now where are those kiddy downers?
permalinkparent
[ ]mambotangohandala 1 point 7 hours ago
Remember tomorrow is a school day
permalinkparent
[ ]BigTex8900 1 point 7 hours ago
The Federal Bureau of Investigation is taking the position that court warrants a
re not required when deploying cell-site simulators in public places.
Wait so can I take the position that it's not actually illegal to suck dick for
money in public places?
permalink
[ ]AssOrca 1 point 6 hours ago
Well thank god there not doing it in my home!
permalinkparent
[ ]Drunken_Economist 1 point 7 hours ago
The FCC says they are needed, FWIW
permalink
[ ]FadingEchoes11 0 points 6 hours ago
100% true, power to the people
You should learn about and try to understand firearms more, they are just tools
after all.
permalink
[ ]winstrol 1 point 6 hours ago
Can i use a stingray? Al stick to my snoopsnitch.
permalink
[ ]fatscat84 2 points 6 hours ago
Big fucking surprise, 4th amendment=toilet paper anymore. The rights of the citi
zens arent even considered anymore since we dont have lobbyists. Maybe ill start
a kickstarter campaign to make a lobbyist group to give americans a voice in d.
c.
permalink
[ ]urbn 2 points 6 hours ago
The Obama Administration has repeatedly maintained that the public has no privac
y in public places.
And yet the excuse always used when someone records a police officer breaking th
e law and is arrested, detained and has his property stolen is that it violates
their privacy.
permalink
[ ]Vigilias 1 point 6 hours ago
If it's stealing signals being send from private residences it sure should fucki
ng be wtf.
permalink
[ ]2013palmtreepam 1 point 6 hours ago
Because stingrays automatically stop working at private property lines? Don't re
call the part of the 4th Amendment that exempts the requirement for probable cau
se and a search warrant when one happens to be in a public place.
permalink
[ ]makingupdumbnames 2 points 6 hours ago
I don't think it would be too hard to develop a stingray jammer, something that
just floods their equipment with a bunch of useless/fake cell phone numbers...I'
m in favor of a more strategic response to these types of infringements of our r
ights. We actually have a right and responsibility to fight tyranny...
permalink
[ ]ghotiaroma 1 point 3 hours ago
It's possible, but you wouldn't know where and when to use it. And it would be d
etectable you are using a jammer and anyone using one would find themselves fill
ed with SWAT bullets in no time.
permalinkparent
[ ]ononewheel 1 point 2 hours ago

Cant you rent bot net time and do this?


permalinkparent
[ ]psilontech 1 point 5 hours ago
I think that's for the courts to decide, FBI.
permalink
[ ]coalbeeashi 1 point 4 hours ago
...the only way the courts could decide is if it were practiced and a lawsuit wa
s brought against those practices.
Of course the FBI is going to finagle ways to flirt with obscure, outdated laws
for the purpose of investigating, thus practice it. Of course some group or orga
nization is going to take issue with it, thus taking it to court.
permalinkparent
[ ]cynoclast 2 points 5 hours ago
And the 4th Amendment says the FBI is wrong. And to the idea that subsequent law
s or that prededence says otherwise, I say that lawyers who make those interpret
ations were paid to do so by people with a vested interest in saying otherwise.
The constitution and amendments were intended to be read and interpreted by ever
yone, not just lawyers and judges so it matters not at all what lawyers and judg
es say.
permalink
[ ]coalbeeashi 1 point 5 hours ago
The constitution and amendments were intended to be read and interpreted by ever
yone
Uhh...interpreted by everyone? Do you know how fucked up that would be? There's
a reason for the judicial branch.
permalinkparent
[ ]cynoclast 2 points 4 hours ago
More fucked up than corporations as people? The 4th Amendment being ignored by t
he DHS, Homeland Security, and the NSA? More fucked up than than all the ridicul
ous, unconstitutional restrictions on cosmetic features of firearms that all vio
late the 2nd amendment? More fucked up than justices appointed by war criminals
refusing to recuse themselves where they have a clear conflict of interest?
The judicial branch is staffed by people, just as fallible as the rest of us. Th
e judicial branch was nly ever an attempt to reign in the other two. It was alwa
ys intended that it was the right of the people to alter or abolish the governme
nt if it gets out of hand and it has.
permalinkparent
[ ]coalbeeashi 1 point 4 hours ago
I would still rather have the fate of laws be in the hands of individuals who sp
ecifically studied the very nature of their professional practice than leave it
up to a mass of people with little-to-no understanding of the law, outside of wh
at is force-fed to them by media (comparable to your assertion of less-than-idea
l practices by lawyer/judges)
I fully agree that laws should be written in ways that the public can understand
and interpret (however, you're never going to reach a consensus on laws written
200+ years ago). And I believe that, reading most supreme court decisions, the
justices advocate for specifics in laws and understand that outdated or vague la
ws is a main reason cases are brought before them. Laws aren't concrete or stati
c. It's a court of public opinion.
permalinkparent
[ ]cynoclast 1 point 4 hours ago
I would still rather have the fate of laws be in the hands of individuals who sp
ecifically studied the very nature of their professional practice than leave it
up to a mass of people with little-to-no understanding of the law, outside of wh
at is force-fed to them by media (comparable to your assertion of less-than-idea
l practices by lawyer/judges)
I think there's balance between the two. It's similar to the balance between IT
and the user. While the IT guy is more knowledgeable about the field than most o
f the users he's supposed to facilitate, he often forgets that his purpose is to
facilitate, not to rule, and what the users are doing is what keeps the lights

on. People in congress and the senate are mislabelled when called 'lawmakers' th
eir job is representative of their constituency. And lawyers face a conflict of
interest between simplifying the law and representing people fairly and seeing a
fter their own welfare and ensuring their own job security. Simple, clear, and u
nambiguous laws have little value to the professional attorney at law. But the p
eople at large have no interest, and in fact a reason to despise laws they don't
understand, especially ones decided by decades old case law they know nothing a
bout. But for too long the balance has been swinging in favor of the lawyer seek
ing payment for services from the rich instead of the poor seeking freedom from
those with the resources to hire teams of lawyers for years to drain them of res
ources. The day a rich man could sue an innocent poor man under false pretenses
and crush him is the day the justice department ceased to function as intended.
I fully agree that laws should be written in ways that the public can understand
and interpret (however, you're never going to reach a consensus on laws written
200+ years ago). And I believe that, reading most supreme court decisions, the
justices advocate for specifics in laws and understand that outdated or vague la
ws is a main reason cases are brought before them. Laws aren't concrete or stati
c. It's a court of public opinion.
Lawyers like to pretend that they are concrete or static. Just imagine the phras
e "settled case law" coming out of their mouths and you need go no further. It's
like they forget that eventually given the dynamic equilibrium of the poor vs.
the rich that sometimes words written on paper in a dusty library somewhere mean
absolutely nothing when the pitchforks and guillotines come out, the old laws t
hrown out, and new ones written even more strongly against tyrants. You're right
, sometimes, it's a court of public opinion. But sometimes the court is brutal,
but not unjustly so:
There were two Reigns of Terror, if we would but remember it and consider it; the
one wrought murder in hot passion, the other in heartless cold blood; the one la
sted mere months, the other had lasted a thousand years; the one inflicted death
upon ten thousand persons, the other upon a hundred millions; but our shudders
are all for the horrors of the minor Terror, the momentary Terror, so to speak; wh
ereas, what is the horror of swift death by the axe, compared with lifelong deat
h from hunger, cold, insult, cruelty, and heart-break? What is swift death by li
ghtning compared with death by slow fire at the stake? A city cemetery could con
tain the coffins filled by that brief Terror which we have all been so diligentl
y taught to shiver at and mourn over; but all France could hardly contain the co
ffins filled by that older and real Terror that unspeakably bitter and awful Terro
r which none of us has been taught to see in its vastness or pity as it deserves
.
permalinkparent
[ ]DongleNocker 2 points 5 hours ago
Don't you wish government organizations would get permission from congress prior
to assuming they have the authority?
permalink
[ ]Euracil 1 point 5 hours ago
Whoops! Someone just happened to spill wine all over the Bill of Rights! Well, a
t least the Second Amendment survived!
permalink
[ ]ripvannwinkler 1 point 5 hours ago
What is the practical operational radius of one of these things?
If my place of business or residence falls in this radius of an operating device
, is my phone subject to interception by the device?
If so, you require a warrant. Period. No equivocation.
permalink
[ ]bittopia 1 point 5 hours ago
What is going to be interesting is when systems and encryptions becomes so resil
ient and powerful that nothing can be spied on AT ALL. What will they do then?
permalink
[ ]johnnybullet 1 point 5 hours ago
I thought only God was listening to me... This changes everything!

permalink
[ ]TronicTonic 2 points 5 hours ago
Thank god the FBI is in charge of the judicial branch and gets to decide what is
right vs wrong.
permalink
[ ]Vinven 1 point 5 hours ago
They can say whatever they want, it doesn't make it legal.
permalink
[ ]coffeethulhu 2 points 5 hours ago
Under this theory anybody could buy one of these devices and use it in "public s
paces" without fear of falling foul of the law....Who wants to start a kickstart
er campaign to buy one?
permalink
[ ]redditezmode 1 point 5 hours ago
Based on what, exactly? Why would they think search warrants aren't necessary?
permalink
[ ]Fucksfuturefatchicks 1 point 4 hours ago
If it stops me from downloading porn, it's a dead giveaway. If it doesn't, thank
s for the government funded and sanctioned porn.
permalink
[ ]egalroc 1 point 4 hours ago
I wonder if the FBI can upload unsanctioned porn to your computer using a stingr
ay? Interesting thought isn't it?
permalinkparent
[ ]winsomecowboy 1 point 4 hours ago
So my clandestine FBI staff list shouldn't be an issue.
permalink
[ ]Heisenpurrrrg 1 point 4 hours ago
Those guys can fuck right off, eh?
permalink
[ ]cerealcable 1 point 4 hours ago
Every time an invasion of our rights & privacy especially related to our establi
shed forms of communications happens it just terrifies me. Not because our gover
nment is throwing wind to established laws but because of what the future could
bring.
The reason why most of us are upset today over this is because we have an expect
ation of privacy when we pick up our cell phones. We expect our text messages, p
hone calls and data to be private thus protected by law requiring a warrant to "
tap" it only for Law Enforcement. Telecoms (wired, wireless, voip) will only com
ply to requests when required by law, but when it comes to the public air waves
using technology to just listen in we're starting a terrible precedent.
Essentially what I'm concerned about is that eventually it'll be so commonly acc
epted that these communications are not private (after all the government can sn
oop in on those conversations, and everyone already expects it) and thus we no l
onger have the expectation of privacy and thus no warrant is actually acquired.
The terrifying process is how it all started, with the government over stepping
their legal abilities with little to no repercussions.
Now that I'm reading that paragraph again, I honestly wouldn't be surprised if t
hat exact argument is/was/will be used in a secret court of which none of us wil
l be able to hold accountable.
It's scary to see what the future will hold for privacy related to technology. O
ur government is doing anything and everything they want and if people aren't sc
ared they need to get some tinfoil and make some hats because they're going to n
eed them.
Obligatory point: As the government snoops more and more, technology will just e
ncrypt more and more making it nearly pointless for the snooping, but it won't c
hange the expectation of privacy after say a decade of common knowledge that the
se communications are not private. Then Law Enforcement Agencies will just subpo
ena records instead of following due process of getting a warrant.
tl;dr It's a very slippery slope and I'm just watching us slowly sliding further

and further into the trap. :-(


permalink
[ ]coalbeeashi 1 point 4 hours ago
Honest question - in the eyes of laws, is our view on "expectation of privacy" i
gnorant or misguided? When I send a text - even though I don't think about it I gave permission to Apple, AT&T, my friend, their carrier, their phone, and pro
bably countless others that I don't even realize. When I download an app I give
them all sorts of permissions to access my information.
Also, what's stopping the government from creating an app, let's say some crazed
game like Trivia Crack, hide a bunch of permissions that no one looks at and do
it that way. They could have access to my photos, access to my microphone, acce
ss to my location, etc. (obviously I understand that you can retract most of tho
se permissions, but I doubt many people do)
So, I guess my question is, using multiple third parties, do I really have the r
ight to expect complete privacy?
permalinkparent
[ ]Rockerofboats 2 points 4 hours ago
I do what I wants to.
permalink
[ ]Gymshortsboner55 2 points 4 hours ago
I'm not trying to sound like the uncle that's always bitchin' at family reunions
but man is this country going down the shitter. I'm almost ashamed to live here
anymore.
permalink
[ ]kazuri85 2 points 4 hours ago
The government has no right to make your property do something you do not want i
t to do.
permalink
[ ]SpacemanLurker 2 points 3 hours ago
Crikey! Australian accent
Too soon?
permalink
[ ]Undisclosed-dopeness 1 point 3 hours ago
Really wish this was about actual stingrays
permalink
[ ]k-h 1 point 3 hours ago
Is that the "stingrays" that don't exist?
Of course they don't need a warrant on equipment that doesn't exist.
permalink
[ ]PhorTwenny 2 points 3 hours ago
if it picks up all cells text/call/info how do they know your not inside a house
or anyother private area? Either way this is disgusting!
permalink
[ ]MarxIzalias 2 points 3 hours ago
The more of these that get posted, the harder I laugh at America's freedoms.
You pretty much have the same as everybody else.
It seems as though the constitution is like bog roll to your law enforcement. Co
vered in meaningless shit that doesn't even stick to them.
What a joke.
The FBI stating that 'stingrays' don't apply to privacy laws because you're in a
public place makes no sense, otherwise you could walk around butt naked and arg
ue that "According to the FBI, personal privacy is not required in public".
Of course, they could say, what any deceitful peice of trash could say. "If you
weren't doing anything illegal then you have nothing to worry about."
Unless you were talking to you solicitor about a patent. In which case it would
be worthless the moment a third party heard about the invention.
Talking to your doctor about a condition that could prejudice a group against yo
u.
Talking to a solicitor about the details of a case.
Talking to fellow jurors over the phone about a details of a case, that's always

good to be spied on.


Talk about family history and possible ties you might have to foreign nations, w
hich could put you on a watch list.
Give personal details to bankers about foreign business accounts which have diff
erent protection laws.
Discuss plans you may have that they could interfere with.
Or just miscellaneous emails to and from your employer that could be damaging to
the companies reputation if published and could be used against them as leverag
e with a false flag operation LOOKING AT YOU SONY!
This isn't even a comprehensive list of things that you could do, but hey, it's
America, the land where freedom is a lie and the constitution is apparently wort
h less and less with each new government. XFD
permalink
[ ]NightOfTheLivingHam 1 point 3 hours ago
while we're declaring bullshit, I declare I'm owed a million dollars.
permalink
[ ]ZedOud 1 point 3 hours ago
Most warrant-less law enforcement surveillance techniques are legal because they
can be performed by members of the public, in public. (ex. tailing)
So can we also legally operate a stingray?
Yes we can!
permalink
[ ]Wulfgar_RIP 1 point 3 hours ago
FBI protecting freedoms and constitution from terrorists
permalink
[ ]CantHugEveryCat 2 points 3 hours ago
I'm surprised the FBI still feel they have to justify their actions.
permalink
[ ]bazingabrain 0 points 3 hours ago
Here I am thinking the FBI is going to be throwing real stingrays around without
a search warrant. Can't have that
permalink
[ ]tobsn 1 point 3 hours ago
and whoever said that should be immediately terminated.
permalink
[ ]joshladd 1 point 3 hours ago
Didn't the supreme court just say that searching cell phones requires a warrant?
Is this different than searching cell phones? I might be uninformed but it seem
s like a blatant disregard for court rulings.
permalink
[ ]birdington1 1 point 3 hours ago
Can anybody explain what a 'stingray' is?
permalink
[ ]one_love_silvia 1 point 2 hours ago
the article explains it in literally the first paragraph.
permalinkparent
[ ]IllegalOperator 0 points 2 hours ago
Yeah right, dropping the case rather than reveal their methods says otherwise. I
f there weren't doing anything wrong they would have nothing to hide.
permalink
[ ]HauntedBeepers 1 point 2 hours ago
FBI says FBI can do what it wants
permalink
[ ]Fig1024 1 point 2 hours ago
does that mean I, as private citizen, can also use them? After all, there are no
laws against it
permalink
[ ]Monkeibusiness 1 point 2 hours ago
"FBI - out if control since 2001" -Simpsons
permalink

[ ]skztr 1 point 2 hours ago


good test for whether or not you need a warrant:
If any random person off the street did it, would that be legal? If not, you nee
d a fucking warrant.
permalink
[ ]Rusky82 1 point 2 hours ago
Land of the free eh......
permalink
[ ]WECGEWHYAAIORTNU 1 point 2 hours ago
So in some states its "wiretapping" to record with a microphone a conversation b
etween two people happening at a table, but pretending to be a cell tower is a-o
k?
permalink
[ ]Amanoo 1 point 2 hours ago
"concerned about whether the FBI and other law enforcement agencies have adequat
ely considered the privacy interests" of Americans
Privacy interests of Americans? Is that supposed to still be a thing? I thought
that privacy interests were considered something for terrorists in the US, by no
w.
permalink
[ ]raviddadford 1 point 2 hours ago
Stingray got Steve Irwin
permalink
[ ]Homarus_Americanus 1 point 2 hours ago
It's all good 'cause I can by me all guns I want.
permalink
[ ]anshu1234 0 points 2 hours ago
This is non-news if you are not a drug-peddler. Next please.
permalink
[ ]bubbafat1155 1 point 2 hours ago
It's over. "They" have won. The only hope now is for individuals, society is los
t. Get off the grid, or join the sheep. http://imgur.com/W7CdURh
permalink
[ ]Targun 1 point 2 hours ago
And how are they going to filter out cellphones of all the people who live next
to public places where stingray is located?
permalink
[ ]riderer 1 point 2 hours ago
So can i do the same in public place? just stingray everyone?
permalink
[ ]Neker 1 point 1 hour ago
There are blueprints and tutorials out there that put "stingrays" within reach o
f an hobbyist. Law-breaking hobbyist, that is, but still : mobile phones essenti
aly broadcast your conversations.
permalink
[ ]mindwandering 1 point 1 hour ago
The flying DRT box.
permalink
[ ]SilenceGivesConsent [score hidden] 48 minutes ago
In other words, FBI says it does not need search warrants to warrant a search.
permalink
[ ]Formally_Nightman [score hidden] 46 minutes ago
FBI: "Senator we have been monitoring your calls and your exact geographical loc
ation for years ... You shouldn't find that unconstitutional or the public and y
our wife will learn how unconstitutional you've been"
permalink
[ ]ActuallyNotSparticus [score hidden] 40 minutes ago
Fuck this shit. Stingrays killed the crocodile hunter. Are we ready for the gove
rnment to use these stingrays?
permalink

[ ]Rayhueston [score hidden] 38 minutes ago


The article says the Obama administration consistently maintains that people hav
e no privacy in public. Is that true or is that hyperbole?
If I'm walking down the street, do I have the right to keep the contents of my w
allet private? My blood type? My thoughts?
If I have no privacy with regard to these and many other sensitive things, who d
oes have the right to them?
permalink
[ ]swollennode [score hidden] 37 minutes ago
People don't have privacy in public places..hmmm, I think that people are entitl
ed to privacy if something private belongs to them. Sure, people's faces aren't
private when they're in public places. But people's phone calls and texts should
be.
permalink
[ ]pomod [score hidden] 18 minutes ago
Well if the FBI says they are not needed...
Seriously, this should be a court decision not a cop one. Cops, even a fancy cop
s like the FBI, should not make the laws just enforce them.
permalink
[ ]CJ59 [score hidden] 18 minutes ago
In other news, the FBI says, "You know what, screw it. There are no more laws. W
e'll do whatever the hell we want. Not like you're going to do anything about it
."
permalink
[ ]gkiltz [score hidden] 15 minutes ago
Just because the FBI says it, that does not mean it's true!
I don't envy the poor schmuck who has to stan in front of the Supreme Court and
argue that!!
permalink
load more comments (48 replies)
about
blog
about
team
source code
advertise
jobs
help
wiki
FAQ
reddiquette
rules
contact us
tools
mobile
firefox extension
chrome extension
buttons
widget
<3
reddit gold
store
redditgifts
reddit AMA app
reddit.tv
radio reddit
Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy
. 2015 reddit inc. All rights reserved.
REDDIT and the ALIEN Logo are registered trademarks of reddit inc.

p jump to content
MY SUBREDDITS
FRONT-ALL-RANDOM | PHOTOSHOPBATTLES-HISTORY-GIFS-FOOD-PHILOSOPHY-TELEVISION-WORL
DNEWS-SHOWERTHOUGHTS-LIFEPROTIPS-ART-SPACE-NOTTHEONION-DOCUMENTARIES-NOSLEEP-GAM
ING-GADGETS-EARTHPORN-ASKREDDIT-FUNNY-MOVIES-DIY-FUTUROLOGY-FITNESS-BOOKS-LISTEN
TOTHIS-INTERNETISBEAUTIFUL-MUSIC-EXPLAINLIKEIMFIVE-UPLIFTINGNEWS-SPORTS-PICS-TOD
AYILEARNED-PERSONALFINANCE-DATAISBEAUTIFUL-IAMA-OLDSCHOOLCOOL-EUROPE-CREEPY-TWOX
CHROMOSOMES-AWW-NEWS-WRITINGPROMPTS-GETMOTIVATED-VIDEOS-TIFU-ASKSCIENCE-JOKES-MI
LDLYINTERESTING-SCIENCE
MORE
news newscommentsrelatedother discussions (15)
want to join? sign in or create an account in seconds|English
this post was submitted on 05 Jan 2015
3,152 points (95% upvoted)
shortlink:
remember mereset passwordlogin
news
unsubscribe4,562,294 readers
2,631 users here now
/r/inthenews
/r/worldnews
new submissions
new comments
Post analysis/opinion articles to /r/inthenews
Want to talk?
Chat with us on IRC
Follow @rslashnews on Twitter
See a post that violates the rules below? Had your post stuck in the spam filter
? Have a question about policy? Just want to give feedback? Send the mod team a
message.
Please post news items only, with the exception of meta posts about /r/news itse
lf. Self-posts aggregating news data and "independent reporting" each count as n
ews, but are not an excuse to editorialize.
Your post will likely be removed if it:
is not news (or a meta post).
is an opinion/analysis or advocacy piece.
primarily concerns politics.
has a title not taken from the article.
has a pay wall or steals content.
covers an already-submitted story.
violates reddit's site-wide rules, especially regarding personal info.
Your comment will likely be removed if it:
is racist, sexist, vitriolic, or overly crude.
is unnecessarily rude or provocative.
is a cheap and distracting joke or meme.
is responding to spam.
violates reddit's site-wide rules.
Extreme or repeat offenders will be banned.
Expanded Rules
If your post doesn't fit, consider finding an appropriate news article on that s
tory to submit instead, or submitting yours to lower moderation subreddits:
/r/inthenews - all news-related content
/r/AnythingGoesNews - unrestricted news
/r/truereddit - insightful articles
/r/self - any self-post
/r/misc, /r/redditdotcom - anything
or other news subreddits:
/r/worldnews - from outside the USA only
/r/SyrianCivilWar - about the conflict in Syria

/r/MidEastRegionalWar - on MidEast conflict /r/UpliftingNews - uplifting


/r/mediaquotes - the things they say
or subreddits for other topics:
/r/FoodForThought - discussion-worthy long form articles about interesting subje
cts
/r/politics - for shouting about politics
/r/moderatepolitics - less shouting
/r/politicaldiscussion - even less shouting
/r/geopolitics - intl. politics and geography
/r/entertainment - Justin Bieber updates, etc.
/r/europe - news from Europe
or check out the 200 most active subreddits, categorized by content and the full
list of subreddits by subscribers.
Recommendations:
/r/redactedcharts
/r/patriots
/r/personalfinance
/r/restorethefourth
reddit is fun for Android and its subreddit /r/redditisfun
submit analysis/opinion article
submit news article
submit something else
submit analysis/opinion article
a community for 6 years
message the moderators
moderators
douglasmacarthur
KyldeThe Janitor
AyeMatey
CandyManCan
Elderthedog
LuckyBdx4
NickWasHere09
ani625
pomosexuality
IKingJeremy
...and 1 more
3152
FBI says search warrants not needed to use stingrays in public places (arstechnica
.com)
submitted 13 hours ago by doctorshady
731 commentsshare
top 500 comments
sorted by: best
[ ]peaceshark 654 points 11 hours ago
If only there were some branch of government that would keep the FBI in check, o
ne that judged people and organizations supremely...
permalink
[ ]misogichan 641 points 8 hours ago
Unfortunately the Catholic church has its hands full dealing with its own intern
al reforms and recasting its vision and mission.
permalinkparent
[ ]wutshappening 93 points 7 hours ago
And looking at cat photos that's why they're Cat-holic. Alco-holics are addicted
to alcohol and catholics well you get the idea.
permalinkparent
[ ]TuffLuffJimmy 142 points 6 hours ago
Omg dad you're embarrassing me in front of my friends
permalinkparent
[ ]okmkz 27 points 4 hours ago

We ain't your friends, bruh


permalinkparent
[ ]Corruptionss 4 points 2 hours ago
We ain't your bruh, friends
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
load more comments (2 replies)
[ ]ROLLINGtemple 9 points 5 hours ago
What's their Dogma?
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
load more comments (9 replies)
[ ]hershmire 73 points 7 hours ago
The courts gave up about ten years ago.
permalinkparent
[ ]endprism 50 points 7 hours ago
The courts are pwned by the surveillance state.
permalinkparent
[ ]sushisection 41 points 6 hours ago
This is what I'm afraid of. Nsa is collecting data from all citizens including p
oliticians and supreme court judges.
permalinkparent
[ ]dutchguilder2 19 points 5 hours ago
Whistleblower confirms: http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=d6m1XbWOfVk
permalinkparent
[ ]TwitchTV_Subbort 1 point 3 hours ago
D.C. is Hollywood for ugly people. best line ever!!
permalinkparent
[ ]sklite 1 point 1 hour ago
Charles Augustus Magnussen approves
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]CriticalThink 1 point 6 hours ago
Skeletons in the closet are easy to find with intelligence infrastructure.
permalinkparent
[ ]HurricaneSandyHook 1 point 5 hours ago
The 10th circuit a few days ago sided with the government saying the cops use of
doppler radar to see if anyone was inside a house was legal. They did say it is
a troubling tactic that needs further review and just left it at that....
permalinkparent
[ ]-_--___-_--_--___--_ 27 points 6 hours ago
One major problem with judicial review is that there must be a case for the cour
t to review. I guess the other avenue would be to sue the government, but I'm no
t an attorney so I don't know how that would work.
permalinkparent
[ ]downvotesmakemehard 14 points 4 hours ago
I believe the current court has taken the stance that to take up a case someone
has to show they've been harmed in some way.
The police will never say that stingray is the source of the evidence. This woul
d open stingray to be scrutinized. They will use stingray to go after phone comp
any records which they will claim they requested on a hunch or some other bullsh
it excuse.
permalinkparent
[ ]great_gape [score hidden] 29 minutes ago
Anonymous tip.
permalinkparent
load more comments (2 replies)
[ ]dissonance07 8 points 6 hours ago
With is wide a latitude as the current SCOTUS seems to give to individual libert
y, this seems like the one kind of thing that they could actually usefully addre

ss, right?
permalinkparent
[ ]MrBojangles528 1 point 5 hours ago
Scalia and the rest of the SCOTUS is bought and sold just like the rest of our g
overnment. They answer first and foremost to the parties that nominated them as
well as the corporations that own them.
permalinkparent
[ ]psilontech 12 points 5 hours ago
See, I don't get that. You get into the Supreme Court and you're golden. Unless
you are actively breaking the law and can be impeached, you're untouchable. Why
not, you know, do what's best for your country instead of remaining beholden to
the parasites that leveraged you into that position?
permalinkparent
[ ]Ratbasher88 14 points 4 hours ago
Yep, Supreme Court justices have a well established history of turning out way d
ifferent than their supporters thought they'd be. For whatever reason this curre
nt batch of justices seems more comfortable with the security state than their p
redecessors, however that's true for most Americans in general so I suppose it s
houldn't be shocking.
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]MrBojangles528 2 points 4 hours ago
Good question, but you'd have to ask them about it.
permalinkparent
[ ]cynoclast 0 points 3 hours ago
Unless you are actively breaking the law and can be impeached, you're untouchabl
e.
But you can get richer. Or have your personal communications made public.
permalinkparent
[ ]tughdffvdlfhegl 1 point 3 hours ago
Honestly? Because they run in those social circles. They're friends with the peo
ple at the top. They don't actively associate with "regular folk" that much.
They've been ingratiated into the upper echelons of society long before ever rea
ching the supreme court through lifetimes spent at the forefront of the legal pr
ofession. This insulates them from others, and leaves them in an echo chamber of
their peers.
Now, when a case comes up that pits one of their friends, or friends' friends ag
ainst some random angry dude who's only making 50k a year, who do you think they
automatically side with, when the case isn't cut and dried? I'm not even saying
it's conscious, but prejudices come in all kinds and run deep. Tribalism happen
s all the time in subtle ways.
Plus there's Scalia taking paid for hunting trips with people who are directly a
ffected by cases in front of him, all of them getting invited to dinners and fun
ctions of the DC elite, etc.
permalinkparent
[ ]pion3435 1 point 3 hours ago
They do. It's possible to disagree with you without being corrupt.
permalinkparent
[ ]Jagoonder 1 point 2 hours ago
Not in an omnipotent surveillance state, however.
permalinkparent
[ ]DownFromYesBad 1 point 2 hours ago
Money, bribery.
permalinkparent
[ ]neotropic9 1 point 1 hour ago
Because they are selected to be the type of people who think whats "best for the
ir country" is serving the parasites, the corporate oligarchs, and the surveilla
nce state. They support the status quo, and the status quo supports them. It wou
ld be a miracle if someone with real principles was actually brought into the Su
preme Court, let alone enough of them to form a majority.

permalinkparent
[ ]isprobablyatwork 1 point 1 hour ago
This does happen, sometimes. Good examples would be Justices Warren and Stevens.
They played along with the GOP right up until they were put on the Court, then
immediately started voting their actual conscience (or if not their conscience,
then at least not as their political backers wanted).
permalinkparent
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[ ]cynoclast 2 points 3 hours ago
You mean the press?
permalinkparent
[ ]scrapinpeg 3 points 6 hours ago*
Obligatory link to illustrated law.
EDIT: fixed link
permalinkparent
[ ]ducttapejedi 3 points 6 hours ago*
error 404, check the link.
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[+][deleted] 13 hours ago (56 children)
[ ]sunbolts 701 points 12 hours ago
Glad to see the FBI is tearing up the constitution to increase their own powers
and authority. /s
permalink
[ ]dontbullshityourself 325 points 11 hours ago
Glad to see the FBI is tearing up the constitution to increase their own powers
and authority
I wish this was just the FBI. Pretty much everybody in the federal, state and lo
cals are doing this. Have been doing for this quite some time too.
permalinkparent
[ ]sunbolts 136 points 10 hours ago
Precisely, and that's what makes this very frightening. The whole club's in on i
t.
permalinkparent
[ ]radonthetyrant 75 points 7 hours ago
but why.. I realize that these "zomg the terrorists!!!11" is only a PR-lie. What
do they really accomplish with this? Industry espionage? Bribes from the indust
ries which create the espionage hardware? Feeling of total control? Control the
masses so it all stays as conservative and corrupt as possible?
Why would you amass such a criminal energy to break constitutional laws just to
be able to see through everyone's communication?
permalinkparent
[ ]BettyRubbleIsHot 151 points 7 hours ago
Total control.
That way when the state has it, they can really put the boot on our necks. Think
they treat us poorly now? Just wait until they have the infrastructure in place
where they feel confident there are absolutely zero threats to their power. Tha
t's when shit is going to get BAD.
permalinkparent
[ ]b-LE-z_it 106 points 6 hours ago
And that's why, despite being terrified of some gun owners, despite being terrif
ied of mass shootings, I don't think we should ban guns, even combat rifles. It
can happen here, and we should at least make it hurt if and when it happens.
permalinkparent
[ ]7V3N 47 points 6 hours ago
Welcome to the list.
permalinkparent

[ ]M00glemuffins 10 points 5 hours ago


Sign me up too. If they try to pull a fast one on the public I'm not standing fo
r their bullshit.
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]FadingEchoes11 26 points 6 hours ago
*rifle. No "combat" rifles are owned by citizens
permalinkparent
[ ]b-LE-z_it 39 points 6 hours ago
Did I mention I don't know anything about guns? I don't know anything about guns
.
Point is, force is not something only people in power should have.
permalinkparent
[ ]teefour 19 points 6 hours ago
You should go to a shooting range and take a class. You won't be so unnecessaril
y afraid of them after that.
permalinkparent
[ ]Pullo_T 27 points 6 hours ago
He's not afraid of guns. He's afraid of some gun owners. At least, as far as we
know.
permalinkparent
continue this thread
load more comments (3 replies)
[ ]Bootsncatsn4 5 points 5 hours ago
i understand where youre coming from, but what will a bunch of angry townsfolk d
o to a predator drone strike?
permalinkparent
[ ]Oeboues 18 points 4 hours ago
You should ask the angry townsfolk of Iraq and Afghanistan.
Once the US military is done slinking away in shame, I mean.
permalinkparent
continue this thread
[ ]nuesuh 1 point 1 hour ago
Remove them. Predator drones are being operated from the ground, and has to land
after a couple hours to refuel.
permalinkparent
[ ]joe_m107 4 points 6 hours ago
Maybe we should change that. Repeal the NFA.
permalinkparent
load more comments (2 replies)
[ ]4nco1j 0 points 2 hours ago
You don't know much about guns, do you now.
permalinkparent
load more comments (6 replies)
[ ]conquer69 15 points 4 hours ago
You can have all the guns you want. That won't stop them from labeling you a "su
spected school shooter, pedophile or terrorist".
A gun can't protect you from that. A gun can't teach your fellow countryman to t
hink by themselves or see through propaganda.
Good luck destroying a drone, plane or tank with a rifle. Not sure how useful a
gun is against your own trained military with even better guns and more.
People thinking they can start a revolution and win with a handgun don't realize
this isn't the 1700's anymore.
permalinkparent
[ ]JimmyBuffer 14 points 4 hours ago
Better tell the Middle East they haven't had a bout of revolutions then
permalinkparent
load more comments (2 replies)
[ ]b-LE-z_it 7 points 4 hours ago
Didn't say we would win, I said we could at least make it hurt. Assuming, of cou

rse, that the American people themselves aren't the ones willingly handing in th
eir freedoms, which would mean we're all fucked immediately.
permalinkparent
[ ]theothercoolfish 13 points 2 hours ago
Assuming, of course, that the American people themselves aren't the ones willing
ly handing in their freedoms, which would mean we're all fucked immediately.
Err, you guys gave up much of your freedoms long ago. And it isn't just the US politicians everywhere are taking as much as they can get, because it's simply
more power for them. More power, more money, more control. It's not a conspiracy
- this is just how an imperfect system with inadequate controls eventually goes
. We need to start re-examining our systems and look at alternatives that are no
w possible with the internet.
permalinkparent
[ ]vynusmagnus 3 points 2 hours ago
Tell that to the insurgents in Afghanistan. It seems to me that the US military
has been unable to defeat them in over a decade of war, despite its overwhelming
technological superiority. Tanks and fighter jets are nice, but they do little
against a small guerrilla force that can disappear into the woodwork.
permalinkparent
[ ]Qoix 3 points 3 hours ago
I think the main issue with that line of thinking is that the military would gun
down the civilians it pledges to protect. How many people in the armed forces d
o you know? Now, are any of them willing to murder innocent people? Probably not
.
permalinkparent
[ ]ihcn 6 points 2 hours ago
They're not innocent people, they're armed revolutionaries, suspected terrorists
permalinkparent
[ ]chance-- 4 points 3 hours ago
You say that as if there isn't insurmountable evidence to the contrary.
Military coups are thoroughly woven into the fabric of humanity's history.
permalinkparent
[ ]theothercoolfish 1 point 2 hours ago
gun down the civilians it pledges to protect.
Err, they don't pledge to protect civilians. They pledge to protect the constitu
tion. And if they are convinced that these people are attempting to "subvert" th
e constitution, then they are enemies. Nevermind that their leaders have shat al
l over the constitution - soldiers take their orders and follow 'em.
Now, are any of them willing to murder innocent people?
lol.
permalinkparent
load more comments (2 replies)
[ ]eloquentnemesis [score hidden] 33 minutes ago
Welcome to 4th generation warfare. You don't need a better gun, or the ability t
o kill a drone, or anything else like that. You just need A gun and more commitm
ent than the other side.
permalinkparent
[ ]homegrowncountryboy [score hidden] 16 minutes ago*
Good luck with those tanks, planes and drones when the American people stop supp
lying fuel and ammunition. My brother is in the Army and he will tell you about
75%, or more of the military will disband and fight to protect the American peop
le. All you have to do is look at New Orleans during Katrina, when they got the
order to start confiscating guns almost all of them refused, instead it was main
ly police stealing people's weapons.
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]Hermit_ 2 points 5 hours ago
Yeah but if it does happen all people would be doing is creating the chaos one o
f the armed and militarized militias needs to take power. For example, The KKK.
permalinkparent

[ ]b-LE-z_it 1 point 5 hours ago


Hopefully not the KKK.
permalinkparent
[ ]AussieArcher 1 point 3 hours ago
Fuck me there's always one of you. I'm starting to think the gun club spends mor
e time on reddit than anyone.
permalinkparent
[ ]astronautg117 1 point 1 hour ago
What's a combat rifle going to do against a drone?
permalinkparent
[ ]datbino 1 point 1 hour ago
i think thats where 2nd ammendment people miss the mark- you owning a rifle will
do nothing against the government.
you becoming an active participating member in that government can help fix it,
the goal is to make you a kony2012 fb sharer rather than a person who gets to wo
rk and fixes shit
permalinkparent
[ ]mpg1846 1 point 1 hour ago
You think 50 guys with hand guns are going to do anything to anyone? Gun laws ar
e a joke.
permalinkparent
[ ]Actionbuilding 1 point 1 hour ago
The founders of the United States of America WANTED the citizens to rise up and
overthrow the government if it approached the levels of corruption it is current
ly working toward.
permalinkparent
load more comments (11 replies)
[ ]nuesuh 1 point 1 hour ago
Ever seen "Das Leben der Anderen"? Imagine this, just with total corruption and
100 times better technology. This is what we are moving towards. Imagine this sy
stem getting in the hands of someone like Hitler or Stalin.. And it can happen.
Before Hitler came to power Germany was a modern, western, christian nation. We
need safety with this technology. And when i say safety, i don't mean surveillan
ce. I mean the opposite.
permalinkparent
[ ]know_comment [score hidden] 14 minutes ago
I agree, but I think the reason for the infrastructure development is because it
is going to get bad. As we are forced to compete more globally, quality of life
stagnates. Even the slightest hint of austerity is going to be very painful for
the lower classes in a society with a large income disparity.
That's why we see the race baiting and divisive rhetoric being used so much. Kee
p the poor and working classes quibbling at each other.
I want you to consider the daffodil. And while you're doing that, I'll be over h
ere, looking through your stuff.
permalinkparent
[ ]mzackler 19 points 7 hours ago
It takes a really complicated answer to truly understand but you often get into
the us vs them mentality in siloed areas of law enforcement. You also often get
frustrated with the levels of proof you need to put the bad guy in jail. Thus an
y method you can use you feel justified in using. Although I think there are a l
ot of issues with The Wire, it's a great starting off point for a discussion if
you want a serious answer.
permalinkparent
load more comments (2 replies)
[ ]hershmire 30 points 7 hours ago
Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts, absolutely.
permalinkparent
[ ]TheNewRavager 70 points 6 hours ago
"All governments suffer a recurring problem: Power attracts pathological persona
lities. It is not that power corrupts but that it is magnetic to the corruptible

. Such people have a tendency to become drunk on violence, a condition to which


they are quickly addicted."
permalinkparent
[ ]gee_iwonderwhy 22 points 6 hours ago
Oh shit, a Dune quote outside /r/dune not about spice.
permalinkparent
[ ]TheNumberMuncher 3 points 6 hours ago
This is pretty cool.
permalinkparent
[ ]YawnDogg 1 point 3 hours ago
Gene Hackman was so kinky in that movie.
permalinkparent
[ ]ThreeTimesUp 2 points 2 hours ago
From a Guardian article by Glenn Greenwald I came across recently:
Inside the mind of NSA chief Gen Keith Alexander
Any casual review of human history proves how deeply irrational it is to believe
that powerful factions can be trusted to exercise vast surveillance power with
little accountability or transparency.
But the more they proudly flaunt their warped imperial hubris, the more irration
al it becomes.
permalinkparent
[ ]Epsilox 3 points 2 hours ago
I'm going to take an unpopular stance here and argue that they get more effectiv
e investigations. Which isn't to say I have no reservations about this stuff, be
cause I do.
I've worked in a field tangential to law enforcement, and I've had the unpleasan
t experience of watching very bad people act with impunity because law enforceme
nt had to play by the rules and they didn't. Does that justify the modern trend
towards more invasive government? Maybe that's just the price we pay to live in
a free society. I don't know. I'm a fan of the H.L. Mencken quote:
"The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's ti
me defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are f
irst aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopp
ed at all."
On the other hand, it's very hard to watch members of organized crime and other
monsters literally get away with murder.
In part the difficulty the lies in the infrastructure of modern society. Communi
cations move at such speed and in such quantity that the sort of pinpoint accura
cy required for effective investigations and prosecutions becomes much more diff
icult.
None of which is to say that what we're doing is necessarily right. I've felt th
e fear of writing an opinion online and knowing that the NSA can see it and ever
ything else I've ever written if they so choose. I've had that feeling of always
being watched. I know exactly what is meant by the danger of chilling free spee
ch, because it's happened to me. But I do tend to trust (perhaps naively) that,
for the most part, most of the people making these decisions have good intention
s. I've worked with many of them, and I believe that it more than anything is th
e result of them trying to do their jobs well. Whether they are actually protect
ing the American people or simply paving the road to hell, only time will really
tell.
permalinkparent
[ ]eyeforgot 4 points 6 hours ago
Think of all the blackmail material they have for any future politicians. They w
ill firmly be in check by the powers that be.
permalinkparent
[ ]ademnus 3 points 7 hours ago
Total control.
permalinkparent
[ ]NotAnotherDecoy 4 points 7 hours ago
Total control?

permalinkparent
[ ]leamas666 2 points 5 hours ago
Why would you amass such a criminal energy to break constitutional laws just to
be able to see through everyone's communication?
It's the deep state attempting to preserve its own regime continuity in the even
t of violent revolution.
permalinkparent
[ ]sunbolts 3 points 6 hours ago
Because those in power try to keep it and in addition, there is always a lust fo
r more power. One who is wealthy seeks to increase his riches usually, right? Sa
me thing going on here. In terms of practicality, there's no reason for breaking
constitutional laws, but when you realize how human nature functions in regards
to ambitions and power, well, what we see going on explains itself.
permalinkparent
[ ]Martenz05 1 point 3 hours ago
So, in order to become a political leader who really does work for the benefit o
f the people, one would somehow have to lose every shred of their humanity so th
ey wouldn't have a human nature that could be corrupted by ambition and power?
That sounds ominous, when I put it like that
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]RuthlessDickTater 1 point 5 hours ago
but why.. I realize that these "zomg the terrorists!!!11" is only a PR-lie.
Well pretty soon they might have their terrorists, but they'll be the domestic k
ind.
permalinkparent
[ ]karadan100 1 point 4 hours ago
More money.
permalinkparent
[ ]cynoclast 1 point 3 hours ago
What do they really accomplish with this?
Get rich.
permalinkparent
load more comments (7 replies)
[ ]TGlucifer 50 points 10 hours ago
Criminals learned it's just way easier to do their lawbreaking with a government
salary.
permalinkparent
[ ]pete1729 22 points 9 hours ago
Well, the benefits package is far more attractive.
permalinkparent
[ ]__ghostpants 25 points 7 hours ago
and somehow snitches go to jail instead of the criminals
permalinkparent
[ ]iismitch55 1 point 3 hours ago
Snitches get stitches. Whistleblowers get their mouth sowed shut.
permalinkparent
[ ]HandsOffMyDitka 5 points 5 hours ago
Why break a law, when you can just change it.
permalinkparent
[ ]moresmarterthanyou 2 points 5 hours ago
except when they have to answer questions themselves...
permalinkparent
[ ]dontbullshityourself 1 point 5 hours ago
Well you know liberty is wasted on peasant swine 'eh?
permalinkparent
[ ]ButterflyAttack 1 point 4 hours ago
Sounds like the constitution doesn't mean much at this point. . .
permalinkparent
[ ]dontbullshityourself 1 point 3 hours ago

Sounds like the constitution doesn't mean much at this point. . .


All it means is that the scum who rule us have a legal contract that they say ba
cks up all their power. But their actions shit all over that document.
President Obama, a constitutional law professor ordered the deaths of two US cit
izens without trial in EXPRESS and DIRECT violation of the constitution.
permalinkparent
load more comments (4 replies)
[ ]Eurynom0s 68 points 9 hours ago
And on top of it, even if being in public was a justification for this, how the
fuck do you prevent the device from nabbing people who are inside their own hous
e or apartment as well?
Oh right, you can't, because that's not how radio waves work.
permalinkparent
[ ]Ioneos 18 points 8 hours ago
You can increase the noise gate to reduce range on purpose, but what good would
that do to keep the terrorists citizens under scrutiny.
permalinkparent
[ ]Eurynom0s 20 points 8 hours ago
Even if they were going to do that, I can't imagine that you could do it to a su
fficient degree in a place like NYC to not scoop up at least some people inside
of buildings.
permalinkparent
load more comments (5 replies)
[ ]Codoro 1 point 4 hours ago
I foresee turning your house into a Faraday Cage being the cop radar finder of t
omorrow.
permalinkparent
[ ]Kenny_Login 23 points 7 hours ago
Taxation without representation, an income far below what the productivity was v
alued at, government intrusion? The founding fathers (you know, those "heroes" o
f our nation) got much more pissed off for much less.
permalinkparent
[ ]Socialdem 8 points 5 hours ago
Can you really blame them? The Constitution was written when people were still r
iding on horses. There's no way the founding fathers could have anticipated the
advances in technology and the way people communicate. I think we're due for a f
irmware upgrade.
permalinkparent
[ ]upandrunning 11 points 3 hours ago
Yes, it's called 'replacing congress'. What we're seeing is a natural consequenc
e of career politicians. Most of the people in office have gotten so comfortable
with the idea that they'll get reelected that what they actually do during thei
r term is almost irrelevent.
permalinkparent
[ ]theothercoolfish 2 points 2 hours ago
Exactly. I think we should look at sortition - with an approval vote, and extrem
ely strict rules on what sort of laws can be passed (eg any law must apply equal
ly to everyone - protecting the minority), and a approval bonus for the randomly
selected representatives if the public approves. Fuck career politicians - they
've proven themselves wholly incapable, and the system that supports them is too
corruptible. I don't think campaign finance reform will 1) ever happen 2) adequ
ately deal with institutional corruption.
permalinkparent
[ ]NuclearWookiee 0 points 2 hours ago
All of this should be covered, in any reasonable interpretation, by the Fourth a
mendment. Rebooting who change anything if the limits on government are ignored.
permalinkparent
[ ]KalAl 1 point 1 hour ago
Do you update your firmware by smashing your bios chip with a hammer?
permalinkparent

[ ]FireFromTheWire 4 points 6 hours ago


You're just another Steve Irwin to them.
permalinkparent
[ ]iismitch55 2 points 3 hours ago
Too soon mate :'(
permalinkparent
[ ]Penguin_in_the_sand 1 point 1 hour ago*
I am curious to know what this comment means?... Oh! Steve Irwin was killed by a
stingray. I thought you may have been referring to some conspiracy relating the
Steve Irwin's death. He had an American wife and both were invited to Howard's
Bush BBQ. http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/10/27/1067233100397.html
permalinkparent
[ ]gloubenterder 2 points 1 hour ago
Steve Irwin was a wildlife documentary filmmaker who was well-known for getting
up close and personal with dangerous animals such as crocodiles and komodo drago
ns.
He was pierced through a heart by a stingray in 2006, while shooting footage for
a documentary called Ocean's Deadliest.
After his death, stingrays had a period of great infamy, and there were even rep
orts of people killing and mutilating stingrays as vengeance for Steve Irwin. ..
.which, of course, is the last thing Irwin would have wanted; he was a conservat
ionist, and whenever he was injured by an animal he was studying, he would alway
s clarify to the viewer that that was his own fault and a risk he was aware of.
permalinkparent
[ ]Agent-BurtMacklinFBI 1 point 5 hours ago
Don't worry I'm keeping a look out
permalinkparent
[ ]pion3435 1 point 3 hours ago
It's not a constitutional issue. It might be an FCC one, but they just do whatev
er they're told anyway.
permalinkparent
[ ]dntur 1 point 3 hours ago
theoretically, every cell tower is in a public place. Why not just attach a stin
gray to all of them? Think of the money mobile companies could make renting towe
r space! next comes google who wants to know who you are calling on your iphone
and windows phone for better directed advertising, followed by Bing. /s
permalinkparent
[ ]Brian3232 [score hidden] 46 minutes ago
Why are they wrong? You already can take pictures of people in public places wit
hout warrant
permalinkparent
[ ]GaltsGulchTouristInf [score hidden] 24 minutes ago
When the constitution, the supreme law of the land, the contract between the gov
ernment and the people, is violated, this violating it should be banned from 'pu
blic service' for life, should be personally liable to those whose rights they v
iolated, and should forfeit their government pension and benefits.
permalinkparent
[ ]wtfmuck [score hidden] 17 minutes ago
It's sad how they shirk doing what is right for what is easy.
permalinkparent
load more comments (8 replies)
[ ]quiteintriguing 127 points 12 hours ago
I think it's about time these fuckers provided some evidence that privacy invadi
ng is helping stop crime or terrorism. As far as I can see, there is an Islamic
army in the middle east right now filled with westerners that simply flew over a
nd caught a bus. Nice job government agencies, you sure showed us.
permalink
[ ]HappyAtavism 81 points 11 hours ago
I think it's about time these fuckers provided some evidence that privacy invadi
ng is helping stop crime or terrorism.

Even more importantly they should provide evidence that they're not violating th
e 4th Amendment. The Bill of Rights doesn't say it applies only when convenient.
P.S. I agree that repeated failures to demonstrate the effectiveness of these th
ings, or lies which get "corrected", is yet another reason why this stuff is BS,
but the Constitution is first and foremost. Don't like the 4th Amendment? Try t
o repeal it. Until then it's in force.
permalinkparent
[ ]7u5 3 points 5 hours ago
The "checks and balances" of the judiciary are a farce. They are free to "interp
ret" the Constitution as they see fit.
permalinkparent
load more comments (3 replies)
[ ]DiaperParty 9 points 3 hours ago
Fuck that. FUUUCK that. If this did stop terrorists, it would still not be worth
the violation of rights. We absolutely CANNOT start OKing this shit as long as
it "stops bad guys."
permalinkparent
[ ]quiteintriguing 1 point 3 hours ago
I think you misunderstood. I think they should have to back up their justificati
on, which they obviously can't.
permalinkparent
[ ]DiaperParty 4 points 3 hours ago
But if we ask them to, we lend legitimacy to that claim. We need to say from the
get go that no justification is needed because none will be sufficient.
permalinkparent
[ ]ebouwman 7 points 5 hours ago
In Canada we had the Ottawa shooting and that dude that ran over some soldiers.
Correct me if I'm wrong but both these guys had had their passports revoked.
I'm not a fan of letting them just go over and fight a dirty war but wtf.
permalinkparent
[ ]Ceejae 4 points 4 hours ago
But so what if it is? How successful the program is is irrelevant.
I'm sure if they set up a government camera in every home they'd stop plenty of
murders and rapes.
permalinkparent
load more comments (2 replies)
[ ]cassieloveseffie 5 points 2 hours ago
Well we all know that the FBI has followed people like John Lennon who believed
in radical peace, urged MLK to kill himself and was prepared to assassinate occu
py members. It is not about crime, it is about maintaining a status quo.
permalinkparent
[ ]monopixel 2 points 1 hour ago
was prepared to assassinate occupy members.
Interesting, where can I read up about this?
permalinkparent
[ ]wirepants 4 points 4 hours ago
Locking everyone in solitary could stop crime and terrorism too. That's not a go
od enough reason to violate our rights even if it was working.
permalinkparent
[ ]egodeath92 2 points 5 hours ago
Shh that's classified. This entire country would be a post-apocalyptic dirt-patc
h is not for the heroic NSA collecting dirt on most of the country.
permalinkparent
[ ]pion3435 1 point 3 hours ago
You had no privacy in the first place. That's not how cell phones work.
permalinkparent
load more comments (6 replies)
[ ]MashItMatt 143 points 13 hours ago
Obviously these are constitution free zones, citizen.
permalink

[ ]THANKS-FOR-THE-GOLD 22 points 7 hours ago


Embrace democracy or you will be eradicated
permalinkparent
[ ]jroddie4 14 points 5 hours ago
Citizen, pick up that can.
permalinkparent
[ ]douko 3 points 5 hours ago
This image won't even load (here's another one), but I still know what it is.
DEATH IS A PREFERABLE ALTERNATIVE TO COMMUNISM.
COMMUNISM IS THE VERY DEFINITION OF FAILURE!
permalinkparent
[ ]chewysquirrel 15 points 6 hours ago
Approximately 2/3 of Americans live in a "constitution free zone"
permalinkparent
[ ]newpolitics 50 points 10 hours ago
The Federal Bureau of Investigation is taking the position that court warrants a
re not required when deploying cell-site simulators in public places. Nicknamed
"stingrays," the devices are decoy cell towers that capture locations and identi
ties of mobile phone users and can intercept calls and texts.
So nobody has any expectation of privacy? Talking out of their asses. The implic
ation that a warrant shouldn't be needed to intercept someone's text messages, i
s outrageous.
permalink
[ ]acerplatanoides [score hidden] 16 minutes ago
The implication that a warrant shouldn't be needed to intercept someone's text m
essages, is outrageous.
The implication of intercepting a PRESS related text message, and thus also supp
ressing a free press.
I think many of these are used to stop uploading of images to social medial. You
ever tried that during a demonstration?
permalinkparent
[ ]dalasocatyemerc 67 points 9 hours ago
Hmm, I didn't realize the FBI had the authority to ignore the constitution of th
e United States of America.
Maybe this organization doesn't actually serve Americans. That's what I think
permalink
[ ]Jagoonder 17 points 2 hours ago
They don't. However, lets look at their 3rd criteria:
(3) cases in which the technology is used in public places or other locations at
which the FBI deems there is no reasonable expectation of privacy.
In public, noone has an expectation to privacy. SCOTUS has ruled on such. Theref
ore, it could be argued that phone conversations in public places forfeits at le
ast one party's rights to privacy.
There are a couple of problems with this. First, Stingray is indiscriminate. Sec
ond, the other party of the phone conversation may be in their own home thus hav
ing an expectation of privacy.
I don't know how law works in regards to phone tapping. But, I would assume that
any warrant to do so would provide the agency a waiver on a second party's priv
acy protections when conversing with the target of the warrant. Except in the ca
se of Stingray no warrant was ever obtained thus, no waiver, thus the second par
ty probably still has privacy protections.
So, I think it's bullshit. I'm no lawyer. I suspect the FBI also knows it's bull
shit. But, the more excuses they can come up with to bend the law around their w
ill the more time it takes to try to stop them since each instance requires anot
her court decision.
permalinkparent
[ ]punkrampant 13 points 1 hour ago
There's only "no expectation of privacy" in public in terms of video+camera surv
eillance. People still get disturbed if you look over their shoulder at their ph
one, or listen to a conversation.

Text messages, emails, phone calls, all of it, are the modern day written letter
s. What the FBI is trying to do is the equivalent of setting up a post office th
at opens everyone's envelopes and makes copies of all the contents.
permalinkparent
[ ]Jagoonder 5 points 1 hour ago
Text messages, emails, phone calls, all of it, are the modern day written letter
s. What the FBI is trying to do is the equivalent of setting up a post office th
at opens everyone's envelopes and makes copies of all the contents.
You're right. I was focusing on an actual phone conversation where one party cou
ld be overheard by others, thus no expectation to privacy.
permalinkparent
[ ]Cambodian_Drug_Mule 2 points 1 hour ago
Surely there are people with technical expertise that can just fuck their shit u
p. If I'm not mistaken the stingrays were detected with consumer grade electroni
cs. If everyone just looked out for them and pinned where they are at on a map,
couldn't some people with the technical know how take them offline?
permalinkparent
[ ]monopixel 1 point 1 hour ago
Hmm, I didn't realize the FBI had the authority to ignore the constitution of th
e United States of America.
The US government and its agencies has been doing it for ages.
permalinkparent
[ ]rtpg 40 points 6 hours ago
Surprised nobody's mentioned Kyllo v. United States yet.
This is fairly recent (2001) jurisprudence. The gov't used a thermal imager, and
saw that there were heat lamps inside of a house, and used that to get a search
warrant. The gov't argued that, well, the heat was outside, so pretty much publ
ic information.
The courts disagreed and ruled this an illegal search. Main reason being that no
t many people have thermal imagers, so there's a reasonable expectation of priva
cy. I think even less people have stingrays, so even from the "discovering that
someone has a cell phone" aspect, there's unreasonableness in the search.
Now to the wiretapping aspect... there's Katz v. United States. Here, somebody w
as in a phone booth, and the feds had set a microphone outside the phone booth w
ithout warrant (so not exactly a wiretap). Again, the courts ruled this an unrea
sonable search.
A part of the ruling:
Regardless of the location, a conversation is protected from unreasonable search
and seizure under the Fourth Amendment if it is made with a "reasonable expecta
tion of privacy".
Text messages definitely fall under this. I can't see this holding up for 2 seco
nds in court.
The article goes into it into detail, but few of the FBI's interpretations on pr
ivacy have been holding up in courts recently. The system is kind of working, an
d this interpretation will be shut down as well. Now, if only everyone had good
lawyers...
permalink
[ ]ryewheats 7 points 4 hours ago
But the biggest problem I see would be them not declaring how they gathered any
information they collected in the first place. It would be pretty easy to skirt
around the system and act like you caught the suspect red-handed (because you we
re tipped off by illegal searches). That is the really scary part.
permalinkparent
[ ]argv_minus_one 5 points 3 hours ago
This practice is known as "parallel construction".
permalinkparent
[ ]tughdffvdlfhegl 3 points 3 hours ago
Honestly, this is the biggest concern. The courts won't allow a challenge becaus
e no one will have standing, because the feds/police won't actively declare this
as evidence in a trial. Meanwhile, they'll continue to use it, having a chillin

g effect on the press and others (which the courts have not seen in recent histo
ry as sufficient to provide legal standing).
permalinkparent
[ ]JustaChimp 3 points 5 hours ago
With the Katz v US case, it took them 39 years to overturn the Olmstead v US rul
ing. Let's hope it takes a little less time for this medium.
The recent Romano v Steelcase Inc. court case could indicate how the courts will
rule in the short term with regards to "reasonable expectation of privacy" thou
gh this ruling was in the context of social media and not text messages. The ana
logy was made that much like a letter writer has no reasonable expectation of pr
ivacy once the recipient is in possession of the letter, neither does the post's
author. Same could be extended to text messages and would be equally as trouble
some.
permalinkparent
[ ]qdarius 1 point 3 hours ago
Damn, that doesn't seem right at all. If I send someone a letter I definitely ex
pect that only they will read it.
Could anyone expand on the logic that a letter writer has no reasonable expectat
ion of privacy?
permalinkparent
[ ]Boltaeg 1 point 3 hours ago
After that letter is given to the recipient, they can do whatever they want with
it without you knowing. They could copy it, show it to friends, frame it and pu
t it on their wall....etc. You have no control over that and must assume that an
ything you write in a letter can be disclosed in some manner, simply because you
have no control over that persons actions.
As to why that is the case, I have no idea. Especially considering it is illegal
to open someone elses mail, but perfectly legal to read someone else's letter o
nce they open it. At least that is my understanding of it.
permalinkparent
[ ]TheMightyBarbarian 1 point 3 hours ago
Its fairly simple, you sent a letter, until it is received by the intended recip
ient it has federal protections. Once the recipient receives it, they are free t
o do with it as they wish, even if you disagree with what they do, specifically
because the letter is now their property, even though you wrote it.
permalinkparent
[ ]qdarius 1 point 2 hours ago
I understand that. But if someone else intercepts my letter shouldn't that still
be illegal?
Maybe I'm misunderstanding how stingrays work but it seems like they're basicall
y designed to intercept hundreds of messages.
permalinkparent
[ ]TheMightyBarbarian 1 point 2 hours ago
Intercept isn't illegal, its sketchy but not illegal. As for reading it, it's a
grey area since texts are not encrypted and even if they were it would do shit i
f billions of devices can decrypt them. So unless you use something like a messe
nger system that can use basic encrypting. It won't stop the FBI from reading it
, but it does show you took steps to have a private conversation and that's what
matters to the court.
permalinkparent
[ ]coalbeeashi 1 point 3 hours ago
Re: Katz v. United States
Certain details, such as shutting the door on the telephone booth, help determin
e if a person intends for a conversation to be private. Thus, private conversati
ons can be made in public areas.
What steps is the average Joe taking to exhibit a reasonable expectation of priv
acy regarding his/her data usage? Honest question.
permalinkparent
[ ]TheMightyBarbarian 1 point 2 hours ago
Beyond using a VPN to mimic another location, not much really. Since there are m

any devices involved in the process of just looking up a website. Ex. You google
Microsoft. Here are all the parties involved: You, Your ISP, Google, Microsoft.
That's four parties involved and that's assuming you are not using a Phones Mob
ile Data plan and are using WiFi. Because then it can add a few more people invo
lved.
Sure you should have protection just the same, but currently the law doesn't rec
ognize that, because the people in charge dont understand how any of it works.
permalinkparent
[ ]rtpg [score hidden] 54 minutes ago
I would say that cultural norms kind of define that in that it is extremely rude
to look at another stranger's phone while they are using it to browse/look at t
heir emails/whatever. Not the most solid argument, I know.
permalinkparent
[ ]Sic_SemperTyrannis 1 point 2 hours ago
When the use of stingrays is challenged in court police have dropped the cases r
ather than explain their use of stingrays.
permalinkparent
[ ]cassieloveseffie 1 point 2 hours ago
I have seen a printed record of every one of someone's txt messages for 6 months
. Never assume txt messages are private.
permalinkparent
[ ]Ladderjack 29 points 12 hours ago
I'm sorry, have they gone ahead and combined the FBI and the Supreme Court of th
e United States of America? No? Well, we will see how long this lasts. . .
permalink
[ ]butitssnot 46 points 7 hours ago
Its ok. In 2016 we can vote for hope and change and transparency and fix all thi
s.
permalinkparent
[ ]CriticalThink 3 points 5 hours ago
yeah. I bet Hillary will fix this mess, right Reddit?
permalinkparent
[ ]TheMightyBarbarian 1 point 2 hours ago
We still got time before they can start promoting themselves for President, lega
lly actually, they can't start until a certain number of days from the election.
permalinkparent
[ ]looneybandito 5 points 6 hours ago
Haha. As if our votes matter.
permalinkparent
[ ]atomofconsumption 9 points 5 hours ago
thatsthejoke.jpg
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]dichroeyes 1 point 4 hours ago
You are right. I give up. Long live the hegemony.
permalinkparent
[ ]Pikaflu 1 point 3 hours ago
America is an irradiated wasteland. Within it lies a city. Outside the boundary
walls, a desert. A cursed earth. Inside the walls, a cursed city, stretching fro
m Boston to Washington D.C. An unbroken concrete landscape. 800 million people l
iving in the ruin of the old world and the mega structures of the new one. Mega
blocks. Mega highways. Mega City One. Convulsing. Choking. Breaking under its ow
n weight. Citizens in fear of the street. The gun. The gang. Only one thing figh
ting for order in the chaos: the men and women of the Hall of Justice. Juries. E
xecutioners. Judges.
permalinkparent
[ ]Ago_Solvo 36 points 9 hours ago
I'm sure that means that stingrays are also open for public hacking in that case
, because they're in a public place, and doing so can't be considered an intrusi
on on government properties or a violation of any Federal Law.

permalink
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]whysopositive 57 points 12 hours ago
Say whatever you want, you don't think big brother is going to find every way to
spy on you?
The thing is I bet every time we the people get upset about some "new" trespass
against our rights there's already something technologically beyond our knowledg
e being put to use to on us now.
permalink
[ ]I_SPLIT_INFINITIVES 16 points 7 hours ago
My dad always said, "If that's what they're telling us they have now, they proba
bly had it ten years ago. Just imagine what they really have."
permalinkparent
[ ]oOTHX1138Oo 28 points 9 hours ago
Thats why we need to add to the bill of rights, so that we continue to be protec
ted in the digital age.
permalinkparent
[ ]TheBlueWaffleHouse 18 points 8 hours ago
At this point in time the bill of rights only shrinks. It doesn't get bigger.
permalinkparent
[ ]tallerthanunicorngod 33 points 7 hours ago
Not with that attitude.
permalinkparent
[ ]mattacular2001 3 points 5 hours ago
Doesn't matter unless you're wealthy
permalinkparent
[ ]tallerthanunicorngod 1 point 2 hours ago
Wealthy people don't like to be spied on either. Honestly, they probably like it
even less.
permalinkparent
[ ]sockgorilla 1 point 5 hours ago
He's John Titor, he's watched it before.
permalinkparent
[ ]mastahslayah 1 point 4 hours ago
Well he isn't getting any of my Dr. Pepper.
permalinkparent
[ ]Poor__Yorick 1 point 2 hours ago
Wow that's a name I haven't heard in a while.
We've got a world war this year though.
3 billion dead by the end of it.
permalinkparent
load more comments (5 replies)
[ ]pion3435 1 point 3 hours ago
We already did. That's the point of laws like HIPAA. There's just no equivalent
for things like email or cell phones so it's legal to see whatever people are na
ively broadcasting.
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]ZomNomNomBeeZ 5 points 7 hours ago
This technology is not particularly new. The man-in-the-middle attack is a class
ic hacking technique. I remember reading an article after one of the security co
nventions detailing a small group of participants that used a remote control air
plane to do this exact thing to convention attendees. This was years ago.
permalinkparent
[ ]hershmire 4 points 7 hours ago
Which is why it's illegality could be successfully code into law.
permalinkparent
[ ]TheMightyBarbarian 1 point 3 hours ago
That's the problem, the people who make the laws don't understand how the techno
logy works, and the people making and using it are telling them its fine, so the

y don't feel like they need to make a law about.


And as such making a law about it would be bad, since the law would need specifi
c language to prevent certain technologies and usage of such. But the biggest is
sue is that some of the technology and uses are too general that it would never
work to stop anything. Since they can't just write a law preventing man in the m
iddle because they need to get a definitive wording on what that is exactly and
then word it so a slight variation doesn't just immediately skirt the new law.
Our technology grew faster than our laws did, but now it's grown faster than our
ability to properly define what it is we do. So controlling it is incredibly ha
rd and will take a long time, so for now we kinda have to suck it up and wait, b
ecause the worst possible thing is them putting out ineffective laws that do les
s than nothing to prevent stuff like that and hearing us complain and think we a
re whining when they just put out a law. I would rather wait a little longer to
make sure the law is proper and effective than to have a crap law screw everythi
ng up.
permalinkparent
[ ]ScorpionPool 1 point 6 hours ago
Serious question. What benefits does the government get from spying on us? Power
? Information for corporations? Shits and giggles? Some kind of profit?
permalinkparent
[ ]swingmemallet 2 points 5 hours ago
All of the above
permalinkparent
[ ]eyeforgot 1 point 5 hours ago*
What like complete access to what anyone posts/chats about on facebook/skype bei
ng dumped into a database? Anyone who work with cisco routers notice anything fu
nny like carefully crafted packets fucking w. the settings and not creating logs
. Maybe like there is a back door that someone has that doesn't require a passwo
rd.
permalinkparent
load more comments (3 replies)
[ ]philtech 26 points 10 hours ago
You can scan for stingray use.
Only works on rooted phones with Qualcomm chipset however. https://play.google.c
om/store/apps/details?id=de.srlabs.snoopsnitch&hl=en
permalink
[ ]vamper 2 points 6 hours ago
damn, no go for my nexus 5
permalinkparent
[ ]Ice_Pirate 1 point 5 hours ago
Should work on my 20 dollar ZTE's with dualies :). Overclocks to 1.8 like butta.
http://www.phonearena.com/phones/ZTE-N800_id8191
permalinkparent
[ ]willyboxc 1 point 2 hours ago
we need a version that will work without root :(
permalinkparent
[ ]networklackey 49 points 11 hours ago*
Bullshit... it's radio. They have no way of determining whether the person they
are monitoring is in public or not.
They shouldn't be able to use this without a warrant any more than they should b
e able to point a laser mic at your window.
The fact that they are in public is irrelevant... the subject they are monitorin
g has to be in public.
permalink
[ ]lll_1_lll 29 points 6 hours ago
Even if we are in public, what the fuck gives them the right to look through my
texts, phone calls, voicemails, emails, call history, etc?
permalinkparent
[ ]zoidbug 5 points 3 hours ago
It should be protected the level of paper mail. It is your private communication

s.
permalinkparent
[ ]networklackey 1 point 2 hours ago
Technically... because you are in public and are broadcasting. But I feel the sa
me way. None of this shit should be legal.
permalinkparent
load more comments (6 replies)
[ ]goatmagic 2 points 3 hours ago
laser mic
Well, TIL this exists :/
permalinkparent
[ ]networklackey 2 points 2 hours ago
They absolutely exist and they are freaking awesome. They should not however be
used by law enforcement without a warrant.
permalinkparent
[ ]makingupdumbnames 1 point 5 hours ago
I think it's that their airwaves cross public space. pls correct me if I'm wrong
, though
permalinkparent
[ ]networklackey 1 point 2 hours ago
That's certainly the argument they are making.
permalinkparent
[ ]wirepants 1 point 4 hours ago
Even assuming you are in public, who's to say the guy on the other side is too?
permalinkparent
[ ]networklackey 1 point 2 hours ago
Nothing but their log books but that doesn't really matter. It's your right to p
rivacy they are violating.
permalinkparent
[ ]Sarah_Connor 9 points 9 hours ago
We need a way to be able to identify, then jamm, stingrays.
permalink
[ ]cookie_nrk 8 points 7 hours ago
This Jammer made in sweden should do the trick. From what I have read it complet
ely blocks all signals, so using a phone wouldn't work at all, but if you were i
n a position to not want to be tracked during a certain time, you could use this
: http://www.jammer-store.com/monstro-10-all-frequencies-portable-jammer.html
permalinkparent
[ ]hershmire 10 points 7 hours ago
We're talking about blanket monitoring of civilians. It needs to be outlawed imm
ediately. Hoping each and every Joe Schmoe is going to buy an illegal cell phone
jammer to protect his identity is, well, ridiculous.
permalinkparent
[ ]davidverner 6 points 7 hours ago
Jammers are illegal in the US on the cellphone frequency. Good luck importing on
e.
permalinkparent
[ ]wicard 5 points 6 hours ago
had one from deal extreme i bought when i was younger to prank friends, was alot
of fun. But if you are worried about being tracked wouldn't just shutting your
phone off do the trick? If you are jamming your phone you arnt going to be talki
ng to anyone.
permalinkparent
[ ]RellenD 4 points 5 hours ago
You have to do more than just turn it off, unfortunately.
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]willyboxc 1 point 2 hours ago
we need the schematics so we can build one... also include 700 mhz jam for lte
permalinkparent

load more comments (1 reply)


[ ]ademnus 11 points 7 hours ago
That's nice but it's not up to the FBI if it is illegal or not.
permalink
[ ]MonitoredCitizen 21 points 7 hours ago
Come on Google and Apple, stop being so lame. Make the phones themselves defend
against this by always displaying the negotiated encryption level and allowing u
ser to configure the phone to refuse to connect if the GSM encryption level is A
5/0.
permalink
[ ]argv_minus_one 2 points 2 hours ago
If they do that, these same spooks will have some words with their CEOs. Otherwi
se, yeah, they likely would.
permalinkparent
[ ]vzzzbux 2 points 1 hour ago
Not sure on the technical specifics but my old Nokia from 10 years ago used to s
how a padlock if the call was "secure", which I guess meant it was encrypted in
some way.
Sounds like yet another way we've gone backwards with the rise of Google and App
le
permalinkparent
[ ]cryptovariable 180 points 12 hours ago
This seems icky, but anyone with a Raspberry Pi ($48.00), an RTL-SDR ($17.00), a
nd an ability to follow written step-by-step instructions on how to install and
configure some open source software ($0.00) can do this, albeit on a smaller sca
le.
That tutorial doesn't cover decrypting GSM traffic. This one does. You'll need s
omething faster than a Raspberry Pi, though. Maybe a $200 netbook.
And you can do it on the same scale as the police with a surplus commercial ante
nna and three or four friends.
I don't see how restricting the government's ability to do this would have any o
ther effect than to criminalize a private citizen's desire to experiment with GS
M.
permalink
[ ]HappyAtavism 113 points 11 hours ago
I don't see how restricting the government's ability to do this would have any o
ther effect than to criminalize a private citizen's desire to experiment with GS
M.
Experiment with GSM all you want, just don't eavesdrop or commit fraud by preten
ding to be part of a legitimate business.
I like to play with miniature cameras, microphones and transmitters. That's a fi
ne hobby as long as I don't use it to spy on my neighbors.
permalinkparent
load more comments (5 replies)
[ ]mr___ 50 points 12 hours ago
But theirs has a transmitter, and actively spoofs cell sites
permalinkparent
[ ]cryptovariable 55 points 12 hours ago
It you want to spoof rather than just eavesdrop all you have to do is buy any of
the SDR kits that are coming on to the market like a bladeRF or something and h
ave GNUradio (which hilariously autocorrects to FBI radio on my phone) pretend t
o be a tower, the credentials of which you sniffed with your Pi setup.
The reason the Feds spoof is so that they can target specific devices on a white
list and only have those connect. The size of the whitelist is unknown and up fo
r debate.
If you're capturing and decrypting all the GSM your antenna can receive you don'
t care if you're spoofing the tower unless you want to modify the traffic in som
e way. To quote Sir Patrick Stewart: "It's too late, I've seen everything."
If you just scoop up everything using cheap/free and publicly available tools yo
u don't really care about spoofing.

It should be noted that the Feds have a leg up with CDMA because of its smaller
global footprint and the scarcity of developers working on it, as well as UMTS (
3G) and LTE.
But people are poking at LTE every day: http://www.rtl-sdr.com/analyzing-td-ltertl-sdr/
permalinkparent
[ ]HappyAtavism 36 points 11 hours ago
The reason the Feds spoof is so that they can target specific devices on a white
list and only have those connect. The size of the whitelist is unknown and up fo
r debate.
We do know they don't have warrants. How many violations of the 4th Amendment do
es it take before it's considered a bad thing?
permalinkparent
load more comments (19 replies)
[ ]A530[??] 6 points 6 hours ago
I have to ask an honest question. Knowing what you know, do you live in a Farada
y cage or just eschew cell phones all together? I'm in InfoSec (I'm guessing you
are too) and with the shit I know, maintaining OPSec is just a never ending bat
tle. I can't imagine my paranoia if I went down the cellular rabbit hole (althou
gh I do know a lot about the shit happening with the carrier baseband MDM garbag
e).
Many thanks for the very informative post.
permalinkparent
[ ]tornadoRadar 1 point 1 hour ago
Gotta keep it segmented. Personal never mixes with biz
permalinkparent
[ ]the_nap_mutilator 1 point 5 hours ago
Spoofing the cell site also gives them access to the phone at something akin to
the hardware level... so unless you have rooted and or installed software to sec
ure the device, they can push new software onto your phone without your knowledg
e/consent in the same way that your carrier updates subscriber units say when th
ey make changes to the network or something. At that point your phone has been p
ermanently compromised.
permalinkparent
load more comments (13 replies)
[ ]mag17435 29 points 10 hours ago
I dont understand how people think the government can do things citizens can. Or
dering our government not to do something has no bearing on what citizens can do
.
permalinkparent
[ ]Golden-Fox 7 points 6 hours ago
Well when police are trying to visually collect evidence they can in general onl
y search from public areas. If a cop is looking for a certain car and they see i
t on the street, that's fine. If the car is parked in a closed garage and on pri
vate property, the cop wouldn't be able to see it without going onto private pro
perty and looking in a window. If the car is in the same garage and the garage d
oor is open, then anyone can see it, and the cop can legally use that informatio
n.
The FBI is trying to apply that same logic to these stingrays. Stingrays are a t
echnology that is available to the public. You could make your own and do exactl
y what the FBI does. The data being collected isn't encrypted, password protecte
d, or anything else. Everything is publicly available. You just have to have a c
ertain machine to be able to read it. The garage door has to be open.
permalinkparent
[ ]Wordygit 6 points 6 hours ago
The key word here is "public" whereas where there is the expectation of privacy,
I would think think that would carry some special considerations. That seems to
be some of what the courts are deciding about, where the expectation of privacy
holds sway over searches. Its already been determined that law enforcement cann
ot force you to unlock your phone. One such Supreme Court case, decided this pas

t summer, led to a sweeping victory for privacy rights advocates. In a rare unan
imous decision, the court found that police cannot search cellphones, and by ext
ension tablets and other digital communication devices, without first obtaining
a warrant. Smartphones, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote, hold the privacies of l
ife, and the fact that technology now allows an individual to carry such informati
on in his hand does not make the information any less worthy of the protection f
or which the Founders fought. I think, as well, that it has been established that
if there is encryption being used, that constitutes an acknowledgement that ste
ps have been taken to protect and maintain the sense of privacy, and so the expe
ctation carries onto the information being transmitted. Not sure if there is a l
egal precedent for that though.
permalinkparent
[ ]Golden-Fox 2 points 5 hours ago
Its already been determined that law enforcement cannot force you to unlock your
phone.
This is what I've heard, but to me it implies that police can access your phone
if you don't have it locked. Carrying that logic over to this argument, the poli
ce would be able to access your cell info as long as it isn't encrypted. It seem
s that you only have a "reasonable expectation to privacy" with your cell phone
if you've taken any steps to make your phone more private. If there were some wa
y to get your carrier to encrypt your data, then there'd be no question, but the
way cell providers are these days, that's not gonna happen.
permalinkparent
[ ]ThreeTimesUp 1 point 1 hour ago
Something that I have heard repeatedly (and I may yet have it wrong), is that if
your front door is closed, but unlocked, the police are free to enter without a
warrant.
This has always bothered me.
I could understand the mind-set of someone (i.e. a Justice of the Supreme court)
thinking that way if they grew up (or lived) in an area where they lived a life
always fearful of intruders and locking doors was a practical necessity.
But to me, a closed door means "Keep out, knock for admittance - no entry withou
t permission."
So, for naive, trusting, me, I would not expect the police (or anyone) to examin
e my phone (without a warrant) just to see what they could find.
permalinkparent
[ ]pion3435 1 point 3 hours ago
A technologically illiterate moron's expectation of privacy doesn't become a rea
sonable expectation of privacy just because the majority of the population is te
chnologically illiterate.
permalinkparent
[ ]F0sh 1 point 2 hours ago
This is totally wrong thinking. A private citizen can look for your car through
the garage window without legal repercussions, even though a police officer migh
t not be allowed. The police officer has to conduct his searches according to th
e expectation of privacy and you have every expectation that your private phone
conversations are private - even if you're sending your texts at the shopping ce
ntre.
This is a bullshit equivocation on the part of the FBI, who are claiming that si
nce any old person at the shops can see that you're also at the shops you have n
o expectation of privacy at all.
This logic, if extended, would also mean the FBI could clone your hard drive if
you took your laptop to a public place - after all, you have no expectation of p
rivacy there. No. Bullshit - just because you're in the park doesn't mean all yo
ur possessions and emails became public.
This has nothing to do with what an ordinary citizen is able to do in public or
in private.
permalinkparent
[ ]ThreeTimesUp 1 point 2 hours ago*
Well when police are trying to visually collect evidence they can in general onl

y search from public areas. If a cop is looking for a certain car and they see i
t on the street, that's fine.
To counterpoint this:
Infra-red light (heat) is just light that's at a lower frequency than humans can
detect.
Courts have ruled that the police using specialized equipment to detect heat sig
natures (Infra-red light) emanating from from houses for the purpose of snooping
for grow operations are an invasion of privacy.
The signals Stingray is picking up are just another frequency, even lower than I
nfra-red light, originating from inside your phone, that is your property, which
is in your possession.
Authorities are using all manner of logical distortions in an express attempt to
get around the ideals and principles expressed in the Constitution.
What law-abiding citizen would attempt such a thing?
What authority that the public has placed their trust in, would make continual a
ttempts to subvert the Constitution?
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
load more comments (2 replies)
[ ]kromem 2 points 3 hours ago
It is already criminal to capture and decrypt GSM traffic for citizens (Wiretap
Act), same as capturing and parsing WiFi data.
But I think I can point out the issue with your logic with a simple analogy:
Citizens can buy guns.
Law enforcement can be provided guns.
Citizens can practice shooting guns.
Law enforcement should do the same.
Citizens can't shoot other citizens with guns except in really specific exemptio
ns.
According to your logic, just because citizens can buy guns, and could possibly
go around shooting other people with them, law enforcement should not have any l
egal restrictions on their use of guns.
It is illegal for you to capture and decrypt anyone else's traffic, and it shoul
d be illegal for cops to do the same without a warrant. It's not that hard to ge
t a warrant when actually justified, creates a paper trail that can be examined
for abuses, and has been the case without serious issue for years now.
For what purpose does the law need to be changed to allow this? Because warrants
are inconvenient? Well then why not get rid of them for entering homes too? It'
s quite trivial to pick a lock, and even easier to smash a window and climb in.
Any citizen could do it. So why do we need to restrict the police from the same?
permalinkparent
[ ]dfioabnionjio 4 points 9 hours ago
I don't see how restricting the government's ability to do this would have any o
ther effect than to criminalize a private citizen's desire to experiment with GS
M.
Why not have it be illegal for government and legal for private citizens? Make i
t perfectly legal for private citizens to experiment with GSM, but don't let the
FBI do the same, like you can have a private citizen share something a defendan
t said in court while the police cannot do the same unless the suspect had been
told of their rights.
Of course, the problem here is not using GSM. It's tracking people who did not k
nowingly join your network. You could have it be legal to experiment with GSM an
d not legal to spoof a network, or make it so tracking someone on your network i
s illegal unless the person being tracked is aware they will be tracked and cons
ents to it.
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]confusiondiffusion 3 points 10 hours ago
Yeah, I really don't see the point in making laws against this, since they'll be
broken anyway. We need to fix the underlying technology. There is no excuse for

the sad state of cellphone security.


permalinkparent
[ ]HappyAtavism 18 points 10 hours ago
I really don't see the point in making laws against this
Then let's just flush the Constitution down the toilet. All laws get broken, the
question is what gets done about it.
since they'll be broken anyway
It's not very hard to break into my house either, but they're not supposed to do
it without a warrant.
permalinkparent
load more comments (4 replies)
[ ]HighMonster 1 point 7 hours ago
Wow that's intriguing
permalinkparent
[ ]lll_1_lll 1 point 6 hours ago
You act like this is realistically doable for the large majority of people and y
ou know that's BS.
permalinkparent
[+][deleted] 6 hours ago (1 child)
[ ]JabroniZamboni 1 point 5 hours ago
Are you suggesting that radar jammers should be legal? As well as cell phone or
wifi jammers? What if your neighbor wants to experiment with a jammer for the ne
xt 4 months? 6 years? I assume you wouldn't be too happy. There's experimentatio
n and then there's purposeful disruption and spying.
permalinkparent
[ ]egodeath92 1 point 5 hours ago
Yeah except "anyone with device X" can't prosecute people. It doesn't matter whe
n corporations do mass data collection because they are just trying to make mone
y/sell people shit. The government can create a database of people's private liv
es then prosecute them. You could even imagine a time where data collection is s
o widespread that this kind of info is used for political purposes rather then b
usting drug dealers/ other criminals which is what it's used for now.
permalinkparent
[ ]Kuusou 1 point 4 hours ago
What the people can do, and what the government can do, are no the same things,
nor should they.
permalinkparent
[ ]qdarius 1 point 4 hours ago
If a random person overhears my conversation I don't care. Even if they tell the
ir friends I'm still not too concerned.
If the government records my conversation and uses it to investigate or prosecut
e me that's clearly a different situation.
Just because someone can do something doesn't mean it should be legal. It defini
tely doesn't mean we should be okay with our government using it on us.
permalinkparent
load more comments (9 replies)
[ ]Sir_not_sir 52 points 13 hours ago
The main purpose of the stinger is to circumvent the need and time of acquiring
a warrant and getting the data from all the service providers.
Regardless of data retention plans, they should require a separate judicial warr
ant for each individual suspect in order to be deployed.
permalink
[ ]manoninternets 8 points 7 hours ago*
The time required to get a warrant is usually far less than what they make it ou
t to be, although cost is as factor. Phone companies make tons of money off poli
ce records requests.
To play devil's advocate (and I do think the STINGRAY arrangement is devilish):
once you request records from the phone companies, there's no guarantee that won
't get leaked to the people being investigated. The cartels have people everywhe

re.
permalinkparent
[ ]kevincreeperpants 6 points 6 hours ago
What if they are the cartels!?...dun dun dun
permalinkparent
[ ]tughdffvdlfhegl 1 point 3 hours ago
I don't think anyone here has a problem with STINGRAY being used, given that the
y have a warrant for the person's data they're monitoring. So in your situation,
that's easy to do.
permalinkparent
[ ]manoninternets 2 points 3 hours ago
Yeah it's the same concept as going through my private letters, or close enough
to it anyhow. (Even though letters are physically sealed and radio waves permeat
e the air freely, my intention is for my text messages to be as private as posta
l mail.)
Even a child could rip open an envelope with ease. That doesn't mean police don'
t need a warrant to do so.
permalinkparent
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[ ]turnthatfrown 9 points 7 hours ago
I think the FBI is conveniently forgetting that they are intercepting a communic
ation that is normally secured via encryption and carried privately by your wire
less provider then switched privately all the way to the party on the other end
who has similar expectations of the connection.
I mean, come on, the Stingrays themselves are impersonating the carrier that you
have a contract with and using techniques to avoid the strong encryption. The p
rove by their own design and implementation that the FBI's argument is bullshit.
permalink
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]dontbullshityourself 27 points 11 hours ago
I'm so sick of the ways these callous assholes use to crush our freedom.
What is the point of massive expensive law enforcement agencies if the law can't
protect our rights and freedoms? Hasn't the cart been put before the horse here
?
permalink
[ ]donottakethisserious 13 points 6 hours ago
If you are told you are free enough times, you start to believe it. You start at
a young age with a pledge every day and then when you grow up you attend sporti
ng events and stand for the national anthem and tear up at how free you are. Tha
t way nobody will ever question whether or not this is actually a free country.
permalinkparent
[ ]dontbullshityourself 10 points 5 hours ago
When I was a kid I started to sit during the pledge. Honestly I think I just wan
ted to test and see how free I was. I knew that saying the pledge etc wasn't in
the school handbook. I knew there was no rule saying I had to say it or stand or
anything. The powers that be at my school just used the herd instinct to keep t
his shit going.
So I started sitting down. This resulted in a lot of attention from gangs of bul
lies. My home room teacher didn't like it either and lectured/bitched about it e
very day. But she stopped short of anything more than shaming me unlike the bull
ies.
Anyway I just decided to drop out. Fuck it. Humans don't like new things that co
nfuse them and challenge them to think. How interesting that was to be the last
thing I learned in school. I found another kind of freedom. The freedom to leave
the assholes mired in their stupidity and find my own path in life.
permalinkparent
[ ]joshyfitzo90 4 points 5 hours ago
I like your style.
permalinkparent

[ ]Jack41096 3 points 4 hours ago


I applaud you. I stood but that's all I did. it was in our rulebook to stand but
fuck them if they thought I was gonna do more than that. I started a wave of pe
ople standing and doing nothing.
eventually my first period class was reduced to two people and the teacher actua
lly doing anything. they bitches about it but we all had our own reasons.
permalinkparent
[ ]dontbullshityourself 2 points 3 hours ago
eventually my first period class was reduced to two people and the teacher actua
lly doing anything. they bitches about it but we all had our own reasons.
There are lots of reasons to resist and only one reason to obey. Fear.
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]CriticalThink 3 points 5 hours ago
Government hasn't been interested in protecting our rights and freedoms in a lon
g time.
permalinkparent
[ ]jkeyser14 5 points 7 hours ago
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety
, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. - Benjamin Franklin
permalinkparent
[ ]dontbullshityourself 5 points 6 hours ago
We didn't give it up. They are taking it.
permalinkparent
[ ]jkeyser14 10 points 6 hours ago
Only because we aren't rioting. The first group of rioters to tar and feather a
politician again will bring about change very quickly.
permalinkparent
[ ]dontbullshityourself 4 points 5 hours ago
People are gonna have to get a lot more desperate. I reckon we'll get our riot s
oon enough.
permalinkparent
[ ]Jack41096 1 point 4 hours ago
take the food. that's the surefire way to cause a riot.
people will be content as long as they're fed. you take that away and suddenly t
hey have nothing to lose. they have to survive. that is the most primal response
we have. to fight tooth and nail for food. to eat no matter the cost.
permalinkparent
[ ]RamsNation 1 point 4 hours ago
America has a very stable food supply so I doubt that will happen.
permalinkparent
[ ]dontbullshityourself 1 point 3 hours ago
I don't think we have to take the food. I think that people today are a lot more
self entitled and will jump into a fit without their iphones. They can't even i
magine a world without abundant food.
permalinkparent
[ ]grungebucket 1 point 4 hours ago
bring about change very quickly. street executions very quickly.
there. Corrected that for you. After all. You wouldn't want to be mistaken for a
terrorist endorsing a terrorist act now, would you?
permalinkparent
[ ]pion3435 2 points 3 hours ago
You never had it. You're just now finding out.
permalinkparent
[ ]hershmire 7 points 7 hours ago
Ok, I get the FBI's argument. Technically, we are all choosing to carry a digita
l device around with us that uniquely identifies us via radio frequency. It's tr
ue that we could very well decide not to partake in the use of cell phones if we
're so worried about being tracked. And thus because we decide to carry these pa

rtially secure devices around with us, they FBI has every right to hack them and
track us.
But this argument is bogus. The FBI can't read our mail or tap our phones becaus
e legislators and judges at one time recognized that technology becomes indispen
sable, and therefore should be protected under privacy laws. Just because I choo
se to carry a cell phone around with me doesn't give the FBI to track my whereab
outs, or worse. That'd be like saying it's my fault for having my mail read by t
he FBI because I chose to write letters, or I chose to have my phones monitored
and recorded by the FBI because I chose to use telephones.
The FBI is part of the executive branch. They (supposedly) operate within the sc
ope of the law. If there's no specific law preventing their actions, they'll go
ahead and do it. So write your representatives and get shit like this regulated.
And use letters because they're obligated to at least open the envelope.
permalink
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]drakecherry 5 points 8 hours ago
we might as well get rid of warrants all together. they are gonna search if they
want to, and nothing will happen if they are wrong.
permalink
[ ]MeganNancySmith 6 points 6 hours ago
The FBI doesn't have the legal authority to make that determination.
It would be like if I said that murder is legal every other Sunday. I can say it
all I like, but it doesn't make it true.
permalink
[ ]Todda468 6 points 6 hours ago
Anything a private citizen can't do should require reasonable suspicion or a war
rent.
permalink
[ ]Sonotmethen 6 points 9 hours ago
Then signal jammers aren't either.
permalink
[ ]MrJDouble 4 points 9 hours ago
FBI tends to say a lot of things, doesn't mean it isn't a pile of horseshit.
permalink
[ ]blueiron0 4 points 6 hours ago
(3) cases in which the technology is used in public places or other locations at
which the FBI deems there is no reasonable expectation of privacy.
Love how the FBI gets to decide when it's ok for them to assume you shouldnt hav
e any expectation on privacy. "we saw a poop porn video on pornhub. you shouldnt
expect privacy when pooping then."
permalink
[ ]ragn4rok234 4 points 6 hours ago
Whoo! Now I don't need a warrant or sufficient reason to wire tap anyone and eve
ryone. Stalkers of the world rejoice! It's like Oprah is handing out privacy bre
aches in here
permalink
[ ]fourslaps 4 points 4 hours ago
This isn't what Steve Irwin would have wanted
permalink
[ ]knowyourbrain 7 points 8 hours ago
How sad is it that we have an R Senator trying to rein in a D president's FBI?
If Snowden et al have not been able to show the American people what a farce our
government is then I don't know how it can be demonstrated.
permalink
[ ]makingupdumbnames 1 point 5 hours ago
that's Chelsea to you, mister!
permalinkparent
[ ]StellarUsername 4 points 9 hours ago
Can someone ELI5 why my cell carrier lets this happen? Seems like it would be ea
sy enough for them to put a stop to it if they wanted.

permalink
[ ]giantgnat 13 points 8 hours ago
Because if you don't play nice with them, they don't play nice with you like wha
t happened to the CEO of quest after he refused to cooperate.
permalinkparent
[ ]lll_1_lll 6 points 6 hours ago
CEO of quest
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/09/30/a-ceo-who-resistednsa-spying-is-out-of-prison-and-he-feels-vindicated-by-snowden-leaks/
permalinkparent
[ ]WatchoutItsAllan 1 point 4 hours ago
Looks like the only way to be out of the eyes of the NSA is to go back to using
these http://imgur.com/JEFUt4h
permalinkparent
[ ]jkeyser14 4 points 7 hours ago
The cell and internet companies get paid millions by the government for direct a
ccess to their lines. This was one of the things Snowden blew the whistle on.
permalinkparent
[ ]MadPooter 2 points 7 hours ago
I believe that the technology behind our current cell phone towers needs to allo
w for widespread access to said cell phone towers from a wide array of technolog
ical devices.
The Stingray makes the cell phone tower believe that it's a cell phone--I don't
know that it's as easy as you might think to re-design all cell phone models to
differentiate themselves from what Stingrays currently are.
TL;DR: This might be a better issue for cell phone designers to solve rather the
n cell phone carriers.
permalinkparent
[ ]egalroc 2 points 6 hours ago
Maybe design a Falcon drone that homes in and locks on fake Stingray towers. Wou
ldn't the FBI just shit to see a couple sparrows zooming down on them?
permalinkparent
[ ]A530[??] 1 point 6 hours ago
Cell carriers couldn't care less. They're also packaging backdoors in their base
band software to do all kinds of functional crap, like over the air updates and
remote access.
permalinkparent
[ ]here4DaBacon 3 points 7 hours ago
So it's a honey pot for cell phones. This same method is used to intercept WiFi
internet traffic. The world is becoming a hackers paradise.
permalink
[ ]CapAnson 4 points 6 hours ago
I don't even think of the FBI's exceptions two and three are valid. And as for i
mminent danger to public safety I can't imagine when that safety hinges on inter
cepting a cell call right now this very second without a warrant
permalink
[ ]SquidwardSnowden1 3 points 6 hours ago
Let it be noted, I love big brother.
permalink
[ ]ryanknapper 3 points 6 hours ago
There was a comment asking what prevents private citizens from doing this. My re
ply was: Absolutely nothing. In fact, there are legal ways of doing exactly this
.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xKihq1fClQg
permalink
[ ]lll_1_lll 2 points 6 hours ago
inb4 this thread gets removed by the mods and/or shadowbanned
permalink
[ ]doctorshady[S] 3 points 6 hours ago
I was almost sure it was going to be removed when I submitted it.

permalinkparent
[ ]grtwatkins 1 point 3 hours ago
Wait, so mods = FBI?
permalinkparent
[ ]doctorshady[S] 2 points 2 hours ago
The mods here are quite restrictive about what is allowed to be submitted. Wheth
er or not they're under someone's influence is a question I can't answer (though
I'd honestly like to know), but you'll occasionally see high profile topics rem
oved, like the Snowden leaks back when PRISM was first pointed out.
permalinkparent
[ ]tomcat23 3 points 6 hours ago
If I had a hundred dollars for every time the FBI said it could do something une
thical or unconstitutional I'd be shooting rockets into space like Elon Musk rig
ht now.
permalink
[ ]leafygreenstuff 3 points 6 hours ago
Oh, well if they said....
permalink
[ ]wlxr 3 points 5 hours ago
Is this implying that they are going to repeatedly kill Steve Irwin?
permalink
[ ]Bulldog65 3 points 2 hours ago
Can I Use my Stingray in public places to intercept communications ?
If the answer is no, then the FBI needs a warrant.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effec
ts, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Wa
rrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, a
nd particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things t
o be seized.
This can only be changed by super majority votes in Congress and the States, not
treasonous opinions of mouthpiece lawyers in Department of Justice. This is why
prosecutions of torture memo writers is important. If they want to try and make
up laws they need to be held accountable under the law.
permalink
[ ]Do_Em_Till_They_Derp 13 points 12 hours ago
I don't think that is a good idea considering what happened to Steve Irwin.
permalink
[ ]Smgth 1 point 4 hours ago
I can't believe how far down I had to scroll to find this joke. I was worried I'
d have to make it myself. This thread is WAY too serious for my taste...
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]go1dfish 10 points 10 hours ago
This is what happens when you give a group of people authority over all else.
They use that authority to extort funds from you to pay for your own oppression.
But reddit still cheers it on. It seems to some; the concepts of roads or compas
sion cannot exist without specially anointed jack boot thugs.
permalink
[ ]Arael15th 3 points 6 hours ago
Do you see anyone in this post cheering this on? Moreover is this your first tim
e here?
permalinkparent
[ ]Flight_MH370 2 points 9 hours ago
Can the cell providers see every time this happens? If so, they could alert peop
le of fake towers or something. Alas, I'm pretty sure all the cell providers are
in bed with the feds already anyway.
permalink
[ ]leftnotracks 1 point 8 hours ago
This is why it s a good thing the FBI are not the people in charge of what is lega
l.

permalink
[ ]iluvmilfs420 3 points 7 hours ago
Ohh cool more of my taxes wasted on stupid shit...
permalink
[ ]fuzzycuffs 3 points 7 hours ago
Then I can do the same thing with wifi and not be charged with hacking, right?
permalink
[ ]endprism 2 points 7 hours ago
Use of Stringray in America: https://www.aclu.org/maps/stingray-tracking-devices
-whos-got-them
http://rt.com/usa/215735-sandiego-police-phone-tracking/
http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/First-Amendment-Coalition-Files-Lawsuit-Ab
out-Stingray-Surveillance--286092741.html
http://www.miaminewtimes.com/2012-02-16/news/cell-phone-tracking-miami-cops-know
-where-you-are/
http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/Fort-Worth-Cellphone-Tracking-Rings-Controversy
-140796693.html
http://www.wgrz.com/story/news/investigations/2014/02/13/are-local-police-spying
-on-your-cell-phone/5462273/
Tick tock...
permalink
[ ]johnnybiggs15 2 points 7 hours ago
didnt know they had that type of power
permalink
[ ]jwyche008 2 points 6 hours ago
They would fucking say that wouldn't they? The thing is it isn't supposed to be
their damn decision to make!
permalink
[ ]ICEClownfishWok 1 point 6 hours ago
Did the US government learn nothing from Nazi Germany? I honestly won't be surpr
ised if WWIII occurs when the rest of the world gets tired of our governments bu
llshit
permalink
[ ]frankenstilskin 3 points 6 hours ago
America, for the corporations by the corporations
permalink
[ ]Elephant_rhino_tiger 3 points 5 hours ago
It sounds like a 6 year old coming up with a superhero. "This is FBI man, and he
can fly and like punch through the earth, and he can y'know like intercept cell
traffic if he thinks it's important. But he is weak against himself though, so
like if he punched himself he would die."
permalink
[ ]Banana_blanket 2 points 4 hours ago
Hey who wants to just sit around and let it happen? Oh, everyone? Perfect. Ready
? Go.
permalink
[ ]poopinbutt2014 3 points 4 hours ago
Ah yes, the cops deciding what laws they are and aren't subject to.
permalink
[ ]burnerthrown 2 points 2 hours ago
Has anyone else notied a pattern of more and more laws that protect enforcement
operations from civilians, and fewer nd fewer laws protecting civilians from enf
orcement?
permalink
[ ]siquisiudices 2 points 2 hours ago
Increasingly I am astonished by the state of democracy in the developed western
countries. What has happened and how? I realise that there have always been infr
ingements of liberties by the state - always. But it seems to me that what has c
hanged is the blatent nature of the compromise of democratic norms. I'm not a hi
storian but my impression is that the origins of our current situation lie in tw

o iconic regimes in the UK and US - Reagan and Thatcher (and those that followed
) - and in the fall of the soviet regimes.
The economic philosophy that Reagan and Thatcher promoted reduced liberty to pro
perty rights while at the same time it condemned (rightly) the soviet regimes fo
r their lack of respect for democratic norms. The appeal of this economic ideolo
gy to capital, to the corporations, was obvious especially as during the 1970s t
here had been intermittent but recurring periods when profitability had fallen.
In the context of declining profitability, a roll back of the state and public e
xpenditure was a quick win.
For the rest of society, the implication that growth in personal, individual wea
lth was being held back by public spending and that the welfare state eroded ind
ividual responsibility also won the day. A key element in this process was the d
efeat and denigration of trade unionism: Thatcher going so far as to suggest tha
t trade unions (in the person of the National Union of Miners) were dangerous tr
aitors. People bought into the arguments for radical individualism ("there is no
such thing as society") because, in part, the concrete experience of collectivi
sm in trade unions declined in the face a massive anti-trade union assault.
The fall of the corrupt and totalitarian soviet regimes underpinned this all by
giving concrete expression to the notion that there is no alternative.
Economically the result has been massive widening of the discrepancy in wealth i
n many western countries and increased immiseration of labour across the world a
nd no force to counterbalance the power of the corporations and the state that t
hey (quite naturally) control. The state is the central committee of capital.
In all of this, the oft misnamed "libertarian" tendencies were accompanied by an
increasingly authoritarian and intrusive state apparatus which was promoted and
defended around quite classical nationalist ideas but recast often as the defen
se of western democracy against various external enemies.
And so, little by little, we have allowed our civil liberties to be chipped away
. Even the radical libertarians have been sidelined and fooled into irrelevant s
truggles around gun control in the US. Really, if an armed citizenry were the gu
arantee of liberty then one wold have hoped it would have done a better job. But
overall anti-welfare, anti-European and anti-immigrant rhetoric in the UK and,
for example, religious manipulation of public discourse in the US have allowed t
he authoritarian, pro-corporate state to gradually encroach on political and per
sonal freedoms. And here we are.
We can't say we didn't know - we were warned but the ruling class managed to def
ame the messengers and in other ways render us impotent.
One can only hope that we wake up in time and that our new disdain for collectiv
ism is overcome by the necessity of taking collective action.
permalink
[ ]DinglebellRock [score hidden] 49 minutes ago
You have a right to privacy according to the Constitution. Except for maybe your
cell phone calls. Or email. Or handwritten or typed letters. Or what you read f
rom the library and Amazon. Or maybe your colon and lower intestine if you are i
n New Mexico. What a fucked up nation this has become...
permalink
[ ]nstalker91 [score hidden] 38 minutes ago
Oh sure, when they do it, it's "protecting" and "morally right", but when I do i
t, it's a "federal crime" and "the FCC watches me"
permalink
[ ]The_Media_Collector 3 points 9 hours ago
This is why my phone has an app to continually report IMSI changes to me. I swit
ch one tower to another, I get a warning.
permalink
[ ]Redd575 1 point 7 hours ago
How is that helpful? Not being an ass, just curious. Seems if a Stingray can spo
of a tower then the app does little unless you are standing absolutely still.
permalinkparent
[ ]The_Media_Collector 3 points 7 hours ago
it's my understanding that Stingray "towers" do not encrypt traffic. anytime I a

m connected to an unencrypted "tower" the IMSI detector goes red and lets me kno
w.
permalinkparent
[ ]Redd575 1 point 6 hours ago
Wow. Whomever figured that out was clever.
permalinkparent
[ ]ExReverie93 1 point 7 hours ago
Which app? And would a normal person (not meaning you're not normal. You know wh
at I mean.) be able to use it?
permalinkparent
[ ]The_Media_Collector 1 point 7 hours ago
Requires Root. It's just caeld "Adnroid IMSI-Catchter"
permalinkparent
[ ]egalroc 1 point 6 hours ago
Makes a person want to be a criminal or spy just for the fun of it.
permalinkparent
[ ]Effo 3 points 7 hours ago
Goodbye America the Great, hello police state. :-[
permalink
[ ]Casemods 2 points 7 hours ago
Another reason why I don't have a cell phone.
permalink
[ ]GiveMe_TreeFiddy 3 points 7 hours ago
Things libertarians have been screaming about and offering solutions to for 500$
, Alex...
permalink
[ ]ilovesellinblow 1 point 9 hours ago
police and marshals have been running these for years.
permalink
[ ]bbelt16ag 1 point 8 hours ago
so FBI lets see what the Supreme court has to say to that. I am sure once they r
ule on this you will be going home with your tails between your legs.
permalink
[ ]Banana_blanket 1 point 4 hours ago
Do you people really have that much faith in our Supreme Court? Really?
permalinkparent
[ ]bbelt16ag 1 point 3 hours ago
gotta have some faith, other wise its just anarchy, or revolution. I am not read
y to give up quite yet.
permalinkparent
[ ]bonyponyride 1 point 8 hours ago
If digital communication in a public (and private) space is fair game, there's n
othing to stop an FBI tech specialist from stealing things like knowledge that w
ould be considered insider trading. There's an extreme potential for abuse.
permalink
[ ]jkeyser14 2 points 7 hours ago
If was fair game then hacking into wireless signals by private citizens wouldn't
be illegal.
permalinkparent
[ ]egalroc 1 point 6 hours ago
Just waiting for Anonymous to set up shop in a public park and hack into police
communications then dispatch them to bogus locations throughout the city. If any
thing goes wrong, they could always blame North Korea.
permalinkparent
[ ]coalbeeashi 1 point 3 hours ago
Aren't government agencies encrypting their digital communication - thus exhibit
ing an expectation of privacy?
I'm not sure what steps the "reasonable person" is taking to exhibit an expectat
ion of privacy over their data, tbh.
permalinkparent

[ ]hmmwhatsthisdo 1 point 8 hours ago


If you used RedPhone, Whisperpush/TextSecure, and a VPN, this wouldn't be of con
cern to you, right?
permalink
[ ]LucifersCounselNZ 1 point 7 hours ago
Wrong.
In other cases, the IMSI or equivalent identifier of a target is not known to th
e StingRay operator and the goal of the surveillance operation is to identify on
e or more cellular devices being used in a known area.[16] For example, if visua
l surveillance is being conducted on a group of protestors,[17] a StingRay can b
e used to download the IMSI or equivalent identifier from each phone within the
protest area. After identifying the phones, locating and tracking operations can
be conducted, and service providers can be forced to turn over account informat
ion identifying the phone users.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stingray_phone_tracker#Extracting_Data_From_Interna
l_Storage
Before any of that shit you're talking about comes into play, the IMSI number is
used when establishing the connection. It is uniquely identifying. With your IM
SI number and a court order (or cooperative telco) they will know who you are an
d who you were communicating with.
Then they can use that information to punish you for participating in legal prot
ests, associating with the wrong people, or simply because some Fed didn't like
the look of you.
permalinkparent
[ ]hmmwhatsthisdo 1 point 6 hours ago
So, the only way is to modify your IMEI (which is questionably legal) and use a
prepaid SIM?
permalinkparent
[ ]facepalmdude 1 point 5 hours ago
The IMSI part makes sense, but by using the mentioned tools authorities are very
unlikely to find out who you communicated with, or what the content was. All th
ey know is that you're the end point of an encrypted data connection.
permalinkparent
[ ]coalbeeashi 1 point 3 hours ago
I would assume that a court would view this as an individual exhibiting an expec
tation of privacy over their data.
permalinkparent
[ ]mambotangohandala 1 point 7 hours ago
Law?
We don't need no stinkin' law...
permalink
[ ]smilesbot 1 point 7 hours ago
You've just used a double negative! :P
permalinkparent
[ ]mambotangohandala 1 point 7 hours ago
no i did not, never would i do such a thing, nope, i don't think i ever did...
Ever see the movie 'blazing saddles'? Context kid, context
permalinkparent
[ ]smilesbot 1 point 7 hours ago
yup yup yup!
permalinkparent
[ ]mambotangohandala 1 point 7 hours ago
oh no a triple positive,what a stupendous faux pas!
permalinkparent
[ ]smilesbot 1 point 7 hours ago
yup yup yup!
permalinkparent
[ ]mambotangohandala 1 point 7 hours ago
Did mom give you too many sodas tonight?
permalinkparent

[ ]mambotangohandala 1 point 7 hours ago


Now where are those kiddy downers?
permalinkparent
[ ]mambotangohandala 1 point 7 hours ago
Remember tomorrow is a school day
permalinkparent
[ ]BigTex8900 1 point 7 hours ago
The Federal Bureau of Investigation is taking the position that court warrants a
re not required when deploying cell-site simulators in public places.
Wait so can I take the position that it's not actually illegal to suck dick for
money in public places?
permalink
[ ]AssOrca 1 point 6 hours ago
Well thank god there not doing it in my home!
permalinkparent
[ ]Drunken_Economist 1 point 7 hours ago
The FCC says they are needed, FWIW
permalink
[ ]FadingEchoes11 0 points 6 hours ago
100% true, power to the people
You should learn about and try to understand firearms more, they are just tools
after all.
permalink
[ ]winstrol 1 point 6 hours ago
Can i use a stingray? Al stick to my snoopsnitch.
permalink
[ ]fatscat84 2 points 6 hours ago
Big fucking surprise, 4th amendment=toilet paper anymore. The rights of the citi
zens arent even considered anymore since we dont have lobbyists. Maybe ill start
a kickstarter campaign to make a lobbyist group to give americans a voice in d.
c.
permalink
[ ]urbn 2 points 6 hours ago
The Obama Administration has repeatedly maintained that the public has no privac
y in public places.
And yet the excuse always used when someone records a police officer breaking th
e law and is arrested, detained and has his property stolen is that it violates
their privacy.
permalink
[ ]Vigilias 1 point 6 hours ago
If it's stealing signals being send from private residences it sure should fucki
ng be wtf.
permalink
[ ]2013palmtreepam 1 point 6 hours ago
Because stingrays automatically stop working at private property lines? Don't re
call the part of the 4th Amendment that exempts the requirement for probable cau
se and a search warrant when one happens to be in a public place.
permalink
[ ]makingupdumbnames 2 points 6 hours ago
I don't think it would be too hard to develop a stingray jammer, something that
just floods their equipment with a bunch of useless/fake cell phone numbers...I'
m in favor of a more strategic response to these types of infringements of our r
ights. We actually have a right and responsibility to fight tyranny...
permalink
[ ]ghotiaroma 1 point 3 hours ago
It's possible, but you wouldn't know where and when to use it. And it would be d
etectable you are using a jammer and anyone using one would find themselves fill
ed with SWAT bullets in no time.
permalinkparent
[ ]ononewheel 1 point 2 hours ago

Cant you rent bot net time and do this?


permalinkparent
[ ]psilontech 1 point 5 hours ago
I think that's for the courts to decide, FBI.
permalink
[ ]coalbeeashi 1 point 4 hours ago
...the only way the courts could decide is if it were practiced and a lawsuit wa
s brought against those practices.
Of course the FBI is going to finagle ways to flirt with obscure, outdated laws
for the purpose of investigating, thus practice it. Of course some group or orga
nization is going to take issue with it, thus taking it to court.
permalinkparent
[ ]cynoclast 2 points 5 hours ago
And the 4th Amendment says the FBI is wrong. And to the idea that subsequent law
s or that prededence says otherwise, I say that lawyers who make those interpret
ations were paid to do so by people with a vested interest in saying otherwise.
The constitution and amendments were intended to be read and interpreted by ever
yone, not just lawyers and judges so it matters not at all what lawyers and judg
es say.
permalink
[ ]coalbeeashi 1 point 5 hours ago
The constitution and amendments were intended to be read and interpreted by ever
yone
Uhh...interpreted by everyone? Do you know how fucked up that would be? There's
a reason for the judicial branch.
permalinkparent
[ ]cynoclast 2 points 4 hours ago
More fucked up than corporations as people? The 4th Amendment being ignored by t
he DHS, Homeland Security, and the NSA? More fucked up than than all the ridicul
ous, unconstitutional restrictions on cosmetic features of firearms that all vio
late the 2nd amendment? More fucked up than justices appointed by war criminals
refusing to recuse themselves where they have a clear conflict of interest?
The judicial branch is staffed by people, just as fallible as the rest of us. Th
e judicial branch was nly ever an attempt to reign in the other two. It was alwa
ys intended that it was the right of the people to alter or abolish the governme
nt if it gets out of hand and it has.
permalinkparent
[ ]coalbeeashi 1 point 4 hours ago
I would still rather have the fate of laws be in the hands of individuals who sp
ecifically studied the very nature of their professional practice than leave it
up to a mass of people with little-to-no understanding of the law, outside of wh
at is force-fed to them by media (comparable to your assertion of less-than-idea
l practices by lawyer/judges)
I fully agree that laws should be written in ways that the public can understand
and interpret (however, you're never going to reach a consensus on laws written
200+ years ago). And I believe that, reading most supreme court decisions, the
justices advocate for specifics in laws and understand that outdated or vague la
ws is a main reason cases are brought before them. Laws aren't concrete or stati
c. It's a court of public opinion.
permalinkparent
[ ]cynoclast 1 point 4 hours ago
I would still rather have the fate of laws be in the hands of individuals who sp
ecifically studied the very nature of their professional practice than leave it
up to a mass of people with little-to-no understanding of the law, outside of wh
at is force-fed to them by media (comparable to your assertion of less-than-idea
l practices by lawyer/judges)
I think there's balance between the two. It's similar to the balance between IT
and the user. While the IT guy is more knowledgeable about the field than most o
f the users he's supposed to facilitate, he often forgets that his purpose is to
facilitate, not to rule, and what the users are doing is what keeps the lights

on. People in congress and the senate are mislabelled when called 'lawmakers' th
eir job is representative of their constituency. And lawyers face a conflict of
interest between simplifying the law and representing people fairly and seeing a
fter their own welfare and ensuring their own job security. Simple, clear, and u
nambiguous laws have little value to the professional attorney at law. But the p
eople at large have no interest, and in fact a reason to despise laws they don't
understand, especially ones decided by decades old case law they know nothing a
bout. But for too long the balance has been swinging in favor of the lawyer seek
ing payment for services from the rich instead of the poor seeking freedom from
those with the resources to hire teams of lawyers for years to drain them of res
ources. The day a rich man could sue an innocent poor man under false pretenses
and crush him is the day the justice department ceased to function as intended.
I fully agree that laws should be written in ways that the public can understand
and interpret (however, you're never going to reach a consensus on laws written
200+ years ago). And I believe that, reading most supreme court decisions, the
justices advocate for specifics in laws and understand that outdated or vague la
ws is a main reason cases are brought before them. Laws aren't concrete or stati
c. It's a court of public opinion.
Lawyers like to pretend that they are concrete or static. Just imagine the phras
e "settled case law" coming out of their mouths and you need go no further. It's
like they forget that eventually given the dynamic equilibrium of the poor vs.
the rich that sometimes words written on paper in a dusty library somewhere mean
absolutely nothing when the pitchforks and guillotines come out, the old laws t
hrown out, and new ones written even more strongly against tyrants. You're right
, sometimes, it's a court of public opinion. But sometimes the court is brutal,
but not unjustly so:
There were two Reigns of Terror, if we would but remember it and consider it; the
one wrought murder in hot passion, the other in heartless cold blood; the one la
sted mere months, the other had lasted a thousand years; the one inflicted death
upon ten thousand persons, the other upon a hundred millions; but our shudders
are all for the horrors of the minor Terror, the momentary Terror, so to speak; wh
ereas, what is the horror of swift death by the axe, compared with lifelong deat
h from hunger, cold, insult, cruelty, and heart-break? What is swift death by li
ghtning compared with death by slow fire at the stake? A city cemetery could con
tain the coffins filled by that brief Terror which we have all been so diligentl
y taught to shiver at and mourn over; but all France could hardly contain the co
ffins filled by that older and real Terror that unspeakably bitter and awful Terro
r which none of us has been taught to see in its vastness or pity as it deserves
.
permalinkparent
[ ]DongleNocker 2 points 5 hours ago
Don't you wish government organizations would get permission from congress prior
to assuming they have the authority?
permalink
[ ]Euracil 1 point 5 hours ago
Whoops! Someone just happened to spill wine all over the Bill of Rights! Well, a
t least the Second Amendment survived!
permalink
[ ]ripvannwinkler 1 point 5 hours ago
What is the practical operational radius of one of these things?
If my place of business or residence falls in this radius of an operating device
, is my phone subject to interception by the device?
If so, you require a warrant. Period. No equivocation.
permalink
[ ]bittopia 1 point 5 hours ago
What is going to be interesting is when systems and encryptions becomes so resil
ient and powerful that nothing can be spied on AT ALL. What will they do then?
permalink
[ ]johnnybullet 1 point 5 hours ago
I thought only God was listening to me... This changes everything!

permalink
[ ]TronicTonic 2 points 5 hours ago
Thank god the FBI is in charge of the judicial branch and gets to decide what is
right vs wrong.
permalink
[ ]Vinven 1 point 5 hours ago
They can say whatever they want, it doesn't make it legal.
permalink
[ ]coffeethulhu 2 points 5 hours ago
Under this theory anybody could buy one of these devices and use it in "public s
paces" without fear of falling foul of the law....Who wants to start a kickstart
er campaign to buy one?
permalink
[ ]redditezmode 1 point 5 hours ago
Based on what, exactly? Why would they think search warrants aren't necessary?
permalink
[ ]Fucksfuturefatchicks 1 point 4 hours ago
If it stops me from downloading porn, it's a dead giveaway. If it doesn't, thank
s for the government funded and sanctioned porn.
permalink
[ ]egalroc 1 point 4 hours ago
I wonder if the FBI can upload unsanctioned porn to your computer using a stingr
ay? Interesting thought isn't it?
permalinkparent
[ ]winsomecowboy 1 point 4 hours ago
So my clandestine FBI staff list shouldn't be an issue.
permalink
[ ]Heisenpurrrrg 1 point 4 hours ago
Those guys can fuck right off, eh?
permalink
[ ]cerealcable 1 point 4 hours ago
Every time an invasion of our rights & privacy especially related to our establi
shed forms of communications happens it just terrifies me. Not because our gover
nment is throwing wind to established laws but because of what the future could
bring.
The reason why most of us are upset today over this is because we have an expect
ation of privacy when we pick up our cell phones. We expect our text messages, p
hone calls and data to be private thus protected by law requiring a warrant to "
tap" it only for Law Enforcement. Telecoms (wired, wireless, voip) will only com
ply to requests when required by law, but when it comes to the public air waves
using technology to just listen in we're starting a terrible precedent.
Essentially what I'm concerned about is that eventually it'll be so commonly acc
epted that these communications are not private (after all the government can sn
oop in on those conversations, and everyone already expects it) and thus we no l
onger have the expectation of privacy and thus no warrant is actually acquired.
The terrifying process is how it all started, with the government over stepping
their legal abilities with little to no repercussions.
Now that I'm reading that paragraph again, I honestly wouldn't be surprised if t
hat exact argument is/was/will be used in a secret court of which none of us wil
l be able to hold accountable.
It's scary to see what the future will hold for privacy related to technology. O
ur government is doing anything and everything they want and if people aren't sc
ared they need to get some tinfoil and make some hats because they're going to n
eed them.
Obligatory point: As the government snoops more and more, technology will just e
ncrypt more and more making it nearly pointless for the snooping, but it won't c
hange the expectation of privacy after say a decade of common knowledge that the
se communications are not private. Then Law Enforcement Agencies will just subpo
ena records instead of following due process of getting a warrant.
tl;dr It's a very slippery slope and I'm just watching us slowly sliding further

and further into the trap. :-(


permalink
[ ]coalbeeashi 1 point 4 hours ago
Honest question - in the eyes of laws, is our view on "expectation of privacy" i
gnorant or misguided? When I send a text - even though I don't think about it I gave permission to Apple, AT&T, my friend, their carrier, their phone, and pro
bably countless others that I don't even realize. When I download an app I give
them all sorts of permissions to access my information.
Also, what's stopping the government from creating an app, let's say some crazed
game like Trivia Crack, hide a bunch of permissions that no one looks at and do
it that way. They could have access to my photos, access to my microphone, acce
ss to my location, etc. (obviously I understand that you can retract most of tho
se permissions, but I doubt many people do)
So, I guess my question is, using multiple third parties, do I really have the r
ight to expect complete privacy?
permalinkparent
[ ]Rockerofboats 2 points 4 hours ago
I do what I wants to.
permalink
[ ]Gymshortsboner55 2 points 4 hours ago
I'm not trying to sound like the uncle that's always bitchin' at family reunions
but man is this country going down the shitter. I'm almost ashamed to live here
anymore.
permalink
[ ]kazuri85 2 points 4 hours ago
The government has no right to make your property do something you do not want i
t to do.
permalink
[ ]SpacemanLurker 2 points 3 hours ago
Crikey! Australian accent
Too soon?
permalink
[ ]Undisclosed-dopeness 1 point 3 hours ago
Really wish this was about actual stingrays
permalink
[ ]k-h 1 point 3 hours ago
Is that the "stingrays" that don't exist?
Of course they don't need a warrant on equipment that doesn't exist.
permalink
[ ]PhorTwenny 2 points 3 hours ago
if it picks up all cells text/call/info how do they know your not inside a house
or anyother private area? Either way this is disgusting!
permalink
[ ]MarxIzalias 2 points 3 hours ago
The more of these that get posted, the harder I laugh at America's freedoms.
You pretty much have the same as everybody else.
It seems as though the constitution is like bog roll to your law enforcement. Co
vered in meaningless shit that doesn't even stick to them.
What a joke.
The FBI stating that 'stingrays' don't apply to privacy laws because you're in a
public place makes no sense, otherwise you could walk around butt naked and arg
ue that "According to the FBI, personal privacy is not required in public".
Of course, they could say, what any deceitful peice of trash could say. "If you
weren't doing anything illegal then you have nothing to worry about."
Unless you were talking to you solicitor about a patent. In which case it would
be worthless the moment a third party heard about the invention.
Talking to your doctor about a condition that could prejudice a group against yo
u.
Talking to a solicitor about the details of a case.
Talking to fellow jurors over the phone about a details of a case, that's always

good to be spied on.


Talk about family history and possible ties you might have to foreign nations, w
hich could put you on a watch list.
Give personal details to bankers about foreign business accounts which have diff
erent protection laws.
Discuss plans you may have that they could interfere with.
Or just miscellaneous emails to and from your employer that could be damaging to
the companies reputation if published and could be used against them as leverag
e with a false flag operation LOOKING AT YOU SONY!
This isn't even a comprehensive list of things that you could do, but hey, it's
America, the land where freedom is a lie and the constitution is apparently wort
h less and less with each new government. XFD
permalink
[ ]NightOfTheLivingHam 1 point 3 hours ago
while we're declaring bullshit, I declare I'm owed a million dollars.
permalink
[ ]ZedOud 1 point 3 hours ago
Most warrant-less law enforcement surveillance techniques are legal because they
can be performed by members of the public, in public. (ex. tailing)
So can we also legally operate a stingray?
Yes we can!
permalink
[ ]Wulfgar_RIP 1 point 3 hours ago
FBI protecting freedoms and constitution from terrorists
permalink
[ ]CantHugEveryCat 2 points 3 hours ago
I'm surprised the FBI still feel they have to justify their actions.
permalink
[ ]bazingabrain 0 points 3 hours ago
Here I am thinking the FBI is going to be throwing real stingrays around without
a search warrant. Can't have that
permalink
[ ]tobsn 1 point 3 hours ago
and whoever said that should be immediately terminated.
permalink
[ ]joshladd 1 point 3 hours ago
Didn't the supreme court just say that searching cell phones requires a warrant?
Is this different than searching cell phones? I might be uninformed but it seem
s like a blatant disregard for court rulings.
permalink
[ ]birdington1 1 point 3 hours ago
Can anybody explain what a 'stingray' is?
permalink
[ ]one_love_silvia 1 point 2 hours ago
the article explains it in literally the first paragraph.
permalinkparent
[ ]IllegalOperator 0 points 2 hours ago
Yeah right, dropping the case rather than reveal their methods says otherwise. I
f there weren't doing anything wrong they would have nothing to hide.
permalink
[ ]HauntedBeepers 1 point 2 hours ago
FBI says FBI can do what it wants
permalink
[ ]Fig1024 1 point 2 hours ago
does that mean I, as private citizen, can also use them? After all, there are no
laws against it
permalink
[ ]Monkeibusiness 1 point 2 hours ago
"FBI - out if control since 2001" -Simpsons
permalink

[ ]skztr 1 point 2 hours ago


good test for whether or not you need a warrant:
If any random person off the street did it, would that be legal? If not, you nee
d a fucking warrant.
permalink
[ ]Rusky82 1 point 2 hours ago
Land of the free eh......
permalink
[ ]WECGEWHYAAIORTNU 1 point 2 hours ago
So in some states its "wiretapping" to record with a microphone a conversation b
etween two people happening at a table, but pretending to be a cell tower is a-o
k?
permalink
[ ]Amanoo 1 point 2 hours ago
"concerned about whether the FBI and other law enforcement agencies have adequat
ely considered the privacy interests" of Americans
Privacy interests of Americans? Is that supposed to still be a thing? I thought
that privacy interests were considered something for terrorists in the US, by no
w.
permalink
[ ]raviddadford 1 point 2 hours ago
Stingray got Steve Irwin
permalink
[ ]Homarus_Americanus 1 point 2 hours ago
It's all good 'cause I can by me all guns I want.
permalink
[ ]anshu1234 0 points 2 hours ago
This is non-news if you are not a drug-peddler. Next please.
permalink
[ ]bubbafat1155 1 point 2 hours ago
It's over. "They" have won. The only hope now is for individuals, society is los
t. Get off the grid, or join the sheep. http://imgur.com/W7CdURh
permalink
[ ]Targun 1 point 2 hours ago
And how are they going to filter out cellphones of all the people who live next
to public places where stingray is located?
permalink
[ ]riderer 1 point 2 hours ago
So can i do the same in public place? just stingray everyone?
permalink
[ ]Neker 1 point 1 hour ago
There are blueprints and tutorials out there that put "stingrays" within reach o
f an hobbyist. Law-breaking hobbyist, that is, but still : mobile phones essenti
aly broadcast your conversations.
permalink
[ ]mindwandering 1 point 1 hour ago
The flying DRT box.
permalink
[ ]SilenceGivesConsent [score hidden] 48 minutes ago
In other words, FBI says it does not need search warrants to warrant a search.
permalink
[ ]Formally_Nightman [score hidden] 46 minutes ago
FBI: "Senator we have been monitoring your calls and your exact geographical loc
ation for years ... You shouldn't find that unconstitutional or the public and y
our wife will learn how unconstitutional you've been"
permalink
[ ]ActuallyNotSparticus [score hidden] 40 minutes ago
Fuck this shit. Stingrays killed the crocodile hunter. Are we ready for the gove
rnment to use these stingrays?
permalink

[ ]Rayhueston [score hidden] 38 minutes ago


The article says the Obama administration consistently maintains that people hav
e no privacy in public. Is that true or is that hyperbole?
If I'm walking down the street, do I have the right to keep the contents of my w
allet private? My blood type? My thoughts?
If I have no privacy with regard to these and many other sensitive things, who d
oes have the right to them?
permalink
[ ]swollennode [score hidden] 37 minutes ago
People don't have privacy in public places..hmmm, I think that people are entitl
ed to privacy if something private belongs to them. Sure, people's faces aren't
private when they're in public places. But people's phone calls and texts should
be.
permalink
[ ]pomod [score hidden] 18 minutes ago
Well if the FBI says they are not needed...
Seriously, this should be a court decision not a cop one. Cops, even a fancy cop
s like the FBI, should not make the laws just enforce them.
permalink
[ ]CJ59 [score hidden] 18 minutes ago
In other news, the FBI says, "You know what, screw it. There are no more laws. W
e'll do whatever the hell we want. Not like you're going to do anything about it
."
permalink
[ ]gkiltz [score hidden] 15 minutes ago
Just because the FBI says it, that does not mean it's true!
I don't envy the poor schmuck who has to stan in front of the Supreme Court and
argue that!!
permalink
load more comments (48 replies)
about
blog
about
team
source code
advertise
jobs
help
wiki
FAQ
reddiquette
rules
contact us
tools
mobile
firefox extension
chrome extension
buttons
widget
<3
reddit gold
store
redditgifts
reddit AMA app
reddit.tv
radio reddit
Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy
. 2015 reddit inc. All rights reserved.
REDDIT and the ALIEN Logo are registered trademarks of reddit inc.

p jump to content
MY SUBREDDITS
FRONT-ALL-RANDOM | PHOTOSHOPBATTLES-HISTORY-GIFS-FOOD-PHILOSOPHY-TELEVISION-WORL
DNEWS-SHOWERTHOUGHTS-LIFEPROTIPS-ART-SPACE-NOTTHEONION-DOCUMENTARIES-NOSLEEP-GAM
ING-GADGETS-EARTHPORN-ASKREDDIT-FUNNY-MOVIES-DIY-FUTUROLOGY-FITNESS-BOOKS-LISTEN
TOTHIS-INTERNETISBEAUTIFUL-MUSIC-EXPLAINLIKEIMFIVE-UPLIFTINGNEWS-SPORTS-PICS-TOD
AYILEARNED-PERSONALFINANCE-DATAISBEAUTIFUL-IAMA-OLDSCHOOLCOOL-EUROPE-CREEPY-TWOX
CHROMOSOMES-AWW-NEWS-WRITINGPROMPTS-GETMOTIVATED-VIDEOS-TIFU-ASKSCIENCE-JOKES-MI
LDLYINTERESTING-SCIENCE
MORE
news newscommentsrelatedother discussions (15)
want to join? sign in or create an account in seconds|English
this post was submitted on 05 Jan 2015
3,152 points (95% upvoted)
shortlink:
remember mereset passwordlogin
news
unsubscribe4,562,294 readers
2,631 users here now
/r/inthenews
/r/worldnews
new submissions
new comments
Post analysis/opinion articles to /r/inthenews
Want to talk?
Chat with us on IRC
Follow @rslashnews on Twitter
See a post that violates the rules below? Had your post stuck in the spam filter
? Have a question about policy? Just want to give feedback? Send the mod team a
message.
Please post news items only, with the exception of meta posts about /r/news itse
lf. Self-posts aggregating news data and "independent reporting" each count as n
ews, but are not an excuse to editorialize.
Your post will likely be removed if it:
is not news (or a meta post).
is an opinion/analysis or advocacy piece.
primarily concerns politics.
has a title not taken from the article.
has a pay wall or steals content.
covers an already-submitted story.
violates reddit's site-wide rules, especially regarding personal info.
Your comment will likely be removed if it:
is racist, sexist, vitriolic, or overly crude.
is unnecessarily rude or provocative.
is a cheap and distracting joke or meme.
is responding to spam.
violates reddit's site-wide rules.
Extreme or repeat offenders will be banned.
Expanded Rules
If your post doesn't fit, consider finding an appropriate news article on that s
tory to submit instead, or submitting yours to lower moderation subreddits:
/r/inthenews - all news-related content
/r/AnythingGoesNews - unrestricted news
/r/truereddit - insightful articles
/r/self - any self-post
/r/misc, /r/redditdotcom - anything
or other news subreddits:
/r/worldnews - from outside the USA only
/r/SyrianCivilWar - about the conflict in Syria

/r/MidEastRegionalWar - on MidEast conflict /r/UpliftingNews - uplifting


/r/mediaquotes - the things they say
or subreddits for other topics:
/r/FoodForThought - discussion-worthy long form articles about interesting subje
cts
/r/politics - for shouting about politics
/r/moderatepolitics - less shouting
/r/politicaldiscussion - even less shouting
/r/geopolitics - intl. politics and geography
/r/entertainment - Justin Bieber updates, etc.
/r/europe - news from Europe
or check out the 200 most active subreddits, categorized by content and the full
list of subreddits by subscribers.
Recommendations:
/r/redactedcharts
/r/patriots
/r/personalfinance
/r/restorethefourth
reddit is fun for Android and its subreddit /r/redditisfun
submit analysis/opinion article
submit news article
submit something else
submit analysis/opinion article
a community for 6 years
message the moderators
moderators
douglasmacarthur
KyldeThe Janitor
AyeMatey
CandyManCan
Elderthedog
LuckyBdx4
NickWasHere09
ani625
pomosexuality
IKingJeremy
...and 1 more
3152
FBI says search warrants not needed to use stingrays in public places (arstechnica
.com)
submitted 13 hours ago by doctorshady
731 commentsshare
top 500 comments
sorted by: best
[ ]peaceshark 654 points 11 hours ago
If only there were some branch of government that would keep the FBI in check, o
ne that judged people and organizations supremely...
permalink
[ ]misogichan 641 points 8 hours ago
Unfortunately the Catholic church has its hands full dealing with its own intern
al reforms and recasting its vision and mission.
permalinkparent
[ ]wutshappening 93 points 7 hours ago
And looking at cat photos that's why they're Cat-holic. Alco-holics are addicted
to alcohol and catholics well you get the idea.
permalinkparent
[ ]TuffLuffJimmy 142 points 6 hours ago
Omg dad you're embarrassing me in front of my friends
permalinkparent
[ ]okmkz 27 points 4 hours ago

We ain't your friends, bruh


permalinkparent
[ ]Corruptionss 4 points 2 hours ago
We ain't your bruh, friends
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
load more comments (2 replies)
[ ]ROLLINGtemple 9 points 5 hours ago
What's their Dogma?
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
load more comments (9 replies)
[ ]hershmire 73 points 7 hours ago
The courts gave up about ten years ago.
permalinkparent
[ ]endprism 50 points 7 hours ago
The courts are pwned by the surveillance state.
permalinkparent
[ ]sushisection 41 points 6 hours ago
This is what I'm afraid of. Nsa is collecting data from all citizens including p
oliticians and supreme court judges.
permalinkparent
[ ]dutchguilder2 19 points 5 hours ago
Whistleblower confirms: http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=d6m1XbWOfVk
permalinkparent
[ ]TwitchTV_Subbort 1 point 3 hours ago
D.C. is Hollywood for ugly people. best line ever!!
permalinkparent
[ ]sklite 1 point 1 hour ago
Charles Augustus Magnussen approves
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]CriticalThink 1 point 6 hours ago
Skeletons in the closet are easy to find with intelligence infrastructure.
permalinkparent
[ ]HurricaneSandyHook 1 point 5 hours ago
The 10th circuit a few days ago sided with the government saying the cops use of
doppler radar to see if anyone was inside a house was legal. They did say it is
a troubling tactic that needs further review and just left it at that....
permalinkparent
[ ]-_--___-_--_--___--_ 27 points 6 hours ago
One major problem with judicial review is that there must be a case for the cour
t to review. I guess the other avenue would be to sue the government, but I'm no
t an attorney so I don't know how that would work.
permalinkparent
[ ]downvotesmakemehard 14 points 4 hours ago
I believe the current court has taken the stance that to take up a case someone
has to show they've been harmed in some way.
The police will never say that stingray is the source of the evidence. This woul
d open stingray to be scrutinized. They will use stingray to go after phone comp
any records which they will claim they requested on a hunch or some other bullsh
it excuse.
permalinkparent
[ ]great_gape [score hidden] 29 minutes ago
Anonymous tip.
permalinkparent
load more comments (2 replies)
[ ]dissonance07 8 points 6 hours ago
With is wide a latitude as the current SCOTUS seems to give to individual libert
y, this seems like the one kind of thing that they could actually usefully addre

ss, right?
permalinkparent
[ ]MrBojangles528 1 point 5 hours ago
Scalia and the rest of the SCOTUS is bought and sold just like the rest of our g
overnment. They answer first and foremost to the parties that nominated them as
well as the corporations that own them.
permalinkparent
[ ]psilontech 12 points 5 hours ago
See, I don't get that. You get into the Supreme Court and you're golden. Unless
you are actively breaking the law and can be impeached, you're untouchable. Why
not, you know, do what's best for your country instead of remaining beholden to
the parasites that leveraged you into that position?
permalinkparent
[ ]Ratbasher88 14 points 4 hours ago
Yep, Supreme Court justices have a well established history of turning out way d
ifferent than their supporters thought they'd be. For whatever reason this curre
nt batch of justices seems more comfortable with the security state than their p
redecessors, however that's true for most Americans in general so I suppose it s
houldn't be shocking.
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]MrBojangles528 2 points 4 hours ago
Good question, but you'd have to ask them about it.
permalinkparent
[ ]cynoclast 0 points 3 hours ago
Unless you are actively breaking the law and can be impeached, you're untouchabl
e.
But you can get richer. Or have your personal communications made public.
permalinkparent
[ ]tughdffvdlfhegl 1 point 3 hours ago
Honestly? Because they run in those social circles. They're friends with the peo
ple at the top. They don't actively associate with "regular folk" that much.
They've been ingratiated into the upper echelons of society long before ever rea
ching the supreme court through lifetimes spent at the forefront of the legal pr
ofession. This insulates them from others, and leaves them in an echo chamber of
their peers.
Now, when a case comes up that pits one of their friends, or friends' friends ag
ainst some random angry dude who's only making 50k a year, who do you think they
automatically side with, when the case isn't cut and dried? I'm not even saying
it's conscious, but prejudices come in all kinds and run deep. Tribalism happen
s all the time in subtle ways.
Plus there's Scalia taking paid for hunting trips with people who are directly a
ffected by cases in front of him, all of them getting invited to dinners and fun
ctions of the DC elite, etc.
permalinkparent
[ ]pion3435 1 point 3 hours ago
They do. It's possible to disagree with you without being corrupt.
permalinkparent
[ ]Jagoonder 1 point 2 hours ago
Not in an omnipotent surveillance state, however.
permalinkparent
[ ]DownFromYesBad 1 point 2 hours ago
Money, bribery.
permalinkparent
[ ]neotropic9 1 point 1 hour ago
Because they are selected to be the type of people who think whats "best for the
ir country" is serving the parasites, the corporate oligarchs, and the surveilla
nce state. They support the status quo, and the status quo supports them. It wou
ld be a miracle if someone with real principles was actually brought into the Su
preme Court, let alone enough of them to form a majority.

permalinkparent
[ ]isprobablyatwork 1 point 1 hour ago
This does happen, sometimes. Good examples would be Justices Warren and Stevens.
They played along with the GOP right up until they were put on the Court, then
immediately started voting their actual conscience (or if not their conscience,
then at least not as their political backers wanted).
permalinkparent
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[ ]cynoclast 2 points 3 hours ago
You mean the press?
permalinkparent
[ ]scrapinpeg 3 points 6 hours ago*
Obligatory link to illustrated law.
EDIT: fixed link
permalinkparent
[ ]ducttapejedi 3 points 6 hours ago*
error 404, check the link.
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[+][deleted] 13 hours ago (56 children)
[ ]sunbolts 701 points 12 hours ago
Glad to see the FBI is tearing up the constitution to increase their own powers
and authority. /s
permalink
[ ]dontbullshityourself 325 points 11 hours ago
Glad to see the FBI is tearing up the constitution to increase their own powers
and authority
I wish this was just the FBI. Pretty much everybody in the federal, state and lo
cals are doing this. Have been doing for this quite some time too.
permalinkparent
[ ]sunbolts 136 points 10 hours ago
Precisely, and that's what makes this very frightening. The whole club's in on i
t.
permalinkparent
[ ]radonthetyrant 75 points 7 hours ago
but why.. I realize that these "zomg the terrorists!!!11" is only a PR-lie. What
do they really accomplish with this? Industry espionage? Bribes from the indust
ries which create the espionage hardware? Feeling of total control? Control the
masses so it all stays as conservative and corrupt as possible?
Why would you amass such a criminal energy to break constitutional laws just to
be able to see through everyone's communication?
permalinkparent
[ ]BettyRubbleIsHot 151 points 7 hours ago
Total control.
That way when the state has it, they can really put the boot on our necks. Think
they treat us poorly now? Just wait until they have the infrastructure in place
where they feel confident there are absolutely zero threats to their power. Tha
t's when shit is going to get BAD.
permalinkparent
[ ]b-LE-z_it 106 points 6 hours ago
And that's why, despite being terrified of some gun owners, despite being terrif
ied of mass shootings, I don't think we should ban guns, even combat rifles. It
can happen here, and we should at least make it hurt if and when it happens.
permalinkparent
[ ]7V3N 47 points 6 hours ago
Welcome to the list.
permalinkparent

[ ]M00glemuffins 10 points 5 hours ago


Sign me up too. If they try to pull a fast one on the public I'm not standing fo
r their bullshit.
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]FadingEchoes11 26 points 6 hours ago
*rifle. No "combat" rifles are owned by citizens
permalinkparent
[ ]b-LE-z_it 39 points 6 hours ago
Did I mention I don't know anything about guns? I don't know anything about guns
.
Point is, force is not something only people in power should have.
permalinkparent
[ ]teefour 19 points 6 hours ago
You should go to a shooting range and take a class. You won't be so unnecessaril
y afraid of them after that.
permalinkparent
[ ]Pullo_T 27 points 6 hours ago
He's not afraid of guns. He's afraid of some gun owners. At least, as far as we
know.
permalinkparent
continue this thread
load more comments (3 replies)
[ ]Bootsncatsn4 5 points 5 hours ago
i understand where youre coming from, but what will a bunch of angry townsfolk d
o to a predator drone strike?
permalinkparent
[ ]Oeboues 18 points 4 hours ago
You should ask the angry townsfolk of Iraq and Afghanistan.
Once the US military is done slinking away in shame, I mean.
permalinkparent
continue this thread
[ ]nuesuh 1 point 1 hour ago
Remove them. Predator drones are being operated from the ground, and has to land
after a couple hours to refuel.
permalinkparent
[ ]joe_m107 4 points 6 hours ago
Maybe we should change that. Repeal the NFA.
permalinkparent
load more comments (2 replies)
[ ]4nco1j 0 points 2 hours ago
You don't know much about guns, do you now.
permalinkparent
load more comments (6 replies)
[ ]conquer69 15 points 4 hours ago
You can have all the guns you want. That won't stop them from labeling you a "su
spected school shooter, pedophile or terrorist".
A gun can't protect you from that. A gun can't teach your fellow countryman to t
hink by themselves or see through propaganda.
Good luck destroying a drone, plane or tank with a rifle. Not sure how useful a
gun is against your own trained military with even better guns and more.
People thinking they can start a revolution and win with a handgun don't realize
this isn't the 1700's anymore.
permalinkparent
[ ]JimmyBuffer 14 points 4 hours ago
Better tell the Middle East they haven't had a bout of revolutions then
permalinkparent
load more comments (2 replies)
[ ]b-LE-z_it 7 points 4 hours ago
Didn't say we would win, I said we could at least make it hurt. Assuming, of cou

rse, that the American people themselves aren't the ones willingly handing in th
eir freedoms, which would mean we're all fucked immediately.
permalinkparent
[ ]theothercoolfish 13 points 2 hours ago
Assuming, of course, that the American people themselves aren't the ones willing
ly handing in their freedoms, which would mean we're all fucked immediately.
Err, you guys gave up much of your freedoms long ago. And it isn't just the US politicians everywhere are taking as much as they can get, because it's simply
more power for them. More power, more money, more control. It's not a conspiracy
- this is just how an imperfect system with inadequate controls eventually goes
. We need to start re-examining our systems and look at alternatives that are no
w possible with the internet.
permalinkparent
[ ]vynusmagnus 3 points 2 hours ago
Tell that to the insurgents in Afghanistan. It seems to me that the US military
has been unable to defeat them in over a decade of war, despite its overwhelming
technological superiority. Tanks and fighter jets are nice, but they do little
against a small guerrilla force that can disappear into the woodwork.
permalinkparent
[ ]Qoix 3 points 3 hours ago
I think the main issue with that line of thinking is that the military would gun
down the civilians it pledges to protect. How many people in the armed forces d
o you know? Now, are any of them willing to murder innocent people? Probably not
.
permalinkparent
[ ]ihcn 6 points 2 hours ago
They're not innocent people, they're armed revolutionaries, suspected terrorists
permalinkparent
[ ]chance-- 4 points 3 hours ago
You say that as if there isn't insurmountable evidence to the contrary.
Military coups are thoroughly woven into the fabric of humanity's history.
permalinkparent
[ ]theothercoolfish 1 point 2 hours ago
gun down the civilians it pledges to protect.
Err, they don't pledge to protect civilians. They pledge to protect the constitu
tion. And if they are convinced that these people are attempting to "subvert" th
e constitution, then they are enemies. Nevermind that their leaders have shat al
l over the constitution - soldiers take their orders and follow 'em.
Now, are any of them willing to murder innocent people?
lol.
permalinkparent
load more comments (2 replies)
[ ]eloquentnemesis [score hidden] 33 minutes ago
Welcome to 4th generation warfare. You don't need a better gun, or the ability t
o kill a drone, or anything else like that. You just need A gun and more commitm
ent than the other side.
permalinkparent
[ ]homegrowncountryboy [score hidden] 16 minutes ago*
Good luck with those tanks, planes and drones when the American people stop supp
lying fuel and ammunition. My brother is in the Army and he will tell you about
75%, or more of the military will disband and fight to protect the American peop
le. All you have to do is look at New Orleans during Katrina, when they got the
order to start confiscating guns almost all of them refused, instead it was main
ly police stealing people's weapons.
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]Hermit_ 2 points 5 hours ago
Yeah but if it does happen all people would be doing is creating the chaos one o
f the armed and militarized militias needs to take power. For example, The KKK.
permalinkparent

[ ]b-LE-z_it 1 point 5 hours ago


Hopefully not the KKK.
permalinkparent
[ ]AussieArcher 1 point 3 hours ago
Fuck me there's always one of you. I'm starting to think the gun club spends mor
e time on reddit than anyone.
permalinkparent
[ ]astronautg117 1 point 1 hour ago
What's a combat rifle going to do against a drone?
permalinkparent
[ ]datbino 1 point 1 hour ago
i think thats where 2nd ammendment people miss the mark- you owning a rifle will
do nothing against the government.
you becoming an active participating member in that government can help fix it,
the goal is to make you a kony2012 fb sharer rather than a person who gets to wo
rk and fixes shit
permalinkparent
[ ]mpg1846 1 point 1 hour ago
You think 50 guys with hand guns are going to do anything to anyone? Gun laws ar
e a joke.
permalinkparent
[ ]Actionbuilding 1 point 1 hour ago
The founders of the United States of America WANTED the citizens to rise up and
overthrow the government if it approached the levels of corruption it is current
ly working toward.
permalinkparent
load more comments (11 replies)
[ ]nuesuh 1 point 1 hour ago
Ever seen "Das Leben der Anderen"? Imagine this, just with total corruption and
100 times better technology. This is what we are moving towards. Imagine this sy
stem getting in the hands of someone like Hitler or Stalin.. And it can happen.
Before Hitler came to power Germany was a modern, western, christian nation. We
need safety with this technology. And when i say safety, i don't mean surveillan
ce. I mean the opposite.
permalinkparent
[ ]know_comment [score hidden] 14 minutes ago
I agree, but I think the reason for the infrastructure development is because it
is going to get bad. As we are forced to compete more globally, quality of life
stagnates. Even the slightest hint of austerity is going to be very painful for
the lower classes in a society with a large income disparity.
That's why we see the race baiting and divisive rhetoric being used so much. Kee
p the poor and working classes quibbling at each other.
I want you to consider the daffodil. And while you're doing that, I'll be over h
ere, looking through your stuff.
permalinkparent
[ ]mzackler 19 points 7 hours ago
It takes a really complicated answer to truly understand but you often get into
the us vs them mentality in siloed areas of law enforcement. You also often get
frustrated with the levels of proof you need to put the bad guy in jail. Thus an
y method you can use you feel justified in using. Although I think there are a l
ot of issues with The Wire, it's a great starting off point for a discussion if
you want a serious answer.
permalinkparent
load more comments (2 replies)
[ ]hershmire 30 points 7 hours ago
Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts, absolutely.
permalinkparent
[ ]TheNewRavager 70 points 6 hours ago
"All governments suffer a recurring problem: Power attracts pathological persona
lities. It is not that power corrupts but that it is magnetic to the corruptible

. Such people have a tendency to become drunk on violence, a condition to which


they are quickly addicted."
permalinkparent
[ ]gee_iwonderwhy 22 points 6 hours ago
Oh shit, a Dune quote outside /r/dune not about spice.
permalinkparent
[ ]TheNumberMuncher 3 points 6 hours ago
This is pretty cool.
permalinkparent
[ ]YawnDogg 1 point 3 hours ago
Gene Hackman was so kinky in that movie.
permalinkparent
[ ]ThreeTimesUp 2 points 2 hours ago
From a Guardian article by Glenn Greenwald I came across recently:
Inside the mind of NSA chief Gen Keith Alexander
Any casual review of human history proves how deeply irrational it is to believe
that powerful factions can be trusted to exercise vast surveillance power with
little accountability or transparency.
But the more they proudly flaunt their warped imperial hubris, the more irration
al it becomes.
permalinkparent
[ ]Epsilox 3 points 2 hours ago
I'm going to take an unpopular stance here and argue that they get more effectiv
e investigations. Which isn't to say I have no reservations about this stuff, be
cause I do.
I've worked in a field tangential to law enforcement, and I've had the unpleasan
t experience of watching very bad people act with impunity because law enforceme
nt had to play by the rules and they didn't. Does that justify the modern trend
towards more invasive government? Maybe that's just the price we pay to live in
a free society. I don't know. I'm a fan of the H.L. Mencken quote:
"The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's ti
me defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are f
irst aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopp
ed at all."
On the other hand, it's very hard to watch members of organized crime and other
monsters literally get away with murder.
In part the difficulty the lies in the infrastructure of modern society. Communi
cations move at such speed and in such quantity that the sort of pinpoint accura
cy required for effective investigations and prosecutions becomes much more diff
icult.
None of which is to say that what we're doing is necessarily right. I've felt th
e fear of writing an opinion online and knowing that the NSA can see it and ever
ything else I've ever written if they so choose. I've had that feeling of always
being watched. I know exactly what is meant by the danger of chilling free spee
ch, because it's happened to me. But I do tend to trust (perhaps naively) that,
for the most part, most of the people making these decisions have good intention
s. I've worked with many of them, and I believe that it more than anything is th
e result of them trying to do their jobs well. Whether they are actually protect
ing the American people or simply paving the road to hell, only time will really
tell.
permalinkparent
[ ]eyeforgot 4 points 6 hours ago
Think of all the blackmail material they have for any future politicians. They w
ill firmly be in check by the powers that be.
permalinkparent
[ ]ademnus 3 points 7 hours ago
Total control.
permalinkparent
[ ]NotAnotherDecoy 4 points 7 hours ago
Total control?

permalinkparent
[ ]leamas666 2 points 5 hours ago
Why would you amass such a criminal energy to break constitutional laws just to
be able to see through everyone's communication?
It's the deep state attempting to preserve its own regime continuity in the even
t of violent revolution.
permalinkparent
[ ]sunbolts 3 points 6 hours ago
Because those in power try to keep it and in addition, there is always a lust fo
r more power. One who is wealthy seeks to increase his riches usually, right? Sa
me thing going on here. In terms of practicality, there's no reason for breaking
constitutional laws, but when you realize how human nature functions in regards
to ambitions and power, well, what we see going on explains itself.
permalinkparent
[ ]Martenz05 1 point 3 hours ago
So, in order to become a political leader who really does work for the benefit o
f the people, one would somehow have to lose every shred of their humanity so th
ey wouldn't have a human nature that could be corrupted by ambition and power?
That sounds ominous, when I put it like that
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]RuthlessDickTater 1 point 5 hours ago
but why.. I realize that these "zomg the terrorists!!!11" is only a PR-lie.
Well pretty soon they might have their terrorists, but they'll be the domestic k
ind.
permalinkparent
[ ]karadan100 1 point 4 hours ago
More money.
permalinkparent
[ ]cynoclast 1 point 3 hours ago
What do they really accomplish with this?
Get rich.
permalinkparent
load more comments (7 replies)
[ ]TGlucifer 50 points 10 hours ago
Criminals learned it's just way easier to do their lawbreaking with a government
salary.
permalinkparent
[ ]pete1729 22 points 9 hours ago
Well, the benefits package is far more attractive.
permalinkparent
[ ]__ghostpants 25 points 7 hours ago
and somehow snitches go to jail instead of the criminals
permalinkparent
[ ]iismitch55 1 point 3 hours ago
Snitches get stitches. Whistleblowers get their mouth sowed shut.
permalinkparent
[ ]HandsOffMyDitka 5 points 5 hours ago
Why break a law, when you can just change it.
permalinkparent
[ ]moresmarterthanyou 2 points 5 hours ago
except when they have to answer questions themselves...
permalinkparent
[ ]dontbullshityourself 1 point 5 hours ago
Well you know liberty is wasted on peasant swine 'eh?
permalinkparent
[ ]ButterflyAttack 1 point 4 hours ago
Sounds like the constitution doesn't mean much at this point. . .
permalinkparent
[ ]dontbullshityourself 1 point 3 hours ago

Sounds like the constitution doesn't mean much at this point. . .


All it means is that the scum who rule us have a legal contract that they say ba
cks up all their power. But their actions shit all over that document.
President Obama, a constitutional law professor ordered the deaths of two US cit
izens without trial in EXPRESS and DIRECT violation of the constitution.
permalinkparent
load more comments (4 replies)
[ ]Eurynom0s 68 points 9 hours ago
And on top of it, even if being in public was a justification for this, how the
fuck do you prevent the device from nabbing people who are inside their own hous
e or apartment as well?
Oh right, you can't, because that's not how radio waves work.
permalinkparent
[ ]Ioneos 18 points 8 hours ago
You can increase the noise gate to reduce range on purpose, but what good would
that do to keep the terrorists citizens under scrutiny.
permalinkparent
[ ]Eurynom0s 20 points 8 hours ago
Even if they were going to do that, I can't imagine that you could do it to a su
fficient degree in a place like NYC to not scoop up at least some people inside
of buildings.
permalinkparent
load more comments (5 replies)
[ ]Codoro 1 point 4 hours ago
I foresee turning your house into a Faraday Cage being the cop radar finder of t
omorrow.
permalinkparent
[ ]Kenny_Login 23 points 7 hours ago
Taxation without representation, an income far below what the productivity was v
alued at, government intrusion? The founding fathers (you know, those "heroes" o
f our nation) got much more pissed off for much less.
permalinkparent
[ ]Socialdem 8 points 5 hours ago
Can you really blame them? The Constitution was written when people were still r
iding on horses. There's no way the founding fathers could have anticipated the
advances in technology and the way people communicate. I think we're due for a f
irmware upgrade.
permalinkparent
[ ]upandrunning 11 points 3 hours ago
Yes, it's called 'replacing congress'. What we're seeing is a natural consequenc
e of career politicians. Most of the people in office have gotten so comfortable
with the idea that they'll get reelected that what they actually do during thei
r term is almost irrelevent.
permalinkparent
[ ]theothercoolfish 2 points 2 hours ago
Exactly. I think we should look at sortition - with an approval vote, and extrem
ely strict rules on what sort of laws can be passed (eg any law must apply equal
ly to everyone - protecting the minority), and a approval bonus for the randomly
selected representatives if the public approves. Fuck career politicians - they
've proven themselves wholly incapable, and the system that supports them is too
corruptible. I don't think campaign finance reform will 1) ever happen 2) adequ
ately deal with institutional corruption.
permalinkparent
[ ]NuclearWookiee 0 points 2 hours ago
All of this should be covered, in any reasonable interpretation, by the Fourth a
mendment. Rebooting who change anything if the limits on government are ignored.
permalinkparent
[ ]KalAl 1 point 1 hour ago
Do you update your firmware by smashing your bios chip with a hammer?
permalinkparent

[ ]FireFromTheWire 4 points 6 hours ago


You're just another Steve Irwin to them.
permalinkparent
[ ]iismitch55 2 points 3 hours ago
Too soon mate :'(
permalinkparent
[ ]Penguin_in_the_sand 1 point 1 hour ago*
I am curious to know what this comment means?... Oh! Steve Irwin was killed by a
stingray. I thought you may have been referring to some conspiracy relating the
Steve Irwin's death. He had an American wife and both were invited to Howard's
Bush BBQ. http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/10/27/1067233100397.html
permalinkparent
[ ]gloubenterder 2 points 1 hour ago
Steve Irwin was a wildlife documentary filmmaker who was well-known for getting
up close and personal with dangerous animals such as crocodiles and komodo drago
ns.
He was pierced through a heart by a stingray in 2006, while shooting footage for
a documentary called Ocean's Deadliest.
After his death, stingrays had a period of great infamy, and there were even rep
orts of people killing and mutilating stingrays as vengeance for Steve Irwin. ..
.which, of course, is the last thing Irwin would have wanted; he was a conservat
ionist, and whenever he was injured by an animal he was studying, he would alway
s clarify to the viewer that that was his own fault and a risk he was aware of.
permalinkparent
[ ]Agent-BurtMacklinFBI 1 point 5 hours ago
Don't worry I'm keeping a look out
permalinkparent
[ ]pion3435 1 point 3 hours ago
It's not a constitutional issue. It might be an FCC one, but they just do whatev
er they're told anyway.
permalinkparent
[ ]dntur 1 point 3 hours ago
theoretically, every cell tower is in a public place. Why not just attach a stin
gray to all of them? Think of the money mobile companies could make renting towe
r space! next comes google who wants to know who you are calling on your iphone
and windows phone for better directed advertising, followed by Bing. /s
permalinkparent
[ ]Brian3232 [score hidden] 46 minutes ago
Why are they wrong? You already can take pictures of people in public places wit
hout warrant
permalinkparent
[ ]GaltsGulchTouristInf [score hidden] 24 minutes ago
When the constitution, the supreme law of the land, the contract between the gov
ernment and the people, is violated, this violating it should be banned from 'pu
blic service' for life, should be personally liable to those whose rights they v
iolated, and should forfeit their government pension and benefits.
permalinkparent
[ ]wtfmuck [score hidden] 17 minutes ago
It's sad how they shirk doing what is right for what is easy.
permalinkparent
load more comments (8 replies)
[ ]quiteintriguing 127 points 12 hours ago
I think it's about time these fuckers provided some evidence that privacy invadi
ng is helping stop crime or terrorism. As far as I can see, there is an Islamic
army in the middle east right now filled with westerners that simply flew over a
nd caught a bus. Nice job government agencies, you sure showed us.
permalink
[ ]HappyAtavism 81 points 11 hours ago
I think it's about time these fuckers provided some evidence that privacy invadi
ng is helping stop crime or terrorism.

Even more importantly they should provide evidence that they're not violating th
e 4th Amendment. The Bill of Rights doesn't say it applies only when convenient.
P.S. I agree that repeated failures to demonstrate the effectiveness of these th
ings, or lies which get "corrected", is yet another reason why this stuff is BS,
but the Constitution is first and foremost. Don't like the 4th Amendment? Try t
o repeal it. Until then it's in force.
permalinkparent
[ ]7u5 3 points 5 hours ago
The "checks and balances" of the judiciary are a farce. They are free to "interp
ret" the Constitution as they see fit.
permalinkparent
load more comments (3 replies)
[ ]DiaperParty 9 points 3 hours ago
Fuck that. FUUUCK that. If this did stop terrorists, it would still not be worth
the violation of rights. We absolutely CANNOT start OKing this shit as long as
it "stops bad guys."
permalinkparent
[ ]quiteintriguing 1 point 3 hours ago
I think you misunderstood. I think they should have to back up their justificati
on, which they obviously can't.
permalinkparent
[ ]DiaperParty 4 points 3 hours ago
But if we ask them to, we lend legitimacy to that claim. We need to say from the
get go that no justification is needed because none will be sufficient.
permalinkparent
[ ]ebouwman 7 points 5 hours ago
In Canada we had the Ottawa shooting and that dude that ran over some soldiers.
Correct me if I'm wrong but both these guys had had their passports revoked.
I'm not a fan of letting them just go over and fight a dirty war but wtf.
permalinkparent
[ ]Ceejae 4 points 4 hours ago
But so what if it is? How successful the program is is irrelevant.
I'm sure if they set up a government camera in every home they'd stop plenty of
murders and rapes.
permalinkparent
load more comments (2 replies)
[ ]cassieloveseffie 5 points 2 hours ago
Well we all know that the FBI has followed people like John Lennon who believed
in radical peace, urged MLK to kill himself and was prepared to assassinate occu
py members. It is not about crime, it is about maintaining a status quo.
permalinkparent
[ ]monopixel 2 points 1 hour ago
was prepared to assassinate occupy members.
Interesting, where can I read up about this?
permalinkparent
[ ]wirepants 4 points 4 hours ago
Locking everyone in solitary could stop crime and terrorism too. That's not a go
od enough reason to violate our rights even if it was working.
permalinkparent
[ ]egodeath92 2 points 5 hours ago
Shh that's classified. This entire country would be a post-apocalyptic dirt-patc
h is not for the heroic NSA collecting dirt on most of the country.
permalinkparent
[ ]pion3435 1 point 3 hours ago
You had no privacy in the first place. That's not how cell phones work.
permalinkparent
load more comments (6 replies)
[ ]MashItMatt 143 points 13 hours ago
Obviously these are constitution free zones, citizen.
permalink

[ ]THANKS-FOR-THE-GOLD 22 points 7 hours ago


Embrace democracy or you will be eradicated
permalinkparent
[ ]jroddie4 14 points 5 hours ago
Citizen, pick up that can.
permalinkparent
[ ]douko 3 points 5 hours ago
This image won't even load (here's another one), but I still know what it is.
DEATH IS A PREFERABLE ALTERNATIVE TO COMMUNISM.
COMMUNISM IS THE VERY DEFINITION OF FAILURE!
permalinkparent
[ ]chewysquirrel 15 points 6 hours ago
Approximately 2/3 of Americans live in a "constitution free zone"
permalinkparent
[ ]newpolitics 50 points 10 hours ago
The Federal Bureau of Investigation is taking the position that court warrants a
re not required when deploying cell-site simulators in public places. Nicknamed
"stingrays," the devices are decoy cell towers that capture locations and identi
ties of mobile phone users and can intercept calls and texts.
So nobody has any expectation of privacy? Talking out of their asses. The implic
ation that a warrant shouldn't be needed to intercept someone's text messages, i
s outrageous.
permalink
[ ]acerplatanoides [score hidden] 16 minutes ago
The implication that a warrant shouldn't be needed to intercept someone's text m
essages, is outrageous.
The implication of intercepting a PRESS related text message, and thus also supp
ressing a free press.
I think many of these are used to stop uploading of images to social medial. You
ever tried that during a demonstration?
permalinkparent
[ ]dalasocatyemerc 67 points 9 hours ago
Hmm, I didn't realize the FBI had the authority to ignore the constitution of th
e United States of America.
Maybe this organization doesn't actually serve Americans. That's what I think
permalink
[ ]Jagoonder 17 points 2 hours ago
They don't. However, lets look at their 3rd criteria:
(3) cases in which the technology is used in public places or other locations at
which the FBI deems there is no reasonable expectation of privacy.
In public, noone has an expectation to privacy. SCOTUS has ruled on such. Theref
ore, it could be argued that phone conversations in public places forfeits at le
ast one party's rights to privacy.
There are a couple of problems with this. First, Stingray is indiscriminate. Sec
ond, the other party of the phone conversation may be in their own home thus hav
ing an expectation of privacy.
I don't know how law works in regards to phone tapping. But, I would assume that
any warrant to do so would provide the agency a waiver on a second party's priv
acy protections when conversing with the target of the warrant. Except in the ca
se of Stingray no warrant was ever obtained thus, no waiver, thus the second par
ty probably still has privacy protections.
So, I think it's bullshit. I'm no lawyer. I suspect the FBI also knows it's bull
shit. But, the more excuses they can come up with to bend the law around their w
ill the more time it takes to try to stop them since each instance requires anot
her court decision.
permalinkparent
[ ]punkrampant 13 points 1 hour ago
There's only "no expectation of privacy" in public in terms of video+camera surv
eillance. People still get disturbed if you look over their shoulder at their ph
one, or listen to a conversation.

Text messages, emails, phone calls, all of it, are the modern day written letter
s. What the FBI is trying to do is the equivalent of setting up a post office th
at opens everyone's envelopes and makes copies of all the contents.
permalinkparent
[ ]Jagoonder 5 points 1 hour ago
Text messages, emails, phone calls, all of it, are the modern day written letter
s. What the FBI is trying to do is the equivalent of setting up a post office th
at opens everyone's envelopes and makes copies of all the contents.
You're right. I was focusing on an actual phone conversation where one party cou
ld be overheard by others, thus no expectation to privacy.
permalinkparent
[ ]Cambodian_Drug_Mule 2 points 1 hour ago
Surely there are people with technical expertise that can just fuck their shit u
p. If I'm not mistaken the stingrays were detected with consumer grade electroni
cs. If everyone just looked out for them and pinned where they are at on a map,
couldn't some people with the technical know how take them offline?
permalinkparent
[ ]monopixel 1 point 1 hour ago
Hmm, I didn't realize the FBI had the authority to ignore the constitution of th
e United States of America.
The US government and its agencies has been doing it for ages.
permalinkparent
[ ]rtpg 40 points 6 hours ago
Surprised nobody's mentioned Kyllo v. United States yet.
This is fairly recent (2001) jurisprudence. The gov't used a thermal imager, and
saw that there were heat lamps inside of a house, and used that to get a search
warrant. The gov't argued that, well, the heat was outside, so pretty much publ
ic information.
The courts disagreed and ruled this an illegal search. Main reason being that no
t many people have thermal imagers, so there's a reasonable expectation of priva
cy. I think even less people have stingrays, so even from the "discovering that
someone has a cell phone" aspect, there's unreasonableness in the search.
Now to the wiretapping aspect... there's Katz v. United States. Here, somebody w
as in a phone booth, and the feds had set a microphone outside the phone booth w
ithout warrant (so not exactly a wiretap). Again, the courts ruled this an unrea
sonable search.
A part of the ruling:
Regardless of the location, a conversation is protected from unreasonable search
and seizure under the Fourth Amendment if it is made with a "reasonable expecta
tion of privacy".
Text messages definitely fall under this. I can't see this holding up for 2 seco
nds in court.
The article goes into it into detail, but few of the FBI's interpretations on pr
ivacy have been holding up in courts recently. The system is kind of working, an
d this interpretation will be shut down as well. Now, if only everyone had good
lawyers...
permalink
[ ]ryewheats 7 points 4 hours ago
But the biggest problem I see would be them not declaring how they gathered any
information they collected in the first place. It would be pretty easy to skirt
around the system and act like you caught the suspect red-handed (because you we
re tipped off by illegal searches). That is the really scary part.
permalinkparent
[ ]argv_minus_one 5 points 3 hours ago
This practice is known as "parallel construction".
permalinkparent
[ ]tughdffvdlfhegl 3 points 3 hours ago
Honestly, this is the biggest concern. The courts won't allow a challenge becaus
e no one will have standing, because the feds/police won't actively declare this
as evidence in a trial. Meanwhile, they'll continue to use it, having a chillin

g effect on the press and others (which the courts have not seen in recent histo
ry as sufficient to provide legal standing).
permalinkparent
[ ]JustaChimp 3 points 5 hours ago
With the Katz v US case, it took them 39 years to overturn the Olmstead v US rul
ing. Let's hope it takes a little less time for this medium.
The recent Romano v Steelcase Inc. court case could indicate how the courts will
rule in the short term with regards to "reasonable expectation of privacy" thou
gh this ruling was in the context of social media and not text messages. The ana
logy was made that much like a letter writer has no reasonable expectation of pr
ivacy once the recipient is in possession of the letter, neither does the post's
author. Same could be extended to text messages and would be equally as trouble
some.
permalinkparent
[ ]qdarius 1 point 3 hours ago
Damn, that doesn't seem right at all. If I send someone a letter I definitely ex
pect that only they will read it.
Could anyone expand on the logic that a letter writer has no reasonable expectat
ion of privacy?
permalinkparent
[ ]Boltaeg 1 point 3 hours ago
After that letter is given to the recipient, they can do whatever they want with
it without you knowing. They could copy it, show it to friends, frame it and pu
t it on their wall....etc. You have no control over that and must assume that an
ything you write in a letter can be disclosed in some manner, simply because you
have no control over that persons actions.
As to why that is the case, I have no idea. Especially considering it is illegal
to open someone elses mail, but perfectly legal to read someone else's letter o
nce they open it. At least that is my understanding of it.
permalinkparent
[ ]TheMightyBarbarian 1 point 3 hours ago
Its fairly simple, you sent a letter, until it is received by the intended recip
ient it has federal protections. Once the recipient receives it, they are free t
o do with it as they wish, even if you disagree with what they do, specifically
because the letter is now their property, even though you wrote it.
permalinkparent
[ ]qdarius 1 point 2 hours ago
I understand that. But if someone else intercepts my letter shouldn't that still
be illegal?
Maybe I'm misunderstanding how stingrays work but it seems like they're basicall
y designed to intercept hundreds of messages.
permalinkparent
[ ]TheMightyBarbarian 1 point 2 hours ago
Intercept isn't illegal, its sketchy but not illegal. As for reading it, it's a
grey area since texts are not encrypted and even if they were it would do shit i
f billions of devices can decrypt them. So unless you use something like a messe
nger system that can use basic encrypting. It won't stop the FBI from reading it
, but it does show you took steps to have a private conversation and that's what
matters to the court.
permalinkparent
[ ]coalbeeashi 1 point 3 hours ago
Re: Katz v. United States
Certain details, such as shutting the door on the telephone booth, help determin
e if a person intends for a conversation to be private. Thus, private conversati
ons can be made in public areas.
What steps is the average Joe taking to exhibit a reasonable expectation of priv
acy regarding his/her data usage? Honest question.
permalinkparent
[ ]TheMightyBarbarian 1 point 2 hours ago
Beyond using a VPN to mimic another location, not much really. Since there are m

any devices involved in the process of just looking up a website. Ex. You google
Microsoft. Here are all the parties involved: You, Your ISP, Google, Microsoft.
That's four parties involved and that's assuming you are not using a Phones Mob
ile Data plan and are using WiFi. Because then it can add a few more people invo
lved.
Sure you should have protection just the same, but currently the law doesn't rec
ognize that, because the people in charge dont understand how any of it works.
permalinkparent
[ ]rtpg [score hidden] 54 minutes ago
I would say that cultural norms kind of define that in that it is extremely rude
to look at another stranger's phone while they are using it to browse/look at t
heir emails/whatever. Not the most solid argument, I know.
permalinkparent
[ ]Sic_SemperTyrannis 1 point 2 hours ago
When the use of stingrays is challenged in court police have dropped the cases r
ather than explain their use of stingrays.
permalinkparent
[ ]cassieloveseffie 1 point 2 hours ago
I have seen a printed record of every one of someone's txt messages for 6 months
. Never assume txt messages are private.
permalinkparent
[ ]Ladderjack 29 points 12 hours ago
I'm sorry, have they gone ahead and combined the FBI and the Supreme Court of th
e United States of America? No? Well, we will see how long this lasts. . .
permalink
[ ]butitssnot 46 points 7 hours ago
Its ok. In 2016 we can vote for hope and change and transparency and fix all thi
s.
permalinkparent
[ ]CriticalThink 3 points 5 hours ago
yeah. I bet Hillary will fix this mess, right Reddit?
permalinkparent
[ ]TheMightyBarbarian 1 point 2 hours ago
We still got time before they can start promoting themselves for President, lega
lly actually, they can't start until a certain number of days from the election.
permalinkparent
[ ]looneybandito 5 points 6 hours ago
Haha. As if our votes matter.
permalinkparent
[ ]atomofconsumption 9 points 5 hours ago
thatsthejoke.jpg
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]dichroeyes 1 point 4 hours ago
You are right. I give up. Long live the hegemony.
permalinkparent
[ ]Pikaflu 1 point 3 hours ago
America is an irradiated wasteland. Within it lies a city. Outside the boundary
walls, a desert. A cursed earth. Inside the walls, a cursed city, stretching fro
m Boston to Washington D.C. An unbroken concrete landscape. 800 million people l
iving in the ruin of the old world and the mega structures of the new one. Mega
blocks. Mega highways. Mega City One. Convulsing. Choking. Breaking under its ow
n weight. Citizens in fear of the street. The gun. The gang. Only one thing figh
ting for order in the chaos: the men and women of the Hall of Justice. Juries. E
xecutioners. Judges.
permalinkparent
[ ]Ago_Solvo 36 points 9 hours ago
I'm sure that means that stingrays are also open for public hacking in that case
, because they're in a public place, and doing so can't be considered an intrusi
on on government properties or a violation of any Federal Law.

permalink
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]whysopositive 57 points 12 hours ago
Say whatever you want, you don't think big brother is going to find every way to
spy on you?
The thing is I bet every time we the people get upset about some "new" trespass
against our rights there's already something technologically beyond our knowledg
e being put to use to on us now.
permalink
[ ]I_SPLIT_INFINITIVES 16 points 7 hours ago
My dad always said, "If that's what they're telling us they have now, they proba
bly had it ten years ago. Just imagine what they really have."
permalinkparent
[ ]oOTHX1138Oo 28 points 9 hours ago
Thats why we need to add to the bill of rights, so that we continue to be protec
ted in the digital age.
permalinkparent
[ ]TheBlueWaffleHouse 18 points 8 hours ago
At this point in time the bill of rights only shrinks. It doesn't get bigger.
permalinkparent
[ ]tallerthanunicorngod 33 points 7 hours ago
Not with that attitude.
permalinkparent
[ ]mattacular2001 3 points 5 hours ago
Doesn't matter unless you're wealthy
permalinkparent
[ ]tallerthanunicorngod 1 point 2 hours ago
Wealthy people don't like to be spied on either. Honestly, they probably like it
even less.
permalinkparent
[ ]sockgorilla 1 point 5 hours ago
He's John Titor, he's watched it before.
permalinkparent
[ ]mastahslayah 1 point 4 hours ago
Well he isn't getting any of my Dr. Pepper.
permalinkparent
[ ]Poor__Yorick 1 point 2 hours ago
Wow that's a name I haven't heard in a while.
We've got a world war this year though.
3 billion dead by the end of it.
permalinkparent
load more comments (5 replies)
[ ]pion3435 1 point 3 hours ago
We already did. That's the point of laws like HIPAA. There's just no equivalent
for things like email or cell phones so it's legal to see whatever people are na
ively broadcasting.
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]ZomNomNomBeeZ 5 points 7 hours ago
This technology is not particularly new. The man-in-the-middle attack is a class
ic hacking technique. I remember reading an article after one of the security co
nventions detailing a small group of participants that used a remote control air
plane to do this exact thing to convention attendees. This was years ago.
permalinkparent
[ ]hershmire 4 points 7 hours ago
Which is why it's illegality could be successfully code into law.
permalinkparent
[ ]TheMightyBarbarian 1 point 3 hours ago
That's the problem, the people who make the laws don't understand how the techno
logy works, and the people making and using it are telling them its fine, so the

y don't feel like they need to make a law about.


And as such making a law about it would be bad, since the law would need specifi
c language to prevent certain technologies and usage of such. But the biggest is
sue is that some of the technology and uses are too general that it would never
work to stop anything. Since they can't just write a law preventing man in the m
iddle because they need to get a definitive wording on what that is exactly and
then word it so a slight variation doesn't just immediately skirt the new law.
Our technology grew faster than our laws did, but now it's grown faster than our
ability to properly define what it is we do. So controlling it is incredibly ha
rd and will take a long time, so for now we kinda have to suck it up and wait, b
ecause the worst possible thing is them putting out ineffective laws that do les
s than nothing to prevent stuff like that and hearing us complain and think we a
re whining when they just put out a law. I would rather wait a little longer to
make sure the law is proper and effective than to have a crap law screw everythi
ng up.
permalinkparent
[ ]ScorpionPool 1 point 6 hours ago
Serious question. What benefits does the government get from spying on us? Power
? Information for corporations? Shits and giggles? Some kind of profit?
permalinkparent
[ ]swingmemallet 2 points 5 hours ago
All of the above
permalinkparent
[ ]eyeforgot 1 point 5 hours ago*
What like complete access to what anyone posts/chats about on facebook/skype bei
ng dumped into a database? Anyone who work with cisco routers notice anything fu
nny like carefully crafted packets fucking w. the settings and not creating logs
. Maybe like there is a back door that someone has that doesn't require a passwo
rd.
permalinkparent
load more comments (3 replies)
[ ]philtech 26 points 10 hours ago
You can scan for stingray use.
Only works on rooted phones with Qualcomm chipset however. https://play.google.c
om/store/apps/details?id=de.srlabs.snoopsnitch&hl=en
permalink
[ ]vamper 2 points 6 hours ago
damn, no go for my nexus 5
permalinkparent
[ ]Ice_Pirate 1 point 5 hours ago
Should work on my 20 dollar ZTE's with dualies :). Overclocks to 1.8 like butta.
http://www.phonearena.com/phones/ZTE-N800_id8191
permalinkparent
[ ]willyboxc 1 point 2 hours ago
we need a version that will work without root :(
permalinkparent
[ ]networklackey 49 points 11 hours ago*
Bullshit... it's radio. They have no way of determining whether the person they
are monitoring is in public or not.
They shouldn't be able to use this without a warrant any more than they should b
e able to point a laser mic at your window.
The fact that they are in public is irrelevant... the subject they are monitorin
g has to be in public.
permalink
[ ]lll_1_lll 29 points 6 hours ago
Even if we are in public, what the fuck gives them the right to look through my
texts, phone calls, voicemails, emails, call history, etc?
permalinkparent
[ ]zoidbug 5 points 3 hours ago
It should be protected the level of paper mail. It is your private communication

s.
permalinkparent
[ ]networklackey 1 point 2 hours ago
Technically... because you are in public and are broadcasting. But I feel the sa
me way. None of this shit should be legal.
permalinkparent
load more comments (6 replies)
[ ]goatmagic 2 points 3 hours ago
laser mic
Well, TIL this exists :/
permalinkparent
[ ]networklackey 2 points 2 hours ago
They absolutely exist and they are freaking awesome. They should not however be
used by law enforcement without a warrant.
permalinkparent
[ ]makingupdumbnames 1 point 5 hours ago
I think it's that their airwaves cross public space. pls correct me if I'm wrong
, though
permalinkparent
[ ]networklackey 1 point 2 hours ago
That's certainly the argument they are making.
permalinkparent
[ ]wirepants 1 point 4 hours ago
Even assuming you are in public, who's to say the guy on the other side is too?
permalinkparent
[ ]networklackey 1 point 2 hours ago
Nothing but their log books but that doesn't really matter. It's your right to p
rivacy they are violating.
permalinkparent
[ ]Sarah_Connor 9 points 9 hours ago
We need a way to be able to identify, then jamm, stingrays.
permalink
[ ]cookie_nrk 8 points 7 hours ago
This Jammer made in sweden should do the trick. From what I have read it complet
ely blocks all signals, so using a phone wouldn't work at all, but if you were i
n a position to not want to be tracked during a certain time, you could use this
: http://www.jammer-store.com/monstro-10-all-frequencies-portable-jammer.html
permalinkparent
[ ]hershmire 10 points 7 hours ago
We're talking about blanket monitoring of civilians. It needs to be outlawed imm
ediately. Hoping each and every Joe Schmoe is going to buy an illegal cell phone
jammer to protect his identity is, well, ridiculous.
permalinkparent
[ ]davidverner 6 points 7 hours ago
Jammers are illegal in the US on the cellphone frequency. Good luck importing on
e.
permalinkparent
[ ]wicard 5 points 6 hours ago
had one from deal extreme i bought when i was younger to prank friends, was alot
of fun. But if you are worried about being tracked wouldn't just shutting your
phone off do the trick? If you are jamming your phone you arnt going to be talki
ng to anyone.
permalinkparent
[ ]RellenD 4 points 5 hours ago
You have to do more than just turn it off, unfortunately.
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]willyboxc 1 point 2 hours ago
we need the schematics so we can build one... also include 700 mhz jam for lte
permalinkparent

load more comments (1 reply)


[ ]ademnus 11 points 7 hours ago
That's nice but it's not up to the FBI if it is illegal or not.
permalink
[ ]MonitoredCitizen 21 points 7 hours ago
Come on Google and Apple, stop being so lame. Make the phones themselves defend
against this by always displaying the negotiated encryption level and allowing u
ser to configure the phone to refuse to connect if the GSM encryption level is A
5/0.
permalink
[ ]argv_minus_one 2 points 2 hours ago
If they do that, these same spooks will have some words with their CEOs. Otherwi
se, yeah, they likely would.
permalinkparent
[ ]vzzzbux 2 points 1 hour ago
Not sure on the technical specifics but my old Nokia from 10 years ago used to s
how a padlock if the call was "secure", which I guess meant it was encrypted in
some way.
Sounds like yet another way we've gone backwards with the rise of Google and App
le
permalinkparent
[ ]cryptovariable 180 points 12 hours ago
This seems icky, but anyone with a Raspberry Pi ($48.00), an RTL-SDR ($17.00), a
nd an ability to follow written step-by-step instructions on how to install and
configure some open source software ($0.00) can do this, albeit on a smaller sca
le.
That tutorial doesn't cover decrypting GSM traffic. This one does. You'll need s
omething faster than a Raspberry Pi, though. Maybe a $200 netbook.
And you can do it on the same scale as the police with a surplus commercial ante
nna and three or four friends.
I don't see how restricting the government's ability to do this would have any o
ther effect than to criminalize a private citizen's desire to experiment with GS
M.
permalink
[ ]HappyAtavism 113 points 11 hours ago
I don't see how restricting the government's ability to do this would have any o
ther effect than to criminalize a private citizen's desire to experiment with GS
M.
Experiment with GSM all you want, just don't eavesdrop or commit fraud by preten
ding to be part of a legitimate business.
I like to play with miniature cameras, microphones and transmitters. That's a fi
ne hobby as long as I don't use it to spy on my neighbors.
permalinkparent
load more comments (5 replies)
[ ]mr___ 50 points 12 hours ago
But theirs has a transmitter, and actively spoofs cell sites
permalinkparent
[ ]cryptovariable 55 points 12 hours ago
It you want to spoof rather than just eavesdrop all you have to do is buy any of
the SDR kits that are coming on to the market like a bladeRF or something and h
ave GNUradio (which hilariously autocorrects to FBI radio on my phone) pretend t
o be a tower, the credentials of which you sniffed with your Pi setup.
The reason the Feds spoof is so that they can target specific devices on a white
list and only have those connect. The size of the whitelist is unknown and up fo
r debate.
If you're capturing and decrypting all the GSM your antenna can receive you don'
t care if you're spoofing the tower unless you want to modify the traffic in som
e way. To quote Sir Patrick Stewart: "It's too late, I've seen everything."
If you just scoop up everything using cheap/free and publicly available tools yo
u don't really care about spoofing.

It should be noted that the Feds have a leg up with CDMA because of its smaller
global footprint and the scarcity of developers working on it, as well as UMTS (
3G) and LTE.
But people are poking at LTE every day: http://www.rtl-sdr.com/analyzing-td-ltertl-sdr/
permalinkparent
[ ]HappyAtavism 36 points 11 hours ago
The reason the Feds spoof is so that they can target specific devices on a white
list and only have those connect. The size of the whitelist is unknown and up fo
r debate.
We do know they don't have warrants. How many violations of the 4th Amendment do
es it take before it's considered a bad thing?
permalinkparent
load more comments (19 replies)
[ ]A530[??] 6 points 6 hours ago
I have to ask an honest question. Knowing what you know, do you live in a Farada
y cage or just eschew cell phones all together? I'm in InfoSec (I'm guessing you
are too) and with the shit I know, maintaining OPSec is just a never ending bat
tle. I can't imagine my paranoia if I went down the cellular rabbit hole (althou
gh I do know a lot about the shit happening with the carrier baseband MDM garbag
e).
Many thanks for the very informative post.
permalinkparent
[ ]tornadoRadar 1 point 1 hour ago
Gotta keep it segmented. Personal never mixes with biz
permalinkparent
[ ]the_nap_mutilator 1 point 5 hours ago
Spoofing the cell site also gives them access to the phone at something akin to
the hardware level... so unless you have rooted and or installed software to sec
ure the device, they can push new software onto your phone without your knowledg
e/consent in the same way that your carrier updates subscriber units say when th
ey make changes to the network or something. At that point your phone has been p
ermanently compromised.
permalinkparent
load more comments (13 replies)
[ ]mag17435 29 points 10 hours ago
I dont understand how people think the government can do things citizens can. Or
dering our government not to do something has no bearing on what citizens can do
.
permalinkparent
[ ]Golden-Fox 7 points 6 hours ago
Well when police are trying to visually collect evidence they can in general onl
y search from public areas. If a cop is looking for a certain car and they see i
t on the street, that's fine. If the car is parked in a closed garage and on pri
vate property, the cop wouldn't be able to see it without going onto private pro
perty and looking in a window. If the car is in the same garage and the garage d
oor is open, then anyone can see it, and the cop can legally use that informatio
n.
The FBI is trying to apply that same logic to these stingrays. Stingrays are a t
echnology that is available to the public. You could make your own and do exactl
y what the FBI does. The data being collected isn't encrypted, password protecte
d, or anything else. Everything is publicly available. You just have to have a c
ertain machine to be able to read it. The garage door has to be open.
permalinkparent
[ ]Wordygit 6 points 6 hours ago
The key word here is "public" whereas where there is the expectation of privacy,
I would think think that would carry some special considerations. That seems to
be some of what the courts are deciding about, where the expectation of privacy
holds sway over searches. Its already been determined that law enforcement cann
ot force you to unlock your phone. One such Supreme Court case, decided this pas

t summer, led to a sweeping victory for privacy rights advocates. In a rare unan
imous decision, the court found that police cannot search cellphones, and by ext
ension tablets and other digital communication devices, without first obtaining
a warrant. Smartphones, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote, hold the privacies of l
ife, and the fact that technology now allows an individual to carry such informati
on in his hand does not make the information any less worthy of the protection f
or which the Founders fought. I think, as well, that it has been established that
if there is encryption being used, that constitutes an acknowledgement that ste
ps have been taken to protect and maintain the sense of privacy, and so the expe
ctation carries onto the information being transmitted. Not sure if there is a l
egal precedent for that though.
permalinkparent
[ ]Golden-Fox 2 points 5 hours ago
Its already been determined that law enforcement cannot force you to unlock your
phone.
This is what I've heard, but to me it implies that police can access your phone
if you don't have it locked. Carrying that logic over to this argument, the poli
ce would be able to access your cell info as long as it isn't encrypted. It seem
s that you only have a "reasonable expectation to privacy" with your cell phone
if you've taken any steps to make your phone more private. If there were some wa
y to get your carrier to encrypt your data, then there'd be no question, but the
way cell providers are these days, that's not gonna happen.
permalinkparent
[ ]ThreeTimesUp 1 point 1 hour ago
Something that I have heard repeatedly (and I may yet have it wrong), is that if
your front door is closed, but unlocked, the police are free to enter without a
warrant.
This has always bothered me.
I could understand the mind-set of someone (i.e. a Justice of the Supreme court)
thinking that way if they grew up (or lived) in an area where they lived a life
always fearful of intruders and locking doors was a practical necessity.
But to me, a closed door means "Keep out, knock for admittance - no entry withou
t permission."
So, for naive, trusting, me, I would not expect the police (or anyone) to examin
e my phone (without a warrant) just to see what they could find.
permalinkparent
[ ]pion3435 1 point 3 hours ago
A technologically illiterate moron's expectation of privacy doesn't become a rea
sonable expectation of privacy just because the majority of the population is te
chnologically illiterate.
permalinkparent
[ ]F0sh 1 point 2 hours ago
This is totally wrong thinking. A private citizen can look for your car through
the garage window without legal repercussions, even though a police officer migh
t not be allowed. The police officer has to conduct his searches according to th
e expectation of privacy and you have every expectation that your private phone
conversations are private - even if you're sending your texts at the shopping ce
ntre.
This is a bullshit equivocation on the part of the FBI, who are claiming that si
nce any old person at the shops can see that you're also at the shops you have n
o expectation of privacy at all.
This logic, if extended, would also mean the FBI could clone your hard drive if
you took your laptop to a public place - after all, you have no expectation of p
rivacy there. No. Bullshit - just because you're in the park doesn't mean all yo
ur possessions and emails became public.
This has nothing to do with what an ordinary citizen is able to do in public or
in private.
permalinkparent
[ ]ThreeTimesUp 1 point 2 hours ago*
Well when police are trying to visually collect evidence they can in general onl

y search from public areas. If a cop is looking for a certain car and they see i
t on the street, that's fine.
To counterpoint this:
Infra-red light (heat) is just light that's at a lower frequency than humans can
detect.
Courts have ruled that the police using specialized equipment to detect heat sig
natures (Infra-red light) emanating from from houses for the purpose of snooping
for grow operations are an invasion of privacy.
The signals Stingray is picking up are just another frequency, even lower than I
nfra-red light, originating from inside your phone, that is your property, which
is in your possession.
Authorities are using all manner of logical distortions in an express attempt to
get around the ideals and principles expressed in the Constitution.
What law-abiding citizen would attempt such a thing?
What authority that the public has placed their trust in, would make continual a
ttempts to subvert the Constitution?
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
load more comments (2 replies)
[ ]kromem 2 points 3 hours ago
It is already criminal to capture and decrypt GSM traffic for citizens (Wiretap
Act), same as capturing and parsing WiFi data.
But I think I can point out the issue with your logic with a simple analogy:
Citizens can buy guns.
Law enforcement can be provided guns.
Citizens can practice shooting guns.
Law enforcement should do the same.
Citizens can't shoot other citizens with guns except in really specific exemptio
ns.
According to your logic, just because citizens can buy guns, and could possibly
go around shooting other people with them, law enforcement should not have any l
egal restrictions on their use of guns.
It is illegal for you to capture and decrypt anyone else's traffic, and it shoul
d be illegal for cops to do the same without a warrant. It's not that hard to ge
t a warrant when actually justified, creates a paper trail that can be examined
for abuses, and has been the case without serious issue for years now.
For what purpose does the law need to be changed to allow this? Because warrants
are inconvenient? Well then why not get rid of them for entering homes too? It'
s quite trivial to pick a lock, and even easier to smash a window and climb in.
Any citizen could do it. So why do we need to restrict the police from the same?
permalinkparent
[ ]dfioabnionjio 4 points 9 hours ago
I don't see how restricting the government's ability to do this would have any o
ther effect than to criminalize a private citizen's desire to experiment with GS
M.
Why not have it be illegal for government and legal for private citizens? Make i
t perfectly legal for private citizens to experiment with GSM, but don't let the
FBI do the same, like you can have a private citizen share something a defendan
t said in court while the police cannot do the same unless the suspect had been
told of their rights.
Of course, the problem here is not using GSM. It's tracking people who did not k
nowingly join your network. You could have it be legal to experiment with GSM an
d not legal to spoof a network, or make it so tracking someone on your network i
s illegal unless the person being tracked is aware they will be tracked and cons
ents to it.
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]confusiondiffusion 3 points 10 hours ago
Yeah, I really don't see the point in making laws against this, since they'll be
broken anyway. We need to fix the underlying technology. There is no excuse for

the sad state of cellphone security.


permalinkparent
[ ]HappyAtavism 18 points 10 hours ago
I really don't see the point in making laws against this
Then let's just flush the Constitution down the toilet. All laws get broken, the
question is what gets done about it.
since they'll be broken anyway
It's not very hard to break into my house either, but they're not supposed to do
it without a warrant.
permalinkparent
load more comments (4 replies)
[ ]HighMonster 1 point 7 hours ago
Wow that's intriguing
permalinkparent
[ ]lll_1_lll 1 point 6 hours ago
You act like this is realistically doable for the large majority of people and y
ou know that's BS.
permalinkparent
[+][deleted] 6 hours ago (1 child)
[ ]JabroniZamboni 1 point 5 hours ago
Are you suggesting that radar jammers should be legal? As well as cell phone or
wifi jammers? What if your neighbor wants to experiment with a jammer for the ne
xt 4 months? 6 years? I assume you wouldn't be too happy. There's experimentatio
n and then there's purposeful disruption and spying.
permalinkparent
[ ]egodeath92 1 point 5 hours ago
Yeah except "anyone with device X" can't prosecute people. It doesn't matter whe
n corporations do mass data collection because they are just trying to make mone
y/sell people shit. The government can create a database of people's private liv
es then prosecute them. You could even imagine a time where data collection is s
o widespread that this kind of info is used for political purposes rather then b
usting drug dealers/ other criminals which is what it's used for now.
permalinkparent
[ ]Kuusou 1 point 4 hours ago
What the people can do, and what the government can do, are no the same things,
nor should they.
permalinkparent
[ ]qdarius 1 point 4 hours ago
If a random person overhears my conversation I don't care. Even if they tell the
ir friends I'm still not too concerned.
If the government records my conversation and uses it to investigate or prosecut
e me that's clearly a different situation.
Just because someone can do something doesn't mean it should be legal. It defini
tely doesn't mean we should be okay with our government using it on us.
permalinkparent
load more comments (9 replies)
[ ]Sir_not_sir 52 points 13 hours ago
The main purpose of the stinger is to circumvent the need and time of acquiring
a warrant and getting the data from all the service providers.
Regardless of data retention plans, they should require a separate judicial warr
ant for each individual suspect in order to be deployed.
permalink
[ ]manoninternets 8 points 7 hours ago*
The time required to get a warrant is usually far less than what they make it ou
t to be, although cost is as factor. Phone companies make tons of money off poli
ce records requests.
To play devil's advocate (and I do think the STINGRAY arrangement is devilish):
once you request records from the phone companies, there's no guarantee that won
't get leaked to the people being investigated. The cartels have people everywhe

re.
permalinkparent
[ ]kevincreeperpants 6 points 6 hours ago
What if they are the cartels!?...dun dun dun
permalinkparent
[ ]tughdffvdlfhegl 1 point 3 hours ago
I don't think anyone here has a problem with STINGRAY being used, given that the
y have a warrant for the person's data they're monitoring. So in your situation,
that's easy to do.
permalinkparent
[ ]manoninternets 2 points 3 hours ago
Yeah it's the same concept as going through my private letters, or close enough
to it anyhow. (Even though letters are physically sealed and radio waves permeat
e the air freely, my intention is for my text messages to be as private as posta
l mail.)
Even a child could rip open an envelope with ease. That doesn't mean police don'
t need a warrant to do so.
permalinkparent
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[ ]turnthatfrown 9 points 7 hours ago
I think the FBI is conveniently forgetting that they are intercepting a communic
ation that is normally secured via encryption and carried privately by your wire
less provider then switched privately all the way to the party on the other end
who has similar expectations of the connection.
I mean, come on, the Stingrays themselves are impersonating the carrier that you
have a contract with and using techniques to avoid the strong encryption. The p
rove by their own design and implementation that the FBI's argument is bullshit.
permalink
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]dontbullshityourself 27 points 11 hours ago
I'm so sick of the ways these callous assholes use to crush our freedom.
What is the point of massive expensive law enforcement agencies if the law can't
protect our rights and freedoms? Hasn't the cart been put before the horse here
?
permalink
[ ]donottakethisserious 13 points 6 hours ago
If you are told you are free enough times, you start to believe it. You start at
a young age with a pledge every day and then when you grow up you attend sporti
ng events and stand for the national anthem and tear up at how free you are. Tha
t way nobody will ever question whether or not this is actually a free country.
permalinkparent
[ ]dontbullshityourself 10 points 5 hours ago
When I was a kid I started to sit during the pledge. Honestly I think I just wan
ted to test and see how free I was. I knew that saying the pledge etc wasn't in
the school handbook. I knew there was no rule saying I had to say it or stand or
anything. The powers that be at my school just used the herd instinct to keep t
his shit going.
So I started sitting down. This resulted in a lot of attention from gangs of bul
lies. My home room teacher didn't like it either and lectured/bitched about it e
very day. But she stopped short of anything more than shaming me unlike the bull
ies.
Anyway I just decided to drop out. Fuck it. Humans don't like new things that co
nfuse them and challenge them to think. How interesting that was to be the last
thing I learned in school. I found another kind of freedom. The freedom to leave
the assholes mired in their stupidity and find my own path in life.
permalinkparent
[ ]joshyfitzo90 4 points 5 hours ago
I like your style.
permalinkparent

[ ]Jack41096 3 points 4 hours ago


I applaud you. I stood but that's all I did. it was in our rulebook to stand but
fuck them if they thought I was gonna do more than that. I started a wave of pe
ople standing and doing nothing.
eventually my first period class was reduced to two people and the teacher actua
lly doing anything. they bitches about it but we all had our own reasons.
permalinkparent
[ ]dontbullshityourself 2 points 3 hours ago
eventually my first period class was reduced to two people and the teacher actua
lly doing anything. they bitches about it but we all had our own reasons.
There are lots of reasons to resist and only one reason to obey. Fear.
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]CriticalThink 3 points 5 hours ago
Government hasn't been interested in protecting our rights and freedoms in a lon
g time.
permalinkparent
[ ]jkeyser14 5 points 7 hours ago
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety
, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. - Benjamin Franklin
permalinkparent
[ ]dontbullshityourself 5 points 6 hours ago
We didn't give it up. They are taking it.
permalinkparent
[ ]jkeyser14 10 points 6 hours ago
Only because we aren't rioting. The first group of rioters to tar and feather a
politician again will bring about change very quickly.
permalinkparent
[ ]dontbullshityourself 4 points 5 hours ago
People are gonna have to get a lot more desperate. I reckon we'll get our riot s
oon enough.
permalinkparent
[ ]Jack41096 1 point 4 hours ago
take the food. that's the surefire way to cause a riot.
people will be content as long as they're fed. you take that away and suddenly t
hey have nothing to lose. they have to survive. that is the most primal response
we have. to fight tooth and nail for food. to eat no matter the cost.
permalinkparent
[ ]RamsNation 1 point 4 hours ago
America has a very stable food supply so I doubt that will happen.
permalinkparent
[ ]dontbullshityourself 1 point 3 hours ago
I don't think we have to take the food. I think that people today are a lot more
self entitled and will jump into a fit without their iphones. They can't even i
magine a world without abundant food.
permalinkparent
[ ]grungebucket 1 point 4 hours ago
bring about change very quickly. street executions very quickly.
there. Corrected that for you. After all. You wouldn't want to be mistaken for a
terrorist endorsing a terrorist act now, would you?
permalinkparent
[ ]pion3435 2 points 3 hours ago
You never had it. You're just now finding out.
permalinkparent
[ ]hershmire 7 points 7 hours ago
Ok, I get the FBI's argument. Technically, we are all choosing to carry a digita
l device around with us that uniquely identifies us via radio frequency. It's tr
ue that we could very well decide not to partake in the use of cell phones if we
're so worried about being tracked. And thus because we decide to carry these pa

rtially secure devices around with us, they FBI has every right to hack them and
track us.
But this argument is bogus. The FBI can't read our mail or tap our phones becaus
e legislators and judges at one time recognized that technology becomes indispen
sable, and therefore should be protected under privacy laws. Just because I choo
se to carry a cell phone around with me doesn't give the FBI to track my whereab
outs, or worse. That'd be like saying it's my fault for having my mail read by t
he FBI because I chose to write letters, or I chose to have my phones monitored
and recorded by the FBI because I chose to use telephones.
The FBI is part of the executive branch. They (supposedly) operate within the sc
ope of the law. If there's no specific law preventing their actions, they'll go
ahead and do it. So write your representatives and get shit like this regulated.
And use letters because they're obligated to at least open the envelope.
permalink
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]drakecherry 5 points 8 hours ago
we might as well get rid of warrants all together. they are gonna search if they
want to, and nothing will happen if they are wrong.
permalink
[ ]MeganNancySmith 6 points 6 hours ago
The FBI doesn't have the legal authority to make that determination.
It would be like if I said that murder is legal every other Sunday. I can say it
all I like, but it doesn't make it true.
permalink
[ ]Todda468 6 points 6 hours ago
Anything a private citizen can't do should require reasonable suspicion or a war
rent.
permalink
[ ]Sonotmethen 6 points 9 hours ago
Then signal jammers aren't either.
permalink
[ ]MrJDouble 4 points 9 hours ago
FBI tends to say a lot of things, doesn't mean it isn't a pile of horseshit.
permalink
[ ]blueiron0 4 points 6 hours ago
(3) cases in which the technology is used in public places or other locations at
which the FBI deems there is no reasonable expectation of privacy.
Love how the FBI gets to decide when it's ok for them to assume you shouldnt hav
e any expectation on privacy. "we saw a poop porn video on pornhub. you shouldnt
expect privacy when pooping then."
permalink
[ ]ragn4rok234 4 points 6 hours ago
Whoo! Now I don't need a warrant or sufficient reason to wire tap anyone and eve
ryone. Stalkers of the world rejoice! It's like Oprah is handing out privacy bre
aches in here
permalink
[ ]fourslaps 4 points 4 hours ago
This isn't what Steve Irwin would have wanted
permalink
[ ]knowyourbrain 7 points 8 hours ago
How sad is it that we have an R Senator trying to rein in a D president's FBI?
If Snowden et al have not been able to show the American people what a farce our
government is then I don't know how it can be demonstrated.
permalink
[ ]makingupdumbnames 1 point 5 hours ago
that's Chelsea to you, mister!
permalinkparent
[ ]StellarUsername 4 points 9 hours ago
Can someone ELI5 why my cell carrier lets this happen? Seems like it would be ea
sy enough for them to put a stop to it if they wanted.

permalink
[ ]giantgnat 13 points 8 hours ago
Because if you don't play nice with them, they don't play nice with you like wha
t happened to the CEO of quest after he refused to cooperate.
permalinkparent
[ ]lll_1_lll 6 points 6 hours ago
CEO of quest
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/09/30/a-ceo-who-resistednsa-spying-is-out-of-prison-and-he-feels-vindicated-by-snowden-leaks/
permalinkparent
[ ]WatchoutItsAllan 1 point 4 hours ago
Looks like the only way to be out of the eyes of the NSA is to go back to using
these http://imgur.com/JEFUt4h
permalinkparent
[ ]jkeyser14 4 points 7 hours ago
The cell and internet companies get paid millions by the government for direct a
ccess to their lines. This was one of the things Snowden blew the whistle on.
permalinkparent
[ ]MadPooter 2 points 7 hours ago
I believe that the technology behind our current cell phone towers needs to allo
w for widespread access to said cell phone towers from a wide array of technolog
ical devices.
The Stingray makes the cell phone tower believe that it's a cell phone--I don't
know that it's as easy as you might think to re-design all cell phone models to
differentiate themselves from what Stingrays currently are.
TL;DR: This might be a better issue for cell phone designers to solve rather the
n cell phone carriers.
permalinkparent
[ ]egalroc 2 points 6 hours ago
Maybe design a Falcon drone that homes in and locks on fake Stingray towers. Wou
ldn't the FBI just shit to see a couple sparrows zooming down on them?
permalinkparent
[ ]A530[??] 1 point 6 hours ago
Cell carriers couldn't care less. They're also packaging backdoors in their base
band software to do all kinds of functional crap, like over the air updates and
remote access.
permalinkparent
[ ]here4DaBacon 3 points 7 hours ago
So it's a honey pot for cell phones. This same method is used to intercept WiFi
internet traffic. The world is becoming a hackers paradise.
permalink
[ ]CapAnson 4 points 6 hours ago
I don't even think of the FBI's exceptions two and three are valid. And as for i
mminent danger to public safety I can't imagine when that safety hinges on inter
cepting a cell call right now this very second without a warrant
permalink
[ ]SquidwardSnowden1 3 points 6 hours ago
Let it be noted, I love big brother.
permalink
[ ]ryanknapper 3 points 6 hours ago
There was a comment asking what prevents private citizens from doing this. My re
ply was: Absolutely nothing. In fact, there are legal ways of doing exactly this
.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xKihq1fClQg
permalink
[ ]lll_1_lll 2 points 6 hours ago
inb4 this thread gets removed by the mods and/or shadowbanned
permalink
[ ]doctorshady[S] 3 points 6 hours ago
I was almost sure it was going to be removed when I submitted it.

permalinkparent
[ ]grtwatkins 1 point 3 hours ago
Wait, so mods = FBI?
permalinkparent
[ ]doctorshady[S] 2 points 2 hours ago
The mods here are quite restrictive about what is allowed to be submitted. Wheth
er or not they're under someone's influence is a question I can't answer (though
I'd honestly like to know), but you'll occasionally see high profile topics rem
oved, like the Snowden leaks back when PRISM was first pointed out.
permalinkparent
[ ]tomcat23 3 points 6 hours ago
If I had a hundred dollars for every time the FBI said it could do something une
thical or unconstitutional I'd be shooting rockets into space like Elon Musk rig
ht now.
permalink
[ ]leafygreenstuff 3 points 6 hours ago
Oh, well if they said....
permalink
[ ]wlxr 3 points 5 hours ago
Is this implying that they are going to repeatedly kill Steve Irwin?
permalink
[ ]Bulldog65 3 points 2 hours ago
Can I Use my Stingray in public places to intercept communications ?
If the answer is no, then the FBI needs a warrant.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effec
ts, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Wa
rrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, a
nd particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things t
o be seized.
This can only be changed by super majority votes in Congress and the States, not
treasonous opinions of mouthpiece lawyers in Department of Justice. This is why
prosecutions of torture memo writers is important. If they want to try and make
up laws they need to be held accountable under the law.
permalink
[ ]Do_Em_Till_They_Derp 13 points 12 hours ago
I don't think that is a good idea considering what happened to Steve Irwin.
permalink
[ ]Smgth 1 point 4 hours ago
I can't believe how far down I had to scroll to find this joke. I was worried I'
d have to make it myself. This thread is WAY too serious for my taste...
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]go1dfish 10 points 10 hours ago
This is what happens when you give a group of people authority over all else.
They use that authority to extort funds from you to pay for your own oppression.
But reddit still cheers it on. It seems to some; the concepts of roads or compas
sion cannot exist without specially anointed jack boot thugs.
permalink
[ ]Arael15th 3 points 6 hours ago
Do you see anyone in this post cheering this on? Moreover is this your first tim
e here?
permalinkparent
[ ]Flight_MH370 2 points 9 hours ago
Can the cell providers see every time this happens? If so, they could alert peop
le of fake towers or something. Alas, I'm pretty sure all the cell providers are
in bed with the feds already anyway.
permalink
[ ]leftnotracks 1 point 8 hours ago
This is why it s a good thing the FBI are not the people in charge of what is lega
l.

permalink
[ ]iluvmilfs420 3 points 7 hours ago
Ohh cool more of my taxes wasted on stupid shit...
permalink
[ ]fuzzycuffs 3 points 7 hours ago
Then I can do the same thing with wifi and not be charged with hacking, right?
permalink
[ ]endprism 2 points 7 hours ago
Use of Stringray in America: https://www.aclu.org/maps/stingray-tracking-devices
-whos-got-them
http://rt.com/usa/215735-sandiego-police-phone-tracking/
http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/First-Amendment-Coalition-Files-Lawsuit-Ab
out-Stingray-Surveillance--286092741.html
http://www.miaminewtimes.com/2012-02-16/news/cell-phone-tracking-miami-cops-know
-where-you-are/
http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/Fort-Worth-Cellphone-Tracking-Rings-Controversy
-140796693.html
http://www.wgrz.com/story/news/investigations/2014/02/13/are-local-police-spying
-on-your-cell-phone/5462273/
Tick tock...
permalink
[ ]johnnybiggs15 2 points 7 hours ago
didnt know they had that type of power
permalink
[ ]jwyche008 2 points 6 hours ago
They would fucking say that wouldn't they? The thing is it isn't supposed to be
their damn decision to make!
permalink
[ ]ICEClownfishWok 1 point 6 hours ago
Did the US government learn nothing from Nazi Germany? I honestly won't be surpr
ised if WWIII occurs when the rest of the world gets tired of our governments bu
llshit
permalink
[ ]frankenstilskin 3 points 6 hours ago
America, for the corporations by the corporations
permalink
[ ]Elephant_rhino_tiger 3 points 5 hours ago
It sounds like a 6 year old coming up with a superhero. "This is FBI man, and he
can fly and like punch through the earth, and he can y'know like intercept cell
traffic if he thinks it's important. But he is weak against himself though, so
like if he punched himself he would die."
permalink
[ ]Banana_blanket 2 points 4 hours ago
Hey who wants to just sit around and let it happen? Oh, everyone? Perfect. Ready
? Go.
permalink
[ ]poopinbutt2014 3 points 4 hours ago
Ah yes, the cops deciding what laws they are and aren't subject to.
permalink
[ ]burnerthrown 2 points 2 hours ago
Has anyone else notied a pattern of more and more laws that protect enforcement
operations from civilians, and fewer nd fewer laws protecting civilians from enf
orcement?
permalink
[ ]siquisiudices 2 points 2 hours ago
Increasingly I am astonished by the state of democracy in the developed western
countries. What has happened and how? I realise that there have always been infr
ingements of liberties by the state - always. But it seems to me that what has c
hanged is the blatent nature of the compromise of democratic norms. I'm not a hi
storian but my impression is that the origins of our current situation lie in tw

o iconic regimes in the UK and US - Reagan and Thatcher (and those that followed
) - and in the fall of the soviet regimes.
The economic philosophy that Reagan and Thatcher promoted reduced liberty to pro
perty rights while at the same time it condemned (rightly) the soviet regimes fo
r their lack of respect for democratic norms. The appeal of this economic ideolo
gy to capital, to the corporations, was obvious especially as during the 1970s t
here had been intermittent but recurring periods when profitability had fallen.
In the context of declining profitability, a roll back of the state and public e
xpenditure was a quick win.
For the rest of society, the implication that growth in personal, individual wea
lth was being held back by public spending and that the welfare state eroded ind
ividual responsibility also won the day. A key element in this process was the d
efeat and denigration of trade unionism: Thatcher going so far as to suggest tha
t trade unions (in the person of the National Union of Miners) were dangerous tr
aitors. People bought into the arguments for radical individualism ("there is no
such thing as society") because, in part, the concrete experience of collectivi
sm in trade unions declined in the face a massive anti-trade union assault.
The fall of the corrupt and totalitarian soviet regimes underpinned this all by
giving concrete expression to the notion that there is no alternative.
Economically the result has been massive widening of the discrepancy in wealth i
n many western countries and increased immiseration of labour across the world a
nd no force to counterbalance the power of the corporations and the state that t
hey (quite naturally) control. The state is the central committee of capital.
In all of this, the oft misnamed "libertarian" tendencies were accompanied by an
increasingly authoritarian and intrusive state apparatus which was promoted and
defended around quite classical nationalist ideas but recast often as the defen
se of western democracy against various external enemies.
And so, little by little, we have allowed our civil liberties to be chipped away
. Even the radical libertarians have been sidelined and fooled into irrelevant s
truggles around gun control in the US. Really, if an armed citizenry were the gu
arantee of liberty then one wold have hoped it would have done a better job. But
overall anti-welfare, anti-European and anti-immigrant rhetoric in the UK and,
for example, religious manipulation of public discourse in the US have allowed t
he authoritarian, pro-corporate state to gradually encroach on political and per
sonal freedoms. And here we are.
We can't say we didn't know - we were warned but the ruling class managed to def
ame the messengers and in other ways render us impotent.
One can only hope that we wake up in time and that our new disdain for collectiv
ism is overcome by the necessity of taking collective action.
permalink
[ ]DinglebellRock [score hidden] 49 minutes ago
You have a right to privacy according to the Constitution. Except for maybe your
cell phone calls. Or email. Or handwritten or typed letters. Or what you read f
rom the library and Amazon. Or maybe your colon and lower intestine if you are i
n New Mexico. What a fucked up nation this has become...
permalink
[ ]nstalker91 [score hidden] 38 minutes ago
Oh sure, when they do it, it's "protecting" and "morally right", but when I do i
t, it's a "federal crime" and "the FCC watches me"
permalink
[ ]The_Media_Collector 3 points 9 hours ago
This is why my phone has an app to continually report IMSI changes to me. I swit
ch one tower to another, I get a warning.
permalink
[ ]Redd575 1 point 7 hours ago
How is that helpful? Not being an ass, just curious. Seems if a Stingray can spo
of a tower then the app does little unless you are standing absolutely still.
permalinkparent
[ ]The_Media_Collector 3 points 7 hours ago
it's my understanding that Stingray "towers" do not encrypt traffic. anytime I a

m connected to an unencrypted "tower" the IMSI detector goes red and lets me kno
w.
permalinkparent
[ ]Redd575 1 point 6 hours ago
Wow. Whomever figured that out was clever.
permalinkparent
[ ]ExReverie93 1 point 7 hours ago
Which app? And would a normal person (not meaning you're not normal. You know wh
at I mean.) be able to use it?
permalinkparent
[ ]The_Media_Collector 1 point 7 hours ago
Requires Root. It's just caeld "Adnroid IMSI-Catchter"
permalinkparent
[ ]egalroc 1 point 6 hours ago
Makes a person want to be a criminal or spy just for the fun of it.
permalinkparent
[ ]Effo 3 points 7 hours ago
Goodbye America the Great, hello police state. :-[
permalink
[ ]Casemods 2 points 7 hours ago
Another reason why I don't have a cell phone.
permalink
[ ]GiveMe_TreeFiddy 3 points 7 hours ago
Things libertarians have been screaming about and offering solutions to for 500$
, Alex...
permalink
[ ]ilovesellinblow 1 point 9 hours ago
police and marshals have been running these for years.
permalink
[ ]bbelt16ag 1 point 8 hours ago
so FBI lets see what the Supreme court has to say to that. I am sure once they r
ule on this you will be going home with your tails between your legs.
permalink
[ ]Banana_blanket 1 point 4 hours ago
Do you people really have that much faith in our Supreme Court? Really?
permalinkparent
[ ]bbelt16ag 1 point 3 hours ago
gotta have some faith, other wise its just anarchy, or revolution. I am not read
y to give up quite yet.
permalinkparent
[ ]bonyponyride 1 point 8 hours ago
If digital communication in a public (and private) space is fair game, there's n
othing to stop an FBI tech specialist from stealing things like knowledge that w
ould be considered insider trading. There's an extreme potential for abuse.
permalink
[ ]jkeyser14 2 points 7 hours ago
If was fair game then hacking into wireless signals by private citizens wouldn't
be illegal.
permalinkparent
[ ]egalroc 1 point 6 hours ago
Just waiting for Anonymous to set up shop in a public park and hack into police
communications then dispatch them to bogus locations throughout the city. If any
thing goes wrong, they could always blame North Korea.
permalinkparent
[ ]coalbeeashi 1 point 3 hours ago
Aren't government agencies encrypting their digital communication - thus exhibit
ing an expectation of privacy?
I'm not sure what steps the "reasonable person" is taking to exhibit an expectat
ion of privacy over their data, tbh.
permalinkparent

[ ]hmmwhatsthisdo 1 point 8 hours ago


If you used RedPhone, Whisperpush/TextSecure, and a VPN, this wouldn't be of con
cern to you, right?
permalink
[ ]LucifersCounselNZ 1 point 7 hours ago
Wrong.
In other cases, the IMSI or equivalent identifier of a target is not known to th
e StingRay operator and the goal of the surveillance operation is to identify on
e or more cellular devices being used in a known area.[16] For example, if visua
l surveillance is being conducted on a group of protestors,[17] a StingRay can b
e used to download the IMSI or equivalent identifier from each phone within the
protest area. After identifying the phones, locating and tracking operations can
be conducted, and service providers can be forced to turn over account informat
ion identifying the phone users.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stingray_phone_tracker#Extracting_Data_From_Interna
l_Storage
Before any of that shit you're talking about comes into play, the IMSI number is
used when establishing the connection. It is uniquely identifying. With your IM
SI number and a court order (or cooperative telco) they will know who you are an
d who you were communicating with.
Then they can use that information to punish you for participating in legal prot
ests, associating with the wrong people, or simply because some Fed didn't like
the look of you.
permalinkparent
[ ]hmmwhatsthisdo 1 point 6 hours ago
So, the only way is to modify your IMEI (which is questionably legal) and use a
prepaid SIM?
permalinkparent
[ ]facepalmdude 1 point 5 hours ago
The IMSI part makes sense, but by using the mentioned tools authorities are very
unlikely to find out who you communicated with, or what the content was. All th
ey know is that you're the end point of an encrypted data connection.
permalinkparent
[ ]coalbeeashi 1 point 3 hours ago
I would assume that a court would view this as an individual exhibiting an expec
tation of privacy over their data.
permalinkparent
[ ]mambotangohandala 1 point 7 hours ago
Law?
We don't need no stinkin' law...
permalink
[ ]smilesbot 1 point 7 hours ago
You've just used a double negative! :P
permalinkparent
[ ]mambotangohandala 1 point 7 hours ago
no i did not, never would i do such a thing, nope, i don't think i ever did...
Ever see the movie 'blazing saddles'? Context kid, context
permalinkparent
[ ]smilesbot 1 point 7 hours ago
yup yup yup!
permalinkparent
[ ]mambotangohandala 1 point 7 hours ago
oh no a triple positive,what a stupendous faux pas!
permalinkparent
[ ]smilesbot 1 point 7 hours ago
yup yup yup!
permalinkparent
[ ]mambotangohandala 1 point 7 hours ago
Did mom give you too many sodas tonight?
permalinkparent

[ ]mambotangohandala 1 point 7 hours ago


Now where are those kiddy downers?
permalinkparent
[ ]mambotangohandala 1 point 7 hours ago
Remember tomorrow is a school day
permalinkparent
[ ]BigTex8900 1 point 7 hours ago
The Federal Bureau of Investigation is taking the position that court warrants a
re not required when deploying cell-site simulators in public places.
Wait so can I take the position that it's not actually illegal to suck dick for
money in public places?
permalink
[ ]AssOrca 1 point 6 hours ago
Well thank god there not doing it in my home!
permalinkparent
[ ]Drunken_Economist 1 point 7 hours ago
The FCC says they are needed, FWIW
permalink
[ ]FadingEchoes11 0 points 6 hours ago
100% true, power to the people
You should learn about and try to understand firearms more, they are just tools
after all.
permalink
[ ]winstrol 1 point 6 hours ago
Can i use a stingray? Al stick to my snoopsnitch.
permalink
[ ]fatscat84 2 points 6 hours ago
Big fucking surprise, 4th amendment=toilet paper anymore. The rights of the citi
zens arent even considered anymore since we dont have lobbyists. Maybe ill start
a kickstarter campaign to make a lobbyist group to give americans a voice in d.
c.
permalink
[ ]urbn 2 points 6 hours ago
The Obama Administration has repeatedly maintained that the public has no privac
y in public places.
And yet the excuse always used when someone records a police officer breaking th
e law and is arrested, detained and has his property stolen is that it violates
their privacy.
permalink
[ ]Vigilias 1 point 6 hours ago
If it's stealing signals being send from private residences it sure should fucki
ng be wtf.
permalink
[ ]2013palmtreepam 1 point 6 hours ago
Because stingrays automatically stop working at private property lines? Don't re
call the part of the 4th Amendment that exempts the requirement for probable cau
se and a search warrant when one happens to be in a public place.
permalink
[ ]makingupdumbnames 2 points 6 hours ago
I don't think it would be too hard to develop a stingray jammer, something that
just floods their equipment with a bunch of useless/fake cell phone numbers...I'
m in favor of a more strategic response to these types of infringements of our r
ights. We actually have a right and responsibility to fight tyranny...
permalink
[ ]ghotiaroma 1 point 3 hours ago
It's possible, but you wouldn't know where and when to use it. And it would be d
etectable you are using a jammer and anyone using one would find themselves fill
ed with SWAT bullets in no time.
permalinkparent
[ ]ononewheel 1 point 2 hours ago

Cant you rent bot net time and do this?


permalinkparent
[ ]psilontech 1 point 5 hours ago
I think that's for the courts to decide, FBI.
permalink
[ ]coalbeeashi 1 point 4 hours ago
...the only way the courts could decide is if it were practiced and a lawsuit wa
s brought against those practices.
Of course the FBI is going to finagle ways to flirt with obscure, outdated laws
for the purpose of investigating, thus practice it. Of course some group or orga
nization is going to take issue with it, thus taking it to court.
permalinkparent
[ ]cynoclast 2 points 5 hours ago
And the 4th Amendment says the FBI is wrong. And to the idea that subsequent law
s or that prededence says otherwise, I say that lawyers who make those interpret
ations were paid to do so by people with a vested interest in saying otherwise.
The constitution and amendments were intended to be read and interpreted by ever
yone, not just lawyers and judges so it matters not at all what lawyers and judg
es say.
permalink
[ ]coalbeeashi 1 point 5 hours ago
The constitution and amendments were intended to be read and interpreted by ever
yone
Uhh...interpreted by everyone? Do you know how fucked up that would be? There's
a reason for the judicial branch.
permalinkparent
[ ]cynoclast 2 points 4 hours ago
More fucked up than corporations as people? The 4th Amendment being ignored by t
he DHS, Homeland Security, and the NSA? More fucked up than than all the ridicul
ous, unconstitutional restrictions on cosmetic features of firearms that all vio
late the 2nd amendment? More fucked up than justices appointed by war criminals
refusing to recuse themselves where they have a clear conflict of interest?
The judicial branch is staffed by people, just as fallible as the rest of us. Th
e judicial branch was nly ever an attempt to reign in the other two. It was alwa
ys intended that it was the right of the people to alter or abolish the governme
nt if it gets out of hand and it has.
permalinkparent
[ ]coalbeeashi 1 point 4 hours ago
I would still rather have the fate of laws be in the hands of individuals who sp
ecifically studied the very nature of their professional practice than leave it
up to a mass of people with little-to-no understanding of the law, outside of wh
at is force-fed to them by media (comparable to your assertion of less-than-idea
l practices by lawyer/judges)
I fully agree that laws should be written in ways that the public can understand
and interpret (however, you're never going to reach a consensus on laws written
200+ years ago). And I believe that, reading most supreme court decisions, the
justices advocate for specifics in laws and understand that outdated or vague la
ws is a main reason cases are brought before them. Laws aren't concrete or stati
c. It's a court of public opinion.
permalinkparent
[ ]cynoclast 1 point 4 hours ago
I would still rather have the fate of laws be in the hands of individuals who sp
ecifically studied the very nature of their professional practice than leave it
up to a mass of people with little-to-no understanding of the law, outside of wh
at is force-fed to them by media (comparable to your assertion of less-than-idea
l practices by lawyer/judges)
I think there's balance between the two. It's similar to the balance between IT
and the user. While the IT guy is more knowledgeable about the field than most o
f the users he's supposed to facilitate, he often forgets that his purpose is to
facilitate, not to rule, and what the users are doing is what keeps the lights

on. People in congress and the senate are mislabelled when called 'lawmakers' th
eir job is representative of their constituency. And lawyers face a conflict of
interest between simplifying the law and representing people fairly and seeing a
fter their own welfare and ensuring their own job security. Simple, clear, and u
nambiguous laws have little value to the professional attorney at law. But the p
eople at large have no interest, and in fact a reason to despise laws they don't
understand, especially ones decided by decades old case law they know nothing a
bout. But for too long the balance has been swinging in favor of the lawyer seek
ing payment for services from the rich instead of the poor seeking freedom from
those with the resources to hire teams of lawyers for years to drain them of res
ources. The day a rich man could sue an innocent poor man under false pretenses
and crush him is the day the justice department ceased to function as intended.
I fully agree that laws should be written in ways that the public can understand
and interpret (however, you're never going to reach a consensus on laws written
200+ years ago). And I believe that, reading most supreme court decisions, the
justices advocate for specifics in laws and understand that outdated or vague la
ws is a main reason cases are brought before them. Laws aren't concrete or stati
c. It's a court of public opinion.
Lawyers like to pretend that they are concrete or static. Just imagine the phras
e "settled case law" coming out of their mouths and you need go no further. It's
like they forget that eventually given the dynamic equilibrium of the poor vs.
the rich that sometimes words written on paper in a dusty library somewhere mean
absolutely nothing when the pitchforks and guillotines come out, the old laws t
hrown out, and new ones written even more strongly against tyrants. You're right
, sometimes, it's a court of public opinion. But sometimes the court is brutal,
but not unjustly so:
There were two Reigns of Terror, if we would but remember it and consider it; the
one wrought murder in hot passion, the other in heartless cold blood; the one la
sted mere months, the other had lasted a thousand years; the one inflicted death
upon ten thousand persons, the other upon a hundred millions; but our shudders
are all for the horrors of the minor Terror, the momentary Terror, so to speak; wh
ereas, what is the horror of swift death by the axe, compared with lifelong deat
h from hunger, cold, insult, cruelty, and heart-break? What is swift death by li
ghtning compared with death by slow fire at the stake? A city cemetery could con
tain the coffins filled by that brief Terror which we have all been so diligentl
y taught to shiver at and mourn over; but all France could hardly contain the co
ffins filled by that older and real Terror that unspeakably bitter and awful Terro
r which none of us has been taught to see in its vastness or pity as it deserves
.
permalinkparent
[ ]DongleNocker 2 points 5 hours ago
Don't you wish government organizations would get permission from congress prior
to assuming they have the authority?
permalink
[ ]Euracil 1 point 5 hours ago
Whoops! Someone just happened to spill wine all over the Bill of Rights! Well, a
t least the Second Amendment survived!
permalink
[ ]ripvannwinkler 1 point 5 hours ago
What is the practical operational radius of one of these things?
If my place of business or residence falls in this radius of an operating device
, is my phone subject to interception by the device?
If so, you require a warrant. Period. No equivocation.
permalink
[ ]bittopia 1 point 5 hours ago
What is going to be interesting is when systems and encryptions becomes so resil
ient and powerful that nothing can be spied on AT ALL. What will they do then?
permalink
[ ]johnnybullet 1 point 5 hours ago
I thought only God was listening to me... This changes everything!

permalink
[ ]TronicTonic 2 points 5 hours ago
Thank god the FBI is in charge of the judicial branch and gets to decide what is
right vs wrong.
permalink
[ ]Vinven 1 point 5 hours ago
They can say whatever they want, it doesn't make it legal.
permalink
[ ]coffeethulhu 2 points 5 hours ago
Under this theory anybody could buy one of these devices and use it in "public s
paces" without fear of falling foul of the law....Who wants to start a kickstart
er campaign to buy one?
permalink
[ ]redditezmode 1 point 5 hours ago
Based on what, exactly? Why would they think search warrants aren't necessary?
permalink
[ ]Fucksfuturefatchicks 1 point 4 hours ago
If it stops me from downloading porn, it's a dead giveaway. If it doesn't, thank
s for the government funded and sanctioned porn.
permalink
[ ]egalroc 1 point 4 hours ago
I wonder if the FBI can upload unsanctioned porn to your computer using a stingr
ay? Interesting thought isn't it?
permalinkparent
[ ]winsomecowboy 1 point 4 hours ago
So my clandestine FBI staff list shouldn't be an issue.
permalink
[ ]Heisenpurrrrg 1 point 4 hours ago
Those guys can fuck right off, eh?
permalink
[ ]cerealcable 1 point 4 hours ago
Every time an invasion of our rights & privacy especially related to our establi
shed forms of communications happens it just terrifies me. Not because our gover
nment is throwing wind to established laws but because of what the future could
bring.
The reason why most of us are upset today over this is because we have an expect
ation of privacy when we pick up our cell phones. We expect our text messages, p
hone calls and data to be private thus protected by law requiring a warrant to "
tap" it only for Law Enforcement. Telecoms (wired, wireless, voip) will only com
ply to requests when required by law, but when it comes to the public air waves
using technology to just listen in we're starting a terrible precedent.
Essentially what I'm concerned about is that eventually it'll be so commonly acc
epted that these communications are not private (after all the government can sn
oop in on those conversations, and everyone already expects it) and thus we no l
onger have the expectation of privacy and thus no warrant is actually acquired.
The terrifying process is how it all started, with the government over stepping
their legal abilities with little to no repercussions.
Now that I'm reading that paragraph again, I honestly wouldn't be surprised if t
hat exact argument is/was/will be used in a secret court of which none of us wil
l be able to hold accountable.
It's scary to see what the future will hold for privacy related to technology. O
ur government is doing anything and everything they want and if people aren't sc
ared they need to get some tinfoil and make some hats because they're going to n
eed them.
Obligatory point: As the government snoops more and more, technology will just e
ncrypt more and more making it nearly pointless for the snooping, but it won't c
hange the expectation of privacy after say a decade of common knowledge that the
se communications are not private. Then Law Enforcement Agencies will just subpo
ena records instead of following due process of getting a warrant.
tl;dr It's a very slippery slope and I'm just watching us slowly sliding further

and further into the trap. :-(


permalink
[ ]coalbeeashi 1 point 4 hours ago
Honest question - in the eyes of laws, is our view on "expectation of privacy" i
gnorant or misguided? When I send a text - even though I don't think about it I gave permission to Apple, AT&T, my friend, their carrier, their phone, and pro
bably countless others that I don't even realize. When I download an app I give
them all sorts of permissions to access my information.
Also, what's stopping the government from creating an app, let's say some crazed
game like Trivia Crack, hide a bunch of permissions that no one looks at and do
it that way. They could have access to my photos, access to my microphone, acce
ss to my location, etc. (obviously I understand that you can retract most of tho
se permissions, but I doubt many people do)
So, I guess my question is, using multiple third parties, do I really have the r
ight to expect complete privacy?
permalinkparent
[ ]Rockerofboats 2 points 4 hours ago
I do what I wants to.
permalink
[ ]Gymshortsboner55 2 points 4 hours ago
I'm not trying to sound like the uncle that's always bitchin' at family reunions
but man is this country going down the shitter. I'm almost ashamed to live here
anymore.
permalink
[ ]kazuri85 2 points 4 hours ago
The government has no right to make your property do something you do not want i
t to do.
permalink
[ ]SpacemanLurker 2 points 3 hours ago
Crikey! Australian accent
Too soon?
permalink
[ ]Undisclosed-dopeness 1 point 3 hours ago
Really wish this was about actual stingrays
permalink
[ ]k-h 1 point 3 hours ago
Is that the "stingrays" that don't exist?
Of course they don't need a warrant on equipment that doesn't exist.
permalink
[ ]PhorTwenny 2 points 3 hours ago
if it picks up all cells text/call/info how do they know your not inside a house
or anyother private area? Either way this is disgusting!
permalink
[ ]MarxIzalias 2 points 3 hours ago
The more of these that get posted, the harder I laugh at America's freedoms.
You pretty much have the same as everybody else.
It seems as though the constitution is like bog roll to your law enforcement. Co
vered in meaningless shit that doesn't even stick to them.
What a joke.
The FBI stating that 'stingrays' don't apply to privacy laws because you're in a
public place makes no sense, otherwise you could walk around butt naked and arg
ue that "According to the FBI, personal privacy is not required in public".
Of course, they could say, what any deceitful peice of trash could say. "If you
weren't doing anything illegal then you have nothing to worry about."
Unless you were talking to you solicitor about a patent. In which case it would
be worthless the moment a third party heard about the invention.
Talking to your doctor about a condition that could prejudice a group against yo
u.
Talking to a solicitor about the details of a case.
Talking to fellow jurors over the phone about a details of a case, that's always

good to be spied on.


Talk about family history and possible ties you might have to foreign nations, w
hich could put you on a watch list.
Give personal details to bankers about foreign business accounts which have diff
erent protection laws.
Discuss plans you may have that they could interfere with.
Or just miscellaneous emails to and from your employer that could be damaging to
the companies reputation if published and could be used against them as leverag
e with a false flag operation LOOKING AT YOU SONY!
This isn't even a comprehensive list of things that you could do, but hey, it's
America, the land where freedom is a lie and the constitution is apparently wort
h less and less with each new government. XFD
permalink
[ ]NightOfTheLivingHam 1 point 3 hours ago
while we're declaring bullshit, I declare I'm owed a million dollars.
permalink
[ ]ZedOud 1 point 3 hours ago
Most warrant-less law enforcement surveillance techniques are legal because they
can be performed by members of the public, in public. (ex. tailing)
So can we also legally operate a stingray?
Yes we can!
permalink
[ ]Wulfgar_RIP 1 point 3 hours ago
FBI protecting freedoms and constitution from terrorists
permalink
[ ]CantHugEveryCat 2 points 3 hours ago
I'm surprised the FBI still feel they have to justify their actions.
permalink
[ ]bazingabrain 0 points 3 hours ago
Here I am thinking the FBI is going to be throwing real stingrays around without
a search warrant. Can't have that
permalink
[ ]tobsn 1 point 3 hours ago
and whoever said that should be immediately terminated.
permalink
[ ]joshladd 1 point 3 hours ago
Didn't the supreme court just say that searching cell phones requires a warrant?
Is this different than searching cell phones? I might be uninformed but it seem
s like a blatant disregard for court rulings.
permalink
[ ]birdington1 1 point 3 hours ago
Can anybody explain what a 'stingray' is?
permalink
[ ]one_love_silvia 1 point 2 hours ago
the article explains it in literally the first paragraph.
permalinkparent
[ ]IllegalOperator 0 points 2 hours ago
Yeah right, dropping the case rather than reveal their methods says otherwise. I
f there weren't doing anything wrong they would have nothing to hide.
permalink
[ ]HauntedBeepers 1 point 2 hours ago
FBI says FBI can do what it wants
permalink
[ ]Fig1024 1 point 2 hours ago
does that mean I, as private citizen, can also use them? After all, there are no
laws against it
permalink
[ ]Monkeibusiness 1 point 2 hours ago
"FBI - out if control since 2001" -Simpsons
permalink

[ ]skztr 1 point 2 hours ago


good test for whether or not you need a warrant:
If any random person off the street did it, would that be legal? If not, you nee
d a fucking warrant.
permalink
[ ]Rusky82 1 point 2 hours ago
Land of the free eh......
permalink
[ ]WECGEWHYAAIORTNU 1 point 2 hours ago
So in some states its "wiretapping" to record with a microphone a conversation b
etween two people happening at a table, but pretending to be a cell tower is a-o
k?
permalink
[ ]Amanoo 1 point 2 hours ago
"concerned about whether the FBI and other law enforcement agencies have adequat
ely considered the privacy interests" of Americans
Privacy interests of Americans? Is that supposed to still be a thing? I thought
that privacy interests were considered something for terrorists in the US, by no
w.
permalink
[ ]raviddadford 1 point 2 hours ago
Stingray got Steve Irwin
permalink
[ ]Homarus_Americanus 1 point 2 hours ago
It's all good 'cause I can by me all guns I want.
permalink
[ ]anshu1234 0 points 2 hours ago
This is non-news if you are not a drug-peddler. Next please.
permalink
[ ]bubbafat1155 1 point 2 hours ago
It's over. "They" have won. The only hope now is for individuals, society is los
t. Get off the grid, or join the sheep. http://imgur.com/W7CdURh
permalink
[ ]Targun 1 point 2 hours ago
And how are they going to filter out cellphones of all the people who live next
to public places where stingray is located?
permalink
[ ]riderer 1 point 2 hours ago
So can i do the same in public place? just stingray everyone?
permalink
[ ]Neker 1 point 1 hour ago
There are blueprints and tutorials out there that put "stingrays" within reach o
f an hobbyist. Law-breaking hobbyist, that is, but still : mobile phones essenti
aly broadcast your conversations.
permalink
[ ]mindwandering 1 point 1 hour ago
The flying DRT box.
permalink
[ ]SilenceGivesConsent [score hidden] 48 minutes ago
In other words, FBI says it does not need search warrants to warrant a search.
permalink
[ ]Formally_Nightman [score hidden] 46 minutes ago
FBI: "Senator we have been monitoring your calls and your exact geographical loc
ation for years ... You shouldn't find that unconstitutional or the public and y
our wife will learn how unconstitutional you've been"
permalink
[ ]ActuallyNotSparticus [score hidden] 40 minutes ago
Fuck this shit. Stingrays killed the crocodile hunter. Are we ready for the gove
rnment to use these stingrays?
permalink

[ ]Rayhueston [score hidden] 38 minutes ago


The article says the Obama administration consistently maintains that people hav
e no privacy in public. Is that true or is that hyperbole?
If I'm walking down the street, do I have the right to keep the contents of my w
allet private? My blood type? My thoughts?
If I have no privacy with regard to these and many other sensitive things, who d
oes have the right to them?
permalink
[ ]swollennode [score hidden] 37 minutes ago
People don't have privacy in public places..hmmm, I think that people are entitl
ed to privacy if something private belongs to them. Sure, people's faces aren't
private when they're in public places. But people's phone calls and texts should
be.
permalink
[ ]pomod [score hidden] 18 minutes ago
Well if the FBI says they are not needed...
Seriously, this should be a court decision not a cop one. Cops, even a fancy cop
s like the FBI, should not make the laws just enforce them.
permalink
[ ]CJ59 [score hidden] 18 minutes ago
In other news, the FBI says, "You know what, screw it. There are no more laws. W
e'll do whatever the hell we want. Not like you're going to do anything about it
."
permalink
[ ]gkiltz [score hidden] 15 minutes ago
Just because the FBI says it, that does not mean it's true!
I don't envy the poor schmuck who has to stan in front of the Supreme Court and
argue that!!
permalink
load more comments (48 replies)
about
blog
about
team
source code
advertise
jobs
help
wiki
FAQ
reddiquette
rules
contact us
tools
mobile
firefox extension
chrome extension
buttons
widget
<3
reddit gold
store
redditgifts
reddit AMA app
reddit.tv
radio reddit
Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy
. 2015 reddit inc. All rights reserved.
REDDIT and the ALIEN Logo are registered trademarks of reddit inc.

p jump to content
MY SUBREDDITS
FRONT-ALL-RANDOM | PHOTOSHOPBATTLES-HISTORY-GIFS-FOOD-PHILOSOPHY-TELEVISION-WORL
DNEWS-SHOWERTHOUGHTS-LIFEPROTIPS-ART-SPACE-NOTTHEONION-DOCUMENTARIES-NOSLEEP-GAM
ING-GADGETS-EARTHPORN-ASKREDDIT-FUNNY-MOVIES-DIY-FUTUROLOGY-FITNESS-BOOKS-LISTEN
TOTHIS-INTERNETISBEAUTIFUL-MUSIC-EXPLAINLIKEIMFIVE-UPLIFTINGNEWS-SPORTS-PICS-TOD
AYILEARNED-PERSONALFINANCE-DATAISBEAUTIFUL-IAMA-OLDSCHOOLCOOL-EUROPE-CREEPY-TWOX
CHROMOSOMES-AWW-NEWS-WRITINGPROMPTS-GETMOTIVATED-VIDEOS-TIFU-ASKSCIENCE-JOKES-MI
LDLYINTERESTING-SCIENCE
MORE
news newscommentsrelatedother discussions (15)
want to join? sign in or create an account in seconds|English
this post was submitted on 05 Jan 2015
3,152 points (95% upvoted)
shortlink:
remember mereset passwordlogin
news
unsubscribe4,562,294 readers
2,631 users here now
/r/inthenews
/r/worldnews
new submissions
new comments
Post analysis/opinion articles to /r/inthenews
Want to talk?
Chat with us on IRC
Follow @rslashnews on Twitter
See a post that violates the rules below? Had your post stuck in the spam filter
? Have a question about policy? Just want to give feedback? Send the mod team a
message.
Please post news items only, with the exception of meta posts about /r/news itse
lf. Self-posts aggregating news data and "independent reporting" each count as n
ews, but are not an excuse to editorialize.
Your post will likely be removed if it:
is not news (or a meta post).
is an opinion/analysis or advocacy piece.
primarily concerns politics.
has a title not taken from the article.
has a pay wall or steals content.
covers an already-submitted story.
violates reddit's site-wide rules, especially regarding personal info.
Your comment will likely be removed if it:
is racist, sexist, vitriolic, or overly crude.
is unnecessarily rude or provocative.
is a cheap and distracting joke or meme.
is responding to spam.
violates reddit's site-wide rules.
Extreme or repeat offenders will be banned.
Expanded Rules
If your post doesn't fit, consider finding an appropriate news article on that s
tory to submit instead, or submitting yours to lower moderation subreddits:
/r/inthenews - all news-related content
/r/AnythingGoesNews - unrestricted news
/r/truereddit - insightful articles
/r/self - any self-post
/r/misc, /r/redditdotcom - anything
or other news subreddits:
/r/worldnews - from outside the USA only
/r/SyrianCivilWar - about the conflict in Syria

/r/MidEastRegionalWar - on MidEast conflict /r/UpliftingNews - uplifting


/r/mediaquotes - the things they say
or subreddits for other topics:
/r/FoodForThought - discussion-worthy long form articles about interesting subje
cts
/r/politics - for shouting about politics
/r/moderatepolitics - less shouting
/r/politicaldiscussion - even less shouting
/r/geopolitics - intl. politics and geography
/r/entertainment - Justin Bieber updates, etc.
/r/europe - news from Europe
or check out the 200 most active subreddits, categorized by content and the full
list of subreddits by subscribers.
Recommendations:
/r/redactedcharts
/r/patriots
/r/personalfinance
/r/restorethefourth
reddit is fun for Android and its subreddit /r/redditisfun
submit analysis/opinion article
submit news article
submit something else
submit analysis/opinion article
a community for 6 years
message the moderators
moderators
douglasmacarthur
KyldeThe Janitor
AyeMatey
CandyManCan
Elderthedog
LuckyBdx4
NickWasHere09
ani625
pomosexuality
IKingJeremy
...and 1 more
3152
FBI says search warrants not needed to use stingrays in public places (arstechnica
.com)
submitted 13 hours ago by doctorshady
731 commentsshare
top 500 comments
sorted by: best
[ ]peaceshark 654 points 11 hours ago
If only there were some branch of government that would keep the FBI in check, o
ne that judged people and organizations supremely...
permalink
[ ]misogichan 641 points 8 hours ago
Unfortunately the Catholic church has its hands full dealing with its own intern
al reforms and recasting its vision and mission.
permalinkparent
[ ]wutshappening 93 points 7 hours ago
And looking at cat photos that's why they're Cat-holic. Alco-holics are addicted
to alcohol and catholics well you get the idea.
permalinkparent
[ ]TuffLuffJimmy 142 points 6 hours ago
Omg dad you're embarrassing me in front of my friends
permalinkparent
[ ]okmkz 27 points 4 hours ago

We ain't your friends, bruh


permalinkparent
[ ]Corruptionss 4 points 2 hours ago
We ain't your bruh, friends
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
load more comments (2 replies)
[ ]ROLLINGtemple 9 points 5 hours ago
What's their Dogma?
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
load more comments (9 replies)
[ ]hershmire 73 points 7 hours ago
The courts gave up about ten years ago.
permalinkparent
[ ]endprism 50 points 7 hours ago
The courts are pwned by the surveillance state.
permalinkparent
[ ]sushisection 41 points 6 hours ago
This is what I'm afraid of. Nsa is collecting data from all citizens including p
oliticians and supreme court judges.
permalinkparent
[ ]dutchguilder2 19 points 5 hours ago
Whistleblower confirms: http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=d6m1XbWOfVk
permalinkparent
[ ]TwitchTV_Subbort 1 point 3 hours ago
D.C. is Hollywood for ugly people. best line ever!!
permalinkparent
[ ]sklite 1 point 1 hour ago
Charles Augustus Magnussen approves
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]CriticalThink 1 point 6 hours ago
Skeletons in the closet are easy to find with intelligence infrastructure.
permalinkparent
[ ]HurricaneSandyHook 1 point 5 hours ago
The 10th circuit a few days ago sided with the government saying the cops use of
doppler radar to see if anyone was inside a house was legal. They did say it is
a troubling tactic that needs further review and just left it at that....
permalinkparent
[ ]-_--___-_--_--___--_ 27 points 6 hours ago
One major problem with judicial review is that there must be a case for the cour
t to review. I guess the other avenue would be to sue the government, but I'm no
t an attorney so I don't know how that would work.
permalinkparent
[ ]downvotesmakemehard 14 points 4 hours ago
I believe the current court has taken the stance that to take up a case someone
has to show they've been harmed in some way.
The police will never say that stingray is the source of the evidence. This woul
d open stingray to be scrutinized. They will use stingray to go after phone comp
any records which they will claim they requested on a hunch or some other bullsh
it excuse.
permalinkparent
[ ]great_gape [score hidden] 29 minutes ago
Anonymous tip.
permalinkparent
load more comments (2 replies)
[ ]dissonance07 8 points 6 hours ago
With is wide a latitude as the current SCOTUS seems to give to individual libert
y, this seems like the one kind of thing that they could actually usefully addre

ss, right?
permalinkparent
[ ]MrBojangles528 1 point 5 hours ago
Scalia and the rest of the SCOTUS is bought and sold just like the rest of our g
overnment. They answer first and foremost to the parties that nominated them as
well as the corporations that own them.
permalinkparent
[ ]psilontech 12 points 5 hours ago
See, I don't get that. You get into the Supreme Court and you're golden. Unless
you are actively breaking the law and can be impeached, you're untouchable. Why
not, you know, do what's best for your country instead of remaining beholden to
the parasites that leveraged you into that position?
permalinkparent
[ ]Ratbasher88 14 points 4 hours ago
Yep, Supreme Court justices have a well established history of turning out way d
ifferent than their supporters thought they'd be. For whatever reason this curre
nt batch of justices seems more comfortable with the security state than their p
redecessors, however that's true for most Americans in general so I suppose it s
houldn't be shocking.
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]MrBojangles528 2 points 4 hours ago
Good question, but you'd have to ask them about it.
permalinkparent
[ ]cynoclast 0 points 3 hours ago
Unless you are actively breaking the law and can be impeached, you're untouchabl
e.
But you can get richer. Or have your personal communications made public.
permalinkparent
[ ]tughdffvdlfhegl 1 point 3 hours ago
Honestly? Because they run in those social circles. They're friends with the peo
ple at the top. They don't actively associate with "regular folk" that much.
They've been ingratiated into the upper echelons of society long before ever rea
ching the supreme court through lifetimes spent at the forefront of the legal pr
ofession. This insulates them from others, and leaves them in an echo chamber of
their peers.
Now, when a case comes up that pits one of their friends, or friends' friends ag
ainst some random angry dude who's only making 50k a year, who do you think they
automatically side with, when the case isn't cut and dried? I'm not even saying
it's conscious, but prejudices come in all kinds and run deep. Tribalism happen
s all the time in subtle ways.
Plus there's Scalia taking paid for hunting trips with people who are directly a
ffected by cases in front of him, all of them getting invited to dinners and fun
ctions of the DC elite, etc.
permalinkparent
[ ]pion3435 1 point 3 hours ago
They do. It's possible to disagree with you without being corrupt.
permalinkparent
[ ]Jagoonder 1 point 2 hours ago
Not in an omnipotent surveillance state, however.
permalinkparent
[ ]DownFromYesBad 1 point 2 hours ago
Money, bribery.
permalinkparent
[ ]neotropic9 1 point 1 hour ago
Because they are selected to be the type of people who think whats "best for the
ir country" is serving the parasites, the corporate oligarchs, and the surveilla
nce state. They support the status quo, and the status quo supports them. It wou
ld be a miracle if someone with real principles was actually brought into the Su
preme Court, let alone enough of them to form a majority.

permalinkparent
[ ]isprobablyatwork 1 point 1 hour ago
This does happen, sometimes. Good examples would be Justices Warren and Stevens.
They played along with the GOP right up until they were put on the Court, then
immediately started voting their actual conscience (or if not their conscience,
then at least not as their political backers wanted).
permalinkparent
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[ ]cynoclast 2 points 3 hours ago
You mean the press?
permalinkparent
[ ]scrapinpeg 3 points 6 hours ago*
Obligatory link to illustrated law.
EDIT: fixed link
permalinkparent
[ ]ducttapejedi 3 points 6 hours ago*
error 404, check the link.
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[+][deleted] 13 hours ago (56 children)
[ ]sunbolts 701 points 12 hours ago
Glad to see the FBI is tearing up the constitution to increase their own powers
and authority. /s
permalink
[ ]dontbullshityourself 325 points 11 hours ago
Glad to see the FBI is tearing up the constitution to increase their own powers
and authority
I wish this was just the FBI. Pretty much everybody in the federal, state and lo
cals are doing this. Have been doing for this quite some time too.
permalinkparent
[ ]sunbolts 136 points 10 hours ago
Precisely, and that's what makes this very frightening. The whole club's in on i
t.
permalinkparent
[ ]radonthetyrant 75 points 7 hours ago
but why.. I realize that these "zomg the terrorists!!!11" is only a PR-lie. What
do they really accomplish with this? Industry espionage? Bribes from the indust
ries which create the espionage hardware? Feeling of total control? Control the
masses so it all stays as conservative and corrupt as possible?
Why would you amass such a criminal energy to break constitutional laws just to
be able to see through everyone's communication?
permalinkparent
[ ]BettyRubbleIsHot 151 points 7 hours ago
Total control.
That way when the state has it, they can really put the boot on our necks. Think
they treat us poorly now? Just wait until they have the infrastructure in place
where they feel confident there are absolutely zero threats to their power. Tha
t's when shit is going to get BAD.
permalinkparent
[ ]b-LE-z_it 106 points 6 hours ago
And that's why, despite being terrified of some gun owners, despite being terrif
ied of mass shootings, I don't think we should ban guns, even combat rifles. It
can happen here, and we should at least make it hurt if and when it happens.
permalinkparent
[ ]7V3N 47 points 6 hours ago
Welcome to the list.
permalinkparent

[ ]M00glemuffins 10 points 5 hours ago


Sign me up too. If they try to pull a fast one on the public I'm not standing fo
r their bullshit.
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]FadingEchoes11 26 points 6 hours ago
*rifle. No "combat" rifles are owned by citizens
permalinkparent
[ ]b-LE-z_it 39 points 6 hours ago
Did I mention I don't know anything about guns? I don't know anything about guns
.
Point is, force is not something only people in power should have.
permalinkparent
[ ]teefour 19 points 6 hours ago
You should go to a shooting range and take a class. You won't be so unnecessaril
y afraid of them after that.
permalinkparent
[ ]Pullo_T 27 points 6 hours ago
He's not afraid of guns. He's afraid of some gun owners. At least, as far as we
know.
permalinkparent
continue this thread
load more comments (3 replies)
[ ]Bootsncatsn4 5 points 5 hours ago
i understand where youre coming from, but what will a bunch of angry townsfolk d
o to a predator drone strike?
permalinkparent
[ ]Oeboues 18 points 4 hours ago
You should ask the angry townsfolk of Iraq and Afghanistan.
Once the US military is done slinking away in shame, I mean.
permalinkparent
continue this thread
[ ]nuesuh 1 point 1 hour ago
Remove them. Predator drones are being operated from the ground, and has to land
after a couple hours to refuel.
permalinkparent
[ ]joe_m107 4 points 6 hours ago
Maybe we should change that. Repeal the NFA.
permalinkparent
load more comments (2 replies)
[ ]4nco1j 0 points 2 hours ago
You don't know much about guns, do you now.
permalinkparent
load more comments (6 replies)
[ ]conquer69 15 points 4 hours ago
You can have all the guns you want. That won't stop them from labeling you a "su
spected school shooter, pedophile or terrorist".
A gun can't protect you from that. A gun can't teach your fellow countryman to t
hink by themselves or see through propaganda.
Good luck destroying a drone, plane or tank with a rifle. Not sure how useful a
gun is against your own trained military with even better guns and more.
People thinking they can start a revolution and win with a handgun don't realize
this isn't the 1700's anymore.
permalinkparent
[ ]JimmyBuffer 14 points 4 hours ago
Better tell the Middle East they haven't had a bout of revolutions then
permalinkparent
load more comments (2 replies)
[ ]b-LE-z_it 7 points 4 hours ago
Didn't say we would win, I said we could at least make it hurt. Assuming, of cou

rse, that the American people themselves aren't the ones willingly handing in th
eir freedoms, which would mean we're all fucked immediately.
permalinkparent
[ ]theothercoolfish 13 points 2 hours ago
Assuming, of course, that the American people themselves aren't the ones willing
ly handing in their freedoms, which would mean we're all fucked immediately.
Err, you guys gave up much of your freedoms long ago. And it isn't just the US politicians everywhere are taking as much as they can get, because it's simply
more power for them. More power, more money, more control. It's not a conspiracy
- this is just how an imperfect system with inadequate controls eventually goes
. We need to start re-examining our systems and look at alternatives that are no
w possible with the internet.
permalinkparent
[ ]vynusmagnus 3 points 2 hours ago
Tell that to the insurgents in Afghanistan. It seems to me that the US military
has been unable to defeat them in over a decade of war, despite its overwhelming
technological superiority. Tanks and fighter jets are nice, but they do little
against a small guerrilla force that can disappear into the woodwork.
permalinkparent
[ ]Qoix 3 points 3 hours ago
I think the main issue with that line of thinking is that the military would gun
down the civilians it pledges to protect. How many people in the armed forces d
o you know? Now, are any of them willing to murder innocent people? Probably not
.
permalinkparent
[ ]ihcn 6 points 2 hours ago
They're not innocent people, they're armed revolutionaries, suspected terrorists
permalinkparent
[ ]chance-- 4 points 3 hours ago
You say that as if there isn't insurmountable evidence to the contrary.
Military coups are thoroughly woven into the fabric of humanity's history.
permalinkparent
[ ]theothercoolfish 1 point 2 hours ago
gun down the civilians it pledges to protect.
Err, they don't pledge to protect civilians. They pledge to protect the constitu
tion. And if they are convinced that these people are attempting to "subvert" th
e constitution, then they are enemies. Nevermind that their leaders have shat al
l over the constitution - soldiers take their orders and follow 'em.
Now, are any of them willing to murder innocent people?
lol.
permalinkparent
load more comments (2 replies)
[ ]eloquentnemesis [score hidden] 33 minutes ago
Welcome to 4th generation warfare. You don't need a better gun, or the ability t
o kill a drone, or anything else like that. You just need A gun and more commitm
ent than the other side.
permalinkparent
[ ]homegrowncountryboy [score hidden] 16 minutes ago*
Good luck with those tanks, planes and drones when the American people stop supp
lying fuel and ammunition. My brother is in the Army and he will tell you about
75%, or more of the military will disband and fight to protect the American peop
le. All you have to do is look at New Orleans during Katrina, when they got the
order to start confiscating guns almost all of them refused, instead it was main
ly police stealing people's weapons.
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]Hermit_ 2 points 5 hours ago
Yeah but if it does happen all people would be doing is creating the chaos one o
f the armed and militarized militias needs to take power. For example, The KKK.
permalinkparent

[ ]b-LE-z_it 1 point 5 hours ago


Hopefully not the KKK.
permalinkparent
[ ]AussieArcher 1 point 3 hours ago
Fuck me there's always one of you. I'm starting to think the gun club spends mor
e time on reddit than anyone.
permalinkparent
[ ]astronautg117 1 point 1 hour ago
What's a combat rifle going to do against a drone?
permalinkparent
[ ]datbino 1 point 1 hour ago
i think thats where 2nd ammendment people miss the mark- you owning a rifle will
do nothing against the government.
you becoming an active participating member in that government can help fix it,
the goal is to make you a kony2012 fb sharer rather than a person who gets to wo
rk and fixes shit
permalinkparent
[ ]mpg1846 1 point 1 hour ago
You think 50 guys with hand guns are going to do anything to anyone? Gun laws ar
e a joke.
permalinkparent
[ ]Actionbuilding 1 point 1 hour ago
The founders of the United States of America WANTED the citizens to rise up and
overthrow the government if it approached the levels of corruption it is current
ly working toward.
permalinkparent
load more comments (11 replies)
[ ]nuesuh 1 point 1 hour ago
Ever seen "Das Leben der Anderen"? Imagine this, just with total corruption and
100 times better technology. This is what we are moving towards. Imagine this sy
stem getting in the hands of someone like Hitler or Stalin.. And it can happen.
Before Hitler came to power Germany was a modern, western, christian nation. We
need safety with this technology. And when i say safety, i don't mean surveillan
ce. I mean the opposite.
permalinkparent
[ ]know_comment [score hidden] 14 minutes ago
I agree, but I think the reason for the infrastructure development is because it
is going to get bad. As we are forced to compete more globally, quality of life
stagnates. Even the slightest hint of austerity is going to be very painful for
the lower classes in a society with a large income disparity.
That's why we see the race baiting and divisive rhetoric being used so much. Kee
p the poor and working classes quibbling at each other.
I want you to consider the daffodil. And while you're doing that, I'll be over h
ere, looking through your stuff.
permalinkparent
[ ]mzackler 19 points 7 hours ago
It takes a really complicated answer to truly understand but you often get into
the us vs them mentality in siloed areas of law enforcement. You also often get
frustrated with the levels of proof you need to put the bad guy in jail. Thus an
y method you can use you feel justified in using. Although I think there are a l
ot of issues with The Wire, it's a great starting off point for a discussion if
you want a serious answer.
permalinkparent
load more comments (2 replies)
[ ]hershmire 30 points 7 hours ago
Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts, absolutely.
permalinkparent
[ ]TheNewRavager 70 points 6 hours ago
"All governments suffer a recurring problem: Power attracts pathological persona
lities. It is not that power corrupts but that it is magnetic to the corruptible

. Such people have a tendency to become drunk on violence, a condition to which


they are quickly addicted."
permalinkparent
[ ]gee_iwonderwhy 22 points 6 hours ago
Oh shit, a Dune quote outside /r/dune not about spice.
permalinkparent
[ ]TheNumberMuncher 3 points 6 hours ago
This is pretty cool.
permalinkparent
[ ]YawnDogg 1 point 3 hours ago
Gene Hackman was so kinky in that movie.
permalinkparent
[ ]ThreeTimesUp 2 points 2 hours ago
From a Guardian article by Glenn Greenwald I came across recently:
Inside the mind of NSA chief Gen Keith Alexander
Any casual review of human history proves how deeply irrational it is to believe
that powerful factions can be trusted to exercise vast surveillance power with
little accountability or transparency.
But the more they proudly flaunt their warped imperial hubris, the more irration
al it becomes.
permalinkparent
[ ]Epsilox 3 points 2 hours ago
I'm going to take an unpopular stance here and argue that they get more effectiv
e investigations. Which isn't to say I have no reservations about this stuff, be
cause I do.
I've worked in a field tangential to law enforcement, and I've had the unpleasan
t experience of watching very bad people act with impunity because law enforceme
nt had to play by the rules and they didn't. Does that justify the modern trend
towards more invasive government? Maybe that's just the price we pay to live in
a free society. I don't know. I'm a fan of the H.L. Mencken quote:
"The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's ti
me defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are f
irst aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopp
ed at all."
On the other hand, it's very hard to watch members of organized crime and other
monsters literally get away with murder.
In part the difficulty the lies in the infrastructure of modern society. Communi
cations move at such speed and in such quantity that the sort of pinpoint accura
cy required for effective investigations and prosecutions becomes much more diff
icult.
None of which is to say that what we're doing is necessarily right. I've felt th
e fear of writing an opinion online and knowing that the NSA can see it and ever
ything else I've ever written if they so choose. I've had that feeling of always
being watched. I know exactly what is meant by the danger of chilling free spee
ch, because it's happened to me. But I do tend to trust (perhaps naively) that,
for the most part, most of the people making these decisions have good intention
s. I've worked with many of them, and I believe that it more than anything is th
e result of them trying to do their jobs well. Whether they are actually protect
ing the American people or simply paving the road to hell, only time will really
tell.
permalinkparent
[ ]eyeforgot 4 points 6 hours ago
Think of all the blackmail material they have for any future politicians. They w
ill firmly be in check by the powers that be.
permalinkparent
[ ]ademnus 3 points 7 hours ago
Total control.
permalinkparent
[ ]NotAnotherDecoy 4 points 7 hours ago
Total control?

permalinkparent
[ ]leamas666 2 points 5 hours ago
Why would you amass such a criminal energy to break constitutional laws just to
be able to see through everyone's communication?
It's the deep state attempting to preserve its own regime continuity in the even
t of violent revolution.
permalinkparent
[ ]sunbolts 3 points 6 hours ago
Because those in power try to keep it and in addition, there is always a lust fo
r more power. One who is wealthy seeks to increase his riches usually, right? Sa
me thing going on here. In terms of practicality, there's no reason for breaking
constitutional laws, but when you realize how human nature functions in regards
to ambitions and power, well, what we see going on explains itself.
permalinkparent
[ ]Martenz05 1 point 3 hours ago
So, in order to become a political leader who really does work for the benefit o
f the people, one would somehow have to lose every shred of their humanity so th
ey wouldn't have a human nature that could be corrupted by ambition and power?
That sounds ominous, when I put it like that
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]RuthlessDickTater 1 point 5 hours ago
but why.. I realize that these "zomg the terrorists!!!11" is only a PR-lie.
Well pretty soon they might have their terrorists, but they'll be the domestic k
ind.
permalinkparent
[ ]karadan100 1 point 4 hours ago
More money.
permalinkparent
[ ]cynoclast 1 point 3 hours ago
What do they really accomplish with this?
Get rich.
permalinkparent
load more comments (7 replies)
[ ]TGlucifer 50 points 10 hours ago
Criminals learned it's just way easier to do their lawbreaking with a government
salary.
permalinkparent
[ ]pete1729 22 points 9 hours ago
Well, the benefits package is far more attractive.
permalinkparent
[ ]__ghostpants 25 points 7 hours ago
and somehow snitches go to jail instead of the criminals
permalinkparent
[ ]iismitch55 1 point 3 hours ago
Snitches get stitches. Whistleblowers get their mouth sowed shut.
permalinkparent
[ ]HandsOffMyDitka 5 points 5 hours ago
Why break a law, when you can just change it.
permalinkparent
[ ]moresmarterthanyou 2 points 5 hours ago
except when they have to answer questions themselves...
permalinkparent
[ ]dontbullshityourself 1 point 5 hours ago
Well you know liberty is wasted on peasant swine 'eh?
permalinkparent
[ ]ButterflyAttack 1 point 4 hours ago
Sounds like the constitution doesn't mean much at this point. . .
permalinkparent
[ ]dontbullshityourself 1 point 3 hours ago

Sounds like the constitution doesn't mean much at this point. . .


All it means is that the scum who rule us have a legal contract that they say ba
cks up all their power. But their actions shit all over that document.
President Obama, a constitutional law professor ordered the deaths of two US cit
izens without trial in EXPRESS and DIRECT violation of the constitution.
permalinkparent
load more comments (4 replies)
[ ]Eurynom0s 68 points 9 hours ago
And on top of it, even if being in public was a justification for this, how the
fuck do you prevent the device from nabbing people who are inside their own hous
e or apartment as well?
Oh right, you can't, because that's not how radio waves work.
permalinkparent
[ ]Ioneos 18 points 8 hours ago
You can increase the noise gate to reduce range on purpose, but what good would
that do to keep the terrorists citizens under scrutiny.
permalinkparent
[ ]Eurynom0s 20 points 8 hours ago
Even if they were going to do that, I can't imagine that you could do it to a su
fficient degree in a place like NYC to not scoop up at least some people inside
of buildings.
permalinkparent
load more comments (5 replies)
[ ]Codoro 1 point 4 hours ago
I foresee turning your house into a Faraday Cage being the cop radar finder of t
omorrow.
permalinkparent
[ ]Kenny_Login 23 points 7 hours ago
Taxation without representation, an income far below what the productivity was v
alued at, government intrusion? The founding fathers (you know, those "heroes" o
f our nation) got much more pissed off for much less.
permalinkparent
[ ]Socialdem 8 points 5 hours ago
Can you really blame them? The Constitution was written when people were still r
iding on horses. There's no way the founding fathers could have anticipated the
advances in technology and the way people communicate. I think we're due for a f
irmware upgrade.
permalinkparent
[ ]upandrunning 11 points 3 hours ago
Yes, it's called 'replacing congress'. What we're seeing is a natural consequenc
e of career politicians. Most of the people in office have gotten so comfortable
with the idea that they'll get reelected that what they actually do during thei
r term is almost irrelevent.
permalinkparent
[ ]theothercoolfish 2 points 2 hours ago
Exactly. I think we should look at sortition - with an approval vote, and extrem
ely strict rules on what sort of laws can be passed (eg any law must apply equal
ly to everyone - protecting the minority), and a approval bonus for the randomly
selected representatives if the public approves. Fuck career politicians - they
've proven themselves wholly incapable, and the system that supports them is too
corruptible. I don't think campaign finance reform will 1) ever happen 2) adequ
ately deal with institutional corruption.
permalinkparent
[ ]NuclearWookiee 0 points 2 hours ago
All of this should be covered, in any reasonable interpretation, by the Fourth a
mendment. Rebooting who change anything if the limits on government are ignored.
permalinkparent
[ ]KalAl 1 point 1 hour ago
Do you update your firmware by smashing your bios chip with a hammer?
permalinkparent

[ ]FireFromTheWire 4 points 6 hours ago


You're just another Steve Irwin to them.
permalinkparent
[ ]iismitch55 2 points 3 hours ago
Too soon mate :'(
permalinkparent
[ ]Penguin_in_the_sand 1 point 1 hour ago*
I am curious to know what this comment means?... Oh! Steve Irwin was killed by a
stingray. I thought you may have been referring to some conspiracy relating the
Steve Irwin's death. He had an American wife and both were invited to Howard's
Bush BBQ. http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/10/27/1067233100397.html
permalinkparent
[ ]gloubenterder 2 points 1 hour ago
Steve Irwin was a wildlife documentary filmmaker who was well-known for getting
up close and personal with dangerous animals such as crocodiles and komodo drago
ns.
He was pierced through a heart by a stingray in 2006, while shooting footage for
a documentary called Ocean's Deadliest.
After his death, stingrays had a period of great infamy, and there were even rep
orts of people killing and mutilating stingrays as vengeance for Steve Irwin. ..
.which, of course, is the last thing Irwin would have wanted; he was a conservat
ionist, and whenever he was injured by an animal he was studying, he would alway
s clarify to the viewer that that was his own fault and a risk he was aware of.
permalinkparent
[ ]Agent-BurtMacklinFBI 1 point 5 hours ago
Don't worry I'm keeping a look out
permalinkparent
[ ]pion3435 1 point 3 hours ago
It's not a constitutional issue. It might be an FCC one, but they just do whatev
er they're told anyway.
permalinkparent
[ ]dntur 1 point 3 hours ago
theoretically, every cell tower is in a public place. Why not just attach a stin
gray to all of them? Think of the money mobile companies could make renting towe
r space! next comes google who wants to know who you are calling on your iphone
and windows phone for better directed advertising, followed by Bing. /s
permalinkparent
[ ]Brian3232 [score hidden] 46 minutes ago
Why are they wrong? You already can take pictures of people in public places wit
hout warrant
permalinkparent
[ ]GaltsGulchTouristInf [score hidden] 24 minutes ago
When the constitution, the supreme law of the land, the contract between the gov
ernment and the people, is violated, this violating it should be banned from 'pu
blic service' for life, should be personally liable to those whose rights they v
iolated, and should forfeit their government pension and benefits.
permalinkparent
[ ]wtfmuck [score hidden] 17 minutes ago
It's sad how they shirk doing what is right for what is easy.
permalinkparent
load more comments (8 replies)
[ ]quiteintriguing 127 points 12 hours ago
I think it's about time these fuckers provided some evidence that privacy invadi
ng is helping stop crime or terrorism. As far as I can see, there is an Islamic
army in the middle east right now filled with westerners that simply flew over a
nd caught a bus. Nice job government agencies, you sure showed us.
permalink
[ ]HappyAtavism 81 points 11 hours ago
I think it's about time these fuckers provided some evidence that privacy invadi
ng is helping stop crime or terrorism.

Even more importantly they should provide evidence that they're not violating th
e 4th Amendment. The Bill of Rights doesn't say it applies only when convenient.
P.S. I agree that repeated failures to demonstrate the effectiveness of these th
ings, or lies which get "corrected", is yet another reason why this stuff is BS,
but the Constitution is first and foremost. Don't like the 4th Amendment? Try t
o repeal it. Until then it's in force.
permalinkparent
[ ]7u5 3 points 5 hours ago
The "checks and balances" of the judiciary are a farce. They are free to "interp
ret" the Constitution as they see fit.
permalinkparent
load more comments (3 replies)
[ ]DiaperParty 9 points 3 hours ago
Fuck that. FUUUCK that. If this did stop terrorists, it would still not be worth
the violation of rights. We absolutely CANNOT start OKing this shit as long as
it "stops bad guys."
permalinkparent
[ ]quiteintriguing 1 point 3 hours ago
I think you misunderstood. I think they should have to back up their justificati
on, which they obviously can't.
permalinkparent
[ ]DiaperParty 4 points 3 hours ago
But if we ask them to, we lend legitimacy to that claim. We need to say from the
get go that no justification is needed because none will be sufficient.
permalinkparent
[ ]ebouwman 7 points 5 hours ago
In Canada we had the Ottawa shooting and that dude that ran over some soldiers.
Correct me if I'm wrong but both these guys had had their passports revoked.
I'm not a fan of letting them just go over and fight a dirty war but wtf.
permalinkparent
[ ]Ceejae 4 points 4 hours ago
But so what if it is? How successful the program is is irrelevant.
I'm sure if they set up a government camera in every home they'd stop plenty of
murders and rapes.
permalinkparent
load more comments (2 replies)
[ ]cassieloveseffie 5 points 2 hours ago
Well we all know that the FBI has followed people like John Lennon who believed
in radical peace, urged MLK to kill himself and was prepared to assassinate occu
py members. It is not about crime, it is about maintaining a status quo.
permalinkparent
[ ]monopixel 2 points 1 hour ago
was prepared to assassinate occupy members.
Interesting, where can I read up about this?
permalinkparent
[ ]wirepants 4 points 4 hours ago
Locking everyone in solitary could stop crime and terrorism too. That's not a go
od enough reason to violate our rights even if it was working.
permalinkparent
[ ]egodeath92 2 points 5 hours ago
Shh that's classified. This entire country would be a post-apocalyptic dirt-patc
h is not for the heroic NSA collecting dirt on most of the country.
permalinkparent
[ ]pion3435 1 point 3 hours ago
You had no privacy in the first place. That's not how cell phones work.
permalinkparent
load more comments (6 replies)
[ ]MashItMatt 143 points 13 hours ago
Obviously these are constitution free zones, citizen.
permalink

[ ]THANKS-FOR-THE-GOLD 22 points 7 hours ago


Embrace democracy or you will be eradicated
permalinkparent
[ ]jroddie4 14 points 5 hours ago
Citizen, pick up that can.
permalinkparent
[ ]douko 3 points 5 hours ago
This image won't even load (here's another one), but I still know what it is.
DEATH IS A PREFERABLE ALTERNATIVE TO COMMUNISM.
COMMUNISM IS THE VERY DEFINITION OF FAILURE!
permalinkparent
[ ]chewysquirrel 15 points 6 hours ago
Approximately 2/3 of Americans live in a "constitution free zone"
permalinkparent
[ ]newpolitics 50 points 10 hours ago
The Federal Bureau of Investigation is taking the position that court warrants a
re not required when deploying cell-site simulators in public places. Nicknamed
"stingrays," the devices are decoy cell towers that capture locations and identi
ties of mobile phone users and can intercept calls and texts.
So nobody has any expectation of privacy? Talking out of their asses. The implic
ation that a warrant shouldn't be needed to intercept someone's text messages, i
s outrageous.
permalink
[ ]acerplatanoides [score hidden] 16 minutes ago
The implication that a warrant shouldn't be needed to intercept someone's text m
essages, is outrageous.
The implication of intercepting a PRESS related text message, and thus also supp
ressing a free press.
I think many of these are used to stop uploading of images to social medial. You
ever tried that during a demonstration?
permalinkparent
[ ]dalasocatyemerc 67 points 9 hours ago
Hmm, I didn't realize the FBI had the authority to ignore the constitution of th
e United States of America.
Maybe this organization doesn't actually serve Americans. That's what I think
permalink
[ ]Jagoonder 17 points 2 hours ago
They don't. However, lets look at their 3rd criteria:
(3) cases in which the technology is used in public places or other locations at
which the FBI deems there is no reasonable expectation of privacy.
In public, noone has an expectation to privacy. SCOTUS has ruled on such. Theref
ore, it could be argued that phone conversations in public places forfeits at le
ast one party's rights to privacy.
There are a couple of problems with this. First, Stingray is indiscriminate. Sec
ond, the other party of the phone conversation may be in their own home thus hav
ing an expectation of privacy.
I don't know how law works in regards to phone tapping. But, I would assume that
any warrant to do so would provide the agency a waiver on a second party's priv
acy protections when conversing with the target of the warrant. Except in the ca
se of Stingray no warrant was ever obtained thus, no waiver, thus the second par
ty probably still has privacy protections.
So, I think it's bullshit. I'm no lawyer. I suspect the FBI also knows it's bull
shit. But, the more excuses they can come up with to bend the law around their w
ill the more time it takes to try to stop them since each instance requires anot
her court decision.
permalinkparent
[ ]punkrampant 13 points 1 hour ago
There's only "no expectation of privacy" in public in terms of video+camera surv
eillance. People still get disturbed if you look over their shoulder at their ph
one, or listen to a conversation.

Text messages, emails, phone calls, all of it, are the modern day written letter
s. What the FBI is trying to do is the equivalent of setting up a post office th
at opens everyone's envelopes and makes copies of all the contents.
permalinkparent
[ ]Jagoonder 5 points 1 hour ago
Text messages, emails, phone calls, all of it, are the modern day written letter
s. What the FBI is trying to do is the equivalent of setting up a post office th
at opens everyone's envelopes and makes copies of all the contents.
You're right. I was focusing on an actual phone conversation where one party cou
ld be overheard by others, thus no expectation to privacy.
permalinkparent
[ ]Cambodian_Drug_Mule 2 points 1 hour ago
Surely there are people with technical expertise that can just fuck their shit u
p. If I'm not mistaken the stingrays were detected with consumer grade electroni
cs. If everyone just looked out for them and pinned where they are at on a map,
couldn't some people with the technical know how take them offline?
permalinkparent
[ ]monopixel 1 point 1 hour ago
Hmm, I didn't realize the FBI had the authority to ignore the constitution of th
e United States of America.
The US government and its agencies has been doing it for ages.
permalinkparent
[ ]rtpg 40 points 6 hours ago
Surprised nobody's mentioned Kyllo v. United States yet.
This is fairly recent (2001) jurisprudence. The gov't used a thermal imager, and
saw that there were heat lamps inside of a house, and used that to get a search
warrant. The gov't argued that, well, the heat was outside, so pretty much publ
ic information.
The courts disagreed and ruled this an illegal search. Main reason being that no
t many people have thermal imagers, so there's a reasonable expectation of priva
cy. I think even less people have stingrays, so even from the "discovering that
someone has a cell phone" aspect, there's unreasonableness in the search.
Now to the wiretapping aspect... there's Katz v. United States. Here, somebody w
as in a phone booth, and the feds had set a microphone outside the phone booth w
ithout warrant (so not exactly a wiretap). Again, the courts ruled this an unrea
sonable search.
A part of the ruling:
Regardless of the location, a conversation is protected from unreasonable search
and seizure under the Fourth Amendment if it is made with a "reasonable expecta
tion of privacy".
Text messages definitely fall under this. I can't see this holding up for 2 seco
nds in court.
The article goes into it into detail, but few of the FBI's interpretations on pr
ivacy have been holding up in courts recently. The system is kind of working, an
d this interpretation will be shut down as well. Now, if only everyone had good
lawyers...
permalink
[ ]ryewheats 7 points 4 hours ago
But the biggest problem I see would be them not declaring how they gathered any
information they collected in the first place. It would be pretty easy to skirt
around the system and act like you caught the suspect red-handed (because you we
re tipped off by illegal searches). That is the really scary part.
permalinkparent
[ ]argv_minus_one 5 points 3 hours ago
This practice is known as "parallel construction".
permalinkparent
[ ]tughdffvdlfhegl 3 points 3 hours ago
Honestly, this is the biggest concern. The courts won't allow a challenge becaus
e no one will have standing, because the feds/police won't actively declare this
as evidence in a trial. Meanwhile, they'll continue to use it, having a chillin

g effect on the press and others (which the courts have not seen in recent histo
ry as sufficient to provide legal standing).
permalinkparent
[ ]JustaChimp 3 points 5 hours ago
With the Katz v US case, it took them 39 years to overturn the Olmstead v US rul
ing. Let's hope it takes a little less time for this medium.
The recent Romano v Steelcase Inc. court case could indicate how the courts will
rule in the short term with regards to "reasonable expectation of privacy" thou
gh this ruling was in the context of social media and not text messages. The ana
logy was made that much like a letter writer has no reasonable expectation of pr
ivacy once the recipient is in possession of the letter, neither does the post's
author. Same could be extended to text messages and would be equally as trouble
some.
permalinkparent
[ ]qdarius 1 point 3 hours ago
Damn, that doesn't seem right at all. If I send someone a letter I definitely ex
pect that only they will read it.
Could anyone expand on the logic that a letter writer has no reasonable expectat
ion of privacy?
permalinkparent
[ ]Boltaeg 1 point 3 hours ago
After that letter is given to the recipient, they can do whatever they want with
it without you knowing. They could copy it, show it to friends, frame it and pu
t it on their wall....etc. You have no control over that and must assume that an
ything you write in a letter can be disclosed in some manner, simply because you
have no control over that persons actions.
As to why that is the case, I have no idea. Especially considering it is illegal
to open someone elses mail, but perfectly legal to read someone else's letter o
nce they open it. At least that is my understanding of it.
permalinkparent
[ ]TheMightyBarbarian 1 point 3 hours ago
Its fairly simple, you sent a letter, until it is received by the intended recip
ient it has federal protections. Once the recipient receives it, they are free t
o do with it as they wish, even if you disagree with what they do, specifically
because the letter is now their property, even though you wrote it.
permalinkparent
[ ]qdarius 1 point 2 hours ago
I understand that. But if someone else intercepts my letter shouldn't that still
be illegal?
Maybe I'm misunderstanding how stingrays work but it seems like they're basicall
y designed to intercept hundreds of messages.
permalinkparent
[ ]TheMightyBarbarian 1 point 2 hours ago
Intercept isn't illegal, its sketchy but not illegal. As for reading it, it's a
grey area since texts are not encrypted and even if they were it would do shit i
f billions of devices can decrypt them. So unless you use something like a messe
nger system that can use basic encrypting. It won't stop the FBI from reading it
, but it does show you took steps to have a private conversation and that's what
matters to the court.
permalinkparent
[ ]coalbeeashi 1 point 3 hours ago
Re: Katz v. United States
Certain details, such as shutting the door on the telephone booth, help determin
e if a person intends for a conversation to be private. Thus, private conversati
ons can be made in public areas.
What steps is the average Joe taking to exhibit a reasonable expectation of priv
acy regarding his/her data usage? Honest question.
permalinkparent
[ ]TheMightyBarbarian 1 point 2 hours ago
Beyond using a VPN to mimic another location, not much really. Since there are m

any devices involved in the process of just looking up a website. Ex. You google
Microsoft. Here are all the parties involved: You, Your ISP, Google, Microsoft.
That's four parties involved and that's assuming you are not using a Phones Mob
ile Data plan and are using WiFi. Because then it can add a few more people invo
lved.
Sure you should have protection just the same, but currently the law doesn't rec
ognize that, because the people in charge dont understand how any of it works.
permalinkparent
[ ]rtpg [score hidden] 54 minutes ago
I would say that cultural norms kind of define that in that it is extremely rude
to look at another stranger's phone while they are using it to browse/look at t
heir emails/whatever. Not the most solid argument, I know.
permalinkparent
[ ]Sic_SemperTyrannis 1 point 2 hours ago
When the use of stingrays is challenged in court police have dropped the cases r
ather than explain their use of stingrays.
permalinkparent
[ ]cassieloveseffie 1 point 2 hours ago
I have seen a printed record of every one of someone's txt messages for 6 months
. Never assume txt messages are private.
permalinkparent
[ ]Ladderjack 29 points 12 hours ago
I'm sorry, have they gone ahead and combined the FBI and the Supreme Court of th
e United States of America? No? Well, we will see how long this lasts. . .
permalink
[ ]butitssnot 46 points 7 hours ago
Its ok. In 2016 we can vote for hope and change and transparency and fix all thi
s.
permalinkparent
[ ]CriticalThink 3 points 5 hours ago
yeah. I bet Hillary will fix this mess, right Reddit?
permalinkparent
[ ]TheMightyBarbarian 1 point 2 hours ago
We still got time before they can start promoting themselves for President, lega
lly actually, they can't start until a certain number of days from the election.
permalinkparent
[ ]looneybandito 5 points 6 hours ago
Haha. As if our votes matter.
permalinkparent
[ ]atomofconsumption 9 points 5 hours ago
thatsthejoke.jpg
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]dichroeyes 1 point 4 hours ago
You are right. I give up. Long live the hegemony.
permalinkparent
[ ]Pikaflu 1 point 3 hours ago
America is an irradiated wasteland. Within it lies a city. Outside the boundary
walls, a desert. A cursed earth. Inside the walls, a cursed city, stretching fro
m Boston to Washington D.C. An unbroken concrete landscape. 800 million people l
iving in the ruin of the old world and the mega structures of the new one. Mega
blocks. Mega highways. Mega City One. Convulsing. Choking. Breaking under its ow
n weight. Citizens in fear of the street. The gun. The gang. Only one thing figh
ting for order in the chaos: the men and women of the Hall of Justice. Juries. E
xecutioners. Judges.
permalinkparent
[ ]Ago_Solvo 36 points 9 hours ago
I'm sure that means that stingrays are also open for public hacking in that case
, because they're in a public place, and doing so can't be considered an intrusi
on on government properties or a violation of any Federal Law.

permalink
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]whysopositive 57 points 12 hours ago
Say whatever you want, you don't think big brother is going to find every way to
spy on you?
The thing is I bet every time we the people get upset about some "new" trespass
against our rights there's already something technologically beyond our knowledg
e being put to use to on us now.
permalink
[ ]I_SPLIT_INFINITIVES 16 points 7 hours ago
My dad always said, "If that's what they're telling us they have now, they proba
bly had it ten years ago. Just imagine what they really have."
permalinkparent
[ ]oOTHX1138Oo 28 points 9 hours ago
Thats why we need to add to the bill of rights, so that we continue to be protec
ted in the digital age.
permalinkparent
[ ]TheBlueWaffleHouse 18 points 8 hours ago
At this point in time the bill of rights only shrinks. It doesn't get bigger.
permalinkparent
[ ]tallerthanunicorngod 33 points 7 hours ago
Not with that attitude.
permalinkparent
[ ]mattacular2001 3 points 5 hours ago
Doesn't matter unless you're wealthy
permalinkparent
[ ]tallerthanunicorngod 1 point 2 hours ago
Wealthy people don't like to be spied on either. Honestly, they probably like it
even less.
permalinkparent
[ ]sockgorilla 1 point 5 hours ago
He's John Titor, he's watched it before.
permalinkparent
[ ]mastahslayah 1 point 4 hours ago
Well he isn't getting any of my Dr. Pepper.
permalinkparent
[ ]Poor__Yorick 1 point 2 hours ago
Wow that's a name I haven't heard in a while.
We've got a world war this year though.
3 billion dead by the end of it.
permalinkparent
load more comments (5 replies)
[ ]pion3435 1 point 3 hours ago
We already did. That's the point of laws like HIPAA. There's just no equivalent
for things like email or cell phones so it's legal to see whatever people are na
ively broadcasting.
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]ZomNomNomBeeZ 5 points 7 hours ago
This technology is not particularly new. The man-in-the-middle attack is a class
ic hacking technique. I remember reading an article after one of the security co
nventions detailing a small group of participants that used a remote control air
plane to do this exact thing to convention attendees. This was years ago.
permalinkparent
[ ]hershmire 4 points 7 hours ago
Which is why it's illegality could be successfully code into law.
permalinkparent
[ ]TheMightyBarbarian 1 point 3 hours ago
That's the problem, the people who make the laws don't understand how the techno
logy works, and the people making and using it are telling them its fine, so the

y don't feel like they need to make a law about.


And as such making a law about it would be bad, since the law would need specifi
c language to prevent certain technologies and usage of such. But the biggest is
sue is that some of the technology and uses are too general that it would never
work to stop anything. Since they can't just write a law preventing man in the m
iddle because they need to get a definitive wording on what that is exactly and
then word it so a slight variation doesn't just immediately skirt the new law.
Our technology grew faster than our laws did, but now it's grown faster than our
ability to properly define what it is we do. So controlling it is incredibly ha
rd and will take a long time, so for now we kinda have to suck it up and wait, b
ecause the worst possible thing is them putting out ineffective laws that do les
s than nothing to prevent stuff like that and hearing us complain and think we a
re whining when they just put out a law. I would rather wait a little longer to
make sure the law is proper and effective than to have a crap law screw everythi
ng up.
permalinkparent
[ ]ScorpionPool 1 point 6 hours ago
Serious question. What benefits does the government get from spying on us? Power
? Information for corporations? Shits and giggles? Some kind of profit?
permalinkparent
[ ]swingmemallet 2 points 5 hours ago
All of the above
permalinkparent
[ ]eyeforgot 1 point 5 hours ago*
What like complete access to what anyone posts/chats about on facebook/skype bei
ng dumped into a database? Anyone who work with cisco routers notice anything fu
nny like carefully crafted packets fucking w. the settings and not creating logs
. Maybe like there is a back door that someone has that doesn't require a passwo
rd.
permalinkparent
load more comments (3 replies)
[ ]philtech 26 points 10 hours ago
You can scan for stingray use.
Only works on rooted phones with Qualcomm chipset however. https://play.google.c
om/store/apps/details?id=de.srlabs.snoopsnitch&hl=en
permalink
[ ]vamper 2 points 6 hours ago
damn, no go for my nexus 5
permalinkparent
[ ]Ice_Pirate 1 point 5 hours ago
Should work on my 20 dollar ZTE's with dualies :). Overclocks to 1.8 like butta.
http://www.phonearena.com/phones/ZTE-N800_id8191
permalinkparent
[ ]willyboxc 1 point 2 hours ago
we need a version that will work without root :(
permalinkparent
[ ]networklackey 49 points 11 hours ago*
Bullshit... it's radio. They have no way of determining whether the person they
are monitoring is in public or not.
They shouldn't be able to use this without a warrant any more than they should b
e able to point a laser mic at your window.
The fact that they are in public is irrelevant... the subject they are monitorin
g has to be in public.
permalink
[ ]lll_1_lll 29 points 6 hours ago
Even if we are in public, what the fuck gives them the right to look through my
texts, phone calls, voicemails, emails, call history, etc?
permalinkparent
[ ]zoidbug 5 points 3 hours ago
It should be protected the level of paper mail. It is your private communication

s.
permalinkparent
[ ]networklackey 1 point 2 hours ago
Technically... because you are in public and are broadcasting. But I feel the sa
me way. None of this shit should be legal.
permalinkparent
load more comments (6 replies)
[ ]goatmagic 2 points 3 hours ago
laser mic
Well, TIL this exists :/
permalinkparent
[ ]networklackey 2 points 2 hours ago
They absolutely exist and they are freaking awesome. They should not however be
used by law enforcement without a warrant.
permalinkparent
[ ]makingupdumbnames 1 point 5 hours ago
I think it's that their airwaves cross public space. pls correct me if I'm wrong
, though
permalinkparent
[ ]networklackey 1 point 2 hours ago
That's certainly the argument they are making.
permalinkparent
[ ]wirepants 1 point 4 hours ago
Even assuming you are in public, who's to say the guy on the other side is too?
permalinkparent
[ ]networklackey 1 point 2 hours ago
Nothing but their log books but that doesn't really matter. It's your right to p
rivacy they are violating.
permalinkparent
[ ]Sarah_Connor 9 points 9 hours ago
We need a way to be able to identify, then jamm, stingrays.
permalink
[ ]cookie_nrk 8 points 7 hours ago
This Jammer made in sweden should do the trick. From what I have read it complet
ely blocks all signals, so using a phone wouldn't work at all, but if you were i
n a position to not want to be tracked during a certain time, you could use this
: http://www.jammer-store.com/monstro-10-all-frequencies-portable-jammer.html
permalinkparent
[ ]hershmire 10 points 7 hours ago
We're talking about blanket monitoring of civilians. It needs to be outlawed imm
ediately. Hoping each and every Joe Schmoe is going to buy an illegal cell phone
jammer to protect his identity is, well, ridiculous.
permalinkparent
[ ]davidverner 6 points 7 hours ago
Jammers are illegal in the US on the cellphone frequency. Good luck importing on
e.
permalinkparent
[ ]wicard 5 points 6 hours ago
had one from deal extreme i bought when i was younger to prank friends, was alot
of fun. But if you are worried about being tracked wouldn't just shutting your
phone off do the trick? If you are jamming your phone you arnt going to be talki
ng to anyone.
permalinkparent
[ ]RellenD 4 points 5 hours ago
You have to do more than just turn it off, unfortunately.
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]willyboxc 1 point 2 hours ago
we need the schematics so we can build one... also include 700 mhz jam for lte
permalinkparent

load more comments (1 reply)


[ ]ademnus 11 points 7 hours ago
That's nice but it's not up to the FBI if it is illegal or not.
permalink
[ ]MonitoredCitizen 21 points 7 hours ago
Come on Google and Apple, stop being so lame. Make the phones themselves defend
against this by always displaying the negotiated encryption level and allowing u
ser to configure the phone to refuse to connect if the GSM encryption level is A
5/0.
permalink
[ ]argv_minus_one 2 points 2 hours ago
If they do that, these same spooks will have some words with their CEOs. Otherwi
se, yeah, they likely would.
permalinkparent
[ ]vzzzbux 2 points 1 hour ago
Not sure on the technical specifics but my old Nokia from 10 years ago used to s
how a padlock if the call was "secure", which I guess meant it was encrypted in
some way.
Sounds like yet another way we've gone backwards with the rise of Google and App
le
permalinkparent
[ ]cryptovariable 180 points 12 hours ago
This seems icky, but anyone with a Raspberry Pi ($48.00), an RTL-SDR ($17.00), a
nd an ability to follow written step-by-step instructions on how to install and
configure some open source software ($0.00) can do this, albeit on a smaller sca
le.
That tutorial doesn't cover decrypting GSM traffic. This one does. You'll need s
omething faster than a Raspberry Pi, though. Maybe a $200 netbook.
And you can do it on the same scale as the police with a surplus commercial ante
nna and three or four friends.
I don't see how restricting the government's ability to do this would have any o
ther effect than to criminalize a private citizen's desire to experiment with GS
M.
permalink
[ ]HappyAtavism 113 points 11 hours ago
I don't see how restricting the government's ability to do this would have any o
ther effect than to criminalize a private citizen's desire to experiment with GS
M.
Experiment with GSM all you want, just don't eavesdrop or commit fraud by preten
ding to be part of a legitimate business.
I like to play with miniature cameras, microphones and transmitters. That's a fi
ne hobby as long as I don't use it to spy on my neighbors.
permalinkparent
load more comments (5 replies)
[ ]mr___ 50 points 12 hours ago
But theirs has a transmitter, and actively spoofs cell sites
permalinkparent
[ ]cryptovariable 55 points 12 hours ago
It you want to spoof rather than just eavesdrop all you have to do is buy any of
the SDR kits that are coming on to the market like a bladeRF or something and h
ave GNUradio (which hilariously autocorrects to FBI radio on my phone) pretend t
o be a tower, the credentials of which you sniffed with your Pi setup.
The reason the Feds spoof is so that they can target specific devices on a white
list and only have those connect. The size of the whitelist is unknown and up fo
r debate.
If you're capturing and decrypting all the GSM your antenna can receive you don'
t care if you're spoofing the tower unless you want to modify the traffic in som
e way. To quote Sir Patrick Stewart: "It's too late, I've seen everything."
If you just scoop up everything using cheap/free and publicly available tools yo
u don't really care about spoofing.

It should be noted that the Feds have a leg up with CDMA because of its smaller
global footprint and the scarcity of developers working on it, as well as UMTS (
3G) and LTE.
But people are poking at LTE every day: http://www.rtl-sdr.com/analyzing-td-ltertl-sdr/
permalinkparent
[ ]HappyAtavism 36 points 11 hours ago
The reason the Feds spoof is so that they can target specific devices on a white
list and only have those connect. The size of the whitelist is unknown and up fo
r debate.
We do know they don't have warrants. How many violations of the 4th Amendment do
es it take before it's considered a bad thing?
permalinkparent
load more comments (19 replies)
[ ]A530[??] 6 points 6 hours ago
I have to ask an honest question. Knowing what you know, do you live in a Farada
y cage or just eschew cell phones all together? I'm in InfoSec (I'm guessing you
are too) and with the shit I know, maintaining OPSec is just a never ending bat
tle. I can't imagine my paranoia if I went down the cellular rabbit hole (althou
gh I do know a lot about the shit happening with the carrier baseband MDM garbag
e).
Many thanks for the very informative post.
permalinkparent
[ ]tornadoRadar 1 point 1 hour ago
Gotta keep it segmented. Personal never mixes with biz
permalinkparent
[ ]the_nap_mutilator 1 point 5 hours ago
Spoofing the cell site also gives them access to the phone at something akin to
the hardware level... so unless you have rooted and or installed software to sec
ure the device, they can push new software onto your phone without your knowledg
e/consent in the same way that your carrier updates subscriber units say when th
ey make changes to the network or something. At that point your phone has been p
ermanently compromised.
permalinkparent
load more comments (13 replies)
[ ]mag17435 29 points 10 hours ago
I dont understand how people think the government can do things citizens can. Or
dering our government not to do something has no bearing on what citizens can do
.
permalinkparent
[ ]Golden-Fox 7 points 6 hours ago
Well when police are trying to visually collect evidence they can in general onl
y search from public areas. If a cop is looking for a certain car and they see i
t on the street, that's fine. If the car is parked in a closed garage and on pri
vate property, the cop wouldn't be able to see it without going onto private pro
perty and looking in a window. If the car is in the same garage and the garage d
oor is open, then anyone can see it, and the cop can legally use that informatio
n.
The FBI is trying to apply that same logic to these stingrays. Stingrays are a t
echnology that is available to the public. You could make your own and do exactl
y what the FBI does. The data being collected isn't encrypted, password protecte
d, or anything else. Everything is publicly available. You just have to have a c
ertain machine to be able to read it. The garage door has to be open.
permalinkparent
[ ]Wordygit 6 points 6 hours ago
The key word here is "public" whereas where there is the expectation of privacy,
I would think think that would carry some special considerations. That seems to
be some of what the courts are deciding about, where the expectation of privacy
holds sway over searches. Its already been determined that law enforcement cann
ot force you to unlock your phone. One such Supreme Court case, decided this pas

t summer, led to a sweeping victory for privacy rights advocates. In a rare unan
imous decision, the court found that police cannot search cellphones, and by ext
ension tablets and other digital communication devices, without first obtaining
a warrant. Smartphones, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote, hold the privacies of l
ife, and the fact that technology now allows an individual to carry such informati
on in his hand does not make the information any less worthy of the protection f
or which the Founders fought. I think, as well, that it has been established that
if there is encryption being used, that constitutes an acknowledgement that ste
ps have been taken to protect and maintain the sense of privacy, and so the expe
ctation carries onto the information being transmitted. Not sure if there is a l
egal precedent for that though.
permalinkparent
[ ]Golden-Fox 2 points 5 hours ago
Its already been determined that law enforcement cannot force you to unlock your
phone.
This is what I've heard, but to me it implies that police can access your phone
if you don't have it locked. Carrying that logic over to this argument, the poli
ce would be able to access your cell info as long as it isn't encrypted. It seem
s that you only have a "reasonable expectation to privacy" with your cell phone
if you've taken any steps to make your phone more private. If there were some wa
y to get your carrier to encrypt your data, then there'd be no question, but the
way cell providers are these days, that's not gonna happen.
permalinkparent
[ ]ThreeTimesUp 1 point 1 hour ago
Something that I have heard repeatedly (and I may yet have it wrong), is that if
your front door is closed, but unlocked, the police are free to enter without a
warrant.
This has always bothered me.
I could understand the mind-set of someone (i.e. a Justice of the Supreme court)
thinking that way if they grew up (or lived) in an area where they lived a life
always fearful of intruders and locking doors was a practical necessity.
But to me, a closed door means "Keep out, knock for admittance - no entry withou
t permission."
So, for naive, trusting, me, I would not expect the police (or anyone) to examin
e my phone (without a warrant) just to see what they could find.
permalinkparent
[ ]pion3435 1 point 3 hours ago
A technologically illiterate moron's expectation of privacy doesn't become a rea
sonable expectation of privacy just because the majority of the population is te
chnologically illiterate.
permalinkparent
[ ]F0sh 1 point 2 hours ago
This is totally wrong thinking. A private citizen can look for your car through
the garage window without legal repercussions, even though a police officer migh
t not be allowed. The police officer has to conduct his searches according to th
e expectation of privacy and you have every expectation that your private phone
conversations are private - even if you're sending your texts at the shopping ce
ntre.
This is a bullshit equivocation on the part of the FBI, who are claiming that si
nce any old person at the shops can see that you're also at the shops you have n
o expectation of privacy at all.
This logic, if extended, would also mean the FBI could clone your hard drive if
you took your laptop to a public place - after all, you have no expectation of p
rivacy there. No. Bullshit - just because you're in the park doesn't mean all yo
ur possessions and emails became public.
This has nothing to do with what an ordinary citizen is able to do in public or
in private.
permalinkparent
[ ]ThreeTimesUp 1 point 2 hours ago*
Well when police are trying to visually collect evidence they can in general onl

y search from public areas. If a cop is looking for a certain car and they see i
t on the street, that's fine.
To counterpoint this:
Infra-red light (heat) is just light that's at a lower frequency than humans can
detect.
Courts have ruled that the police using specialized equipment to detect heat sig
natures (Infra-red light) emanating from from houses for the purpose of snooping
for grow operations are an invasion of privacy.
The signals Stingray is picking up are just another frequency, even lower than I
nfra-red light, originating from inside your phone, that is your property, which
is in your possession.
Authorities are using all manner of logical distortions in an express attempt to
get around the ideals and principles expressed in the Constitution.
What law-abiding citizen would attempt such a thing?
What authority that the public has placed their trust in, would make continual a
ttempts to subvert the Constitution?
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
load more comments (2 replies)
[ ]kromem 2 points 3 hours ago
It is already criminal to capture and decrypt GSM traffic for citizens (Wiretap
Act), same as capturing and parsing WiFi data.
But I think I can point out the issue with your logic with a simple analogy:
Citizens can buy guns.
Law enforcement can be provided guns.
Citizens can practice shooting guns.
Law enforcement should do the same.
Citizens can't shoot other citizens with guns except in really specific exemptio
ns.
According to your logic, just because citizens can buy guns, and could possibly
go around shooting other people with them, law enforcement should not have any l
egal restrictions on their use of guns.
It is illegal for you to capture and decrypt anyone else's traffic, and it shoul
d be illegal for cops to do the same without a warrant. It's not that hard to ge
t a warrant when actually justified, creates a paper trail that can be examined
for abuses, and has been the case without serious issue for years now.
For what purpose does the law need to be changed to allow this? Because warrants
are inconvenient? Well then why not get rid of them for entering homes too? It'
s quite trivial to pick a lock, and even easier to smash a window and climb in.
Any citizen could do it. So why do we need to restrict the police from the same?
permalinkparent
[ ]dfioabnionjio 4 points 9 hours ago
I don't see how restricting the government's ability to do this would have any o
ther effect than to criminalize a private citizen's desire to experiment with GS
M.
Why not have it be illegal for government and legal for private citizens? Make i
t perfectly legal for private citizens to experiment with GSM, but don't let the
FBI do the same, like you can have a private citizen share something a defendan
t said in court while the police cannot do the same unless the suspect had been
told of their rights.
Of course, the problem here is not using GSM. It's tracking people who did not k
nowingly join your network. You could have it be legal to experiment with GSM an
d not legal to spoof a network, or make it so tracking someone on your network i
s illegal unless the person being tracked is aware they will be tracked and cons
ents to it.
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]confusiondiffusion 3 points 10 hours ago
Yeah, I really don't see the point in making laws against this, since they'll be
broken anyway. We need to fix the underlying technology. There is no excuse for

the sad state of cellphone security.


permalinkparent
[ ]HappyAtavism 18 points 10 hours ago
I really don't see the point in making laws against this
Then let's just flush the Constitution down the toilet. All laws get broken, the
question is what gets done about it.
since they'll be broken anyway
It's not very hard to break into my house either, but they're not supposed to do
it without a warrant.
permalinkparent
load more comments (4 replies)
[ ]HighMonster 1 point 7 hours ago
Wow that's intriguing
permalinkparent
[ ]lll_1_lll 1 point 6 hours ago
You act like this is realistically doable for the large majority of people and y
ou know that's BS.
permalinkparent
[+][deleted] 6 hours ago (1 child)
[ ]JabroniZamboni 1 point 5 hours ago
Are you suggesting that radar jammers should be legal? As well as cell phone or
wifi jammers? What if your neighbor wants to experiment with a jammer for the ne
xt 4 months? 6 years? I assume you wouldn't be too happy. There's experimentatio
n and then there's purposeful disruption and spying.
permalinkparent
[ ]egodeath92 1 point 5 hours ago
Yeah except "anyone with device X" can't prosecute people. It doesn't matter whe
n corporations do mass data collection because they are just trying to make mone
y/sell people shit. The government can create a database of people's private liv
es then prosecute them. You could even imagine a time where data collection is s
o widespread that this kind of info is used for political purposes rather then b
usting drug dealers/ other criminals which is what it's used for now.
permalinkparent
[ ]Kuusou 1 point 4 hours ago
What the people can do, and what the government can do, are no the same things,
nor should they.
permalinkparent
[ ]qdarius 1 point 4 hours ago
If a random person overhears my conversation I don't care. Even if they tell the
ir friends I'm still not too concerned.
If the government records my conversation and uses it to investigate or prosecut
e me that's clearly a different situation.
Just because someone can do something doesn't mean it should be legal. It defini
tely doesn't mean we should be okay with our government using it on us.
permalinkparent
load more comments (9 replies)
[ ]Sir_not_sir 52 points 13 hours ago
The main purpose of the stinger is to circumvent the need and time of acquiring
a warrant and getting the data from all the service providers.
Regardless of data retention plans, they should require a separate judicial warr
ant for each individual suspect in order to be deployed.
permalink
[ ]manoninternets 8 points 7 hours ago*
The time required to get a warrant is usually far less than what they make it ou
t to be, although cost is as factor. Phone companies make tons of money off poli
ce records requests.
To play devil's advocate (and I do think the STINGRAY arrangement is devilish):
once you request records from the phone companies, there's no guarantee that won
't get leaked to the people being investigated. The cartels have people everywhe

re.
permalinkparent
[ ]kevincreeperpants 6 points 6 hours ago
What if they are the cartels!?...dun dun dun
permalinkparent
[ ]tughdffvdlfhegl 1 point 3 hours ago
I don't think anyone here has a problem with STINGRAY being used, given that the
y have a warrant for the person's data they're monitoring. So in your situation,
that's easy to do.
permalinkparent
[ ]manoninternets 2 points 3 hours ago
Yeah it's the same concept as going through my private letters, or close enough
to it anyhow. (Even though letters are physically sealed and radio waves permeat
e the air freely, my intention is for my text messages to be as private as posta
l mail.)
Even a child could rip open an envelope with ease. That doesn't mean police don'
t need a warrant to do so.
permalinkparent
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[ ]turnthatfrown 9 points 7 hours ago
I think the FBI is conveniently forgetting that they are intercepting a communic
ation that is normally secured via encryption and carried privately by your wire
less provider then switched privately all the way to the party on the other end
who has similar expectations of the connection.
I mean, come on, the Stingrays themselves are impersonating the carrier that you
have a contract with and using techniques to avoid the strong encryption. The p
rove by their own design and implementation that the FBI's argument is bullshit.
permalink
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]dontbullshityourself 27 points 11 hours ago
I'm so sick of the ways these callous assholes use to crush our freedom.
What is the point of massive expensive law enforcement agencies if the law can't
protect our rights and freedoms? Hasn't the cart been put before the horse here
?
permalink
[ ]donottakethisserious 13 points 6 hours ago
If you are told you are free enough times, you start to believe it. You start at
a young age with a pledge every day and then when you grow up you attend sporti
ng events and stand for the national anthem and tear up at how free you are. Tha
t way nobody will ever question whether or not this is actually a free country.
permalinkparent
[ ]dontbullshityourself 10 points 5 hours ago
When I was a kid I started to sit during the pledge. Honestly I think I just wan
ted to test and see how free I was. I knew that saying the pledge etc wasn't in
the school handbook. I knew there was no rule saying I had to say it or stand or
anything. The powers that be at my school just used the herd instinct to keep t
his shit going.
So I started sitting down. This resulted in a lot of attention from gangs of bul
lies. My home room teacher didn't like it either and lectured/bitched about it e
very day. But she stopped short of anything more than shaming me unlike the bull
ies.
Anyway I just decided to drop out. Fuck it. Humans don't like new things that co
nfuse them and challenge them to think. How interesting that was to be the last
thing I learned in school. I found another kind of freedom. The freedom to leave
the assholes mired in their stupidity and find my own path in life.
permalinkparent
[ ]joshyfitzo90 4 points 5 hours ago
I like your style.
permalinkparent

[ ]Jack41096 3 points 4 hours ago


I applaud you. I stood but that's all I did. it was in our rulebook to stand but
fuck them if they thought I was gonna do more than that. I started a wave of pe
ople standing and doing nothing.
eventually my first period class was reduced to two people and the teacher actua
lly doing anything. they bitches about it but we all had our own reasons.
permalinkparent
[ ]dontbullshityourself 2 points 3 hours ago
eventually my first period class was reduced to two people and the teacher actua
lly doing anything. they bitches about it but we all had our own reasons.
There are lots of reasons to resist and only one reason to obey. Fear.
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]CriticalThink 3 points 5 hours ago
Government hasn't been interested in protecting our rights and freedoms in a lon
g time.
permalinkparent
[ ]jkeyser14 5 points 7 hours ago
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety
, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. - Benjamin Franklin
permalinkparent
[ ]dontbullshityourself 5 points 6 hours ago
We didn't give it up. They are taking it.
permalinkparent
[ ]jkeyser14 10 points 6 hours ago
Only because we aren't rioting. The first group of rioters to tar and feather a
politician again will bring about change very quickly.
permalinkparent
[ ]dontbullshityourself 4 points 5 hours ago
People are gonna have to get a lot more desperate. I reckon we'll get our riot s
oon enough.
permalinkparent
[ ]Jack41096 1 point 4 hours ago
take the food. that's the surefire way to cause a riot.
people will be content as long as they're fed. you take that away and suddenly t
hey have nothing to lose. they have to survive. that is the most primal response
we have. to fight tooth and nail for food. to eat no matter the cost.
permalinkparent
[ ]RamsNation 1 point 4 hours ago
America has a very stable food supply so I doubt that will happen.
permalinkparent
[ ]dontbullshityourself 1 point 3 hours ago
I don't think we have to take the food. I think that people today are a lot more
self entitled and will jump into a fit without their iphones. They can't even i
magine a world without abundant food.
permalinkparent
[ ]grungebucket 1 point 4 hours ago
bring about change very quickly. street executions very quickly.
there. Corrected that for you. After all. You wouldn't want to be mistaken for a
terrorist endorsing a terrorist act now, would you?
permalinkparent
[ ]pion3435 2 points 3 hours ago
You never had it. You're just now finding out.
permalinkparent
[ ]hershmire 7 points 7 hours ago
Ok, I get the FBI's argument. Technically, we are all choosing to carry a digita
l device around with us that uniquely identifies us via radio frequency. It's tr
ue that we could very well decide not to partake in the use of cell phones if we
're so worried about being tracked. And thus because we decide to carry these pa

rtially secure devices around with us, they FBI has every right to hack them and
track us.
But this argument is bogus. The FBI can't read our mail or tap our phones becaus
e legislators and judges at one time recognized that technology becomes indispen
sable, and therefore should be protected under privacy laws. Just because I choo
se to carry a cell phone around with me doesn't give the FBI to track my whereab
outs, or worse. That'd be like saying it's my fault for having my mail read by t
he FBI because I chose to write letters, or I chose to have my phones monitored
and recorded by the FBI because I chose to use telephones.
The FBI is part of the executive branch. They (supposedly) operate within the sc
ope of the law. If there's no specific law preventing their actions, they'll go
ahead and do it. So write your representatives and get shit like this regulated.
And use letters because they're obligated to at least open the envelope.
permalink
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]drakecherry 5 points 8 hours ago
we might as well get rid of warrants all together. they are gonna search if they
want to, and nothing will happen if they are wrong.
permalink
[ ]MeganNancySmith 6 points 6 hours ago
The FBI doesn't have the legal authority to make that determination.
It would be like if I said that murder is legal every other Sunday. I can say it
all I like, but it doesn't make it true.
permalink
[ ]Todda468 6 points 6 hours ago
Anything a private citizen can't do should require reasonable suspicion or a war
rent.
permalink
[ ]Sonotmethen 6 points 9 hours ago
Then signal jammers aren't either.
permalink
[ ]MrJDouble 4 points 9 hours ago
FBI tends to say a lot of things, doesn't mean it isn't a pile of horseshit.
permalink
[ ]blueiron0 4 points 6 hours ago
(3) cases in which the technology is used in public places or other locations at
which the FBI deems there is no reasonable expectation of privacy.
Love how the FBI gets to decide when it's ok for them to assume you shouldnt hav
e any expectation on privacy. "we saw a poop porn video on pornhub. you shouldnt
expect privacy when pooping then."
permalink
[ ]ragn4rok234 4 points 6 hours ago
Whoo! Now I don't need a warrant or sufficient reason to wire tap anyone and eve
ryone. Stalkers of the world rejoice! It's like Oprah is handing out privacy bre
aches in here
permalink
[ ]fourslaps 4 points 4 hours ago
This isn't what Steve Irwin would have wanted
permalink
[ ]knowyourbrain 7 points 8 hours ago
How sad is it that we have an R Senator trying to rein in a D president's FBI?
If Snowden et al have not been able to show the American people what a farce our
government is then I don't know how it can be demonstrated.
permalink
[ ]makingupdumbnames 1 point 5 hours ago
that's Chelsea to you, mister!
permalinkparent
[ ]StellarUsername 4 points 9 hours ago
Can someone ELI5 why my cell carrier lets this happen? Seems like it would be ea
sy enough for them to put a stop to it if they wanted.

permalink
[ ]giantgnat 13 points 8 hours ago
Because if you don't play nice with them, they don't play nice with you like wha
t happened to the CEO of quest after he refused to cooperate.
permalinkparent
[ ]lll_1_lll 6 points 6 hours ago
CEO of quest
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/09/30/a-ceo-who-resistednsa-spying-is-out-of-prison-and-he-feels-vindicated-by-snowden-leaks/
permalinkparent
[ ]WatchoutItsAllan 1 point 4 hours ago
Looks like the only way to be out of the eyes of the NSA is to go back to using
these http://imgur.com/JEFUt4h
permalinkparent
[ ]jkeyser14 4 points 7 hours ago
The cell and internet companies get paid millions by the government for direct a
ccess to their lines. This was one of the things Snowden blew the whistle on.
permalinkparent
[ ]MadPooter 2 points 7 hours ago
I believe that the technology behind our current cell phone towers needs to allo
w for widespread access to said cell phone towers from a wide array of technolog
ical devices.
The Stingray makes the cell phone tower believe that it's a cell phone--I don't
know that it's as easy as you might think to re-design all cell phone models to
differentiate themselves from what Stingrays currently are.
TL;DR: This might be a better issue for cell phone designers to solve rather the
n cell phone carriers.
permalinkparent
[ ]egalroc 2 points 6 hours ago
Maybe design a Falcon drone that homes in and locks on fake Stingray towers. Wou
ldn't the FBI just shit to see a couple sparrows zooming down on them?
permalinkparent
[ ]A530[??] 1 point 6 hours ago
Cell carriers couldn't care less. They're also packaging backdoors in their base
band software to do all kinds of functional crap, like over the air updates and
remote access.
permalinkparent
[ ]here4DaBacon 3 points 7 hours ago
So it's a honey pot for cell phones. This same method is used to intercept WiFi
internet traffic. The world is becoming a hackers paradise.
permalink
[ ]CapAnson 4 points 6 hours ago
I don't even think of the FBI's exceptions two and three are valid. And as for i
mminent danger to public safety I can't imagine when that safety hinges on inter
cepting a cell call right now this very second without a warrant
permalink
[ ]SquidwardSnowden1 3 points 6 hours ago
Let it be noted, I love big brother.
permalink
[ ]ryanknapper 3 points 6 hours ago
There was a comment asking what prevents private citizens from doing this. My re
ply was: Absolutely nothing. In fact, there are legal ways of doing exactly this
.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xKihq1fClQg
permalink
[ ]lll_1_lll 2 points 6 hours ago
inb4 this thread gets removed by the mods and/or shadowbanned
permalink
[ ]doctorshady[S] 3 points 6 hours ago
I was almost sure it was going to be removed when I submitted it.

permalinkparent
[ ]grtwatkins 1 point 3 hours ago
Wait, so mods = FBI?
permalinkparent
[ ]doctorshady[S] 2 points 2 hours ago
The mods here are quite restrictive about what is allowed to be submitted. Wheth
er or not they're under someone's influence is a question I can't answer (though
I'd honestly like to know), but you'll occasionally see high profile topics rem
oved, like the Snowden leaks back when PRISM was first pointed out.
permalinkparent
[ ]tomcat23 3 points 6 hours ago
If I had a hundred dollars for every time the FBI said it could do something une
thical or unconstitutional I'd be shooting rockets into space like Elon Musk rig
ht now.
permalink
[ ]leafygreenstuff 3 points 6 hours ago
Oh, well if they said....
permalink
[ ]wlxr 3 points 5 hours ago
Is this implying that they are going to repeatedly kill Steve Irwin?
permalink
[ ]Bulldog65 3 points 2 hours ago
Can I Use my Stingray in public places to intercept communications ?
If the answer is no, then the FBI needs a warrant.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effec
ts, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Wa
rrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, a
nd particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things t
o be seized.
This can only be changed by super majority votes in Congress and the States, not
treasonous opinions of mouthpiece lawyers in Department of Justice. This is why
prosecutions of torture memo writers is important. If they want to try and make
up laws they need to be held accountable under the law.
permalink
[ ]Do_Em_Till_They_Derp 13 points 12 hours ago
I don't think that is a good idea considering what happened to Steve Irwin.
permalink
[ ]Smgth 1 point 4 hours ago
I can't believe how far down I had to scroll to find this joke. I was worried I'
d have to make it myself. This thread is WAY too serious for my taste...
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]go1dfish 10 points 10 hours ago
This is what happens when you give a group of people authority over all else.
They use that authority to extort funds from you to pay for your own oppression.
But reddit still cheers it on. It seems to some; the concepts of roads or compas
sion cannot exist without specially anointed jack boot thugs.
permalink
[ ]Arael15th 3 points 6 hours ago
Do you see anyone in this post cheering this on? Moreover is this your first tim
e here?
permalinkparent
[ ]Flight_MH370 2 points 9 hours ago
Can the cell providers see every time this happens? If so, they could alert peop
le of fake towers or something. Alas, I'm pretty sure all the cell providers are
in bed with the feds already anyway.
permalink
[ ]leftnotracks 1 point 8 hours ago
This is why it s a good thing the FBI are not the people in charge of what is lega
l.

permalink
[ ]iluvmilfs420 3 points 7 hours ago
Ohh cool more of my taxes wasted on stupid shit...
permalink
[ ]fuzzycuffs 3 points 7 hours ago
Then I can do the same thing with wifi and not be charged with hacking, right?
permalink
[ ]endprism 2 points 7 hours ago
Use of Stringray in America: https://www.aclu.org/maps/stingray-tracking-devices
-whos-got-them
http://rt.com/usa/215735-sandiego-police-phone-tracking/
http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/First-Amendment-Coalition-Files-Lawsuit-Ab
out-Stingray-Surveillance--286092741.html
http://www.miaminewtimes.com/2012-02-16/news/cell-phone-tracking-miami-cops-know
-where-you-are/
http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/Fort-Worth-Cellphone-Tracking-Rings-Controversy
-140796693.html
http://www.wgrz.com/story/news/investigations/2014/02/13/are-local-police-spying
-on-your-cell-phone/5462273/
Tick tock...
permalink
[ ]johnnybiggs15 2 points 7 hours ago
didnt know they had that type of power
permalink
[ ]jwyche008 2 points 6 hours ago
They would fucking say that wouldn't they? The thing is it isn't supposed to be
their damn decision to make!
permalink
[ ]ICEClownfishWok 1 point 6 hours ago
Did the US government learn nothing from Nazi Germany? I honestly won't be surpr
ised if WWIII occurs when the rest of the world gets tired of our governments bu
llshit
permalink
[ ]frankenstilskin 3 points 6 hours ago
America, for the corporations by the corporations
permalink
[ ]Elephant_rhino_tiger 3 points 5 hours ago
It sounds like a 6 year old coming up with a superhero. "This is FBI man, and he
can fly and like punch through the earth, and he can y'know like intercept cell
traffic if he thinks it's important. But he is weak against himself though, so
like if he punched himself he would die."
permalink
[ ]Banana_blanket 2 points 4 hours ago
Hey who wants to just sit around and let it happen? Oh, everyone? Perfect. Ready
? Go.
permalink
[ ]poopinbutt2014 3 points 4 hours ago
Ah yes, the cops deciding what laws they are and aren't subject to.
permalink
[ ]burnerthrown 2 points 2 hours ago
Has anyone else notied a pattern of more and more laws that protect enforcement
operations from civilians, and fewer nd fewer laws protecting civilians from enf
orcement?
permalink
[ ]siquisiudices 2 points 2 hours ago
Increasingly I am astonished by the state of democracy in the developed western
countries. What has happened and how? I realise that there have always been infr
ingements of liberties by the state - always. But it seems to me that what has c
hanged is the blatent nature of the compromise of democratic norms. I'm not a hi
storian but my impression is that the origins of our current situation lie in tw

o iconic regimes in the UK and US - Reagan and Thatcher (and those that followed
) - and in the fall of the soviet regimes.
The economic philosophy that Reagan and Thatcher promoted reduced liberty to pro
perty rights while at the same time it condemned (rightly) the soviet regimes fo
r their lack of respect for democratic norms. The appeal of this economic ideolo
gy to capital, to the corporations, was obvious especially as during the 1970s t
here had been intermittent but recurring periods when profitability had fallen.
In the context of declining profitability, a roll back of the state and public e
xpenditure was a quick win.
For the rest of society, the implication that growth in personal, individual wea
lth was being held back by public spending and that the welfare state eroded ind
ividual responsibility also won the day. A key element in this process was the d
efeat and denigration of trade unionism: Thatcher going so far as to suggest tha
t trade unions (in the person of the National Union of Miners) were dangerous tr
aitors. People bought into the arguments for radical individualism ("there is no
such thing as society") because, in part, the concrete experience of collectivi
sm in trade unions declined in the face a massive anti-trade union assault.
The fall of the corrupt and totalitarian soviet regimes underpinned this all by
giving concrete expression to the notion that there is no alternative.
Economically the result has been massive widening of the discrepancy in wealth i
n many western countries and increased immiseration of labour across the world a
nd no force to counterbalance the power of the corporations and the state that t
hey (quite naturally) control. The state is the central committee of capital.
In all of this, the oft misnamed "libertarian" tendencies were accompanied by an
increasingly authoritarian and intrusive state apparatus which was promoted and
defended around quite classical nationalist ideas but recast often as the defen
se of western democracy against various external enemies.
And so, little by little, we have allowed our civil liberties to be chipped away
. Even the radical libertarians have been sidelined and fooled into irrelevant s
truggles around gun control in the US. Really, if an armed citizenry were the gu
arantee of liberty then one wold have hoped it would have done a better job. But
overall anti-welfare, anti-European and anti-immigrant rhetoric in the UK and,
for example, religious manipulation of public discourse in the US have allowed t
he authoritarian, pro-corporate state to gradually encroach on political and per
sonal freedoms. And here we are.
We can't say we didn't know - we were warned but the ruling class managed to def
ame the messengers and in other ways render us impotent.
One can only hope that we wake up in time and that our new disdain for collectiv
ism is overcome by the necessity of taking collective action.
permalink
[ ]DinglebellRock [score hidden] 49 minutes ago
You have a right to privacy according to the Constitution. Except for maybe your
cell phone calls. Or email. Or handwritten or typed letters. Or what you read f
rom the library and Amazon. Or maybe your colon and lower intestine if you are i
n New Mexico. What a fucked up nation this has become...
permalink
[ ]nstalker91 [score hidden] 38 minutes ago
Oh sure, when they do it, it's "protecting" and "morally right", but when I do i
t, it's a "federal crime" and "the FCC watches me"
permalink
[ ]The_Media_Collector 3 points 9 hours ago
This is why my phone has an app to continually report IMSI changes to me. I swit
ch one tower to another, I get a warning.
permalink
[ ]Redd575 1 point 7 hours ago
How is that helpful? Not being an ass, just curious. Seems if a Stingray can spo
of a tower then the app does little unless you are standing absolutely still.
permalinkparent
[ ]The_Media_Collector 3 points 7 hours ago
it's my understanding that Stingray "towers" do not encrypt traffic. anytime I a

m connected to an unencrypted "tower" the IMSI detector goes red and lets me kno
w.
permalinkparent
[ ]Redd575 1 point 6 hours ago
Wow. Whomever figured that out was clever.
permalinkparent
[ ]ExReverie93 1 point 7 hours ago
Which app? And would a normal person (not meaning you're not normal. You know wh
at I mean.) be able to use it?
permalinkparent
[ ]The_Media_Collector 1 point 7 hours ago
Requires Root. It's just caeld "Adnroid IMSI-Catchter"
permalinkparent
[ ]egalroc 1 point 6 hours ago
Makes a person want to be a criminal or spy just for the fun of it.
permalinkparent
[ ]Effo 3 points 7 hours ago
Goodbye America the Great, hello police state. :-[
permalink
[ ]Casemods 2 points 7 hours ago
Another reason why I don't have a cell phone.
permalink
[ ]GiveMe_TreeFiddy 3 points 7 hours ago
Things libertarians have been screaming about and offering solutions to for 500$
, Alex...
permalink
[ ]ilovesellinblow 1 point 9 hours ago
police and marshals have been running these for years.
permalink
[ ]bbelt16ag 1 point 8 hours ago
so FBI lets see what the Supreme court has to say to that. I am sure once they r
ule on this you will be going home with your tails between your legs.
permalink
[ ]Banana_blanket 1 point 4 hours ago
Do you people really have that much faith in our Supreme Court? Really?
permalinkparent
[ ]bbelt16ag 1 point 3 hours ago
gotta have some faith, other wise its just anarchy, or revolution. I am not read
y to give up quite yet.
permalinkparent
[ ]bonyponyride 1 point 8 hours ago
If digital communication in a public (and private) space is fair game, there's n
othing to stop an FBI tech specialist from stealing things like knowledge that w
ould be considered insider trading. There's an extreme potential for abuse.
permalink
[ ]jkeyser14 2 points 7 hours ago
If was fair game then hacking into wireless signals by private citizens wouldn't
be illegal.
permalinkparent
[ ]egalroc 1 point 6 hours ago
Just waiting for Anonymous to set up shop in a public park and hack into police
communications then dispatch them to bogus locations throughout the city. If any
thing goes wrong, they could always blame North Korea.
permalinkparent
[ ]coalbeeashi 1 point 3 hours ago
Aren't government agencies encrypting their digital communication - thus exhibit
ing an expectation of privacy?
I'm not sure what steps the "reasonable person" is taking to exhibit an expectat
ion of privacy over their data, tbh.
permalinkparent

[ ]hmmwhatsthisdo 1 point 8 hours ago


If you used RedPhone, Whisperpush/TextSecure, and a VPN, this wouldn't be of con
cern to you, right?
permalink
[ ]LucifersCounselNZ 1 point 7 hours ago
Wrong.
In other cases, the IMSI or equivalent identifier of a target is not known to th
e StingRay operator and the goal of the surveillance operation is to identify on
e or more cellular devices being used in a known area.[16] For example, if visua
l surveillance is being conducted on a group of protestors,[17] a StingRay can b
e used to download the IMSI or equivalent identifier from each phone within the
protest area. After identifying the phones, locating and tracking operations can
be conducted, and service providers can be forced to turn over account informat
ion identifying the phone users.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stingray_phone_tracker#Extracting_Data_From_Interna
l_Storage
Before any of that shit you're talking about comes into play, the IMSI number is
used when establishing the connection. It is uniquely identifying. With your IM
SI number and a court order (or cooperative telco) they will know who you are an
d who you were communicating with.
Then they can use that information to punish you for participating in legal prot
ests, associating with the wrong people, or simply because some Fed didn't like
the look of you.
permalinkparent
[ ]hmmwhatsthisdo 1 point 6 hours ago
So, the only way is to modify your IMEI (which is questionably legal) and use a
prepaid SIM?
permalinkparent
[ ]facepalmdude 1 point 5 hours ago
The IMSI part makes sense, but by using the mentioned tools authorities are very
unlikely to find out who you communicated with, or what the content was. All th
ey know is that you're the end point of an encrypted data connection.
permalinkparent
[ ]coalbeeashi 1 point 3 hours ago
I would assume that a court would view this as an individual exhibiting an expec
tation of privacy over their data.
permalinkparent
[ ]mambotangohandala 1 point 7 hours ago
Law?
We don't need no stinkin' law...
permalink
[ ]smilesbot 1 point 7 hours ago
You've just used a double negative! :P
permalinkparent
[ ]mambotangohandala 1 point 7 hours ago
no i did not, never would i do such a thing, nope, i don't think i ever did...
Ever see the movie 'blazing saddles'? Context kid, context
permalinkparent
[ ]smilesbot 1 point 7 hours ago
yup yup yup!
permalinkparent
[ ]mambotangohandala 1 point 7 hours ago
oh no a triple positive,what a stupendous faux pas!
permalinkparent
[ ]smilesbot 1 point 7 hours ago
yup yup yup!
permalinkparent
[ ]mambotangohandala 1 point 7 hours ago
Did mom give you too many sodas tonight?
permalinkparent

[ ]mambotangohandala 1 point 7 hours ago


Now where are those kiddy downers?
permalinkparent
[ ]mambotangohandala 1 point 7 hours ago
Remember tomorrow is a school day
permalinkparent
[ ]BigTex8900 1 point 7 hours ago
The Federal Bureau of Investigation is taking the position that court warrants a
re not required when deploying cell-site simulators in public places.
Wait so can I take the position that it's not actually illegal to suck dick for
money in public places?
permalink
[ ]AssOrca 1 point 6 hours ago
Well thank god there not doing it in my home!
permalinkparent
[ ]Drunken_Economist 1 point 7 hours ago
The FCC says they are needed, FWIW
permalink
[ ]FadingEchoes11 0 points 6 hours ago
100% true, power to the people
You should learn about and try to understand firearms more, they are just tools
after all.
permalink
[ ]winstrol 1 point 6 hours ago
Can i use a stingray? Al stick to my snoopsnitch.
permalink
[ ]fatscat84 2 points 6 hours ago
Big fucking surprise, 4th amendment=toilet paper anymore. The rights of the citi
zens arent even considered anymore since we dont have lobbyists. Maybe ill start
a kickstarter campaign to make a lobbyist group to give americans a voice in d.
c.
permalink
[ ]urbn 2 points 6 hours ago
The Obama Administration has repeatedly maintained that the public has no privac
y in public places.
And yet the excuse always used when someone records a police officer breaking th
e law and is arrested, detained and has his property stolen is that it violates
their privacy.
permalink
[ ]Vigilias 1 point 6 hours ago
If it's stealing signals being send from private residences it sure should fucki
ng be wtf.
permalink
[ ]2013palmtreepam 1 point 6 hours ago
Because stingrays automatically stop working at private property lines? Don't re
call the part of the 4th Amendment that exempts the requirement for probable cau
se and a search warrant when one happens to be in a public place.
permalink
[ ]makingupdumbnames 2 points 6 hours ago
I don't think it would be too hard to develop a stingray jammer, something that
just floods their equipment with a bunch of useless/fake cell phone numbers...I'
m in favor of a more strategic response to these types of infringements of our r
ights. We actually have a right and responsibility to fight tyranny...
permalink
[ ]ghotiaroma 1 point 3 hours ago
It's possible, but you wouldn't know where and when to use it. And it would be d
etectable you are using a jammer and anyone using one would find themselves fill
ed with SWAT bullets in no time.
permalinkparent
[ ]ononewheel 1 point 2 hours ago

Cant you rent bot net time and do this?


permalinkparent
[ ]psilontech 1 point 5 hours ago
I think that's for the courts to decide, FBI.
permalink
[ ]coalbeeashi 1 point 4 hours ago
...the only way the courts could decide is if it were practiced and a lawsuit wa
s brought against those practices.
Of course the FBI is going to finagle ways to flirt with obscure, outdated laws
for the purpose of investigating, thus practice it. Of course some group or orga
nization is going to take issue with it, thus taking it to court.
permalinkparent
[ ]cynoclast 2 points 5 hours ago
And the 4th Amendment says the FBI is wrong. And to the idea that subsequent law
s or that prededence says otherwise, I say that lawyers who make those interpret
ations were paid to do so by people with a vested interest in saying otherwise.
The constitution and amendments were intended to be read and interpreted by ever
yone, not just lawyers and judges so it matters not at all what lawyers and judg
es say.
permalink
[ ]coalbeeashi 1 point 5 hours ago
The constitution and amendments were intended to be read and interpreted by ever
yone
Uhh...interpreted by everyone? Do you know how fucked up that would be? There's
a reason for the judicial branch.
permalinkparent
[ ]cynoclast 2 points 4 hours ago
More fucked up than corporations as people? The 4th Amendment being ignored by t
he DHS, Homeland Security, and the NSA? More fucked up than than all the ridicul
ous, unconstitutional restrictions on cosmetic features of firearms that all vio
late the 2nd amendment? More fucked up than justices appointed by war criminals
refusing to recuse themselves where they have a clear conflict of interest?
The judicial branch is staffed by people, just as fallible as the rest of us. Th
e judicial branch was nly ever an attempt to reign in the other two. It was alwa
ys intended that it was the right of the people to alter or abolish the governme
nt if it gets out of hand and it has.
permalinkparent
[ ]coalbeeashi 1 point 4 hours ago
I would still rather have the fate of laws be in the hands of individuals who sp
ecifically studied the very nature of their professional practice than leave it
up to a mass of people with little-to-no understanding of the law, outside of wh
at is force-fed to them by media (comparable to your assertion of less-than-idea
l practices by lawyer/judges)
I fully agree that laws should be written in ways that the public can understand
and interpret (however, you're never going to reach a consensus on laws written
200+ years ago). And I believe that, reading most supreme court decisions, the
justices advocate for specifics in laws and understand that outdated or vague la
ws is a main reason cases are brought before them. Laws aren't concrete or stati
c. It's a court of public opinion.
permalinkparent
[ ]cynoclast 1 point 4 hours ago
I would still rather have the fate of laws be in the hands of individuals who sp
ecifically studied the very nature of their professional practice than leave it
up to a mass of people with little-to-no understanding of the law, outside of wh
at is force-fed to them by media (comparable to your assertion of less-than-idea
l practices by lawyer/judges)
I think there's balance between the two. It's similar to the balance between IT
and the user. While the IT guy is more knowledgeable about the field than most o
f the users he's supposed to facilitate, he often forgets that his purpose is to
facilitate, not to rule, and what the users are doing is what keeps the lights

on. People in congress and the senate are mislabelled when called 'lawmakers' th
eir job is representative of their constituency. And lawyers face a conflict of
interest between simplifying the law and representing people fairly and seeing a
fter their own welfare and ensuring their own job security. Simple, clear, and u
nambiguous laws have little value to the professional attorney at law. But the p
eople at large have no interest, and in fact a reason to despise laws they don't
understand, especially ones decided by decades old case law they know nothing a
bout. But for too long the balance has been swinging in favor of the lawyer seek
ing payment for services from the rich instead of the poor seeking freedom from
those with the resources to hire teams of lawyers for years to drain them of res
ources. The day a rich man could sue an innocent poor man under false pretenses
and crush him is the day the justice department ceased to function as intended.
I fully agree that laws should be written in ways that the public can understand
and interpret (however, you're never going to reach a consensus on laws written
200+ years ago). And I believe that, reading most supreme court decisions, the
justices advocate for specifics in laws and understand that outdated or vague la
ws is a main reason cases are brought before them. Laws aren't concrete or stati
c. It's a court of public opinion.
Lawyers like to pretend that they are concrete or static. Just imagine the phras
e "settled case law" coming out of their mouths and you need go no further. It's
like they forget that eventually given the dynamic equilibrium of the poor vs.
the rich that sometimes words written on paper in a dusty library somewhere mean
absolutely nothing when the pitchforks and guillotines come out, the old laws t
hrown out, and new ones written even more strongly against tyrants. You're right
, sometimes, it's a court of public opinion. But sometimes the court is brutal,
but not unjustly so:
There were two Reigns of Terror, if we would but remember it and consider it; the
one wrought murder in hot passion, the other in heartless cold blood; the one la
sted mere months, the other had lasted a thousand years; the one inflicted death
upon ten thousand persons, the other upon a hundred millions; but our shudders
are all for the horrors of the minor Terror, the momentary Terror, so to speak; wh
ereas, what is the horror of swift death by the axe, compared with lifelong deat
h from hunger, cold, insult, cruelty, and heart-break? What is swift death by li
ghtning compared with death by slow fire at the stake? A city cemetery could con
tain the coffins filled by that brief Terror which we have all been so diligentl
y taught to shiver at and mourn over; but all France could hardly contain the co
ffins filled by that older and real Terror that unspeakably bitter and awful Terro
r which none of us has been taught to see in its vastness or pity as it deserves
.
permalinkparent
[ ]DongleNocker 2 points 5 hours ago
Don't you wish government organizations would get permission from congress prior
to assuming they have the authority?
permalink
[ ]Euracil 1 point 5 hours ago
Whoops! Someone just happened to spill wine all over the Bill of Rights! Well, a
t least the Second Amendment survived!
permalink
[ ]ripvannwinkler 1 point 5 hours ago
What is the practical operational radius of one of these things?
If my place of business or residence falls in this radius of an operating device
, is my phone subject to interception by the device?
If so, you require a warrant. Period. No equivocation.
permalink
[ ]bittopia 1 point 5 hours ago
What is going to be interesting is when systems and encryptions becomes so resil
ient and powerful that nothing can be spied on AT ALL. What will they do then?
permalink
[ ]johnnybullet 1 point 5 hours ago
I thought only God was listening to me... This changes everything!

permalink
[ ]TronicTonic 2 points 5 hours ago
Thank god the FBI is in charge of the judicial branch and gets to decide what is
right vs wrong.
permalink
[ ]Vinven 1 point 5 hours ago
They can say whatever they want, it doesn't make it legal.
permalink
[ ]coffeethulhu 2 points 5 hours ago
Under this theory anybody could buy one of these devices and use it in "public s
paces" without fear of falling foul of the law....Who wants to start a kickstart
er campaign to buy one?
permalink
[ ]redditezmode 1 point 5 hours ago
Based on what, exactly? Why would they think search warrants aren't necessary?
permalink
[ ]Fucksfuturefatchicks 1 point 4 hours ago
If it stops me from downloading porn, it's a dead giveaway. If it doesn't, thank
s for the government funded and sanctioned porn.
permalink
[ ]egalroc 1 point 4 hours ago
I wonder if the FBI can upload unsanctioned porn to your computer using a stingr
ay? Interesting thought isn't it?
permalinkparent
[ ]winsomecowboy 1 point 4 hours ago
So my clandestine FBI staff list shouldn't be an issue.
permalink
[ ]Heisenpurrrrg 1 point 4 hours ago
Those guys can fuck right off, eh?
permalink
[ ]cerealcable 1 point 4 hours ago
Every time an invasion of our rights & privacy especially related to our establi
shed forms of communications happens it just terrifies me. Not because our gover
nment is throwing wind to established laws but because of what the future could
bring.
The reason why most of us are upset today over this is because we have an expect
ation of privacy when we pick up our cell phones. We expect our text messages, p
hone calls and data to be private thus protected by law requiring a warrant to "
tap" it only for Law Enforcement. Telecoms (wired, wireless, voip) will only com
ply to requests when required by law, but when it comes to the public air waves
using technology to just listen in we're starting a terrible precedent.
Essentially what I'm concerned about is that eventually it'll be so commonly acc
epted that these communications are not private (after all the government can sn
oop in on those conversations, and everyone already expects it) and thus we no l
onger have the expectation of privacy and thus no warrant is actually acquired.
The terrifying process is how it all started, with the government over stepping
their legal abilities with little to no repercussions.
Now that I'm reading that paragraph again, I honestly wouldn't be surprised if t
hat exact argument is/was/will be used in a secret court of which none of us wil
l be able to hold accountable.
It's scary to see what the future will hold for privacy related to technology. O
ur government is doing anything and everything they want and if people aren't sc
ared they need to get some tinfoil and make some hats because they're going to n
eed them.
Obligatory point: As the government snoops more and more, technology will just e
ncrypt more and more making it nearly pointless for the snooping, but it won't c
hange the expectation of privacy after say a decade of common knowledge that the
se communications are not private. Then Law Enforcement Agencies will just subpo
ena records instead of following due process of getting a warrant.
tl;dr It's a very slippery slope and I'm just watching us slowly sliding further

and further into the trap. :-(


permalink
[ ]coalbeeashi 1 point 4 hours ago
Honest question - in the eyes of laws, is our view on "expectation of privacy" i
gnorant or misguided? When I send a text - even though I don't think about it I gave permission to Apple, AT&T, my friend, their carrier, their phone, and pro
bably countless others that I don't even realize. When I download an app I give
them all sorts of permissions to access my information.
Also, what's stopping the government from creating an app, let's say some crazed
game like Trivia Crack, hide a bunch of permissions that no one looks at and do
it that way. They could have access to my photos, access to my microphone, acce
ss to my location, etc. (obviously I understand that you can retract most of tho
se permissions, but I doubt many people do)
So, I guess my question is, using multiple third parties, do I really have the r
ight to expect complete privacy?
permalinkparent
[ ]Rockerofboats 2 points 4 hours ago
I do what I wants to.
permalink
[ ]Gymshortsboner55 2 points 4 hours ago
I'm not trying to sound like the uncle that's always bitchin' at family reunions
but man is this country going down the shitter. I'm almost ashamed to live here
anymore.
permalink
[ ]kazuri85 2 points 4 hours ago
The government has no right to make your property do something you do not want i
t to do.
permalink
[ ]SpacemanLurker 2 points 3 hours ago
Crikey! Australian accent
Too soon?
permalink
[ ]Undisclosed-dopeness 1 point 3 hours ago
Really wish this was about actual stingrays
permalink
[ ]k-h 1 point 3 hours ago
Is that the "stingrays" that don't exist?
Of course they don't need a warrant on equipment that doesn't exist.
permalink
[ ]PhorTwenny 2 points 3 hours ago
if it picks up all cells text/call/info how do they know your not inside a house
or anyother private area? Either way this is disgusting!
permalink
[ ]MarxIzalias 2 points 3 hours ago
The more of these that get posted, the harder I laugh at America's freedoms.
You pretty much have the same as everybody else.
It seems as though the constitution is like bog roll to your law enforcement. Co
vered in meaningless shit that doesn't even stick to them.
What a joke.
The FBI stating that 'stingrays' don't apply to privacy laws because you're in a
public place makes no sense, otherwise you could walk around butt naked and arg
ue that "According to the FBI, personal privacy is not required in public".
Of course, they could say, what any deceitful peice of trash could say. "If you
weren't doing anything illegal then you have nothing to worry about."
Unless you were talking to you solicitor about a patent. In which case it would
be worthless the moment a third party heard about the invention.
Talking to your doctor about a condition that could prejudice a group against yo
u.
Talking to a solicitor about the details of a case.
Talking to fellow jurors over the phone about a details of a case, that's always

good to be spied on.


Talk about family history and possible ties you might have to foreign nations, w
hich could put you on a watch list.
Give personal details to bankers about foreign business accounts which have diff
erent protection laws.
Discuss plans you may have that they could interfere with.
Or just miscellaneous emails to and from your employer that could be damaging to
the companies reputation if published and could be used against them as leverag
e with a false flag operation LOOKING AT YOU SONY!
This isn't even a comprehensive list of things that you could do, but hey, it's
America, the land where freedom is a lie and the constitution is apparently wort
h less and less with each new government. XFD
permalink
[ ]NightOfTheLivingHam 1 point 3 hours ago
while we're declaring bullshit, I declare I'm owed a million dollars.
permalink
[ ]ZedOud 1 point 3 hours ago
Most warrant-less law enforcement surveillance techniques are legal because they
can be performed by members of the public, in public. (ex. tailing)
So can we also legally operate a stingray?
Yes we can!
permalink
[ ]Wulfgar_RIP 1 point 3 hours ago
FBI protecting freedoms and constitution from terrorists
permalink
[ ]CantHugEveryCat 2 points 3 hours ago
I'm surprised the FBI still feel they have to justify their actions.
permalink
[ ]bazingabrain 0 points 3 hours ago
Here I am thinking the FBI is going to be throwing real stingrays around without
a search warrant. Can't have that
permalink
[ ]tobsn 1 point 3 hours ago
and whoever said that should be immediately terminated.
permalink
[ ]joshladd 1 point 3 hours ago
Didn't the supreme court just say that searching cell phones requires a warrant?
Is this different than searching cell phones? I might be uninformed but it seem
s like a blatant disregard for court rulings.
permalink
[ ]birdington1 1 point 3 hours ago
Can anybody explain what a 'stingray' is?
permalink
[ ]one_love_silvia 1 point 2 hours ago
the article explains it in literally the first paragraph.
permalinkparent
[ ]IllegalOperator 0 points 2 hours ago
Yeah right, dropping the case rather than reveal their methods says otherwise. I
f there weren't doing anything wrong they would have nothing to hide.
permalink
[ ]HauntedBeepers 1 point 2 hours ago
FBI says FBI can do what it wants
permalink
[ ]Fig1024 1 point 2 hours ago
does that mean I, as private citizen, can also use them? After all, there are no
laws against it
permalink
[ ]Monkeibusiness 1 point 2 hours ago
"FBI - out if control since 2001" -Simpsons
permalink

[ ]skztr 1 point 2 hours ago


good test for whether or not you need a warrant:
If any random person off the street did it, would that be legal? If not, you nee
d a fucking warrant.
permalink
[ ]Rusky82 1 point 2 hours ago
Land of the free eh......
permalink
[ ]WECGEWHYAAIORTNU 1 point 2 hours ago
So in some states its "wiretapping" to record with a microphone a conversation b
etween two people happening at a table, but pretending to be a cell tower is a-o
k?
permalink
[ ]Amanoo 1 point 2 hours ago
"concerned about whether the FBI and other law enforcement agencies have adequat
ely considered the privacy interests" of Americans
Privacy interests of Americans? Is that supposed to still be a thing? I thought
that privacy interests were considered something for terrorists in the US, by no
w.
permalink
[ ]raviddadford 1 point 2 hours ago
Stingray got Steve Irwin
permalink
[ ]Homarus_Americanus 1 point 2 hours ago
It's all good 'cause I can by me all guns I want.
permalink
[ ]anshu1234 0 points 2 hours ago
This is non-news if you are not a drug-peddler. Next please.
permalink
[ ]bubbafat1155 1 point 2 hours ago
It's over. "They" have won. The only hope now is for individuals, society is los
t. Get off the grid, or join the sheep. http://imgur.com/W7CdURh
permalink
[ ]Targun 1 point 2 hours ago
And how are they going to filter out cellphones of all the people who live next
to public places where stingray is located?
permalink
[ ]riderer 1 point 2 hours ago
So can i do the same in public place? just stingray everyone?
permalink
[ ]Neker 1 point 1 hour ago
There are blueprints and tutorials out there that put "stingrays" within reach o
f an hobbyist. Law-breaking hobbyist, that is, but still : mobile phones essenti
aly broadcast your conversations.
permalink
[ ]mindwandering 1 point 1 hour ago
The flying DRT box.
permalink
[ ]SilenceGivesConsent [score hidden] 48 minutes ago
In other words, FBI says it does not need search warrants to warrant a search.
permalink
[ ]Formally_Nightman [score hidden] 46 minutes ago
FBI: "Senator we have been monitoring your calls and your exact geographical loc
ation for years ... You shouldn't find that unconstitutional or the public and y
our wife will learn how unconstitutional you've been"
permalink
[ ]ActuallyNotSparticus [score hidden] 40 minutes ago
Fuck this shit. Stingrays killed the crocodile hunter. Are we ready for the gove
rnment to use these stingrays?
permalink

[ ]Rayhueston [score hidden] 38 minutes ago


The article says the Obama administration consistently maintains that people hav
e no privacy in public. Is that true or is that hyperbole?
If I'm walking down the street, do I have the right to keep the contents of my w
allet private? My blood type? My thoughts?
If I have no privacy with regard to these and many other sensitive things, who d
oes have the right to them?
permalink
[ ]swollennode [score hidden] 37 minutes ago
People don't have privacy in public places..hmmm, I think that people are entitl
ed to privacy if something private belongs to them. Sure, people's faces aren't
private when they're in public places. But people's phone calls and texts should
be.
permalink
[ ]pomod [score hidden] 18 minutes ago
Well if the FBI says they are not needed...
Seriously, this should be a court decision not a cop one. Cops, even a fancy cop
s like the FBI, should not make the laws just enforce them.
permalink
[ ]CJ59 [score hidden] 18 minutes ago
In other news, the FBI says, "You know what, screw it. There are no more laws. W
e'll do whatever the hell we want. Not like you're going to do anything about it
."
permalink
[ ]gkiltz [score hidden] 15 minutes ago
Just because the FBI says it, that does not mean it's true!
I don't envy the poor schmuck who has to stan in front of the Supreme Court and
argue that!!
permalink
load more comments (48 replies)
about
blog
about
team
source code
advertise
jobs
help
wiki
FAQ
reddiquette
rules
contact us
tools
mobile
firefox extension
chrome extension
buttons
widget
<3
reddit gold
store
redditgifts
reddit AMA app
reddit.tv
radio reddit
Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy
. 2015 reddit inc. All rights reserved.
REDDIT and the ALIEN Logo are registered trademarks of reddit inc.

p jump to content
MY SUBREDDITS
FRONT-ALL-RANDOM | PHOTOSHOPBATTLES-HISTORY-GIFS-FOOD-PHILOSOPHY-TELEVISION-WORL
DNEWS-SHOWERTHOUGHTS-LIFEPROTIPS-ART-SPACE-NOTTHEONION-DOCUMENTARIES-NOSLEEP-GAM
ING-GADGETS-EARTHPORN-ASKREDDIT-FUNNY-MOVIES-DIY-FUTUROLOGY-FITNESS-BOOKS-LISTEN
TOTHIS-INTERNETISBEAUTIFUL-MUSIC-EXPLAINLIKEIMFIVE-UPLIFTINGNEWS-SPORTS-PICS-TOD
AYILEARNED-PERSONALFINANCE-DATAISBEAUTIFUL-IAMA-OLDSCHOOLCOOL-EUROPE-CREEPY-TWOX
CHROMOSOMES-AWW-NEWS-WRITINGPROMPTS-GETMOTIVATED-VIDEOS-TIFU-ASKSCIENCE-JOKES-MI
LDLYINTERESTING-SCIENCE
MORE
news newscommentsrelatedother discussions (15)
want to join? sign in or create an account in seconds|English
this post was submitted on 05 Jan 2015
3,152 points (95% upvoted)
shortlink:
remember mereset passwordlogin
news
unsubscribe4,562,294 readers
2,631 users here now
/r/inthenews
/r/worldnews
new submissions
new comments
Post analysis/opinion articles to /r/inthenews
Want to talk?
Chat with us on IRC
Follow @rslashnews on Twitter
See a post that violates the rules below? Had your post stuck in the spam filter
? Have a question about policy? Just want to give feedback? Send the mod team a
message.
Please post news items only, with the exception of meta posts about /r/news itse
lf. Self-posts aggregating news data and "independent reporting" each count as n
ews, but are not an excuse to editorialize.
Your post will likely be removed if it:
is not news (or a meta post).
is an opinion/analysis or advocacy piece.
primarily concerns politics.
has a title not taken from the article.
has a pay wall or steals content.
covers an already-submitted story.
violates reddit's site-wide rules, especially regarding personal info.
Your comment will likely be removed if it:
is racist, sexist, vitriolic, or overly crude.
is unnecessarily rude or provocative.
is a cheap and distracting joke or meme.
is responding to spam.
violates reddit's site-wide rules.
Extreme or repeat offenders will be banned.
Expanded Rules
If your post doesn't fit, consider finding an appropriate news article on that s
tory to submit instead, or submitting yours to lower moderation subreddits:
/r/inthenews - all news-related content
/r/AnythingGoesNews - unrestricted news
/r/truereddit - insightful articles
/r/self - any self-post
/r/misc, /r/redditdotcom - anything
or other news subreddits:
/r/worldnews - from outside the USA only
/r/SyrianCivilWar - about the conflict in Syria

/r/MidEastRegionalWar - on MidEast conflict /r/UpliftingNews - uplifting


/r/mediaquotes - the things they say
or subreddits for other topics:
/r/FoodForThought - discussion-worthy long form articles about interesting subje
cts
/r/politics - for shouting about politics
/r/moderatepolitics - less shouting
/r/politicaldiscussion - even less shouting
/r/geopolitics - intl. politics and geography
/r/entertainment - Justin Bieber updates, etc.
/r/europe - news from Europe
or check out the 200 most active subreddits, categorized by content and the full
list of subreddits by subscribers.
Recommendations:
/r/redactedcharts
/r/patriots
/r/personalfinance
/r/restorethefourth
reddit is fun for Android and its subreddit /r/redditisfun
submit analysis/opinion article
submit news article
submit something else
submit analysis/opinion article
a community for 6 years
message the moderators
moderators
douglasmacarthur
KyldeThe Janitor
AyeMatey
CandyManCan
Elderthedog
LuckyBdx4
NickWasHere09
ani625
pomosexuality
IKingJeremy
...and 1 more
3152
FBI says search warrants not needed to use stingrays in public places (arstechnica
.com)
submitted 13 hours ago by doctorshady
731 commentsshare
top 500 comments
sorted by: best
[ ]peaceshark 654 points 11 hours ago
If only there were some branch of government that would keep the FBI in check, o
ne that judged people and organizations supremely...
permalink
[ ]misogichan 641 points 8 hours ago
Unfortunately the Catholic church has its hands full dealing with its own intern
al reforms and recasting its vision and mission.
permalinkparent
[ ]wutshappening 93 points 7 hours ago
And looking at cat photos that's why they're Cat-holic. Alco-holics are addicted
to alcohol and catholics well you get the idea.
permalinkparent
[ ]TuffLuffJimmy 142 points 6 hours ago
Omg dad you're embarrassing me in front of my friends
permalinkparent
[ ]okmkz 27 points 4 hours ago

We ain't your friends, bruh


permalinkparent
[ ]Corruptionss 4 points 2 hours ago
We ain't your bruh, friends
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
load more comments (2 replies)
[ ]ROLLINGtemple 9 points 5 hours ago
What's their Dogma?
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
load more comments (9 replies)
[ ]hershmire 73 points 7 hours ago
The courts gave up about ten years ago.
permalinkparent
[ ]endprism 50 points 7 hours ago
The courts are pwned by the surveillance state.
permalinkparent
[ ]sushisection 41 points 6 hours ago
This is what I'm afraid of. Nsa is collecting data from all citizens including p
oliticians and supreme court judges.
permalinkparent
[ ]dutchguilder2 19 points 5 hours ago
Whistleblower confirms: http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=d6m1XbWOfVk
permalinkparent
[ ]TwitchTV_Subbort 1 point 3 hours ago
D.C. is Hollywood for ugly people. best line ever!!
permalinkparent
[ ]sklite 1 point 1 hour ago
Charles Augustus Magnussen approves
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]CriticalThink 1 point 6 hours ago
Skeletons in the closet are easy to find with intelligence infrastructure.
permalinkparent
[ ]HurricaneSandyHook 1 point 5 hours ago
The 10th circuit a few days ago sided with the government saying the cops use of
doppler radar to see if anyone was inside a house was legal. They did say it is
a troubling tactic that needs further review and just left it at that....
permalinkparent
[ ]-_--___-_--_--___--_ 27 points 6 hours ago
One major problem with judicial review is that there must be a case for the cour
t to review. I guess the other avenue would be to sue the government, but I'm no
t an attorney so I don't know how that would work.
permalinkparent
[ ]downvotesmakemehard 14 points 4 hours ago
I believe the current court has taken the stance that to take up a case someone
has to show they've been harmed in some way.
The police will never say that stingray is the source of the evidence. This woul
d open stingray to be scrutinized. They will use stingray to go after phone comp
any records which they will claim they requested on a hunch or some other bullsh
it excuse.
permalinkparent
[ ]great_gape [score hidden] 29 minutes ago
Anonymous tip.
permalinkparent
load more comments (2 replies)
[ ]dissonance07 8 points 6 hours ago
With is wide a latitude as the current SCOTUS seems to give to individual libert
y, this seems like the one kind of thing that they could actually usefully addre

ss, right?
permalinkparent
[ ]MrBojangles528 1 point 5 hours ago
Scalia and the rest of the SCOTUS is bought and sold just like the rest of our g
overnment. They answer first and foremost to the parties that nominated them as
well as the corporations that own them.
permalinkparent
[ ]psilontech 12 points 5 hours ago
See, I don't get that. You get into the Supreme Court and you're golden. Unless
you are actively breaking the law and can be impeached, you're untouchable. Why
not, you know, do what's best for your country instead of remaining beholden to
the parasites that leveraged you into that position?
permalinkparent
[ ]Ratbasher88 14 points 4 hours ago
Yep, Supreme Court justices have a well established history of turning out way d
ifferent than their supporters thought they'd be. For whatever reason this curre
nt batch of justices seems more comfortable with the security state than their p
redecessors, however that's true for most Americans in general so I suppose it s
houldn't be shocking.
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]MrBojangles528 2 points 4 hours ago
Good question, but you'd have to ask them about it.
permalinkparent
[ ]cynoclast 0 points 3 hours ago
Unless you are actively breaking the law and can be impeached, you're untouchabl
e.
But you can get richer. Or have your personal communications made public.
permalinkparent
[ ]tughdffvdlfhegl 1 point 3 hours ago
Honestly? Because they run in those social circles. They're friends with the peo
ple at the top. They don't actively associate with "regular folk" that much.
They've been ingratiated into the upper echelons of society long before ever rea
ching the supreme court through lifetimes spent at the forefront of the legal pr
ofession. This insulates them from others, and leaves them in an echo chamber of
their peers.
Now, when a case comes up that pits one of their friends, or friends' friends ag
ainst some random angry dude who's only making 50k a year, who do you think they
automatically side with, when the case isn't cut and dried? I'm not even saying
it's conscious, but prejudices come in all kinds and run deep. Tribalism happen
s all the time in subtle ways.
Plus there's Scalia taking paid for hunting trips with people who are directly a
ffected by cases in front of him, all of them getting invited to dinners and fun
ctions of the DC elite, etc.
permalinkparent
[ ]pion3435 1 point 3 hours ago
They do. It's possible to disagree with you without being corrupt.
permalinkparent
[ ]Jagoonder 1 point 2 hours ago
Not in an omnipotent surveillance state, however.
permalinkparent
[ ]DownFromYesBad 1 point 2 hours ago
Money, bribery.
permalinkparent
[ ]neotropic9 1 point 1 hour ago
Because they are selected to be the type of people who think whats "best for the
ir country" is serving the parasites, the corporate oligarchs, and the surveilla
nce state. They support the status quo, and the status quo supports them. It wou
ld be a miracle if someone with real principles was actually brought into the Su
preme Court, let alone enough of them to form a majority.

permalinkparent
[ ]isprobablyatwork 1 point 1 hour ago
This does happen, sometimes. Good examples would be Justices Warren and Stevens.
They played along with the GOP right up until they were put on the Court, then
immediately started voting their actual conscience (or if not their conscience,
then at least not as their political backers wanted).
permalinkparent
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[ ]cynoclast 2 points 3 hours ago
You mean the press?
permalinkparent
[ ]scrapinpeg 3 points 6 hours ago*
Obligatory link to illustrated law.
EDIT: fixed link
permalinkparent
[ ]ducttapejedi 3 points 6 hours ago*
error 404, check the link.
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[+][deleted] 13 hours ago (56 children)
[ ]sunbolts 701 points 12 hours ago
Glad to see the FBI is tearing up the constitution to increase their own powers
and authority. /s
permalink
[ ]dontbullshityourself 325 points 11 hours ago
Glad to see the FBI is tearing up the constitution to increase their own powers
and authority
I wish this was just the FBI. Pretty much everybody in the federal, state and lo
cals are doing this. Have been doing for this quite some time too.
permalinkparent
[ ]sunbolts 136 points 10 hours ago
Precisely, and that's what makes this very frightening. The whole club's in on i
t.
permalinkparent
[ ]radonthetyrant 75 points 7 hours ago
but why.. I realize that these "zomg the terrorists!!!11" is only a PR-lie. What
do they really accomplish with this? Industry espionage? Bribes from the indust
ries which create the espionage hardware? Feeling of total control? Control the
masses so it all stays as conservative and corrupt as possible?
Why would you amass such a criminal energy to break constitutional laws just to
be able to see through everyone's communication?
permalinkparent
[ ]BettyRubbleIsHot 151 points 7 hours ago
Total control.
That way when the state has it, they can really put the boot on our necks. Think
they treat us poorly now? Just wait until they have the infrastructure in place
where they feel confident there are absolutely zero threats to their power. Tha
t's when shit is going to get BAD.
permalinkparent
[ ]b-LE-z_it 106 points 6 hours ago
And that's why, despite being terrified of some gun owners, despite being terrif
ied of mass shootings, I don't think we should ban guns, even combat rifles. It
can happen here, and we should at least make it hurt if and when it happens.
permalinkparent
[ ]7V3N 47 points 6 hours ago
Welcome to the list.
permalinkparent

[ ]M00glemuffins 10 points 5 hours ago


Sign me up too. If they try to pull a fast one on the public I'm not standing fo
r their bullshit.
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]FadingEchoes11 26 points 6 hours ago
*rifle. No "combat" rifles are owned by citizens
permalinkparent
[ ]b-LE-z_it 39 points 6 hours ago
Did I mention I don't know anything about guns? I don't know anything about guns
.
Point is, force is not something only people in power should have.
permalinkparent
[ ]teefour 19 points 6 hours ago
You should go to a shooting range and take a class. You won't be so unnecessaril
y afraid of them after that.
permalinkparent
[ ]Pullo_T 27 points 6 hours ago
He's not afraid of guns. He's afraid of some gun owners. At least, as far as we
know.
permalinkparent
continue this thread
load more comments (3 replies)
[ ]Bootsncatsn4 5 points 5 hours ago
i understand where youre coming from, but what will a bunch of angry townsfolk d
o to a predator drone strike?
permalinkparent
[ ]Oeboues 18 points 4 hours ago
You should ask the angry townsfolk of Iraq and Afghanistan.
Once the US military is done slinking away in shame, I mean.
permalinkparent
continue this thread
[ ]nuesuh 1 point 1 hour ago
Remove them. Predator drones are being operated from the ground, and has to land
after a couple hours to refuel.
permalinkparent
[ ]joe_m107 4 points 6 hours ago
Maybe we should change that. Repeal the NFA.
permalinkparent
load more comments (2 replies)
[ ]4nco1j 0 points 2 hours ago
You don't know much about guns, do you now.
permalinkparent
load more comments (6 replies)
[ ]conquer69 15 points 4 hours ago
You can have all the guns you want. That won't stop them from labeling you a "su
spected school shooter, pedophile or terrorist".
A gun can't protect you from that. A gun can't teach your fellow countryman to t
hink by themselves or see through propaganda.
Good luck destroying a drone, plane or tank with a rifle. Not sure how useful a
gun is against your own trained military with even better guns and more.
People thinking they can start a revolution and win with a handgun don't realize
this isn't the 1700's anymore.
permalinkparent
[ ]JimmyBuffer 14 points 4 hours ago
Better tell the Middle East they haven't had a bout of revolutions then
permalinkparent
load more comments (2 replies)
[ ]b-LE-z_it 7 points 4 hours ago
Didn't say we would win, I said we could at least make it hurt. Assuming, of cou

rse, that the American people themselves aren't the ones willingly handing in th
eir freedoms, which would mean we're all fucked immediately.
permalinkparent
[ ]theothercoolfish 13 points 2 hours ago
Assuming, of course, that the American people themselves aren't the ones willing
ly handing in their freedoms, which would mean we're all fucked immediately.
Err, you guys gave up much of your freedoms long ago. And it isn't just the US politicians everywhere are taking as much as they can get, because it's simply
more power for them. More power, more money, more control. It's not a conspiracy
- this is just how an imperfect system with inadequate controls eventually goes
. We need to start re-examining our systems and look at alternatives that are no
w possible with the internet.
permalinkparent
[ ]vynusmagnus 3 points 2 hours ago
Tell that to the insurgents in Afghanistan. It seems to me that the US military
has been unable to defeat them in over a decade of war, despite its overwhelming
technological superiority. Tanks and fighter jets are nice, but they do little
against a small guerrilla force that can disappear into the woodwork.
permalinkparent
[ ]Qoix 3 points 3 hours ago
I think the main issue with that line of thinking is that the military would gun
down the civilians it pledges to protect. How many people in the armed forces d
o you know? Now, are any of them willing to murder innocent people? Probably not
.
permalinkparent
[ ]ihcn 6 points 2 hours ago
They're not innocent people, they're armed revolutionaries, suspected terrorists
permalinkparent
[ ]chance-- 4 points 3 hours ago
You say that as if there isn't insurmountable evidence to the contrary.
Military coups are thoroughly woven into the fabric of humanity's history.
permalinkparent
[ ]theothercoolfish 1 point 2 hours ago
gun down the civilians it pledges to protect.
Err, they don't pledge to protect civilians. They pledge to protect the constitu
tion. And if they are convinced that these people are attempting to "subvert" th
e constitution, then they are enemies. Nevermind that their leaders have shat al
l over the constitution - soldiers take their orders and follow 'em.
Now, are any of them willing to murder innocent people?
lol.
permalinkparent
load more comments (2 replies)
[ ]eloquentnemesis [score hidden] 33 minutes ago
Welcome to 4th generation warfare. You don't need a better gun, or the ability t
o kill a drone, or anything else like that. You just need A gun and more commitm
ent than the other side.
permalinkparent
[ ]homegrowncountryboy [score hidden] 16 minutes ago*
Good luck with those tanks, planes and drones when the American people stop supp
lying fuel and ammunition. My brother is in the Army and he will tell you about
75%, or more of the military will disband and fight to protect the American peop
le. All you have to do is look at New Orleans during Katrina, when they got the
order to start confiscating guns almost all of them refused, instead it was main
ly police stealing people's weapons.
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]Hermit_ 2 points 5 hours ago
Yeah but if it does happen all people would be doing is creating the chaos one o
f the armed and militarized militias needs to take power. For example, The KKK.
permalinkparent

[ ]b-LE-z_it 1 point 5 hours ago


Hopefully not the KKK.
permalinkparent
[ ]AussieArcher 1 point 3 hours ago
Fuck me there's always one of you. I'm starting to think the gun club spends mor
e time on reddit than anyone.
permalinkparent
[ ]astronautg117 1 point 1 hour ago
What's a combat rifle going to do against a drone?
permalinkparent
[ ]datbino 1 point 1 hour ago
i think thats where 2nd ammendment people miss the mark- you owning a rifle will
do nothing against the government.
you becoming an active participating member in that government can help fix it,
the goal is to make you a kony2012 fb sharer rather than a person who gets to wo
rk and fixes shit
permalinkparent
[ ]mpg1846 1 point 1 hour ago
You think 50 guys with hand guns are going to do anything to anyone? Gun laws ar
e a joke.
permalinkparent
[ ]Actionbuilding 1 point 1 hour ago
The founders of the United States of America WANTED the citizens to rise up and
overthrow the government if it approached the levels of corruption it is current
ly working toward.
permalinkparent
load more comments (11 replies)
[ ]nuesuh 1 point 1 hour ago
Ever seen "Das Leben der Anderen"? Imagine this, just with total corruption and
100 times better technology. This is what we are moving towards. Imagine this sy
stem getting in the hands of someone like Hitler or Stalin.. And it can happen.
Before Hitler came to power Germany was a modern, western, christian nation. We
need safety with this technology. And when i say safety, i don't mean surveillan
ce. I mean the opposite.
permalinkparent
[ ]know_comment [score hidden] 14 minutes ago
I agree, but I think the reason for the infrastructure development is because it
is going to get bad. As we are forced to compete more globally, quality of life
stagnates. Even the slightest hint of austerity is going to be very painful for
the lower classes in a society with a large income disparity.
That's why we see the race baiting and divisive rhetoric being used so much. Kee
p the poor and working classes quibbling at each other.
I want you to consider the daffodil. And while you're doing that, I'll be over h
ere, looking through your stuff.
permalinkparent
[ ]mzackler 19 points 7 hours ago
It takes a really complicated answer to truly understand but you often get into
the us vs them mentality in siloed areas of law enforcement. You also often get
frustrated with the levels of proof you need to put the bad guy in jail. Thus an
y method you can use you feel justified in using. Although I think there are a l
ot of issues with The Wire, it's a great starting off point for a discussion if
you want a serious answer.
permalinkparent
load more comments (2 replies)
[ ]hershmire 30 points 7 hours ago
Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts, absolutely.
permalinkparent
[ ]TheNewRavager 70 points 6 hours ago
"All governments suffer a recurring problem: Power attracts pathological persona
lities. It is not that power corrupts but that it is magnetic to the corruptible

. Such people have a tendency to become drunk on violence, a condition to which


they are quickly addicted."
permalinkparent
[ ]gee_iwonderwhy 22 points 6 hours ago
Oh shit, a Dune quote outside /r/dune not about spice.
permalinkparent
[ ]TheNumberMuncher 3 points 6 hours ago
This is pretty cool.
permalinkparent
[ ]YawnDogg 1 point 3 hours ago
Gene Hackman was so kinky in that movie.
permalinkparent
[ ]ThreeTimesUp 2 points 2 hours ago
From a Guardian article by Glenn Greenwald I came across recently:
Inside the mind of NSA chief Gen Keith Alexander
Any casual review of human history proves how deeply irrational it is to believe
that powerful factions can be trusted to exercise vast surveillance power with
little accountability or transparency.
But the more they proudly flaunt their warped imperial hubris, the more irration
al it becomes.
permalinkparent
[ ]Epsilox 3 points 2 hours ago
I'm going to take an unpopular stance here and argue that they get more effectiv
e investigations. Which isn't to say I have no reservations about this stuff, be
cause I do.
I've worked in a field tangential to law enforcement, and I've had the unpleasan
t experience of watching very bad people act with impunity because law enforceme
nt had to play by the rules and they didn't. Does that justify the modern trend
towards more invasive government? Maybe that's just the price we pay to live in
a free society. I don't know. I'm a fan of the H.L. Mencken quote:
"The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's ti
me defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are f
irst aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopp
ed at all."
On the other hand, it's very hard to watch members of organized crime and other
monsters literally get away with murder.
In part the difficulty the lies in the infrastructure of modern society. Communi
cations move at such speed and in such quantity that the sort of pinpoint accura
cy required for effective investigations and prosecutions becomes much more diff
icult.
None of which is to say that what we're doing is necessarily right. I've felt th
e fear of writing an opinion online and knowing that the NSA can see it and ever
ything else I've ever written if they so choose. I've had that feeling of always
being watched. I know exactly what is meant by the danger of chilling free spee
ch, because it's happened to me. But I do tend to trust (perhaps naively) that,
for the most part, most of the people making these decisions have good intention
s. I've worked with many of them, and I believe that it more than anything is th
e result of them trying to do their jobs well. Whether they are actually protect
ing the American people or simply paving the road to hell, only time will really
tell.
permalinkparent
[ ]eyeforgot 4 points 6 hours ago
Think of all the blackmail material they have for any future politicians. They w
ill firmly be in check by the powers that be.
permalinkparent
[ ]ademnus 3 points 7 hours ago
Total control.
permalinkparent
[ ]NotAnotherDecoy 4 points 7 hours ago
Total control?

permalinkparent
[ ]leamas666 2 points 5 hours ago
Why would you amass such a criminal energy to break constitutional laws just to
be able to see through everyone's communication?
It's the deep state attempting to preserve its own regime continuity in the even
t of violent revolution.
permalinkparent
[ ]sunbolts 3 points 6 hours ago
Because those in power try to keep it and in addition, there is always a lust fo
r more power. One who is wealthy seeks to increase his riches usually, right? Sa
me thing going on here. In terms of practicality, there's no reason for breaking
constitutional laws, but when you realize how human nature functions in regards
to ambitions and power, well, what we see going on explains itself.
permalinkparent
[ ]Martenz05 1 point 3 hours ago
So, in order to become a political leader who really does work for the benefit o
f the people, one would somehow have to lose every shred of their humanity so th
ey wouldn't have a human nature that could be corrupted by ambition and power?
That sounds ominous, when I put it like that
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]RuthlessDickTater 1 point 5 hours ago
but why.. I realize that these "zomg the terrorists!!!11" is only a PR-lie.
Well pretty soon they might have their terrorists, but they'll be the domestic k
ind.
permalinkparent
[ ]karadan100 1 point 4 hours ago
More money.
permalinkparent
[ ]cynoclast 1 point 3 hours ago
What do they really accomplish with this?
Get rich.
permalinkparent
load more comments (7 replies)
[ ]TGlucifer 50 points 10 hours ago
Criminals learned it's just way easier to do their lawbreaking with a government
salary.
permalinkparent
[ ]pete1729 22 points 9 hours ago
Well, the benefits package is far more attractive.
permalinkparent
[ ]__ghostpants 25 points 7 hours ago
and somehow snitches go to jail instead of the criminals
permalinkparent
[ ]iismitch55 1 point 3 hours ago
Snitches get stitches. Whistleblowers get their mouth sowed shut.
permalinkparent
[ ]HandsOffMyDitka 5 points 5 hours ago
Why break a law, when you can just change it.
permalinkparent
[ ]moresmarterthanyou 2 points 5 hours ago
except when they have to answer questions themselves...
permalinkparent
[ ]dontbullshityourself 1 point 5 hours ago
Well you know liberty is wasted on peasant swine 'eh?
permalinkparent
[ ]ButterflyAttack 1 point 4 hours ago
Sounds like the constitution doesn't mean much at this point. . .
permalinkparent
[ ]dontbullshityourself 1 point 3 hours ago

Sounds like the constitution doesn't mean much at this point. . .


All it means is that the scum who rule us have a legal contract that they say ba
cks up all their power. But their actions shit all over that document.
President Obama, a constitutional law professor ordered the deaths of two US cit
izens without trial in EXPRESS and DIRECT violation of the constitution.
permalinkparent
load more comments (4 replies)
[ ]Eurynom0s 68 points 9 hours ago
And on top of it, even if being in public was a justification for this, how the
fuck do you prevent the device from nabbing people who are inside their own hous
e or apartment as well?
Oh right, you can't, because that's not how radio waves work.
permalinkparent
[ ]Ioneos 18 points 8 hours ago
You can increase the noise gate to reduce range on purpose, but what good would
that do to keep the terrorists citizens under scrutiny.
permalinkparent
[ ]Eurynom0s 20 points 8 hours ago
Even if they were going to do that, I can't imagine that you could do it to a su
fficient degree in a place like NYC to not scoop up at least some people inside
of buildings.
permalinkparent
load more comments (5 replies)
[ ]Codoro 1 point 4 hours ago
I foresee turning your house into a Faraday Cage being the cop radar finder of t
omorrow.
permalinkparent
[ ]Kenny_Login 23 points 7 hours ago
Taxation without representation, an income far below what the productivity was v
alued at, government intrusion? The founding fathers (you know, those "heroes" o
f our nation) got much more pissed off for much less.
permalinkparent
[ ]Socialdem 8 points 5 hours ago
Can you really blame them? The Constitution was written when people were still r
iding on horses. There's no way the founding fathers could have anticipated the
advances in technology and the way people communicate. I think we're due for a f
irmware upgrade.
permalinkparent
[ ]upandrunning 11 points 3 hours ago
Yes, it's called 'replacing congress'. What we're seeing is a natural consequenc
e of career politicians. Most of the people in office have gotten so comfortable
with the idea that they'll get reelected that what they actually do during thei
r term is almost irrelevent.
permalinkparent
[ ]theothercoolfish 2 points 2 hours ago
Exactly. I think we should look at sortition - with an approval vote, and extrem
ely strict rules on what sort of laws can be passed (eg any law must apply equal
ly to everyone - protecting the minority), and a approval bonus for the randomly
selected representatives if the public approves. Fuck career politicians - they
've proven themselves wholly incapable, and the system that supports them is too
corruptible. I don't think campaign finance reform will 1) ever happen 2) adequ
ately deal with institutional corruption.
permalinkparent
[ ]NuclearWookiee 0 points 2 hours ago
All of this should be covered, in any reasonable interpretation, by the Fourth a
mendment. Rebooting who change anything if the limits on government are ignored.
permalinkparent
[ ]KalAl 1 point 1 hour ago
Do you update your firmware by smashing your bios chip with a hammer?
permalinkparent

[ ]FireFromTheWire 4 points 6 hours ago


You're just another Steve Irwin to them.
permalinkparent
[ ]iismitch55 2 points 3 hours ago
Too soon mate :'(
permalinkparent
[ ]Penguin_in_the_sand 1 point 1 hour ago*
I am curious to know what this comment means?... Oh! Steve Irwin was killed by a
stingray. I thought you may have been referring to some conspiracy relating the
Steve Irwin's death. He had an American wife and both were invited to Howard's
Bush BBQ. http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/10/27/1067233100397.html
permalinkparent
[ ]gloubenterder 2 points 1 hour ago
Steve Irwin was a wildlife documentary filmmaker who was well-known for getting
up close and personal with dangerous animals such as crocodiles and komodo drago
ns.
He was pierced through a heart by a stingray in 2006, while shooting footage for
a documentary called Ocean's Deadliest.
After his death, stingrays had a period of great infamy, and there were even rep
orts of people killing and mutilating stingrays as vengeance for Steve Irwin. ..
.which, of course, is the last thing Irwin would have wanted; he was a conservat
ionist, and whenever he was injured by an animal he was studying, he would alway
s clarify to the viewer that that was his own fault and a risk he was aware of.
permalinkparent
[ ]Agent-BurtMacklinFBI 1 point 5 hours ago
Don't worry I'm keeping a look out
permalinkparent
[ ]pion3435 1 point 3 hours ago
It's not a constitutional issue. It might be an FCC one, but they just do whatev
er they're told anyway.
permalinkparent
[ ]dntur 1 point 3 hours ago
theoretically, every cell tower is in a public place. Why not just attach a stin
gray to all of them? Think of the money mobile companies could make renting towe
r space! next comes google who wants to know who you are calling on your iphone
and windows phone for better directed advertising, followed by Bing. /s
permalinkparent
[ ]Brian3232 [score hidden] 46 minutes ago
Why are they wrong? You already can take pictures of people in public places wit
hout warrant
permalinkparent
[ ]GaltsGulchTouristInf [score hidden] 24 minutes ago
When the constitution, the supreme law of the land, the contract between the gov
ernment and the people, is violated, this violating it should be banned from 'pu
blic service' for life, should be personally liable to those whose rights they v
iolated, and should forfeit their government pension and benefits.
permalinkparent
[ ]wtfmuck [score hidden] 17 minutes ago
It's sad how they shirk doing what is right for what is easy.
permalinkparent
load more comments (8 replies)
[ ]quiteintriguing 127 points 12 hours ago
I think it's about time these fuckers provided some evidence that privacy invadi
ng is helping stop crime or terrorism. As far as I can see, there is an Islamic
army in the middle east right now filled with westerners that simply flew over a
nd caught a bus. Nice job government agencies, you sure showed us.
permalink
[ ]HappyAtavism 81 points 11 hours ago
I think it's about time these fuckers provided some evidence that privacy invadi
ng is helping stop crime or terrorism.

Even more importantly they should provide evidence that they're not violating th
e 4th Amendment. The Bill of Rights doesn't say it applies only when convenient.
P.S. I agree that repeated failures to demonstrate the effectiveness of these th
ings, or lies which get "corrected", is yet another reason why this stuff is BS,
but the Constitution is first and foremost. Don't like the 4th Amendment? Try t
o repeal it. Until then it's in force.
permalinkparent
[ ]7u5 3 points 5 hours ago
The "checks and balances" of the judiciary are a farce. They are free to "interp
ret" the Constitution as they see fit.
permalinkparent
load more comments (3 replies)
[ ]DiaperParty 9 points 3 hours ago
Fuck that. FUUUCK that. If this did stop terrorists, it would still not be worth
the violation of rights. We absolutely CANNOT start OKing this shit as long as
it "stops bad guys."
permalinkparent
[ ]quiteintriguing 1 point 3 hours ago
I think you misunderstood. I think they should have to back up their justificati
on, which they obviously can't.
permalinkparent
[ ]DiaperParty 4 points 3 hours ago
But if we ask them to, we lend legitimacy to that claim. We need to say from the
get go that no justification is needed because none will be sufficient.
permalinkparent
[ ]ebouwman 7 points 5 hours ago
In Canada we had the Ottawa shooting and that dude that ran over some soldiers.
Correct me if I'm wrong but both these guys had had their passports revoked.
I'm not a fan of letting them just go over and fight a dirty war but wtf.
permalinkparent
[ ]Ceejae 4 points 4 hours ago
But so what if it is? How successful the program is is irrelevant.
I'm sure if they set up a government camera in every home they'd stop plenty of
murders and rapes.
permalinkparent
load more comments (2 replies)
[ ]cassieloveseffie 5 points 2 hours ago
Well we all know that the FBI has followed people like John Lennon who believed
in radical peace, urged MLK to kill himself and was prepared to assassinate occu
py members. It is not about crime, it is about maintaining a status quo.
permalinkparent
[ ]monopixel 2 points 1 hour ago
was prepared to assassinate occupy members.
Interesting, where can I read up about this?
permalinkparent
[ ]wirepants 4 points 4 hours ago
Locking everyone in solitary could stop crime and terrorism too. That's not a go
od enough reason to violate our rights even if it was working.
permalinkparent
[ ]egodeath92 2 points 5 hours ago
Shh that's classified. This entire country would be a post-apocalyptic dirt-patc
h is not for the heroic NSA collecting dirt on most of the country.
permalinkparent
[ ]pion3435 1 point 3 hours ago
You had no privacy in the first place. That's not how cell phones work.
permalinkparent
load more comments (6 replies)
[ ]MashItMatt 143 points 13 hours ago
Obviously these are constitution free zones, citizen.
permalink

[ ]THANKS-FOR-THE-GOLD 22 points 7 hours ago


Embrace democracy or you will be eradicated
permalinkparent
[ ]jroddie4 14 points 5 hours ago
Citizen, pick up that can.
permalinkparent
[ ]douko 3 points 5 hours ago
This image won't even load (here's another one), but I still know what it is.
DEATH IS A PREFERABLE ALTERNATIVE TO COMMUNISM.
COMMUNISM IS THE VERY DEFINITION OF FAILURE!
permalinkparent
[ ]chewysquirrel 15 points 6 hours ago
Approximately 2/3 of Americans live in a "constitution free zone"
permalinkparent
[ ]newpolitics 50 points 10 hours ago
The Federal Bureau of Investigation is taking the position that court warrants a
re not required when deploying cell-site simulators in public places. Nicknamed
"stingrays," the devices are decoy cell towers that capture locations and identi
ties of mobile phone users and can intercept calls and texts.
So nobody has any expectation of privacy? Talking out of their asses. The implic
ation that a warrant shouldn't be needed to intercept someone's text messages, i
s outrageous.
permalink
[ ]acerplatanoides [score hidden] 16 minutes ago
The implication that a warrant shouldn't be needed to intercept someone's text m
essages, is outrageous.
The implication of intercepting a PRESS related text message, and thus also supp
ressing a free press.
I think many of these are used to stop uploading of images to social medial. You
ever tried that during a demonstration?
permalinkparent
[ ]dalasocatyemerc 67 points 9 hours ago
Hmm, I didn't realize the FBI had the authority to ignore the constitution of th
e United States of America.
Maybe this organization doesn't actually serve Americans. That's what I think
permalink
[ ]Jagoonder 17 points 2 hours ago
They don't. However, lets look at their 3rd criteria:
(3) cases in which the technology is used in public places or other locations at
which the FBI deems there is no reasonable expectation of privacy.
In public, noone has an expectation to privacy. SCOTUS has ruled on such. Theref
ore, it could be argued that phone conversations in public places forfeits at le
ast one party's rights to privacy.
There are a couple of problems with this. First, Stingray is indiscriminate. Sec
ond, the other party of the phone conversation may be in their own home thus hav
ing an expectation of privacy.
I don't know how law works in regards to phone tapping. But, I would assume that
any warrant to do so would provide the agency a waiver on a second party's priv
acy protections when conversing with the target of the warrant. Except in the ca
se of Stingray no warrant was ever obtained thus, no waiver, thus the second par
ty probably still has privacy protections.
So, I think it's bullshit. I'm no lawyer. I suspect the FBI also knows it's bull
shit. But, the more excuses they can come up with to bend the law around their w
ill the more time it takes to try to stop them since each instance requires anot
her court decision.
permalinkparent
[ ]punkrampant 13 points 1 hour ago
There's only "no expectation of privacy" in public in terms of video+camera surv
eillance. People still get disturbed if you look over their shoulder at their ph
one, or listen to a conversation.

Text messages, emails, phone calls, all of it, are the modern day written letter
s. What the FBI is trying to do is the equivalent of setting up a post office th
at opens everyone's envelopes and makes copies of all the contents.
permalinkparent
[ ]Jagoonder 5 points 1 hour ago
Text messages, emails, phone calls, all of it, are the modern day written letter
s. What the FBI is trying to do is the equivalent of setting up a post office th
at opens everyone's envelopes and makes copies of all the contents.
You're right. I was focusing on an actual phone conversation where one party cou
ld be overheard by others, thus no expectation to privacy.
permalinkparent
[ ]Cambodian_Drug_Mule 2 points 1 hour ago
Surely there are people with technical expertise that can just fuck their shit u
p. If I'm not mistaken the stingrays were detected with consumer grade electroni
cs. If everyone just looked out for them and pinned where they are at on a map,
couldn't some people with the technical know how take them offline?
permalinkparent
[ ]monopixel 1 point 1 hour ago
Hmm, I didn't realize the FBI had the authority to ignore the constitution of th
e United States of America.
The US government and its agencies has been doing it for ages.
permalinkparent
[ ]rtpg 40 points 6 hours ago
Surprised nobody's mentioned Kyllo v. United States yet.
This is fairly recent (2001) jurisprudence. The gov't used a thermal imager, and
saw that there were heat lamps inside of a house, and used that to get a search
warrant. The gov't argued that, well, the heat was outside, so pretty much publ
ic information.
The courts disagreed and ruled this an illegal search. Main reason being that no
t many people have thermal imagers, so there's a reasonable expectation of priva
cy. I think even less people have stingrays, so even from the "discovering that
someone has a cell phone" aspect, there's unreasonableness in the search.
Now to the wiretapping aspect... there's Katz v. United States. Here, somebody w
as in a phone booth, and the feds had set a microphone outside the phone booth w
ithout warrant (so not exactly a wiretap). Again, the courts ruled this an unrea
sonable search.
A part of the ruling:
Regardless of the location, a conversation is protected from unreasonable search
and seizure under the Fourth Amendment if it is made with a "reasonable expecta
tion of privacy".
Text messages definitely fall under this. I can't see this holding up for 2 seco
nds in court.
The article goes into it into detail, but few of the FBI's interpretations on pr
ivacy have been holding up in courts recently. The system is kind of working, an
d this interpretation will be shut down as well. Now, if only everyone had good
lawyers...
permalink
[ ]ryewheats 7 points 4 hours ago
But the biggest problem I see would be them not declaring how they gathered any
information they collected in the first place. It would be pretty easy to skirt
around the system and act like you caught the suspect red-handed (because you we
re tipped off by illegal searches). That is the really scary part.
permalinkparent
[ ]argv_minus_one 5 points 3 hours ago
This practice is known as "parallel construction".
permalinkparent
[ ]tughdffvdlfhegl 3 points 3 hours ago
Honestly, this is the biggest concern. The courts won't allow a challenge becaus
e no one will have standing, because the feds/police won't actively declare this
as evidence in a trial. Meanwhile, they'll continue to use it, having a chillin

g effect on the press and others (which the courts have not seen in recent histo
ry as sufficient to provide legal standing).
permalinkparent
[ ]JustaChimp 3 points 5 hours ago
With the Katz v US case, it took them 39 years to overturn the Olmstead v US rul
ing. Let's hope it takes a little less time for this medium.
The recent Romano v Steelcase Inc. court case could indicate how the courts will
rule in the short term with regards to "reasonable expectation of privacy" thou
gh this ruling was in the context of social media and not text messages. The ana
logy was made that much like a letter writer has no reasonable expectation of pr
ivacy once the recipient is in possession of the letter, neither does the post's
author. Same could be extended to text messages and would be equally as trouble
some.
permalinkparent
[ ]qdarius 1 point 3 hours ago
Damn, that doesn't seem right at all. If I send someone a letter I definitely ex
pect that only they will read it.
Could anyone expand on the logic that a letter writer has no reasonable expectat
ion of privacy?
permalinkparent
[ ]Boltaeg 1 point 3 hours ago
After that letter is given to the recipient, they can do whatever they want with
it without you knowing. They could copy it, show it to friends, frame it and pu
t it on their wall....etc. You have no control over that and must assume that an
ything you write in a letter can be disclosed in some manner, simply because you
have no control over that persons actions.
As to why that is the case, I have no idea. Especially considering it is illegal
to open someone elses mail, but perfectly legal to read someone else's letter o
nce they open it. At least that is my understanding of it.
permalinkparent
[ ]TheMightyBarbarian 1 point 3 hours ago
Its fairly simple, you sent a letter, until it is received by the intended recip
ient it has federal protections. Once the recipient receives it, they are free t
o do with it as they wish, even if you disagree with what they do, specifically
because the letter is now their property, even though you wrote it.
permalinkparent
[ ]qdarius 1 point 2 hours ago
I understand that. But if someone else intercepts my letter shouldn't that still
be illegal?
Maybe I'm misunderstanding how stingrays work but it seems like they're basicall
y designed to intercept hundreds of messages.
permalinkparent
[ ]TheMightyBarbarian 1 point 2 hours ago
Intercept isn't illegal, its sketchy but not illegal. As for reading it, it's a
grey area since texts are not encrypted and even if they were it would do shit i
f billions of devices can decrypt them. So unless you use something like a messe
nger system that can use basic encrypting. It won't stop the FBI from reading it
, but it does show you took steps to have a private conversation and that's what
matters to the court.
permalinkparent
[ ]coalbeeashi 1 point 3 hours ago
Re: Katz v. United States
Certain details, such as shutting the door on the telephone booth, help determin
e if a person intends for a conversation to be private. Thus, private conversati
ons can be made in public areas.
What steps is the average Joe taking to exhibit a reasonable expectation of priv
acy regarding his/her data usage? Honest question.
permalinkparent
[ ]TheMightyBarbarian 1 point 2 hours ago
Beyond using a VPN to mimic another location, not much really. Since there are m

any devices involved in the process of just looking up a website. Ex. You google
Microsoft. Here are all the parties involved: You, Your ISP, Google, Microsoft.
That's four parties involved and that's assuming you are not using a Phones Mob
ile Data plan and are using WiFi. Because then it can add a few more people invo
lved.
Sure you should have protection just the same, but currently the law doesn't rec
ognize that, because the people in charge dont understand how any of it works.
permalinkparent
[ ]rtpg [score hidden] 54 minutes ago
I would say that cultural norms kind of define that in that it is extremely rude
to look at another stranger's phone while they are using it to browse/look at t
heir emails/whatever. Not the most solid argument, I know.
permalinkparent
[ ]Sic_SemperTyrannis 1 point 2 hours ago
When the use of stingrays is challenged in court police have dropped the cases r
ather than explain their use of stingrays.
permalinkparent
[ ]cassieloveseffie 1 point 2 hours ago
I have seen a printed record of every one of someone's txt messages for 6 months
. Never assume txt messages are private.
permalinkparent
[ ]Ladderjack 29 points 12 hours ago
I'm sorry, have they gone ahead and combined the FBI and the Supreme Court of th
e United States of America? No? Well, we will see how long this lasts. . .
permalink
[ ]butitssnot 46 points 7 hours ago
Its ok. In 2016 we can vote for hope and change and transparency and fix all thi
s.
permalinkparent
[ ]CriticalThink 3 points 5 hours ago
yeah. I bet Hillary will fix this mess, right Reddit?
permalinkparent
[ ]TheMightyBarbarian 1 point 2 hours ago
We still got time before they can start promoting themselves for President, lega
lly actually, they can't start until a certain number of days from the election.
permalinkparent
[ ]looneybandito 5 points 6 hours ago
Haha. As if our votes matter.
permalinkparent
[ ]atomofconsumption 9 points 5 hours ago
thatsthejoke.jpg
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]dichroeyes 1 point 4 hours ago
You are right. I give up. Long live the hegemony.
permalinkparent
[ ]Pikaflu 1 point 3 hours ago
America is an irradiated wasteland. Within it lies a city. Outside the boundary
walls, a desert. A cursed earth. Inside the walls, a cursed city, stretching fro
m Boston to Washington D.C. An unbroken concrete landscape. 800 million people l
iving in the ruin of the old world and the mega structures of the new one. Mega
blocks. Mega highways. Mega City One. Convulsing. Choking. Breaking under its ow
n weight. Citizens in fear of the street. The gun. The gang. Only one thing figh
ting for order in the chaos: the men and women of the Hall of Justice. Juries. E
xecutioners. Judges.
permalinkparent
[ ]Ago_Solvo 36 points 9 hours ago
I'm sure that means that stingrays are also open for public hacking in that case
, because they're in a public place, and doing so can't be considered an intrusi
on on government properties or a violation of any Federal Law.

permalink
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]whysopositive 57 points 12 hours ago
Say whatever you want, you don't think big brother is going to find every way to
spy on you?
The thing is I bet every time we the people get upset about some "new" trespass
against our rights there's already something technologically beyond our knowledg
e being put to use to on us now.
permalink
[ ]I_SPLIT_INFINITIVES 16 points 7 hours ago
My dad always said, "If that's what they're telling us they have now, they proba
bly had it ten years ago. Just imagine what they really have."
permalinkparent
[ ]oOTHX1138Oo 28 points 9 hours ago
Thats why we need to add to the bill of rights, so that we continue to be protec
ted in the digital age.
permalinkparent
[ ]TheBlueWaffleHouse 18 points 8 hours ago
At this point in time the bill of rights only shrinks. It doesn't get bigger.
permalinkparent
[ ]tallerthanunicorngod 33 points 7 hours ago
Not with that attitude.
permalinkparent
[ ]mattacular2001 3 points 5 hours ago
Doesn't matter unless you're wealthy
permalinkparent
[ ]tallerthanunicorngod 1 point 2 hours ago
Wealthy people don't like to be spied on either. Honestly, they probably like it
even less.
permalinkparent
[ ]sockgorilla 1 point 5 hours ago
He's John Titor, he's watched it before.
permalinkparent
[ ]mastahslayah 1 point 4 hours ago
Well he isn't getting any of my Dr. Pepper.
permalinkparent
[ ]Poor__Yorick 1 point 2 hours ago
Wow that's a name I haven't heard in a while.
We've got a world war this year though.
3 billion dead by the end of it.
permalinkparent
load more comments (5 replies)
[ ]pion3435 1 point 3 hours ago
We already did. That's the point of laws like HIPAA. There's just no equivalent
for things like email or cell phones so it's legal to see whatever people are na
ively broadcasting.
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]ZomNomNomBeeZ 5 points 7 hours ago
This technology is not particularly new. The man-in-the-middle attack is a class
ic hacking technique. I remember reading an article after one of the security co
nventions detailing a small group of participants that used a remote control air
plane to do this exact thing to convention attendees. This was years ago.
permalinkparent
[ ]hershmire 4 points 7 hours ago
Which is why it's illegality could be successfully code into law.
permalinkparent
[ ]TheMightyBarbarian 1 point 3 hours ago
That's the problem, the people who make the laws don't understand how the techno
logy works, and the people making and using it are telling them its fine, so the

y don't feel like they need to make a law about.


And as such making a law about it would be bad, since the law would need specifi
c language to prevent certain technologies and usage of such. But the biggest is
sue is that some of the technology and uses are too general that it would never
work to stop anything. Since they can't just write a law preventing man in the m
iddle because they need to get a definitive wording on what that is exactly and
then word it so a slight variation doesn't just immediately skirt the new law.
Our technology grew faster than our laws did, but now it's grown faster than our
ability to properly define what it is we do. So controlling it is incredibly ha
rd and will take a long time, so for now we kinda have to suck it up and wait, b
ecause the worst possible thing is them putting out ineffective laws that do les
s than nothing to prevent stuff like that and hearing us complain and think we a
re whining when they just put out a law. I would rather wait a little longer to
make sure the law is proper and effective than to have a crap law screw everythi
ng up.
permalinkparent
[ ]ScorpionPool 1 point 6 hours ago
Serious question. What benefits does the government get from spying on us? Power
? Information for corporations? Shits and giggles? Some kind of profit?
permalinkparent
[ ]swingmemallet 2 points 5 hours ago
All of the above
permalinkparent
[ ]eyeforgot 1 point 5 hours ago*
What like complete access to what anyone posts/chats about on facebook/skype bei
ng dumped into a database? Anyone who work with cisco routers notice anything fu
nny like carefully crafted packets fucking w. the settings and not creating logs
. Maybe like there is a back door that someone has that doesn't require a passwo
rd.
permalinkparent
load more comments (3 replies)
[ ]philtech 26 points 10 hours ago
You can scan for stingray use.
Only works on rooted phones with Qualcomm chipset however. https://play.google.c
om/store/apps/details?id=de.srlabs.snoopsnitch&hl=en
permalink
[ ]vamper 2 points 6 hours ago
damn, no go for my nexus 5
permalinkparent
[ ]Ice_Pirate 1 point 5 hours ago
Should work on my 20 dollar ZTE's with dualies :). Overclocks to 1.8 like butta.
http://www.phonearena.com/phones/ZTE-N800_id8191
permalinkparent
[ ]willyboxc 1 point 2 hours ago
we need a version that will work without root :(
permalinkparent
[ ]networklackey 49 points 11 hours ago*
Bullshit... it's radio. They have no way of determining whether the person they
are monitoring is in public or not.
They shouldn't be able to use this without a warrant any more than they should b
e able to point a laser mic at your window.
The fact that they are in public is irrelevant... the subject they are monitorin
g has to be in public.
permalink
[ ]lll_1_lll 29 points 6 hours ago
Even if we are in public, what the fuck gives them the right to look through my
texts, phone calls, voicemails, emails, call history, etc?
permalinkparent
[ ]zoidbug 5 points 3 hours ago
It should be protected the level of paper mail. It is your private communication

s.
permalinkparent
[ ]networklackey 1 point 2 hours ago
Technically... because you are in public and are broadcasting. But I feel the sa
me way. None of this shit should be legal.
permalinkparent
load more comments (6 replies)
[ ]goatmagic 2 points 3 hours ago
laser mic
Well, TIL this exists :/
permalinkparent
[ ]networklackey 2 points 2 hours ago
They absolutely exist and they are freaking awesome. They should not however be
used by law enforcement without a warrant.
permalinkparent
[ ]makingupdumbnames 1 point 5 hours ago
I think it's that their airwaves cross public space. pls correct me if I'm wrong
, though
permalinkparent
[ ]networklackey 1 point 2 hours ago
That's certainly the argument they are making.
permalinkparent
[ ]wirepants 1 point 4 hours ago
Even assuming you are in public, who's to say the guy on the other side is too?
permalinkparent
[ ]networklackey 1 point 2 hours ago
Nothing but their log books but that doesn't really matter. It's your right to p
rivacy they are violating.
permalinkparent
[ ]Sarah_Connor 9 points 9 hours ago
We need a way to be able to identify, then jamm, stingrays.
permalink
[ ]cookie_nrk 8 points 7 hours ago
This Jammer made in sweden should do the trick. From what I have read it complet
ely blocks all signals, so using a phone wouldn't work at all, but if you were i
n a position to not want to be tracked during a certain time, you could use this
: http://www.jammer-store.com/monstro-10-all-frequencies-portable-jammer.html
permalinkparent
[ ]hershmire 10 points 7 hours ago
We're talking about blanket monitoring of civilians. It needs to be outlawed imm
ediately. Hoping each and every Joe Schmoe is going to buy an illegal cell phone
jammer to protect his identity is, well, ridiculous.
permalinkparent
[ ]davidverner 6 points 7 hours ago
Jammers are illegal in the US on the cellphone frequency. Good luck importing on
e.
permalinkparent
[ ]wicard 5 points 6 hours ago
had one from deal extreme i bought when i was younger to prank friends, was alot
of fun. But if you are worried about being tracked wouldn't just shutting your
phone off do the trick? If you are jamming your phone you arnt going to be talki
ng to anyone.
permalinkparent
[ ]RellenD 4 points 5 hours ago
You have to do more than just turn it off, unfortunately.
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]willyboxc 1 point 2 hours ago
we need the schematics so we can build one... also include 700 mhz jam for lte
permalinkparent

load more comments (1 reply)


[ ]ademnus 11 points 7 hours ago
That's nice but it's not up to the FBI if it is illegal or not.
permalink
[ ]MonitoredCitizen 21 points 7 hours ago
Come on Google and Apple, stop being so lame. Make the phones themselves defend
against this by always displaying the negotiated encryption level and allowing u
ser to configure the phone to refuse to connect if the GSM encryption level is A
5/0.
permalink
[ ]argv_minus_one 2 points 2 hours ago
If they do that, these same spooks will have some words with their CEOs. Otherwi
se, yeah, they likely would.
permalinkparent
[ ]vzzzbux 2 points 1 hour ago
Not sure on the technical specifics but my old Nokia from 10 years ago used to s
how a padlock if the call was "secure", which I guess meant it was encrypted in
some way.
Sounds like yet another way we've gone backwards with the rise of Google and App
le
permalinkparent
[ ]cryptovariable 180 points 12 hours ago
This seems icky, but anyone with a Raspberry Pi ($48.00), an RTL-SDR ($17.00), a
nd an ability to follow written step-by-step instructions on how to install and
configure some open source software ($0.00) can do this, albeit on a smaller sca
le.
That tutorial doesn't cover decrypting GSM traffic. This one does. You'll need s
omething faster than a Raspberry Pi, though. Maybe a $200 netbook.
And you can do it on the same scale as the police with a surplus commercial ante
nna and three or four friends.
I don't see how restricting the government's ability to do this would have any o
ther effect than to criminalize a private citizen's desire to experiment with GS
M.
permalink
[ ]HappyAtavism 113 points 11 hours ago
I don't see how restricting the government's ability to do this would have any o
ther effect than to criminalize a private citizen's desire to experiment with GS
M.
Experiment with GSM all you want, just don't eavesdrop or commit fraud by preten
ding to be part of a legitimate business.
I like to play with miniature cameras, microphones and transmitters. That's a fi
ne hobby as long as I don't use it to spy on my neighbors.
permalinkparent
load more comments (5 replies)
[ ]mr___ 50 points 12 hours ago
But theirs has a transmitter, and actively spoofs cell sites
permalinkparent
[ ]cryptovariable 55 points 12 hours ago
It you want to spoof rather than just eavesdrop all you have to do is buy any of
the SDR kits that are coming on to the market like a bladeRF or something and h
ave GNUradio (which hilariously autocorrects to FBI radio on my phone) pretend t
o be a tower, the credentials of which you sniffed with your Pi setup.
The reason the Feds spoof is so that they can target specific devices on a white
list and only have those connect. The size of the whitelist is unknown and up fo
r debate.
If you're capturing and decrypting all the GSM your antenna can receive you don'
t care if you're spoofing the tower unless you want to modify the traffic in som
e way. To quote Sir Patrick Stewart: "It's too late, I've seen everything."
If you just scoop up everything using cheap/free and publicly available tools yo
u don't really care about spoofing.

It should be noted that the Feds have a leg up with CDMA because of its smaller
global footprint and the scarcity of developers working on it, as well as UMTS (
3G) and LTE.
But people are poking at LTE every day: http://www.rtl-sdr.com/analyzing-td-ltertl-sdr/
permalinkparent
[ ]HappyAtavism 36 points 11 hours ago
The reason the Feds spoof is so that they can target specific devices on a white
list and only have those connect. The size of the whitelist is unknown and up fo
r debate.
We do know they don't have warrants. How many violations of the 4th Amendment do
es it take before it's considered a bad thing?
permalinkparent
load more comments (19 replies)
[ ]A530[??] 6 points 6 hours ago
I have to ask an honest question. Knowing what you know, do you live in a Farada
y cage or just eschew cell phones all together? I'm in InfoSec (I'm guessing you
are too) and with the shit I know, maintaining OPSec is just a never ending bat
tle. I can't imagine my paranoia if I went down the cellular rabbit hole (althou
gh I do know a lot about the shit happening with the carrier baseband MDM garbag
e).
Many thanks for the very informative post.
permalinkparent
[ ]tornadoRadar 1 point 1 hour ago
Gotta keep it segmented. Personal never mixes with biz
permalinkparent
[ ]the_nap_mutilator 1 point 5 hours ago
Spoofing the cell site also gives them access to the phone at something akin to
the hardware level... so unless you have rooted and or installed software to sec
ure the device, they can push new software onto your phone without your knowledg
e/consent in the same way that your carrier updates subscriber units say when th
ey make changes to the network or something. At that point your phone has been p
ermanently compromised.
permalinkparent
load more comments (13 replies)
[ ]mag17435 29 points 10 hours ago
I dont understand how people think the government can do things citizens can. Or
dering our government not to do something has no bearing on what citizens can do
.
permalinkparent
[ ]Golden-Fox 7 points 6 hours ago
Well when police are trying to visually collect evidence they can in general onl
y search from public areas. If a cop is looking for a certain car and they see i
t on the street, that's fine. If the car is parked in a closed garage and on pri
vate property, the cop wouldn't be able to see it without going onto private pro
perty and looking in a window. If the car is in the same garage and the garage d
oor is open, then anyone can see it, and the cop can legally use that informatio
n.
The FBI is trying to apply that same logic to these stingrays. Stingrays are a t
echnology that is available to the public. You could make your own and do exactl
y what the FBI does. The data being collected isn't encrypted, password protecte
d, or anything else. Everything is publicly available. You just have to have a c
ertain machine to be able to read it. The garage door has to be open.
permalinkparent
[ ]Wordygit 6 points 6 hours ago
The key word here is "public" whereas where there is the expectation of privacy,
I would think think that would carry some special considerations. That seems to
be some of what the courts are deciding about, where the expectation of privacy
holds sway over searches. Its already been determined that law enforcement cann
ot force you to unlock your phone. One such Supreme Court case, decided this pas

t summer, led to a sweeping victory for privacy rights advocates. In a rare unan
imous decision, the court found that police cannot search cellphones, and by ext
ension tablets and other digital communication devices, without first obtaining
a warrant. Smartphones, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote, hold the privacies of l
ife, and the fact that technology now allows an individual to carry such informati
on in his hand does not make the information any less worthy of the protection f
or which the Founders fought. I think, as well, that it has been established that
if there is encryption being used, that constitutes an acknowledgement that ste
ps have been taken to protect and maintain the sense of privacy, and so the expe
ctation carries onto the information being transmitted. Not sure if there is a l
egal precedent for that though.
permalinkparent
[ ]Golden-Fox 2 points 5 hours ago
Its already been determined that law enforcement cannot force you to unlock your
phone.
This is what I've heard, but to me it implies that police can access your phone
if you don't have it locked. Carrying that logic over to this argument, the poli
ce would be able to access your cell info as long as it isn't encrypted. It seem
s that you only have a "reasonable expectation to privacy" with your cell phone
if you've taken any steps to make your phone more private. If there were some wa
y to get your carrier to encrypt your data, then there'd be no question, but the
way cell providers are these days, that's not gonna happen.
permalinkparent
[ ]ThreeTimesUp 1 point 1 hour ago
Something that I have heard repeatedly (and I may yet have it wrong), is that if
your front door is closed, but unlocked, the police are free to enter without a
warrant.
This has always bothered me.
I could understand the mind-set of someone (i.e. a Justice of the Supreme court)
thinking that way if they grew up (or lived) in an area where they lived a life
always fearful of intruders and locking doors was a practical necessity.
But to me, a closed door means "Keep out, knock for admittance - no entry withou
t permission."
So, for naive, trusting, me, I would not expect the police (or anyone) to examin
e my phone (without a warrant) just to see what they could find.
permalinkparent
[ ]pion3435 1 point 3 hours ago
A technologically illiterate moron's expectation of privacy doesn't become a rea
sonable expectation of privacy just because the majority of the population is te
chnologically illiterate.
permalinkparent
[ ]F0sh 1 point 2 hours ago
This is totally wrong thinking. A private citizen can look for your car through
the garage window without legal repercussions, even though a police officer migh
t not be allowed. The police officer has to conduct his searches according to th
e expectation of privacy and you have every expectation that your private phone
conversations are private - even if you're sending your texts at the shopping ce
ntre.
This is a bullshit equivocation on the part of the FBI, who are claiming that si
nce any old person at the shops can see that you're also at the shops you have n
o expectation of privacy at all.
This logic, if extended, would also mean the FBI could clone your hard drive if
you took your laptop to a public place - after all, you have no expectation of p
rivacy there. No. Bullshit - just because you're in the park doesn't mean all yo
ur possessions and emails became public.
This has nothing to do with what an ordinary citizen is able to do in public or
in private.
permalinkparent
[ ]ThreeTimesUp 1 point 2 hours ago*
Well when police are trying to visually collect evidence they can in general onl

y search from public areas. If a cop is looking for a certain car and they see i
t on the street, that's fine.
To counterpoint this:
Infra-red light (heat) is just light that's at a lower frequency than humans can
detect.
Courts have ruled that the police using specialized equipment to detect heat sig
natures (Infra-red light) emanating from from houses for the purpose of snooping
for grow operations are an invasion of privacy.
The signals Stingray is picking up are just another frequency, even lower than I
nfra-red light, originating from inside your phone, that is your property, which
is in your possession.
Authorities are using all manner of logical distortions in an express attempt to
get around the ideals and principles expressed in the Constitution.
What law-abiding citizen would attempt such a thing?
What authority that the public has placed their trust in, would make continual a
ttempts to subvert the Constitution?
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
load more comments (2 replies)
[ ]kromem 2 points 3 hours ago
It is already criminal to capture and decrypt GSM traffic for citizens (Wiretap
Act), same as capturing and parsing WiFi data.
But I think I can point out the issue with your logic with a simple analogy:
Citizens can buy guns.
Law enforcement can be provided guns.
Citizens can practice shooting guns.
Law enforcement should do the same.
Citizens can't shoot other citizens with guns except in really specific exemptio
ns.
According to your logic, just because citizens can buy guns, and could possibly
go around shooting other people with them, law enforcement should not have any l
egal restrictions on their use of guns.
It is illegal for you to capture and decrypt anyone else's traffic, and it shoul
d be illegal for cops to do the same without a warrant. It's not that hard to ge
t a warrant when actually justified, creates a paper trail that can be examined
for abuses, and has been the case without serious issue for years now.
For what purpose does the law need to be changed to allow this? Because warrants
are inconvenient? Well then why not get rid of them for entering homes too? It'
s quite trivial to pick a lock, and even easier to smash a window and climb in.
Any citizen could do it. So why do we need to restrict the police from the same?
permalinkparent
[ ]dfioabnionjio 4 points 9 hours ago
I don't see how restricting the government's ability to do this would have any o
ther effect than to criminalize a private citizen's desire to experiment with GS
M.
Why not have it be illegal for government and legal for private citizens? Make i
t perfectly legal for private citizens to experiment with GSM, but don't let the
FBI do the same, like you can have a private citizen share something a defendan
t said in court while the police cannot do the same unless the suspect had been
told of their rights.
Of course, the problem here is not using GSM. It's tracking people who did not k
nowingly join your network. You could have it be legal to experiment with GSM an
d not legal to spoof a network, or make it so tracking someone on your network i
s illegal unless the person being tracked is aware they will be tracked and cons
ents to it.
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]confusiondiffusion 3 points 10 hours ago
Yeah, I really don't see the point in making laws against this, since they'll be
broken anyway. We need to fix the underlying technology. There is no excuse for

the sad state of cellphone security.


permalinkparent
[ ]HappyAtavism 18 points 10 hours ago
I really don't see the point in making laws against this
Then let's just flush the Constitution down the toilet. All laws get broken, the
question is what gets done about it.
since they'll be broken anyway
It's not very hard to break into my house either, but they're not supposed to do
it without a warrant.
permalinkparent
load more comments (4 replies)
[ ]HighMonster 1 point 7 hours ago
Wow that's intriguing
permalinkparent
[ ]lll_1_lll 1 point 6 hours ago
You act like this is realistically doable for the large majority of people and y
ou know that's BS.
permalinkparent
[+][deleted] 6 hours ago (1 child)
[ ]JabroniZamboni 1 point 5 hours ago
Are you suggesting that radar jammers should be legal? As well as cell phone or
wifi jammers? What if your neighbor wants to experiment with a jammer for the ne
xt 4 months? 6 years? I assume you wouldn't be too happy. There's experimentatio
n and then there's purposeful disruption and spying.
permalinkparent
[ ]egodeath92 1 point 5 hours ago
Yeah except "anyone with device X" can't prosecute people. It doesn't matter whe
n corporations do mass data collection because they are just trying to make mone
y/sell people shit. The government can create a database of people's private liv
es then prosecute them. You could even imagine a time where data collection is s
o widespread that this kind of info is used for political purposes rather then b
usting drug dealers/ other criminals which is what it's used for now.
permalinkparent
[ ]Kuusou 1 point 4 hours ago
What the people can do, and what the government can do, are no the same things,
nor should they.
permalinkparent
[ ]qdarius 1 point 4 hours ago
If a random person overhears my conversation I don't care. Even if they tell the
ir friends I'm still not too concerned.
If the government records my conversation and uses it to investigate or prosecut
e me that's clearly a different situation.
Just because someone can do something doesn't mean it should be legal. It defini
tely doesn't mean we should be okay with our government using it on us.
permalinkparent
load more comments (9 replies)
[ ]Sir_not_sir 52 points 13 hours ago
The main purpose of the stinger is to circumvent the need and time of acquiring
a warrant and getting the data from all the service providers.
Regardless of data retention plans, they should require a separate judicial warr
ant for each individual suspect in order to be deployed.
permalink
[ ]manoninternets 8 points 7 hours ago*
The time required to get a warrant is usually far less than what they make it ou
t to be, although cost is as factor. Phone companies make tons of money off poli
ce records requests.
To play devil's advocate (and I do think the STINGRAY arrangement is devilish):
once you request records from the phone companies, there's no guarantee that won
't get leaked to the people being investigated. The cartels have people everywhe

re.
permalinkparent
[ ]kevincreeperpants 6 points 6 hours ago
What if they are the cartels!?...dun dun dun
permalinkparent
[ ]tughdffvdlfhegl 1 point 3 hours ago
I don't think anyone here has a problem with STINGRAY being used, given that the
y have a warrant for the person's data they're monitoring. So in your situation,
that's easy to do.
permalinkparent
[ ]manoninternets 2 points 3 hours ago
Yeah it's the same concept as going through my private letters, or close enough
to it anyhow. (Even though letters are physically sealed and radio waves permeat
e the air freely, my intention is for my text messages to be as private as posta
l mail.)
Even a child could rip open an envelope with ease. That doesn't mean police don'
t need a warrant to do so.
permalinkparent
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[ ]turnthatfrown 9 points 7 hours ago
I think the FBI is conveniently forgetting that they are intercepting a communic
ation that is normally secured via encryption and carried privately by your wire
less provider then switched privately all the way to the party on the other end
who has similar expectations of the connection.
I mean, come on, the Stingrays themselves are impersonating the carrier that you
have a contract with and using techniques to avoid the strong encryption. The p
rove by their own design and implementation that the FBI's argument is bullshit.
permalink
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]dontbullshityourself 27 points 11 hours ago
I'm so sick of the ways these callous assholes use to crush our freedom.
What is the point of massive expensive law enforcement agencies if the law can't
protect our rights and freedoms? Hasn't the cart been put before the horse here
?
permalink
[ ]donottakethisserious 13 points 6 hours ago
If you are told you are free enough times, you start to believe it. You start at
a young age with a pledge every day and then when you grow up you attend sporti
ng events and stand for the national anthem and tear up at how free you are. Tha
t way nobody will ever question whether or not this is actually a free country.
permalinkparent
[ ]dontbullshityourself 10 points 5 hours ago
When I was a kid I started to sit during the pledge. Honestly I think I just wan
ted to test and see how free I was. I knew that saying the pledge etc wasn't in
the school handbook. I knew there was no rule saying I had to say it or stand or
anything. The powers that be at my school just used the herd instinct to keep t
his shit going.
So I started sitting down. This resulted in a lot of attention from gangs of bul
lies. My home room teacher didn't like it either and lectured/bitched about it e
very day. But she stopped short of anything more than shaming me unlike the bull
ies.
Anyway I just decided to drop out. Fuck it. Humans don't like new things that co
nfuse them and challenge them to think. How interesting that was to be the last
thing I learned in school. I found another kind of freedom. The freedom to leave
the assholes mired in their stupidity and find my own path in life.
permalinkparent
[ ]joshyfitzo90 4 points 5 hours ago
I like your style.
permalinkparent

[ ]Jack41096 3 points 4 hours ago


I applaud you. I stood but that's all I did. it was in our rulebook to stand but
fuck them if they thought I was gonna do more than that. I started a wave of pe
ople standing and doing nothing.
eventually my first period class was reduced to two people and the teacher actua
lly doing anything. they bitches about it but we all had our own reasons.
permalinkparent
[ ]dontbullshityourself 2 points 3 hours ago
eventually my first period class was reduced to two people and the teacher actua
lly doing anything. they bitches about it but we all had our own reasons.
There are lots of reasons to resist and only one reason to obey. Fear.
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]CriticalThink 3 points 5 hours ago
Government hasn't been interested in protecting our rights and freedoms in a lon
g time.
permalinkparent
[ ]jkeyser14 5 points 7 hours ago
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety
, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. - Benjamin Franklin
permalinkparent
[ ]dontbullshityourself 5 points 6 hours ago
We didn't give it up. They are taking it.
permalinkparent
[ ]jkeyser14 10 points 6 hours ago
Only because we aren't rioting. The first group of rioters to tar and feather a
politician again will bring about change very quickly.
permalinkparent
[ ]dontbullshityourself 4 points 5 hours ago
People are gonna have to get a lot more desperate. I reckon we'll get our riot s
oon enough.
permalinkparent
[ ]Jack41096 1 point 4 hours ago
take the food. that's the surefire way to cause a riot.
people will be content as long as they're fed. you take that away and suddenly t
hey have nothing to lose. they have to survive. that is the most primal response
we have. to fight tooth and nail for food. to eat no matter the cost.
permalinkparent
[ ]RamsNation 1 point 4 hours ago
America has a very stable food supply so I doubt that will happen.
permalinkparent
[ ]dontbullshityourself 1 point 3 hours ago
I don't think we have to take the food. I think that people today are a lot more
self entitled and will jump into a fit without their iphones. They can't even i
magine a world without abundant food.
permalinkparent
[ ]grungebucket 1 point 4 hours ago
bring about change very quickly. street executions very quickly.
there. Corrected that for you. After all. You wouldn't want to be mistaken for a
terrorist endorsing a terrorist act now, would you?
permalinkparent
[ ]pion3435 2 points 3 hours ago
You never had it. You're just now finding out.
permalinkparent
[ ]hershmire 7 points 7 hours ago
Ok, I get the FBI's argument. Technically, we are all choosing to carry a digita
l device around with us that uniquely identifies us via radio frequency. It's tr
ue that we could very well decide not to partake in the use of cell phones if we
're so worried about being tracked. And thus because we decide to carry these pa

rtially secure devices around with us, they FBI has every right to hack them and
track us.
But this argument is bogus. The FBI can't read our mail or tap our phones becaus
e legislators and judges at one time recognized that technology becomes indispen
sable, and therefore should be protected under privacy laws. Just because I choo
se to carry a cell phone around with me doesn't give the FBI to track my whereab
outs, or worse. That'd be like saying it's my fault for having my mail read by t
he FBI because I chose to write letters, or I chose to have my phones monitored
and recorded by the FBI because I chose to use telephones.
The FBI is part of the executive branch. They (supposedly) operate within the sc
ope of the law. If there's no specific law preventing their actions, they'll go
ahead and do it. So write your representatives and get shit like this regulated.
And use letters because they're obligated to at least open the envelope.
permalink
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]drakecherry 5 points 8 hours ago
we might as well get rid of warrants all together. they are gonna search if they
want to, and nothing will happen if they are wrong.
permalink
[ ]MeganNancySmith 6 points 6 hours ago
The FBI doesn't have the legal authority to make that determination.
It would be like if I said that murder is legal every other Sunday. I can say it
all I like, but it doesn't make it true.
permalink
[ ]Todda468 6 points 6 hours ago
Anything a private citizen can't do should require reasonable suspicion or a war
rent.
permalink
[ ]Sonotmethen 6 points 9 hours ago
Then signal jammers aren't either.
permalink
[ ]MrJDouble 4 points 9 hours ago
FBI tends to say a lot of things, doesn't mean it isn't a pile of horseshit.
permalink
[ ]blueiron0 4 points 6 hours ago
(3) cases in which the technology is used in public places or other locations at
which the FBI deems there is no reasonable expectation of privacy.
Love how the FBI gets to decide when it's ok for them to assume you shouldnt hav
e any expectation on privacy. "we saw a poop porn video on pornhub. you shouldnt
expect privacy when pooping then."
permalink
[ ]ragn4rok234 4 points 6 hours ago
Whoo! Now I don't need a warrant or sufficient reason to wire tap anyone and eve
ryone. Stalkers of the world rejoice! It's like Oprah is handing out privacy bre
aches in here
permalink
[ ]fourslaps 4 points 4 hours ago
This isn't what Steve Irwin would have wanted
permalink
[ ]knowyourbrain 7 points 8 hours ago
How sad is it that we have an R Senator trying to rein in a D president's FBI?
If Snowden et al have not been able to show the American people what a farce our
government is then I don't know how it can be demonstrated.
permalink
[ ]makingupdumbnames 1 point 5 hours ago
that's Chelsea to you, mister!
permalinkparent
[ ]StellarUsername 4 points 9 hours ago
Can someone ELI5 why my cell carrier lets this happen? Seems like it would be ea
sy enough for them to put a stop to it if they wanted.

permalink
[ ]giantgnat 13 points 8 hours ago
Because if you don't play nice with them, they don't play nice with you like wha
t happened to the CEO of quest after he refused to cooperate.
permalinkparent
[ ]lll_1_lll 6 points 6 hours ago
CEO of quest
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/09/30/a-ceo-who-resistednsa-spying-is-out-of-prison-and-he-feels-vindicated-by-snowden-leaks/
permalinkparent
[ ]WatchoutItsAllan 1 point 4 hours ago
Looks like the only way to be out of the eyes of the NSA is to go back to using
these http://imgur.com/JEFUt4h
permalinkparent
[ ]jkeyser14 4 points 7 hours ago
The cell and internet companies get paid millions by the government for direct a
ccess to their lines. This was one of the things Snowden blew the whistle on.
permalinkparent
[ ]MadPooter 2 points 7 hours ago
I believe that the technology behind our current cell phone towers needs to allo
w for widespread access to said cell phone towers from a wide array of technolog
ical devices.
The Stingray makes the cell phone tower believe that it's a cell phone--I don't
know that it's as easy as you might think to re-design all cell phone models to
differentiate themselves from what Stingrays currently are.
TL;DR: This might be a better issue for cell phone designers to solve rather the
n cell phone carriers.
permalinkparent
[ ]egalroc 2 points 6 hours ago
Maybe design a Falcon drone that homes in and locks on fake Stingray towers. Wou
ldn't the FBI just shit to see a couple sparrows zooming down on them?
permalinkparent
[ ]A530[??] 1 point 6 hours ago
Cell carriers couldn't care less. They're also packaging backdoors in their base
band software to do all kinds of functional crap, like over the air updates and
remote access.
permalinkparent
[ ]here4DaBacon 3 points 7 hours ago
So it's a honey pot for cell phones. This same method is used to intercept WiFi
internet traffic. The world is becoming a hackers paradise.
permalink
[ ]CapAnson 4 points 6 hours ago
I don't even think of the FBI's exceptions two and three are valid. And as for i
mminent danger to public safety I can't imagine when that safety hinges on inter
cepting a cell call right now this very second without a warrant
permalink
[ ]SquidwardSnowden1 3 points 6 hours ago
Let it be noted, I love big brother.
permalink
[ ]ryanknapper 3 points 6 hours ago
There was a comment asking what prevents private citizens from doing this. My re
ply was: Absolutely nothing. In fact, there are legal ways of doing exactly this
.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xKihq1fClQg
permalink
[ ]lll_1_lll 2 points 6 hours ago
inb4 this thread gets removed by the mods and/or shadowbanned
permalink
[ ]doctorshady[S] 3 points 6 hours ago
I was almost sure it was going to be removed when I submitted it.

permalinkparent
[ ]grtwatkins 1 point 3 hours ago
Wait, so mods = FBI?
permalinkparent
[ ]doctorshady[S] 2 points 2 hours ago
The mods here are quite restrictive about what is allowed to be submitted. Wheth
er or not they're under someone's influence is a question I can't answer (though
I'd honestly like to know), but you'll occasionally see high profile topics rem
oved, like the Snowden leaks back when PRISM was first pointed out.
permalinkparent
[ ]tomcat23 3 points 6 hours ago
If I had a hundred dollars for every time the FBI said it could do something une
thical or unconstitutional I'd be shooting rockets into space like Elon Musk rig
ht now.
permalink
[ ]leafygreenstuff 3 points 6 hours ago
Oh, well if they said....
permalink
[ ]wlxr 3 points 5 hours ago
Is this implying that they are going to repeatedly kill Steve Irwin?
permalink
[ ]Bulldog65 3 points 2 hours ago
Can I Use my Stingray in public places to intercept communications ?
If the answer is no, then the FBI needs a warrant.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effec
ts, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Wa
rrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, a
nd particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things t
o be seized.
This can only be changed by super majority votes in Congress and the States, not
treasonous opinions of mouthpiece lawyers in Department of Justice. This is why
prosecutions of torture memo writers is important. If they want to try and make
up laws they need to be held accountable under the law.
permalink
[ ]Do_Em_Till_They_Derp 13 points 12 hours ago
I don't think that is a good idea considering what happened to Steve Irwin.
permalink
[ ]Smgth 1 point 4 hours ago
I can't believe how far down I had to scroll to find this joke. I was worried I'
d have to make it myself. This thread is WAY too serious for my taste...
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]go1dfish 10 points 10 hours ago
This is what happens when you give a group of people authority over all else.
They use that authority to extort funds from you to pay for your own oppression.
But reddit still cheers it on. It seems to some; the concepts of roads or compas
sion cannot exist without specially anointed jack boot thugs.
permalink
[ ]Arael15th 3 points 6 hours ago
Do you see anyone in this post cheering this on? Moreover is this your first tim
e here?
permalinkparent
[ ]Flight_MH370 2 points 9 hours ago
Can the cell providers see every time this happens? If so, they could alert peop
le of fake towers or something. Alas, I'm pretty sure all the cell providers are
in bed with the feds already anyway.
permalink
[ ]leftnotracks 1 point 8 hours ago
This is why it s a good thing the FBI are not the people in charge of what is lega
l.

permalink
[ ]iluvmilfs420 3 points 7 hours ago
Ohh cool more of my taxes wasted on stupid shit...
permalink
[ ]fuzzycuffs 3 points 7 hours ago
Then I can do the same thing with wifi and not be charged with hacking, right?
permalink
[ ]endprism 2 points 7 hours ago
Use of Stringray in America: https://www.aclu.org/maps/stingray-tracking-devices
-whos-got-them
http://rt.com/usa/215735-sandiego-police-phone-tracking/
http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/First-Amendment-Coalition-Files-Lawsuit-Ab
out-Stingray-Surveillance--286092741.html
http://www.miaminewtimes.com/2012-02-16/news/cell-phone-tracking-miami-cops-know
-where-you-are/
http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/Fort-Worth-Cellphone-Tracking-Rings-Controversy
-140796693.html
http://www.wgrz.com/story/news/investigations/2014/02/13/are-local-police-spying
-on-your-cell-phone/5462273/
Tick tock...
permalink
[ ]johnnybiggs15 2 points 7 hours ago
didnt know they had that type of power
permalink
[ ]jwyche008 2 points 6 hours ago
They would fucking say that wouldn't they? The thing is it isn't supposed to be
their damn decision to make!
permalink
[ ]ICEClownfishWok 1 point 6 hours ago
Did the US government learn nothing from Nazi Germany? I honestly won't be surpr
ised if WWIII occurs when the rest of the world gets tired of our governments bu
llshit
permalink
[ ]frankenstilskin 3 points 6 hours ago
America, for the corporations by the corporations
permalink
[ ]Elephant_rhino_tiger 3 points 5 hours ago
It sounds like a 6 year old coming up with a superhero. "This is FBI man, and he
can fly and like punch through the earth, and he can y'know like intercept cell
traffic if he thinks it's important. But he is weak against himself though, so
like if he punched himself he would die."
permalink
[ ]Banana_blanket 2 points 4 hours ago
Hey who wants to just sit around and let it happen? Oh, everyone? Perfect. Ready
? Go.
permalink
[ ]poopinbutt2014 3 points 4 hours ago
Ah yes, the cops deciding what laws they are and aren't subject to.
permalink
[ ]burnerthrown 2 points 2 hours ago
Has anyone else notied a pattern of more and more laws that protect enforcement
operations from civilians, and fewer nd fewer laws protecting civilians from enf
orcement?
permalink
[ ]siquisiudices 2 points 2 hours ago
Increasingly I am astonished by the state of democracy in the developed western
countries. What has happened and how? I realise that there have always been infr
ingements of liberties by the state - always. But it seems to me that what has c
hanged is the blatent nature of the compromise of democratic norms. I'm not a hi
storian but my impression is that the origins of our current situation lie in tw

o iconic regimes in the UK and US - Reagan and Thatcher (and those that followed
) - and in the fall of the soviet regimes.
The economic philosophy that Reagan and Thatcher promoted reduced liberty to pro
perty rights while at the same time it condemned (rightly) the soviet regimes fo
r their lack of respect for democratic norms. The appeal of this economic ideolo
gy to capital, to the corporations, was obvious especially as during the 1970s t
here had been intermittent but recurring periods when profitability had fallen.
In the context of declining profitability, a roll back of the state and public e
xpenditure was a quick win.
For the rest of society, the implication that growth in personal, individual wea
lth was being held back by public spending and that the welfare state eroded ind
ividual responsibility also won the day. A key element in this process was the d
efeat and denigration of trade unionism: Thatcher going so far as to suggest tha
t trade unions (in the person of the National Union of Miners) were dangerous tr
aitors. People bought into the arguments for radical individualism ("there is no
such thing as society") because, in part, the concrete experience of collectivi
sm in trade unions declined in the face a massive anti-trade union assault.
The fall of the corrupt and totalitarian soviet regimes underpinned this all by
giving concrete expression to the notion that there is no alternative.
Economically the result has been massive widening of the discrepancy in wealth i
n many western countries and increased immiseration of labour across the world a
nd no force to counterbalance the power of the corporations and the state that t
hey (quite naturally) control. The state is the central committee of capital.
In all of this, the oft misnamed "libertarian" tendencies were accompanied by an
increasingly authoritarian and intrusive state apparatus which was promoted and
defended around quite classical nationalist ideas but recast often as the defen
se of western democracy against various external enemies.
And so, little by little, we have allowed our civil liberties to be chipped away
. Even the radical libertarians have been sidelined and fooled into irrelevant s
truggles around gun control in the US. Really, if an armed citizenry were the gu
arantee of liberty then one wold have hoped it would have done a better job. But
overall anti-welfare, anti-European and anti-immigrant rhetoric in the UK and,
for example, religious manipulation of public discourse in the US have allowed t
he authoritarian, pro-corporate state to gradually encroach on political and per
sonal freedoms. And here we are.
We can't say we didn't know - we were warned but the ruling class managed to def
ame the messengers and in other ways render us impotent.
One can only hope that we wake up in time and that our new disdain for collectiv
ism is overcome by the necessity of taking collective action.
permalink
[ ]DinglebellRock [score hidden] 49 minutes ago
You have a right to privacy according to the Constitution. Except for maybe your
cell phone calls. Or email. Or handwritten or typed letters. Or what you read f
rom the library and Amazon. Or maybe your colon and lower intestine if you are i
n New Mexico. What a fucked up nation this has become...
permalink
[ ]nstalker91 [score hidden] 38 minutes ago
Oh sure, when they do it, it's "protecting" and "morally right", but when I do i
t, it's a "federal crime" and "the FCC watches me"
permalink
[ ]The_Media_Collector 3 points 9 hours ago
This is why my phone has an app to continually report IMSI changes to me. I swit
ch one tower to another, I get a warning.
permalink
[ ]Redd575 1 point 7 hours ago
How is that helpful? Not being an ass, just curious. Seems if a Stingray can spo
of a tower then the app does little unless you are standing absolutely still.
permalinkparent
[ ]The_Media_Collector 3 points 7 hours ago
it's my understanding that Stingray "towers" do not encrypt traffic. anytime I a

m connected to an unencrypted "tower" the IMSI detector goes red and lets me kno
w.
permalinkparent
[ ]Redd575 1 point 6 hours ago
Wow. Whomever figured that out was clever.
permalinkparent
[ ]ExReverie93 1 point 7 hours ago
Which app? And would a normal person (not meaning you're not normal. You know wh
at I mean.) be able to use it?
permalinkparent
[ ]The_Media_Collector 1 point 7 hours ago
Requires Root. It's just caeld "Adnroid IMSI-Catchter"
permalinkparent
[ ]egalroc 1 point 6 hours ago
Makes a person want to be a criminal or spy just for the fun of it.
permalinkparent
[ ]Effo 3 points 7 hours ago
Goodbye America the Great, hello police state. :-[
permalink
[ ]Casemods 2 points 7 hours ago
Another reason why I don't have a cell phone.
permalink
[ ]GiveMe_TreeFiddy 3 points 7 hours ago
Things libertarians have been screaming about and offering solutions to for 500$
, Alex...
permalink
[ ]ilovesellinblow 1 point 9 hours ago
police and marshals have been running these for years.
permalink
[ ]bbelt16ag 1 point 8 hours ago
so FBI lets see what the Supreme court has to say to that. I am sure once they r
ule on this you will be going home with your tails between your legs.
permalink
[ ]Banana_blanket 1 point 4 hours ago
Do you people really have that much faith in our Supreme Court? Really?
permalinkparent
[ ]bbelt16ag 1 point 3 hours ago
gotta have some faith, other wise its just anarchy, or revolution. I am not read
y to give up quite yet.
permalinkparent
[ ]bonyponyride 1 point 8 hours ago
If digital communication in a public (and private) space is fair game, there's n
othing to stop an FBI tech specialist from stealing things like knowledge that w
ould be considered insider trading. There's an extreme potential for abuse.
permalink
[ ]jkeyser14 2 points 7 hours ago
If was fair game then hacking into wireless signals by private citizens wouldn't
be illegal.
permalinkparent
[ ]egalroc 1 point 6 hours ago
Just waiting for Anonymous to set up shop in a public park and hack into police
communications then dispatch them to bogus locations throughout the city. If any
thing goes wrong, they could always blame North Korea.
permalinkparent
[ ]coalbeeashi 1 point 3 hours ago
Aren't government agencies encrypting their digital communication - thus exhibit
ing an expectation of privacy?
I'm not sure what steps the "reasonable person" is taking to exhibit an expectat
ion of privacy over their data, tbh.
permalinkparent

[ ]hmmwhatsthisdo 1 point 8 hours ago


If you used RedPhone, Whisperpush/TextSecure, and a VPN, this wouldn't be of con
cern to you, right?
permalink
[ ]LucifersCounselNZ 1 point 7 hours ago
Wrong.
In other cases, the IMSI or equivalent identifier of a target is not known to th
e StingRay operator and the goal of the surveillance operation is to identify on
e or more cellular devices being used in a known area.[16] For example, if visua
l surveillance is being conducted on a group of protestors,[17] a StingRay can b
e used to download the IMSI or equivalent identifier from each phone within the
protest area. After identifying the phones, locating and tracking operations can
be conducted, and service providers can be forced to turn over account informat
ion identifying the phone users.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stingray_phone_tracker#Extracting_Data_From_Interna
l_Storage
Before any of that shit you're talking about comes into play, the IMSI number is
used when establishing the connection. It is uniquely identifying. With your IM
SI number and a court order (or cooperative telco) they will know who you are an
d who you were communicating with.
Then they can use that information to punish you for participating in legal prot
ests, associating with the wrong people, or simply because some Fed didn't like
the look of you.
permalinkparent
[ ]hmmwhatsthisdo 1 point 6 hours ago
So, the only way is to modify your IMEI (which is questionably legal) and use a
prepaid SIM?
permalinkparent
[ ]facepalmdude 1 point 5 hours ago
The IMSI part makes sense, but by using the mentioned tools authorities are very
unlikely to find out who you communicated with, or what the content was. All th
ey know is that you're the end point of an encrypted data connection.
permalinkparent
[ ]coalbeeashi 1 point 3 hours ago
I would assume that a court would view this as an individual exhibiting an expec
tation of privacy over their data.
permalinkparent
[ ]mambotangohandala 1 point 7 hours ago
Law?
We don't need no stinkin' law...
permalink
[ ]smilesbot 1 point 7 hours ago
You've just used a double negative! :P
permalinkparent
[ ]mambotangohandala 1 point 7 hours ago
no i did not, never would i do such a thing, nope, i don't think i ever did...
Ever see the movie 'blazing saddles'? Context kid, context
permalinkparent
[ ]smilesbot 1 point 7 hours ago
yup yup yup!
permalinkparent
[ ]mambotangohandala 1 point 7 hours ago
oh no a triple positive,what a stupendous faux pas!
permalinkparent
[ ]smilesbot 1 point 7 hours ago
yup yup yup!
permalinkparent
[ ]mambotangohandala 1 point 7 hours ago
Did mom give you too many sodas tonight?
permalinkparent

[ ]mambotangohandala 1 point 7 hours ago


Now where are those kiddy downers?
permalinkparent
[ ]mambotangohandala 1 point 7 hours ago
Remember tomorrow is a school day
permalinkparent
[ ]BigTex8900 1 point 7 hours ago
The Federal Bureau of Investigation is taking the position that court warrants a
re not required when deploying cell-site simulators in public places.
Wait so can I take the position that it's not actually illegal to suck dick for
money in public places?
permalink
[ ]AssOrca 1 point 6 hours ago
Well thank god there not doing it in my home!
permalinkparent
[ ]Drunken_Economist 1 point 7 hours ago
The FCC says they are needed, FWIW
permalink
[ ]FadingEchoes11 0 points 6 hours ago
100% true, power to the people
You should learn about and try to understand firearms more, they are just tools
after all.
permalink
[ ]winstrol 1 point 6 hours ago
Can i use a stingray? Al stick to my snoopsnitch.
permalink
[ ]fatscat84 2 points 6 hours ago
Big fucking surprise, 4th amendment=toilet paper anymore. The rights of the citi
zens arent even considered anymore since we dont have lobbyists. Maybe ill start
a kickstarter campaign to make a lobbyist group to give americans a voice in d.
c.
permalink
[ ]urbn 2 points 6 hours ago
The Obama Administration has repeatedly maintained that the public has no privac
y in public places.
And yet the excuse always used when someone records a police officer breaking th
e law and is arrested, detained and has his property stolen is that it violates
their privacy.
permalink
[ ]Vigilias 1 point 6 hours ago
If it's stealing signals being send from private residences it sure should fucki
ng be wtf.
permalink
[ ]2013palmtreepam 1 point 6 hours ago
Because stingrays automatically stop working at private property lines? Don't re
call the part of the 4th Amendment that exempts the requirement for probable cau
se and a search warrant when one happens to be in a public place.
permalink
[ ]makingupdumbnames 2 points 6 hours ago
I don't think it would be too hard to develop a stingray jammer, something that
just floods their equipment with a bunch of useless/fake cell phone numbers...I'
m in favor of a more strategic response to these types of infringements of our r
ights. We actually have a right and responsibility to fight tyranny...
permalink
[ ]ghotiaroma 1 point 3 hours ago
It's possible, but you wouldn't know where and when to use it. And it would be d
etectable you are using a jammer and anyone using one would find themselves fill
ed with SWAT bullets in no time.
permalinkparent
[ ]ononewheel 1 point 2 hours ago

Cant you rent bot net time and do this?


permalinkparent
[ ]psilontech 1 point 5 hours ago
I think that's for the courts to decide, FBI.
permalink
[ ]coalbeeashi 1 point 4 hours ago
...the only way the courts could decide is if it were practiced and a lawsuit wa
s brought against those practices.
Of course the FBI is going to finagle ways to flirt with obscure, outdated laws
for the purpose of investigating, thus practice it. Of course some group or orga
nization is going to take issue with it, thus taking it to court.
permalinkparent
[ ]cynoclast 2 points 5 hours ago
And the 4th Amendment says the FBI is wrong. And to the idea that subsequent law
s or that prededence says otherwise, I say that lawyers who make those interpret
ations were paid to do so by people with a vested interest in saying otherwise.
The constitution and amendments were intended to be read and interpreted by ever
yone, not just lawyers and judges so it matters not at all what lawyers and judg
es say.
permalink
[ ]coalbeeashi 1 point 5 hours ago
The constitution and amendments were intended to be read and interpreted by ever
yone
Uhh...interpreted by everyone? Do you know how fucked up that would be? There's
a reason for the judicial branch.
permalinkparent
[ ]cynoclast 2 points 4 hours ago
More fucked up than corporations as people? The 4th Amendment being ignored by t
he DHS, Homeland Security, and the NSA? More fucked up than than all the ridicul
ous, unconstitutional restrictions on cosmetic features of firearms that all vio
late the 2nd amendment? More fucked up than justices appointed by war criminals
refusing to recuse themselves where they have a clear conflict of interest?
The judicial branch is staffed by people, just as fallible as the rest of us. Th
e judicial branch was nly ever an attempt to reign in the other two. It was alwa
ys intended that it was the right of the people to alter or abolish the governme
nt if it gets out of hand and it has.
permalinkparent
[ ]coalbeeashi 1 point 4 hours ago
I would still rather have the fate of laws be in the hands of individuals who sp
ecifically studied the very nature of their professional practice than leave it
up to a mass of people with little-to-no understanding of the law, outside of wh
at is force-fed to them by media (comparable to your assertion of less-than-idea
l practices by lawyer/judges)
I fully agree that laws should be written in ways that the public can understand
and interpret (however, you're never going to reach a consensus on laws written
200+ years ago). And I believe that, reading most supreme court decisions, the
justices advocate for specifics in laws and understand that outdated or vague la
ws is a main reason cases are brought before them. Laws aren't concrete or stati
c. It's a court of public opinion.
permalinkparent
[ ]cynoclast 1 point 4 hours ago
I would still rather have the fate of laws be in the hands of individuals who sp
ecifically studied the very nature of their professional practice than leave it
up to a mass of people with little-to-no understanding of the law, outside of wh
at is force-fed to them by media (comparable to your assertion of less-than-idea
l practices by lawyer/judges)
I think there's balance between the two. It's similar to the balance between IT
and the user. While the IT guy is more knowledgeable about the field than most o
f the users he's supposed to facilitate, he often forgets that his purpose is to
facilitate, not to rule, and what the users are doing is what keeps the lights

on. People in congress and the senate are mislabelled when called 'lawmakers' th
eir job is representative of their constituency. And lawyers face a conflict of
interest between simplifying the law and representing people fairly and seeing a
fter their own welfare and ensuring their own job security. Simple, clear, and u
nambiguous laws have little value to the professional attorney at law. But the p
eople at large have no interest, and in fact a reason to despise laws they don't
understand, especially ones decided by decades old case law they know nothing a
bout. But for too long the balance has been swinging in favor of the lawyer seek
ing payment for services from the rich instead of the poor seeking freedom from
those with the resources to hire teams of lawyers for years to drain them of res
ources. The day a rich man could sue an innocent poor man under false pretenses
and crush him is the day the justice department ceased to function as intended.
I fully agree that laws should be written in ways that the public can understand
and interpret (however, you're never going to reach a consensus on laws written
200+ years ago). And I believe that, reading most supreme court decisions, the
justices advocate for specifics in laws and understand that outdated or vague la
ws is a main reason cases are brought before them. Laws aren't concrete or stati
c. It's a court of public opinion.
Lawyers like to pretend that they are concrete or static. Just imagine the phras
e "settled case law" coming out of their mouths and you need go no further. It's
like they forget that eventually given the dynamic equilibrium of the poor vs.
the rich that sometimes words written on paper in a dusty library somewhere mean
absolutely nothing when the pitchforks and guillotines come out, the old laws t
hrown out, and new ones written even more strongly against tyrants. You're right
, sometimes, it's a court of public opinion. But sometimes the court is brutal,
but not unjustly so:
There were two Reigns of Terror, if we would but remember it and consider it; the
one wrought murder in hot passion, the other in heartless cold blood; the one la
sted mere months, the other had lasted a thousand years; the one inflicted death
upon ten thousand persons, the other upon a hundred millions; but our shudders
are all for the horrors of the minor Terror, the momentary Terror, so to speak; wh
ereas, what is the horror of swift death by the axe, compared with lifelong deat
h from hunger, cold, insult, cruelty, and heart-break? What is swift death by li
ghtning compared with death by slow fire at the stake? A city cemetery could con
tain the coffins filled by that brief Terror which we have all been so diligentl
y taught to shiver at and mourn over; but all France could hardly contain the co
ffins filled by that older and real Terror that unspeakably bitter and awful Terro
r which none of us has been taught to see in its vastness or pity as it deserves
.
permalinkparent
[ ]DongleNocker 2 points 5 hours ago
Don't you wish government organizations would get permission from congress prior
to assuming they have the authority?
permalink
[ ]Euracil 1 point 5 hours ago
Whoops! Someone just happened to spill wine all over the Bill of Rights! Well, a
t least the Second Amendment survived!
permalink
[ ]ripvannwinkler 1 point 5 hours ago
What is the practical operational radius of one of these things?
If my place of business or residence falls in this radius of an operating device
, is my phone subject to interception by the device?
If so, you require a warrant. Period. No equivocation.
permalink
[ ]bittopia 1 point 5 hours ago
What is going to be interesting is when systems and encryptions becomes so resil
ient and powerful that nothing can be spied on AT ALL. What will they do then?
permalink
[ ]johnnybullet 1 point 5 hours ago
I thought only God was listening to me... This changes everything!

permalink
[ ]TronicTonic 2 points 5 hours ago
Thank god the FBI is in charge of the judicial branch and gets to decide what is
right vs wrong.
permalink
[ ]Vinven 1 point 5 hours ago
They can say whatever they want, it doesn't make it legal.
permalink
[ ]coffeethulhu 2 points 5 hours ago
Under this theory anybody could buy one of these devices and use it in "public s
paces" without fear of falling foul of the law....Who wants to start a kickstart
er campaign to buy one?
permalink
[ ]redditezmode 1 point 5 hours ago
Based on what, exactly? Why would they think search warrants aren't necessary?
permalink
[ ]Fucksfuturefatchicks 1 point 4 hours ago
If it stops me from downloading porn, it's a dead giveaway. If it doesn't, thank
s for the government funded and sanctioned porn.
permalink
[ ]egalroc 1 point 4 hours ago
I wonder if the FBI can upload unsanctioned porn to your computer using a stingr
ay? Interesting thought isn't it?
permalinkparent
[ ]winsomecowboy 1 point 4 hours ago
So my clandestine FBI staff list shouldn't be an issue.
permalink
[ ]Heisenpurrrrg 1 point 4 hours ago
Those guys can fuck right off, eh?
permalink
[ ]cerealcable 1 point 4 hours ago
Every time an invasion of our rights & privacy especially related to our establi
shed forms of communications happens it just terrifies me. Not because our gover
nment is throwing wind to established laws but because of what the future could
bring.
The reason why most of us are upset today over this is because we have an expect
ation of privacy when we pick up our cell phones. We expect our text messages, p
hone calls and data to be private thus protected by law requiring a warrant to "
tap" it only for Law Enforcement. Telecoms (wired, wireless, voip) will only com
ply to requests when required by law, but when it comes to the public air waves
using technology to just listen in we're starting a terrible precedent.
Essentially what I'm concerned about is that eventually it'll be so commonly acc
epted that these communications are not private (after all the government can sn
oop in on those conversations, and everyone already expects it) and thus we no l
onger have the expectation of privacy and thus no warrant is actually acquired.
The terrifying process is how it all started, with the government over stepping
their legal abilities with little to no repercussions.
Now that I'm reading that paragraph again, I honestly wouldn't be surprised if t
hat exact argument is/was/will be used in a secret court of which none of us wil
l be able to hold accountable.
It's scary to see what the future will hold for privacy related to technology. O
ur government is doing anything and everything they want and if people aren't sc
ared they need to get some tinfoil and make some hats because they're going to n
eed them.
Obligatory point: As the government snoops more and more, technology will just e
ncrypt more and more making it nearly pointless for the snooping, but it won't c
hange the expectation of privacy after say a decade of common knowledge that the
se communications are not private. Then Law Enforcement Agencies will just subpo
ena records instead of following due process of getting a warrant.
tl;dr It's a very slippery slope and I'm just watching us slowly sliding further

and further into the trap. :-(


permalink
[ ]coalbeeashi 1 point 4 hours ago
Honest question - in the eyes of laws, is our view on "expectation of privacy" i
gnorant or misguided? When I send a text - even though I don't think about it I gave permission to Apple, AT&T, my friend, their carrier, their phone, and pro
bably countless others that I don't even realize. When I download an app I give
them all sorts of permissions to access my information.
Also, what's stopping the government from creating an app, let's say some crazed
game like Trivia Crack, hide a bunch of permissions that no one looks at and do
it that way. They could have access to my photos, access to my microphone, acce
ss to my location, etc. (obviously I understand that you can retract most of tho
se permissions, but I doubt many people do)
So, I guess my question is, using multiple third parties, do I really have the r
ight to expect complete privacy?
permalinkparent
[ ]Rockerofboats 2 points 4 hours ago
I do what I wants to.
permalink
[ ]Gymshortsboner55 2 points 4 hours ago
I'm not trying to sound like the uncle that's always bitchin' at family reunions
but man is this country going down the shitter. I'm almost ashamed to live here
anymore.
permalink
[ ]kazuri85 2 points 4 hours ago
The government has no right to make your property do something you do not want i
t to do.
permalink
[ ]SpacemanLurker 2 points 3 hours ago
Crikey! Australian accent
Too soon?
permalink
[ ]Undisclosed-dopeness 1 point 3 hours ago
Really wish this was about actual stingrays
permalink
[ ]k-h 1 point 3 hours ago
Is that the "stingrays" that don't exist?
Of course they don't need a warrant on equipment that doesn't exist.
permalink
[ ]PhorTwenny 2 points 3 hours ago
if it picks up all cells text/call/info how do they know your not inside a house
or anyother private area? Either way this is disgusting!
permalink
[ ]MarxIzalias 2 points 3 hours ago
The more of these that get posted, the harder I laugh at America's freedoms.
You pretty much have the same as everybody else.
It seems as though the constitution is like bog roll to your law enforcement. Co
vered in meaningless shit that doesn't even stick to them.
What a joke.
The FBI stating that 'stingrays' don't apply to privacy laws because you're in a
public place makes no sense, otherwise you could walk around butt naked and arg
ue that "According to the FBI, personal privacy is not required in public".
Of course, they could say, what any deceitful peice of trash could say. "If you
weren't doing anything illegal then you have nothing to worry about."
Unless you were talking to you solicitor about a patent. In which case it would
be worthless the moment a third party heard about the invention.
Talking to your doctor about a condition that could prejudice a group against yo
u.
Talking to a solicitor about the details of a case.
Talking to fellow jurors over the phone about a details of a case, that's always

good to be spied on.


Talk about family history and possible ties you might have to foreign nations, w
hich could put you on a watch list.
Give personal details to bankers about foreign business accounts which have diff
erent protection laws.
Discuss plans you may have that they could interfere with.
Or just miscellaneous emails to and from your employer that could be damaging to
the companies reputation if published and could be used against them as leverag
e with a false flag operation LOOKING AT YOU SONY!
This isn't even a comprehensive list of things that you could do, but hey, it's
America, the land where freedom is a lie and the constitution is apparently wort
h less and less with each new government. XFD
permalink
[ ]NightOfTheLivingHam 1 point 3 hours ago
while we're declaring bullshit, I declare I'm owed a million dollars.
permalink
[ ]ZedOud 1 point 3 hours ago
Most warrant-less law enforcement surveillance techniques are legal because they
can be performed by members of the public, in public. (ex. tailing)
So can we also legally operate a stingray?
Yes we can!
permalink
[ ]Wulfgar_RIP 1 point 3 hours ago
FBI protecting freedoms and constitution from terrorists
permalink
[ ]CantHugEveryCat 2 points 3 hours ago
I'm surprised the FBI still feel they have to justify their actions.
permalink
[ ]bazingabrain 0 points 3 hours ago
Here I am thinking the FBI is going to be throwing real stingrays around without
a search warrant. Can't have that
permalink
[ ]tobsn 1 point 3 hours ago
and whoever said that should be immediately terminated.
permalink
[ ]joshladd 1 point 3 hours ago
Didn't the supreme court just say that searching cell phones requires a warrant?
Is this different than searching cell phones? I might be uninformed but it seem
s like a blatant disregard for court rulings.
permalink
[ ]birdington1 1 point 3 hours ago
Can anybody explain what a 'stingray' is?
permalink
[ ]one_love_silvia 1 point 2 hours ago
the article explains it in literally the first paragraph.
permalinkparent
[ ]IllegalOperator 0 points 2 hours ago
Yeah right, dropping the case rather than reveal their methods says otherwise. I
f there weren't doing anything wrong they would have nothing to hide.
permalink
[ ]HauntedBeepers 1 point 2 hours ago
FBI says FBI can do what it wants
permalink
[ ]Fig1024 1 point 2 hours ago
does that mean I, as private citizen, can also use them? After all, there are no
laws against it
permalink
[ ]Monkeibusiness 1 point 2 hours ago
"FBI - out if control since 2001" -Simpsons
permalink

[ ]skztr 1 point 2 hours ago


good test for whether or not you need a warrant:
If any random person off the street did it, would that be legal? If not, you nee
d a fucking warrant.
permalink
[ ]Rusky82 1 point 2 hours ago
Land of the free eh......
permalink
[ ]WECGEWHYAAIORTNU 1 point 2 hours ago
So in some states its "wiretapping" to record with a microphone a conversation b
etween two people happening at a table, but pretending to be a cell tower is a-o
k?
permalink
[ ]Amanoo 1 point 2 hours ago
"concerned about whether the FBI and other law enforcement agencies have adequat
ely considered the privacy interests" of Americans
Privacy interests of Americans? Is that supposed to still be a thing? I thought
that privacy interests were considered something for terrorists in the US, by no
w.
permalink
[ ]raviddadford 1 point 2 hours ago
Stingray got Steve Irwin
permalink
[ ]Homarus_Americanus 1 point 2 hours ago
It's all good 'cause I can by me all guns I want.
permalink
[ ]anshu1234 0 points 2 hours ago
This is non-news if you are not a drug-peddler. Next please.
permalink
[ ]bubbafat1155 1 point 2 hours ago
It's over. "They" have won. The only hope now is for individuals, society is los
t. Get off the grid, or join the sheep. http://imgur.com/W7CdURh
permalink
[ ]Targun 1 point 2 hours ago
And how are they going to filter out cellphones of all the people who live next
to public places where stingray is located?
permalink
[ ]riderer 1 point 2 hours ago
So can i do the same in public place? just stingray everyone?
permalink
[ ]Neker 1 point 1 hour ago
There are blueprints and tutorials out there that put "stingrays" within reach o
f an hobbyist. Law-breaking hobbyist, that is, but still : mobile phones essenti
aly broadcast your conversations.
permalink
[ ]mindwandering 1 point 1 hour ago
The flying DRT box.
permalink
[ ]SilenceGivesConsent [score hidden] 48 minutes ago
In other words, FBI says it does not need search warrants to warrant a search.
permalink
[ ]Formally_Nightman [score hidden] 46 minutes ago
FBI: "Senator we have been monitoring your calls and your exact geographical loc
ation for years ... You shouldn't find that unconstitutional or the public and y
our wife will learn how unconstitutional you've been"
permalink
[ ]ActuallyNotSparticus [score hidden] 40 minutes ago
Fuck this shit. Stingrays killed the crocodile hunter. Are we ready for the gove
rnment to use these stingrays?
permalink

[ ]Rayhueston [score hidden] 38 minutes ago


The article says the Obama administration consistently maintains that people hav
e no privacy in public. Is that true or is that hyperbole?
If I'm walking down the street, do I have the right to keep the contents of my w
allet private? My blood type? My thoughts?
If I have no privacy with regard to these and many other sensitive things, who d
oes have the right to them?
permalink
[ ]swollennode [score hidden] 37 minutes ago
People don't have privacy in public places..hmmm, I think that people are entitl
ed to privacy if something private belongs to them. Sure, people's faces aren't
private when they're in public places. But people's phone calls and texts should
be.
permalink
[ ]pomod [score hidden] 18 minutes ago
Well if the FBI says they are not needed...
Seriously, this should be a court decision not a cop one. Cops, even a fancy cop
s like the FBI, should not make the laws just enforce them.
permalink
[ ]CJ59 [score hidden] 18 minutes ago
In other news, the FBI says, "You know what, screw it. There are no more laws. W
e'll do whatever the hell we want. Not like you're going to do anything about it
."
permalink
[ ]gkiltz [score hidden] 15 minutes ago
Just because the FBI says it, that does not mean it's true!
I don't envy the poor schmuck who has to stan in front of the Supreme Court and
argue that!!
permalink
load more comments (48 replies)
about
blog
about
team
source code
advertise
jobs
help
wiki
FAQ
reddiquette
rules
contact us
tools
mobile
firefox extension
chrome extension
buttons
widget
<3
reddit gold
store
redditgifts
reddit AMA app
reddit.tv
radio reddit
Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy
. 2015 reddit inc. All rights reserved.
REDDIT and the ALIEN Logo are registered trademarks of reddit inc.

p jump to content
MY SUBREDDITS
FRONT-ALL-RANDOM | PHOTOSHOPBATTLES-HISTORY-GIFS-FOOD-PHILOSOPHY-TELEVISION-WORL
DNEWS-SHOWERTHOUGHTS-LIFEPROTIPS-ART-SPACE-NOTTHEONION-DOCUMENTARIES-NOSLEEP-GAM
ING-GADGETS-EARTHPORN-ASKREDDIT-FUNNY-MOVIES-DIY-FUTUROLOGY-FITNESS-BOOKS-LISTEN
TOTHIS-INTERNETISBEAUTIFUL-MUSIC-EXPLAINLIKEIMFIVE-UPLIFTINGNEWS-SPORTS-PICS-TOD
AYILEARNED-PERSONALFINANCE-DATAISBEAUTIFUL-IAMA-OLDSCHOOLCOOL-EUROPE-CREEPY-TWOX
CHROMOSOMES-AWW-NEWS-WRITINGPROMPTS-GETMOTIVATED-VIDEOS-TIFU-ASKSCIENCE-JOKES-MI
LDLYINTERESTING-SCIENCE
MORE
news newscommentsrelatedother discussions (15)
want to join? sign in or create an account in seconds|English
this post was submitted on 05 Jan 2015
3,152 points (95% upvoted)
shortlink:
remember mereset passwordlogin
news
unsubscribe4,562,294 readers
2,631 users here now
/r/inthenews
/r/worldnews
new submissions
new comments
Post analysis/opinion articles to /r/inthenews
Want to talk?
Chat with us on IRC
Follow @rslashnews on Twitter
See a post that violates the rules below? Had your post stuck in the spam filter
? Have a question about policy? Just want to give feedback? Send the mod team a
message.
Please post news items only, with the exception of meta posts about /r/news itse
lf. Self-posts aggregating news data and "independent reporting" each count as n
ews, but are not an excuse to editorialize.
Your post will likely be removed if it:
is not news (or a meta post).
is an opinion/analysis or advocacy piece.
primarily concerns politics.
has a title not taken from the article.
has a pay wall or steals content.
covers an already-submitted story.
violates reddit's site-wide rules, especially regarding personal info.
Your comment will likely be removed if it:
is racist, sexist, vitriolic, or overly crude.
is unnecessarily rude or provocative.
is a cheap and distracting joke or meme.
is responding to spam.
violates reddit's site-wide rules.
Extreme or repeat offenders will be banned.
Expanded Rules
If your post doesn't fit, consider finding an appropriate news article on that s
tory to submit instead, or submitting yours to lower moderation subreddits:
/r/inthenews - all news-related content
/r/AnythingGoesNews - unrestricted news
/r/truereddit - insightful articles
/r/self - any self-post
/r/misc, /r/redditdotcom - anything
or other news subreddits:
/r/worldnews - from outside the USA only
/r/SyrianCivilWar - about the conflict in Syria

/r/MidEastRegionalWar - on MidEast conflict /r/UpliftingNews - uplifting


/r/mediaquotes - the things they say
or subreddits for other topics:
/r/FoodForThought - discussion-worthy long form articles about interesting subje
cts
/r/politics - for shouting about politics
/r/moderatepolitics - less shouting
/r/politicaldiscussion - even less shouting
/r/geopolitics - intl. politics and geography
/r/entertainment - Justin Bieber updates, etc.
/r/europe - news from Europe
or check out the 200 most active subreddits, categorized by content and the full
list of subreddits by subscribers.
Recommendations:
/r/redactedcharts
/r/patriots
/r/personalfinance
/r/restorethefourth
reddit is fun for Android and its subreddit /r/redditisfun
submit analysis/opinion article
submit news article
submit something else
submit analysis/opinion article
a community for 6 years
message the moderators
moderators
douglasmacarthur
KyldeThe Janitor
AyeMatey
CandyManCan
Elderthedog
LuckyBdx4
NickWasHere09
ani625
pomosexuality
IKingJeremy
...and 1 more
3152
FBI says search warrants not needed to use stingrays in public places (arstechnica
.com)
submitted 13 hours ago by doctorshady
731 commentsshare
top 500 comments
sorted by: best
[ ]peaceshark 654 points 11 hours ago
If only there were some branch of government that would keep the FBI in check, o
ne that judged people and organizations supremely...
permalink
[ ]misogichan 641 points 8 hours ago
Unfortunately the Catholic church has its hands full dealing with its own intern
al reforms and recasting its vision and mission.
permalinkparent
[ ]wutshappening 93 points 7 hours ago
And looking at cat photos that's why they're Cat-holic. Alco-holics are addicted
to alcohol and catholics well you get the idea.
permalinkparent
[ ]TuffLuffJimmy 142 points 6 hours ago
Omg dad you're embarrassing me in front of my friends
permalinkparent
[ ]okmkz 27 points 4 hours ago

We ain't your friends, bruh


permalinkparent
[ ]Corruptionss 4 points 2 hours ago
We ain't your bruh, friends
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
load more comments (2 replies)
[ ]ROLLINGtemple 9 points 5 hours ago
What's their Dogma?
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
load more comments (9 replies)
[ ]hershmire 73 points 7 hours ago
The courts gave up about ten years ago.
permalinkparent
[ ]endprism 50 points 7 hours ago
The courts are pwned by the surveillance state.
permalinkparent
[ ]sushisection 41 points 6 hours ago
This is what I'm afraid of. Nsa is collecting data from all citizens including p
oliticians and supreme court judges.
permalinkparent
[ ]dutchguilder2 19 points 5 hours ago
Whistleblower confirms: http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=d6m1XbWOfVk
permalinkparent
[ ]TwitchTV_Subbort 1 point 3 hours ago
D.C. is Hollywood for ugly people. best line ever!!
permalinkparent
[ ]sklite 1 point 1 hour ago
Charles Augustus Magnussen approves
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]CriticalThink 1 point 6 hours ago
Skeletons in the closet are easy to find with intelligence infrastructure.
permalinkparent
[ ]HurricaneSandyHook 1 point 5 hours ago
The 10th circuit a few days ago sided with the government saying the cops use of
doppler radar to see if anyone was inside a house was legal. They did say it is
a troubling tactic that needs further review and just left it at that....
permalinkparent
[ ]-_--___-_--_--___--_ 27 points 6 hours ago
One major problem with judicial review is that there must be a case for the cour
t to review. I guess the other avenue would be to sue the government, but I'm no
t an attorney so I don't know how that would work.
permalinkparent
[ ]downvotesmakemehard 14 points 4 hours ago
I believe the current court has taken the stance that to take up a case someone
has to show they've been harmed in some way.
The police will never say that stingray is the source of the evidence. This woul
d open stingray to be scrutinized. They will use stingray to go after phone comp
any records which they will claim they requested on a hunch or some other bullsh
it excuse.
permalinkparent
[ ]great_gape [score hidden] 29 minutes ago
Anonymous tip.
permalinkparent
load more comments (2 replies)
[ ]dissonance07 8 points 6 hours ago
With is wide a latitude as the current SCOTUS seems to give to individual libert
y, this seems like the one kind of thing that they could actually usefully addre

ss, right?
permalinkparent
[ ]MrBojangles528 1 point 5 hours ago
Scalia and the rest of the SCOTUS is bought and sold just like the rest of our g
overnment. They answer first and foremost to the parties that nominated them as
well as the corporations that own them.
permalinkparent
[ ]psilontech 12 points 5 hours ago
See, I don't get that. You get into the Supreme Court and you're golden. Unless
you are actively breaking the law and can be impeached, you're untouchable. Why
not, you know, do what's best for your country instead of remaining beholden to
the parasites that leveraged you into that position?
permalinkparent
[ ]Ratbasher88 14 points 4 hours ago
Yep, Supreme Court justices have a well established history of turning out way d
ifferent than their supporters thought they'd be. For whatever reason this curre
nt batch of justices seems more comfortable with the security state than their p
redecessors, however that's true for most Americans in general so I suppose it s
houldn't be shocking.
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]MrBojangles528 2 points 4 hours ago
Good question, but you'd have to ask them about it.
permalinkparent
[ ]cynoclast 0 points 3 hours ago
Unless you are actively breaking the law and can be impeached, you're untouchabl
e.
But you can get richer. Or have your personal communications made public.
permalinkparent
[ ]tughdffvdlfhegl 1 point 3 hours ago
Honestly? Because they run in those social circles. They're friends with the peo
ple at the top. They don't actively associate with "regular folk" that much.
They've been ingratiated into the upper echelons of society long before ever rea
ching the supreme court through lifetimes spent at the forefront of the legal pr
ofession. This insulates them from others, and leaves them in an echo chamber of
their peers.
Now, when a case comes up that pits one of their friends, or friends' friends ag
ainst some random angry dude who's only making 50k a year, who do you think they
automatically side with, when the case isn't cut and dried? I'm not even saying
it's conscious, but prejudices come in all kinds and run deep. Tribalism happen
s all the time in subtle ways.
Plus there's Scalia taking paid for hunting trips with people who are directly a
ffected by cases in front of him, all of them getting invited to dinners and fun
ctions of the DC elite, etc.
permalinkparent
[ ]pion3435 1 point 3 hours ago
They do. It's possible to disagree with you without being corrupt.
permalinkparent
[ ]Jagoonder 1 point 2 hours ago
Not in an omnipotent surveillance state, however.
permalinkparent
[ ]DownFromYesBad 1 point 2 hours ago
Money, bribery.
permalinkparent
[ ]neotropic9 1 point 1 hour ago
Because they are selected to be the type of people who think whats "best for the
ir country" is serving the parasites, the corporate oligarchs, and the surveilla
nce state. They support the status quo, and the status quo supports them. It wou
ld be a miracle if someone with real principles was actually brought into the Su
preme Court, let alone enough of them to form a majority.

permalinkparent
[ ]isprobablyatwork 1 point 1 hour ago
This does happen, sometimes. Good examples would be Justices Warren and Stevens.
They played along with the GOP right up until they were put on the Court, then
immediately started voting their actual conscience (or if not their conscience,
then at least not as their political backers wanted).
permalinkparent
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[ ]cynoclast 2 points 3 hours ago
You mean the press?
permalinkparent
[ ]scrapinpeg 3 points 6 hours ago*
Obligatory link to illustrated law.
EDIT: fixed link
permalinkparent
[ ]ducttapejedi 3 points 6 hours ago*
error 404, check the link.
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[+][deleted] 13 hours ago (56 children)
[ ]sunbolts 701 points 12 hours ago
Glad to see the FBI is tearing up the constitution to increase their own powers
and authority. /s
permalink
[ ]dontbullshityourself 325 points 11 hours ago
Glad to see the FBI is tearing up the constitution to increase their own powers
and authority
I wish this was just the FBI. Pretty much everybody in the federal, state and lo
cals are doing this. Have been doing for this quite some time too.
permalinkparent
[ ]sunbolts 136 points 10 hours ago
Precisely, and that's what makes this very frightening. The whole club's in on i
t.
permalinkparent
[ ]radonthetyrant 75 points 7 hours ago
but why.. I realize that these "zomg the terrorists!!!11" is only a PR-lie. What
do they really accomplish with this? Industry espionage? Bribes from the indust
ries which create the espionage hardware? Feeling of total control? Control the
masses so it all stays as conservative and corrupt as possible?
Why would you amass such a criminal energy to break constitutional laws just to
be able to see through everyone's communication?
permalinkparent
[ ]BettyRubbleIsHot 151 points 7 hours ago
Total control.
That way when the state has it, they can really put the boot on our necks. Think
they treat us poorly now? Just wait until they have the infrastructure in place
where they feel confident there are absolutely zero threats to their power. Tha
t's when shit is going to get BAD.
permalinkparent
[ ]b-LE-z_it 106 points 6 hours ago
And that's why, despite being terrified of some gun owners, despite being terrif
ied of mass shootings, I don't think we should ban guns, even combat rifles. It
can happen here, and we should at least make it hurt if and when it happens.
permalinkparent
[ ]7V3N 47 points 6 hours ago
Welcome to the list.
permalinkparent

[ ]M00glemuffins 10 points 5 hours ago


Sign me up too. If they try to pull a fast one on the public I'm not standing fo
r their bullshit.
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]FadingEchoes11 26 points 6 hours ago
*rifle. No "combat" rifles are owned by citizens
permalinkparent
[ ]b-LE-z_it 39 points 6 hours ago
Did I mention I don't know anything about guns? I don't know anything about guns
.
Point is, force is not something only people in power should have.
permalinkparent
[ ]teefour 19 points 6 hours ago
You should go to a shooting range and take a class. You won't be so unnecessaril
y afraid of them after that.
permalinkparent
[ ]Pullo_T 27 points 6 hours ago
He's not afraid of guns. He's afraid of some gun owners. At least, as far as we
know.
permalinkparent
continue this thread
load more comments (3 replies)
[ ]Bootsncatsn4 5 points 5 hours ago
i understand where youre coming from, but what will a bunch of angry townsfolk d
o to a predator drone strike?
permalinkparent
[ ]Oeboues 18 points 4 hours ago
You should ask the angry townsfolk of Iraq and Afghanistan.
Once the US military is done slinking away in shame, I mean.
permalinkparent
continue this thread
[ ]nuesuh 1 point 1 hour ago
Remove them. Predator drones are being operated from the ground, and has to land
after a couple hours to refuel.
permalinkparent
[ ]joe_m107 4 points 6 hours ago
Maybe we should change that. Repeal the NFA.
permalinkparent
load more comments (2 replies)
[ ]4nco1j 0 points 2 hours ago
You don't know much about guns, do you now.
permalinkparent
load more comments (6 replies)
[ ]conquer69 15 points 4 hours ago
You can have all the guns you want. That won't stop them from labeling you a "su
spected school shooter, pedophile or terrorist".
A gun can't protect you from that. A gun can't teach your fellow countryman to t
hink by themselves or see through propaganda.
Good luck destroying a drone, plane or tank with a rifle. Not sure how useful a
gun is against your own trained military with even better guns and more.
People thinking they can start a revolution and win with a handgun don't realize
this isn't the 1700's anymore.
permalinkparent
[ ]JimmyBuffer 14 points 4 hours ago
Better tell the Middle East they haven't had a bout of revolutions then
permalinkparent
load more comments (2 replies)
[ ]b-LE-z_it 7 points 4 hours ago
Didn't say we would win, I said we could at least make it hurt. Assuming, of cou

rse, that the American people themselves aren't the ones willingly handing in th
eir freedoms, which would mean we're all fucked immediately.
permalinkparent
[ ]theothercoolfish 13 points 2 hours ago
Assuming, of course, that the American people themselves aren't the ones willing
ly handing in their freedoms, which would mean we're all fucked immediately.
Err, you guys gave up much of your freedoms long ago. And it isn't just the US politicians everywhere are taking as much as they can get, because it's simply
more power for them. More power, more money, more control. It's not a conspiracy
- this is just how an imperfect system with inadequate controls eventually goes
. We need to start re-examining our systems and look at alternatives that are no
w possible with the internet.
permalinkparent
[ ]vynusmagnus 3 points 2 hours ago
Tell that to the insurgents in Afghanistan. It seems to me that the US military
has been unable to defeat them in over a decade of war, despite its overwhelming
technological superiority. Tanks and fighter jets are nice, but they do little
against a small guerrilla force that can disappear into the woodwork.
permalinkparent
[ ]Qoix 3 points 3 hours ago
I think the main issue with that line of thinking is that the military would gun
down the civilians it pledges to protect. How many people in the armed forces d
o you know? Now, are any of them willing to murder innocent people? Probably not
.
permalinkparent
[ ]ihcn 6 points 2 hours ago
They're not innocent people, they're armed revolutionaries, suspected terrorists
permalinkparent
[ ]chance-- 4 points 3 hours ago
You say that as if there isn't insurmountable evidence to the contrary.
Military coups are thoroughly woven into the fabric of humanity's history.
permalinkparent
[ ]theothercoolfish 1 point 2 hours ago
gun down the civilians it pledges to protect.
Err, they don't pledge to protect civilians. They pledge to protect the constitu
tion. And if they are convinced that these people are attempting to "subvert" th
e constitution, then they are enemies. Nevermind that their leaders have shat al
l over the constitution - soldiers take their orders and follow 'em.
Now, are any of them willing to murder innocent people?
lol.
permalinkparent
load more comments (2 replies)
[ ]eloquentnemesis [score hidden] 33 minutes ago
Welcome to 4th generation warfare. You don't need a better gun, or the ability t
o kill a drone, or anything else like that. You just need A gun and more commitm
ent than the other side.
permalinkparent
[ ]homegrowncountryboy [score hidden] 16 minutes ago*
Good luck with those tanks, planes and drones when the American people stop supp
lying fuel and ammunition. My brother is in the Army and he will tell you about
75%, or more of the military will disband and fight to protect the American peop
le. All you have to do is look at New Orleans during Katrina, when they got the
order to start confiscating guns almost all of them refused, instead it was main
ly police stealing people's weapons.
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]Hermit_ 2 points 5 hours ago
Yeah but if it does happen all people would be doing is creating the chaos one o
f the armed and militarized militias needs to take power. For example, The KKK.
permalinkparent

[ ]b-LE-z_it 1 point 5 hours ago


Hopefully not the KKK.
permalinkparent
[ ]AussieArcher 1 point 3 hours ago
Fuck me there's always one of you. I'm starting to think the gun club spends mor
e time on reddit than anyone.
permalinkparent
[ ]astronautg117 1 point 1 hour ago
What's a combat rifle going to do against a drone?
permalinkparent
[ ]datbino 1 point 1 hour ago
i think thats where 2nd ammendment people miss the mark- you owning a rifle will
do nothing against the government.
you becoming an active participating member in that government can help fix it,
the goal is to make you a kony2012 fb sharer rather than a person who gets to wo
rk and fixes shit
permalinkparent
[ ]mpg1846 1 point 1 hour ago
You think 50 guys with hand guns are going to do anything to anyone? Gun laws ar
e a joke.
permalinkparent
[ ]Actionbuilding 1 point 1 hour ago
The founders of the United States of America WANTED the citizens to rise up and
overthrow the government if it approached the levels of corruption it is current
ly working toward.
permalinkparent
load more comments (11 replies)
[ ]nuesuh 1 point 1 hour ago
Ever seen "Das Leben der Anderen"? Imagine this, just with total corruption and
100 times better technology. This is what we are moving towards. Imagine this sy
stem getting in the hands of someone like Hitler or Stalin.. And it can happen.
Before Hitler came to power Germany was a modern, western, christian nation. We
need safety with this technology. And when i say safety, i don't mean surveillan
ce. I mean the opposite.
permalinkparent
[ ]know_comment [score hidden] 14 minutes ago
I agree, but I think the reason for the infrastructure development is because it
is going to get bad. As we are forced to compete more globally, quality of life
stagnates. Even the slightest hint of austerity is going to be very painful for
the lower classes in a society with a large income disparity.
That's why we see the race baiting and divisive rhetoric being used so much. Kee
p the poor and working classes quibbling at each other.
I want you to consider the daffodil. And while you're doing that, I'll be over h
ere, looking through your stuff.
permalinkparent
[ ]mzackler 19 points 7 hours ago
It takes a really complicated answer to truly understand but you often get into
the us vs them mentality in siloed areas of law enforcement. You also often get
frustrated with the levels of proof you need to put the bad guy in jail. Thus an
y method you can use you feel justified in using. Although I think there are a l
ot of issues with The Wire, it's a great starting off point for a discussion if
you want a serious answer.
permalinkparent
load more comments (2 replies)
[ ]hershmire 30 points 7 hours ago
Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts, absolutely.
permalinkparent
[ ]TheNewRavager 70 points 6 hours ago
"All governments suffer a recurring problem: Power attracts pathological persona
lities. It is not that power corrupts but that it is magnetic to the corruptible

. Such people have a tendency to become drunk on violence, a condition to which


they are quickly addicted."
permalinkparent
[ ]gee_iwonderwhy 22 points 6 hours ago
Oh shit, a Dune quote outside /r/dune not about spice.
permalinkparent
[ ]TheNumberMuncher 3 points 6 hours ago
This is pretty cool.
permalinkparent
[ ]YawnDogg 1 point 3 hours ago
Gene Hackman was so kinky in that movie.
permalinkparent
[ ]ThreeTimesUp 2 points 2 hours ago
From a Guardian article by Glenn Greenwald I came across recently:
Inside the mind of NSA chief Gen Keith Alexander
Any casual review of human history proves how deeply irrational it is to believe
that powerful factions can be trusted to exercise vast surveillance power with
little accountability or transparency.
But the more they proudly flaunt their warped imperial hubris, the more irration
al it becomes.
permalinkparent
[ ]Epsilox 3 points 2 hours ago
I'm going to take an unpopular stance here and argue that they get more effectiv
e investigations. Which isn't to say I have no reservations about this stuff, be
cause I do.
I've worked in a field tangential to law enforcement, and I've had the unpleasan
t experience of watching very bad people act with impunity because law enforceme
nt had to play by the rules and they didn't. Does that justify the modern trend
towards more invasive government? Maybe that's just the price we pay to live in
a free society. I don't know. I'm a fan of the H.L. Mencken quote:
"The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's ti
me defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are f
irst aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopp
ed at all."
On the other hand, it's very hard to watch members of organized crime and other
monsters literally get away with murder.
In part the difficulty the lies in the infrastructure of modern society. Communi
cations move at such speed and in such quantity that the sort of pinpoint accura
cy required for effective investigations and prosecutions becomes much more diff
icult.
None of which is to say that what we're doing is necessarily right. I've felt th
e fear of writing an opinion online and knowing that the NSA can see it and ever
ything else I've ever written if they so choose. I've had that feeling of always
being watched. I know exactly what is meant by the danger of chilling free spee
ch, because it's happened to me. But I do tend to trust (perhaps naively) that,
for the most part, most of the people making these decisions have good intention
s. I've worked with many of them, and I believe that it more than anything is th
e result of them trying to do their jobs well. Whether they are actually protect
ing the American people or simply paving the road to hell, only time will really
tell.
permalinkparent
[ ]eyeforgot 4 points 6 hours ago
Think of all the blackmail material they have for any future politicians. They w
ill firmly be in check by the powers that be.
permalinkparent
[ ]ademnus 3 points 7 hours ago
Total control.
permalinkparent
[ ]NotAnotherDecoy 4 points 7 hours ago
Total control?

permalinkparent
[ ]leamas666 2 points 5 hours ago
Why would you amass such a criminal energy to break constitutional laws just to
be able to see through everyone's communication?
It's the deep state attempting to preserve its own regime continuity in the even
t of violent revolution.
permalinkparent
[ ]sunbolts 3 points 6 hours ago
Because those in power try to keep it and in addition, there is always a lust fo
r more power. One who is wealthy seeks to increase his riches usually, right? Sa
me thing going on here. In terms of practicality, there's no reason for breaking
constitutional laws, but when you realize how human nature functions in regards
to ambitions and power, well, what we see going on explains itself.
permalinkparent
[ ]Martenz05 1 point 3 hours ago
So, in order to become a political leader who really does work for the benefit o
f the people, one would somehow have to lose every shred of their humanity so th
ey wouldn't have a human nature that could be corrupted by ambition and power?
That sounds ominous, when I put it like that
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]RuthlessDickTater 1 point 5 hours ago
but why.. I realize that these "zomg the terrorists!!!11" is only a PR-lie.
Well pretty soon they might have their terrorists, but they'll be the domestic k
ind.
permalinkparent
[ ]karadan100 1 point 4 hours ago
More money.
permalinkparent
[ ]cynoclast 1 point 3 hours ago
What do they really accomplish with this?
Get rich.
permalinkparent
load more comments (7 replies)
[ ]TGlucifer 50 points 10 hours ago
Criminals learned it's just way easier to do their lawbreaking with a government
salary.
permalinkparent
[ ]pete1729 22 points 9 hours ago
Well, the benefits package is far more attractive.
permalinkparent
[ ]__ghostpants 25 points 7 hours ago
and somehow snitches go to jail instead of the criminals
permalinkparent
[ ]iismitch55 1 point 3 hours ago
Snitches get stitches. Whistleblowers get their mouth sowed shut.
permalinkparent
[ ]HandsOffMyDitka 5 points 5 hours ago
Why break a law, when you can just change it.
permalinkparent
[ ]moresmarterthanyou 2 points 5 hours ago
except when they have to answer questions themselves...
permalinkparent
[ ]dontbullshityourself 1 point 5 hours ago
Well you know liberty is wasted on peasant swine 'eh?
permalinkparent
[ ]ButterflyAttack 1 point 4 hours ago
Sounds like the constitution doesn't mean much at this point. . .
permalinkparent
[ ]dontbullshityourself 1 point 3 hours ago

Sounds like the constitution doesn't mean much at this point. . .


All it means is that the scum who rule us have a legal contract that they say ba
cks up all their power. But their actions shit all over that document.
President Obama, a constitutional law professor ordered the deaths of two US cit
izens without trial in EXPRESS and DIRECT violation of the constitution.
permalinkparent
load more comments (4 replies)
[ ]Eurynom0s 68 points 9 hours ago
And on top of it, even if being in public was a justification for this, how the
fuck do you prevent the device from nabbing people who are inside their own hous
e or apartment as well?
Oh right, you can't, because that's not how radio waves work.
permalinkparent
[ ]Ioneos 18 points 8 hours ago
You can increase the noise gate to reduce range on purpose, but what good would
that do to keep the terrorists citizens under scrutiny.
permalinkparent
[ ]Eurynom0s 20 points 8 hours ago
Even if they were going to do that, I can't imagine that you could do it to a su
fficient degree in a place like NYC to not scoop up at least some people inside
of buildings.
permalinkparent
load more comments (5 replies)
[ ]Codoro 1 point 4 hours ago
I foresee turning your house into a Faraday Cage being the cop radar finder of t
omorrow.
permalinkparent
[ ]Kenny_Login 23 points 7 hours ago
Taxation without representation, an income far below what the productivity was v
alued at, government intrusion? The founding fathers (you know, those "heroes" o
f our nation) got much more pissed off for much less.
permalinkparent
[ ]Socialdem 8 points 5 hours ago
Can you really blame them? The Constitution was written when people were still r
iding on horses. There's no way the founding fathers could have anticipated the
advances in technology and the way people communicate. I think we're due for a f
irmware upgrade.
permalinkparent
[ ]upandrunning 11 points 3 hours ago
Yes, it's called 'replacing congress'. What we're seeing is a natural consequenc
e of career politicians. Most of the people in office have gotten so comfortable
with the idea that they'll get reelected that what they actually do during thei
r term is almost irrelevent.
permalinkparent
[ ]theothercoolfish 2 points 2 hours ago
Exactly. I think we should look at sortition - with an approval vote, and extrem
ely strict rules on what sort of laws can be passed (eg any law must apply equal
ly to everyone - protecting the minority), and a approval bonus for the randomly
selected representatives if the public approves. Fuck career politicians - they
've proven themselves wholly incapable, and the system that supports them is too
corruptible. I don't think campaign finance reform will 1) ever happen 2) adequ
ately deal with institutional corruption.
permalinkparent
[ ]NuclearWookiee 0 points 2 hours ago
All of this should be covered, in any reasonable interpretation, by the Fourth a
mendment. Rebooting who change anything if the limits on government are ignored.
permalinkparent
[ ]KalAl 1 point 1 hour ago
Do you update your firmware by smashing your bios chip with a hammer?
permalinkparent

[ ]FireFromTheWire 4 points 6 hours ago


You're just another Steve Irwin to them.
permalinkparent
[ ]iismitch55 2 points 3 hours ago
Too soon mate :'(
permalinkparent
[ ]Penguin_in_the_sand 1 point 1 hour ago*
I am curious to know what this comment means?... Oh! Steve Irwin was killed by a
stingray. I thought you may have been referring to some conspiracy relating the
Steve Irwin's death. He had an American wife and both were invited to Howard's
Bush BBQ. http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/10/27/1067233100397.html
permalinkparent
[ ]gloubenterder 2 points 1 hour ago
Steve Irwin was a wildlife documentary filmmaker who was well-known for getting
up close and personal with dangerous animals such as crocodiles and komodo drago
ns.
He was pierced through a heart by a stingray in 2006, while shooting footage for
a documentary called Ocean's Deadliest.
After his death, stingrays had a period of great infamy, and there were even rep
orts of people killing and mutilating stingrays as vengeance for Steve Irwin. ..
.which, of course, is the last thing Irwin would have wanted; he was a conservat
ionist, and whenever he was injured by an animal he was studying, he would alway
s clarify to the viewer that that was his own fault and a risk he was aware of.
permalinkparent
[ ]Agent-BurtMacklinFBI 1 point 5 hours ago
Don't worry I'm keeping a look out
permalinkparent
[ ]pion3435 1 point 3 hours ago
It's not a constitutional issue. It might be an FCC one, but they just do whatev
er they're told anyway.
permalinkparent
[ ]dntur 1 point 3 hours ago
theoretically, every cell tower is in a public place. Why not just attach a stin
gray to all of them? Think of the money mobile companies could make renting towe
r space! next comes google who wants to know who you are calling on your iphone
and windows phone for better directed advertising, followed by Bing. /s
permalinkparent
[ ]Brian3232 [score hidden] 46 minutes ago
Why are they wrong? You already can take pictures of people in public places wit
hout warrant
permalinkparent
[ ]GaltsGulchTouristInf [score hidden] 24 minutes ago
When the constitution, the supreme law of the land, the contract between the gov
ernment and the people, is violated, this violating it should be banned from 'pu
blic service' for life, should be personally liable to those whose rights they v
iolated, and should forfeit their government pension and benefits.
permalinkparent
[ ]wtfmuck [score hidden] 17 minutes ago
It's sad how they shirk doing what is right for what is easy.
permalinkparent
load more comments (8 replies)
[ ]quiteintriguing 127 points 12 hours ago
I think it's about time these fuckers provided some evidence that privacy invadi
ng is helping stop crime or terrorism. As far as I can see, there is an Islamic
army in the middle east right now filled with westerners that simply flew over a
nd caught a bus. Nice job government agencies, you sure showed us.
permalink
[ ]HappyAtavism 81 points 11 hours ago
I think it's about time these fuckers provided some evidence that privacy invadi
ng is helping stop crime or terrorism.

Even more importantly they should provide evidence that they're not violating th
e 4th Amendment. The Bill of Rights doesn't say it applies only when convenient.
P.S. I agree that repeated failures to demonstrate the effectiveness of these th
ings, or lies which get "corrected", is yet another reason why this stuff is BS,
but the Constitution is first and foremost. Don't like the 4th Amendment? Try t
o repeal it. Until then it's in force.
permalinkparent
[ ]7u5 3 points 5 hours ago
The "checks and balances" of the judiciary are a farce. They are free to "interp
ret" the Constitution as they see fit.
permalinkparent
load more comments (3 replies)
[ ]DiaperParty 9 points 3 hours ago
Fuck that. FUUUCK that. If this did stop terrorists, it would still not be worth
the violation of rights. We absolutely CANNOT start OKing this shit as long as
it "stops bad guys."
permalinkparent
[ ]quiteintriguing 1 point 3 hours ago
I think you misunderstood. I think they should have to back up their justificati
on, which they obviously can't.
permalinkparent
[ ]DiaperParty 4 points 3 hours ago
But if we ask them to, we lend legitimacy to that claim. We need to say from the
get go that no justification is needed because none will be sufficient.
permalinkparent
[ ]ebouwman 7 points 5 hours ago
In Canada we had the Ottawa shooting and that dude that ran over some soldiers.
Correct me if I'm wrong but both these guys had had their passports revoked.
I'm not a fan of letting them just go over and fight a dirty war but wtf.
permalinkparent
[ ]Ceejae 4 points 4 hours ago
But so what if it is? How successful the program is is irrelevant.
I'm sure if they set up a government camera in every home they'd stop plenty of
murders and rapes.
permalinkparent
load more comments (2 replies)
[ ]cassieloveseffie 5 points 2 hours ago
Well we all know that the FBI has followed people like John Lennon who believed
in radical peace, urged MLK to kill himself and was prepared to assassinate occu
py members. It is not about crime, it is about maintaining a status quo.
permalinkparent
[ ]monopixel 2 points 1 hour ago
was prepared to assassinate occupy members.
Interesting, where can I read up about this?
permalinkparent
[ ]wirepants 4 points 4 hours ago
Locking everyone in solitary could stop crime and terrorism too. That's not a go
od enough reason to violate our rights even if it was working.
permalinkparent
[ ]egodeath92 2 points 5 hours ago
Shh that's classified. This entire country would be a post-apocalyptic dirt-patc
h is not for the heroic NSA collecting dirt on most of the country.
permalinkparent
[ ]pion3435 1 point 3 hours ago
You had no privacy in the first place. That's not how cell phones work.
permalinkparent
load more comments (6 replies)
[ ]MashItMatt 143 points 13 hours ago
Obviously these are constitution free zones, citizen.
permalink

[ ]THANKS-FOR-THE-GOLD 22 points 7 hours ago


Embrace democracy or you will be eradicated
permalinkparent
[ ]jroddie4 14 points 5 hours ago
Citizen, pick up that can.
permalinkparent
[ ]douko 3 points 5 hours ago
This image won't even load (here's another one), but I still know what it is.
DEATH IS A PREFERABLE ALTERNATIVE TO COMMUNISM.
COMMUNISM IS THE VERY DEFINITION OF FAILURE!
permalinkparent
[ ]chewysquirrel 15 points 6 hours ago
Approximately 2/3 of Americans live in a "constitution free zone"
permalinkparent
[ ]newpolitics 50 points 10 hours ago
The Federal Bureau of Investigation is taking the position that court warrants a
re not required when deploying cell-site simulators in public places. Nicknamed
"stingrays," the devices are decoy cell towers that capture locations and identi
ties of mobile phone users and can intercept calls and texts.
So nobody has any expectation of privacy? Talking out of their asses. The implic
ation that a warrant shouldn't be needed to intercept someone's text messages, i
s outrageous.
permalink
[ ]acerplatanoides [score hidden] 16 minutes ago
The implication that a warrant shouldn't be needed to intercept someone's text m
essages, is outrageous.
The implication of intercepting a PRESS related text message, and thus also supp
ressing a free press.
I think many of these are used to stop uploading of images to social medial. You
ever tried that during a demonstration?
permalinkparent
[ ]dalasocatyemerc 67 points 9 hours ago
Hmm, I didn't realize the FBI had the authority to ignore the constitution of th
e United States of America.
Maybe this organization doesn't actually serve Americans. That's what I think
permalink
[ ]Jagoonder 17 points 2 hours ago
They don't. However, lets look at their 3rd criteria:
(3) cases in which the technology is used in public places or other locations at
which the FBI deems there is no reasonable expectation of privacy.
In public, noone has an expectation to privacy. SCOTUS has ruled on such. Theref
ore, it could be argued that phone conversations in public places forfeits at le
ast one party's rights to privacy.
There are a couple of problems with this. First, Stingray is indiscriminate. Sec
ond, the other party of the phone conversation may be in their own home thus hav
ing an expectation of privacy.
I don't know how law works in regards to phone tapping. But, I would assume that
any warrant to do so would provide the agency a waiver on a second party's priv
acy protections when conversing with the target of the warrant. Except in the ca
se of Stingray no warrant was ever obtained thus, no waiver, thus the second par
ty probably still has privacy protections.
So, I think it's bullshit. I'm no lawyer. I suspect the FBI also knows it's bull
shit. But, the more excuses they can come up with to bend the law around their w
ill the more time it takes to try to stop them since each instance requires anot
her court decision.
permalinkparent
[ ]punkrampant 13 points 1 hour ago
There's only "no expectation of privacy" in public in terms of video+camera surv
eillance. People still get disturbed if you look over their shoulder at their ph
one, or listen to a conversation.

Text messages, emails, phone calls, all of it, are the modern day written letter
s. What the FBI is trying to do is the equivalent of setting up a post office th
at opens everyone's envelopes and makes copies of all the contents.
permalinkparent
[ ]Jagoonder 5 points 1 hour ago
Text messages, emails, phone calls, all of it, are the modern day written letter
s. What the FBI is trying to do is the equivalent of setting up a post office th
at opens everyone's envelopes and makes copies of all the contents.
You're right. I was focusing on an actual phone conversation where one party cou
ld be overheard by others, thus no expectation to privacy.
permalinkparent
[ ]Cambodian_Drug_Mule 2 points 1 hour ago
Surely there are people with technical expertise that can just fuck their shit u
p. If I'm not mistaken the stingrays were detected with consumer grade electroni
cs. If everyone just looked out for them and pinned where they are at on a map,
couldn't some people with the technical know how take them offline?
permalinkparent
[ ]monopixel 1 point 1 hour ago
Hmm, I didn't realize the FBI had the authority to ignore the constitution of th
e United States of America.
The US government and its agencies has been doing it for ages.
permalinkparent
[ ]rtpg 40 points 6 hours ago
Surprised nobody's mentioned Kyllo v. United States yet.
This is fairly recent (2001) jurisprudence. The gov't used a thermal imager, and
saw that there were heat lamps inside of a house, and used that to get a search
warrant. The gov't argued that, well, the heat was outside, so pretty much publ
ic information.
The courts disagreed and ruled this an illegal search. Main reason being that no
t many people have thermal imagers, so there's a reasonable expectation of priva
cy. I think even less people have stingrays, so even from the "discovering that
someone has a cell phone" aspect, there's unreasonableness in the search.
Now to the wiretapping aspect... there's Katz v. United States. Here, somebody w
as in a phone booth, and the feds had set a microphone outside the phone booth w
ithout warrant (so not exactly a wiretap). Again, the courts ruled this an unrea
sonable search.
A part of the ruling:
Regardless of the location, a conversation is protected from unreasonable search
and seizure under the Fourth Amendment if it is made with a "reasonable expecta
tion of privacy".
Text messages definitely fall under this. I can't see this holding up for 2 seco
nds in court.
The article goes into it into detail, but few of the FBI's interpretations on pr
ivacy have been holding up in courts recently. The system is kind of working, an
d this interpretation will be shut down as well. Now, if only everyone had good
lawyers...
permalink
[ ]ryewheats 7 points 4 hours ago
But the biggest problem I see would be them not declaring how they gathered any
information they collected in the first place. It would be pretty easy to skirt
around the system and act like you caught the suspect red-handed (because you we
re tipped off by illegal searches). That is the really scary part.
permalinkparent
[ ]argv_minus_one 5 points 3 hours ago
This practice is known as "parallel construction".
permalinkparent
[ ]tughdffvdlfhegl 3 points 3 hours ago
Honestly, this is the biggest concern. The courts won't allow a challenge becaus
e no one will have standing, because the feds/police won't actively declare this
as evidence in a trial. Meanwhile, they'll continue to use it, having a chillin

g effect on the press and others (which the courts have not seen in recent histo
ry as sufficient to provide legal standing).
permalinkparent
[ ]JustaChimp 3 points 5 hours ago
With the Katz v US case, it took them 39 years to overturn the Olmstead v US rul
ing. Let's hope it takes a little less time for this medium.
The recent Romano v Steelcase Inc. court case could indicate how the courts will
rule in the short term with regards to "reasonable expectation of privacy" thou
gh this ruling was in the context of social media and not text messages. The ana
logy was made that much like a letter writer has no reasonable expectation of pr
ivacy once the recipient is in possession of the letter, neither does the post's
author. Same could be extended to text messages and would be equally as trouble
some.
permalinkparent
[ ]qdarius 1 point 3 hours ago
Damn, that doesn't seem right at all. If I send someone a letter I definitely ex
pect that only they will read it.
Could anyone expand on the logic that a letter writer has no reasonable expectat
ion of privacy?
permalinkparent
[ ]Boltaeg 1 point 3 hours ago
After that letter is given to the recipient, they can do whatever they want with
it without you knowing. They could copy it, show it to friends, frame it and pu
t it on their wall....etc. You have no control over that and must assume that an
ything you write in a letter can be disclosed in some manner, simply because you
have no control over that persons actions.
As to why that is the case, I have no idea. Especially considering it is illegal
to open someone elses mail, but perfectly legal to read someone else's letter o
nce they open it. At least that is my understanding of it.
permalinkparent
[ ]TheMightyBarbarian 1 point 3 hours ago
Its fairly simple, you sent a letter, until it is received by the intended recip
ient it has federal protections. Once the recipient receives it, they are free t
o do with it as they wish, even if you disagree with what they do, specifically
because the letter is now their property, even though you wrote it.
permalinkparent
[ ]qdarius 1 point 2 hours ago
I understand that. But if someone else intercepts my letter shouldn't that still
be illegal?
Maybe I'm misunderstanding how stingrays work but it seems like they're basicall
y designed to intercept hundreds of messages.
permalinkparent
[ ]TheMightyBarbarian 1 point 2 hours ago
Intercept isn't illegal, its sketchy but not illegal. As for reading it, it's a
grey area since texts are not encrypted and even if they were it would do shit i
f billions of devices can decrypt them. So unless you use something like a messe
nger system that can use basic encrypting. It won't stop the FBI from reading it
, but it does show you took steps to have a private conversation and that's what
matters to the court.
permalinkparent
[ ]coalbeeashi 1 point 3 hours ago
Re: Katz v. United States
Certain details, such as shutting the door on the telephone booth, help determin
e if a person intends for a conversation to be private. Thus, private conversati
ons can be made in public areas.
What steps is the average Joe taking to exhibit a reasonable expectation of priv
acy regarding his/her data usage? Honest question.
permalinkparent
[ ]TheMightyBarbarian 1 point 2 hours ago
Beyond using a VPN to mimic another location, not much really. Since there are m

any devices involved in the process of just looking up a website. Ex. You google
Microsoft. Here are all the parties involved: You, Your ISP, Google, Microsoft.
That's four parties involved and that's assuming you are not using a Phones Mob
ile Data plan and are using WiFi. Because then it can add a few more people invo
lved.
Sure you should have protection just the same, but currently the law doesn't rec
ognize that, because the people in charge dont understand how any of it works.
permalinkparent
[ ]rtpg [score hidden] 54 minutes ago
I would say that cultural norms kind of define that in that it is extremely rude
to look at another stranger's phone while they are using it to browse/look at t
heir emails/whatever. Not the most solid argument, I know.
permalinkparent
[ ]Sic_SemperTyrannis 1 point 2 hours ago
When the use of stingrays is challenged in court police have dropped the cases r
ather than explain their use of stingrays.
permalinkparent
[ ]cassieloveseffie 1 point 2 hours ago
I have seen a printed record of every one of someone's txt messages for 6 months
. Never assume txt messages are private.
permalinkparent
[ ]Ladderjack 29 points 12 hours ago
I'm sorry, have they gone ahead and combined the FBI and the Supreme Court of th
e United States of America? No? Well, we will see how long this lasts. . .
permalink
[ ]butitssnot 46 points 7 hours ago
Its ok. In 2016 we can vote for hope and change and transparency and fix all thi
s.
permalinkparent
[ ]CriticalThink 3 points 5 hours ago
yeah. I bet Hillary will fix this mess, right Reddit?
permalinkparent
[ ]TheMightyBarbarian 1 point 2 hours ago
We still got time before they can start promoting themselves for President, lega
lly actually, they can't start until a certain number of days from the election.
permalinkparent
[ ]looneybandito 5 points 6 hours ago
Haha. As if our votes matter.
permalinkparent
[ ]atomofconsumption 9 points 5 hours ago
thatsthejoke.jpg
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]dichroeyes 1 point 4 hours ago
You are right. I give up. Long live the hegemony.
permalinkparent
[ ]Pikaflu 1 point 3 hours ago
America is an irradiated wasteland. Within it lies a city. Outside the boundary
walls, a desert. A cursed earth. Inside the walls, a cursed city, stretching fro
m Boston to Washington D.C. An unbroken concrete landscape. 800 million people l
iving in the ruin of the old world and the mega structures of the new one. Mega
blocks. Mega highways. Mega City One. Convulsing. Choking. Breaking under its ow
n weight. Citizens in fear of the street. The gun. The gang. Only one thing figh
ting for order in the chaos: the men and women of the Hall of Justice. Juries. E
xecutioners. Judges.
permalinkparent
[ ]Ago_Solvo 36 points 9 hours ago
I'm sure that means that stingrays are also open for public hacking in that case
, because they're in a public place, and doing so can't be considered an intrusi
on on government properties or a violation of any Federal Law.

permalink
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]whysopositive 57 points 12 hours ago
Say whatever you want, you don't think big brother is going to find every way to
spy on you?
The thing is I bet every time we the people get upset about some "new" trespass
against our rights there's already something technologically beyond our knowledg
e being put to use to on us now.
permalink
[ ]I_SPLIT_INFINITIVES 16 points 7 hours ago
My dad always said, "If that's what they're telling us they have now, they proba
bly had it ten years ago. Just imagine what they really have."
permalinkparent
[ ]oOTHX1138Oo 28 points 9 hours ago
Thats why we need to add to the bill of rights, so that we continue to be protec
ted in the digital age.
permalinkparent
[ ]TheBlueWaffleHouse 18 points 8 hours ago
At this point in time the bill of rights only shrinks. It doesn't get bigger.
permalinkparent
[ ]tallerthanunicorngod 33 points 7 hours ago
Not with that attitude.
permalinkparent
[ ]mattacular2001 3 points 5 hours ago
Doesn't matter unless you're wealthy
permalinkparent
[ ]tallerthanunicorngod 1 point 2 hours ago
Wealthy people don't like to be spied on either. Honestly, they probably like it
even less.
permalinkparent
[ ]sockgorilla 1 point 5 hours ago
He's John Titor, he's watched it before.
permalinkparent
[ ]mastahslayah 1 point 4 hours ago
Well he isn't getting any of my Dr. Pepper.
permalinkparent
[ ]Poor__Yorick 1 point 2 hours ago
Wow that's a name I haven't heard in a while.
We've got a world war this year though.
3 billion dead by the end of it.
permalinkparent
load more comments (5 replies)
[ ]pion3435 1 point 3 hours ago
We already did. That's the point of laws like HIPAA. There's just no equivalent
for things like email or cell phones so it's legal to see whatever people are na
ively broadcasting.
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]ZomNomNomBeeZ 5 points 7 hours ago
This technology is not particularly new. The man-in-the-middle attack is a class
ic hacking technique. I remember reading an article after one of the security co
nventions detailing a small group of participants that used a remote control air
plane to do this exact thing to convention attendees. This was years ago.
permalinkparent
[ ]hershmire 4 points 7 hours ago
Which is why it's illegality could be successfully code into law.
permalinkparent
[ ]TheMightyBarbarian 1 point 3 hours ago
That's the problem, the people who make the laws don't understand how the techno
logy works, and the people making and using it are telling them its fine, so the

y don't feel like they need to make a law about.


And as such making a law about it would be bad, since the law would need specifi
c language to prevent certain technologies and usage of such. But the biggest is
sue is that some of the technology and uses are too general that it would never
work to stop anything. Since they can't just write a law preventing man in the m
iddle because they need to get a definitive wording on what that is exactly and
then word it so a slight variation doesn't just immediately skirt the new law.
Our technology grew faster than our laws did, but now it's grown faster than our
ability to properly define what it is we do. So controlling it is incredibly ha
rd and will take a long time, so for now we kinda have to suck it up and wait, b
ecause the worst possible thing is them putting out ineffective laws that do les
s than nothing to prevent stuff like that and hearing us complain and think we a
re whining when they just put out a law. I would rather wait a little longer to
make sure the law is proper and effective than to have a crap law screw everythi
ng up.
permalinkparent
[ ]ScorpionPool 1 point 6 hours ago
Serious question. What benefits does the government get from spying on us? Power
? Information for corporations? Shits and giggles? Some kind of profit?
permalinkparent
[ ]swingmemallet 2 points 5 hours ago
All of the above
permalinkparent
[ ]eyeforgot 1 point 5 hours ago*
What like complete access to what anyone posts/chats about on facebook/skype bei
ng dumped into a database? Anyone who work with cisco routers notice anything fu
nny like carefully crafted packets fucking w. the settings and not creating logs
. Maybe like there is a back door that someone has that doesn't require a passwo
rd.
permalinkparent
load more comments (3 replies)
[ ]philtech 26 points 10 hours ago
You can scan for stingray use.
Only works on rooted phones with Qualcomm chipset however. https://play.google.c
om/store/apps/details?id=de.srlabs.snoopsnitch&hl=en
permalink
[ ]vamper 2 points 6 hours ago
damn, no go for my nexus 5
permalinkparent
[ ]Ice_Pirate 1 point 5 hours ago
Should work on my 20 dollar ZTE's with dualies :). Overclocks to 1.8 like butta.
http://www.phonearena.com/phones/ZTE-N800_id8191
permalinkparent
[ ]willyboxc 1 point 2 hours ago
we need a version that will work without root :(
permalinkparent
[ ]networklackey 49 points 11 hours ago*
Bullshit... it's radio. They have no way of determining whether the person they
are monitoring is in public or not.
They shouldn't be able to use this without a warrant any more than they should b
e able to point a laser mic at your window.
The fact that they are in public is irrelevant... the subject they are monitorin
g has to be in public.
permalink
[ ]lll_1_lll 29 points 6 hours ago
Even if we are in public, what the fuck gives them the right to look through my
texts, phone calls, voicemails, emails, call history, etc?
permalinkparent
[ ]zoidbug 5 points 3 hours ago
It should be protected the level of paper mail. It is your private communication

s.
permalinkparent
[ ]networklackey 1 point 2 hours ago
Technically... because you are in public and are broadcasting. But I feel the sa
me way. None of this shit should be legal.
permalinkparent
load more comments (6 replies)
[ ]goatmagic 2 points 3 hours ago
laser mic
Well, TIL this exists :/
permalinkparent
[ ]networklackey 2 points 2 hours ago
They absolutely exist and they are freaking awesome. They should not however be
used by law enforcement without a warrant.
permalinkparent
[ ]makingupdumbnames 1 point 5 hours ago
I think it's that their airwaves cross public space. pls correct me if I'm wrong
, though
permalinkparent
[ ]networklackey 1 point 2 hours ago
That's certainly the argument they are making.
permalinkparent
[ ]wirepants 1 point 4 hours ago
Even assuming you are in public, who's to say the guy on the other side is too?
permalinkparent
[ ]networklackey 1 point 2 hours ago
Nothing but their log books but that doesn't really matter. It's your right to p
rivacy they are violating.
permalinkparent
[ ]Sarah_Connor 9 points 9 hours ago
We need a way to be able to identify, then jamm, stingrays.
permalink
[ ]cookie_nrk 8 points 7 hours ago
This Jammer made in sweden should do the trick. From what I have read it complet
ely blocks all signals, so using a phone wouldn't work at all, but if you were i
n a position to not want to be tracked during a certain time, you could use this
: http://www.jammer-store.com/monstro-10-all-frequencies-portable-jammer.html
permalinkparent
[ ]hershmire 10 points 7 hours ago
We're talking about blanket monitoring of civilians. It needs to be outlawed imm
ediately. Hoping each and every Joe Schmoe is going to buy an illegal cell phone
jammer to protect his identity is, well, ridiculous.
permalinkparent
[ ]davidverner 6 points 7 hours ago
Jammers are illegal in the US on the cellphone frequency. Good luck importing on
e.
permalinkparent
[ ]wicard 5 points 6 hours ago
had one from deal extreme i bought when i was younger to prank friends, was alot
of fun. But if you are worried about being tracked wouldn't just shutting your
phone off do the trick? If you are jamming your phone you arnt going to be talki
ng to anyone.
permalinkparent
[ ]RellenD 4 points 5 hours ago
You have to do more than just turn it off, unfortunately.
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]willyboxc 1 point 2 hours ago
we need the schematics so we can build one... also include 700 mhz jam for lte
permalinkparent

load more comments (1 reply)


[ ]ademnus 11 points 7 hours ago
That's nice but it's not up to the FBI if it is illegal or not.
permalink
[ ]MonitoredCitizen 21 points 7 hours ago
Come on Google and Apple, stop being so lame. Make the phones themselves defend
against this by always displaying the negotiated encryption level and allowing u
ser to configure the phone to refuse to connect if the GSM encryption level is A
5/0.
permalink
[ ]argv_minus_one 2 points 2 hours ago
If they do that, these same spooks will have some words with their CEOs. Otherwi
se, yeah, they likely would.
permalinkparent
[ ]vzzzbux 2 points 1 hour ago
Not sure on the technical specifics but my old Nokia from 10 years ago used to s
how a padlock if the call was "secure", which I guess meant it was encrypted in
some way.
Sounds like yet another way we've gone backwards with the rise of Google and App
le
permalinkparent
[ ]cryptovariable 180 points 12 hours ago
This seems icky, but anyone with a Raspberry Pi ($48.00), an RTL-SDR ($17.00), a
nd an ability to follow written step-by-step instructions on how to install and
configure some open source software ($0.00) can do this, albeit on a smaller sca
le.
That tutorial doesn't cover decrypting GSM traffic. This one does. You'll need s
omething faster than a Raspberry Pi, though. Maybe a $200 netbook.
And you can do it on the same scale as the police with a surplus commercial ante
nna and three or four friends.
I don't see how restricting the government's ability to do this would have any o
ther effect than to criminalize a private citizen's desire to experiment with GS
M.
permalink
[ ]HappyAtavism 113 points 11 hours ago
I don't see how restricting the government's ability to do this would have any o
ther effect than to criminalize a private citizen's desire to experiment with GS
M.
Experiment with GSM all you want, just don't eavesdrop or commit fraud by preten
ding to be part of a legitimate business.
I like to play with miniature cameras, microphones and transmitters. That's a fi
ne hobby as long as I don't use it to spy on my neighbors.
permalinkparent
load more comments (5 replies)
[ ]mr___ 50 points 12 hours ago
But theirs has a transmitter, and actively spoofs cell sites
permalinkparent
[ ]cryptovariable 55 points 12 hours ago
It you want to spoof rather than just eavesdrop all you have to do is buy any of
the SDR kits that are coming on to the market like a bladeRF or something and h
ave GNUradio (which hilariously autocorrects to FBI radio on my phone) pretend t
o be a tower, the credentials of which you sniffed with your Pi setup.
The reason the Feds spoof is so that they can target specific devices on a white
list and only have those connect. The size of the whitelist is unknown and up fo
r debate.
If you're capturing and decrypting all the GSM your antenna can receive you don'
t care if you're spoofing the tower unless you want to modify the traffic in som
e way. To quote Sir Patrick Stewart: "It's too late, I've seen everything."
If you just scoop up everything using cheap/free and publicly available tools yo
u don't really care about spoofing.

It should be noted that the Feds have a leg up with CDMA because of its smaller
global footprint and the scarcity of developers working on it, as well as UMTS (
3G) and LTE.
But people are poking at LTE every day: http://www.rtl-sdr.com/analyzing-td-ltertl-sdr/
permalinkparent
[ ]HappyAtavism 36 points 11 hours ago
The reason the Feds spoof is so that they can target specific devices on a white
list and only have those connect. The size of the whitelist is unknown and up fo
r debate.
We do know they don't have warrants. How many violations of the 4th Amendment do
es it take before it's considered a bad thing?
permalinkparent
load more comments (19 replies)
[ ]A530[??] 6 points 6 hours ago
I have to ask an honest question. Knowing what you know, do you live in a Farada
y cage or just eschew cell phones all together? I'm in InfoSec (I'm guessing you
are too) and with the shit I know, maintaining OPSec is just a never ending bat
tle. I can't imagine my paranoia if I went down the cellular rabbit hole (althou
gh I do know a lot about the shit happening with the carrier baseband MDM garbag
e).
Many thanks for the very informative post.
permalinkparent
[ ]tornadoRadar 1 point 1 hour ago
Gotta keep it segmented. Personal never mixes with biz
permalinkparent
[ ]the_nap_mutilator 1 point 5 hours ago
Spoofing the cell site also gives them access to the phone at something akin to
the hardware level... so unless you have rooted and or installed software to sec
ure the device, they can push new software onto your phone without your knowledg
e/consent in the same way that your carrier updates subscriber units say when th
ey make changes to the network or something. At that point your phone has been p
ermanently compromised.
permalinkparent
load more comments (13 replies)
[ ]mag17435 29 points 10 hours ago
I dont understand how people think the government can do things citizens can. Or
dering our government not to do something has no bearing on what citizens can do
.
permalinkparent
[ ]Golden-Fox 7 points 6 hours ago
Well when police are trying to visually collect evidence they can in general onl
y search from public areas. If a cop is looking for a certain car and they see i
t on the street, that's fine. If the car is parked in a closed garage and on pri
vate property, the cop wouldn't be able to see it without going onto private pro
perty and looking in a window. If the car is in the same garage and the garage d
oor is open, then anyone can see it, and the cop can legally use that informatio
n.
The FBI is trying to apply that same logic to these stingrays. Stingrays are a t
echnology that is available to the public. You could make your own and do exactl
y what the FBI does. The data being collected isn't encrypted, password protecte
d, or anything else. Everything is publicly available. You just have to have a c
ertain machine to be able to read it. The garage door has to be open.
permalinkparent
[ ]Wordygit 6 points 6 hours ago
The key word here is "public" whereas where there is the expectation of privacy,
I would think think that would carry some special considerations. That seems to
be some of what the courts are deciding about, where the expectation of privacy
holds sway over searches. Its already been determined that law enforcement cann
ot force you to unlock your phone. One such Supreme Court case, decided this pas

t summer, led to a sweeping victory for privacy rights advocates. In a rare unan
imous decision, the court found that police cannot search cellphones, and by ext
ension tablets and other digital communication devices, without first obtaining
a warrant. Smartphones, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote, hold the privacies of l
ife, and the fact that technology now allows an individual to carry such informati
on in his hand does not make the information any less worthy of the protection f
or which the Founders fought. I think, as well, that it has been established that
if there is encryption being used, that constitutes an acknowledgement that ste
ps have been taken to protect and maintain the sense of privacy, and so the expe
ctation carries onto the information being transmitted. Not sure if there is a l
egal precedent for that though.
permalinkparent
[ ]Golden-Fox 2 points 5 hours ago
Its already been determined that law enforcement cannot force you to unlock your
phone.
This is what I've heard, but to me it implies that police can access your phone
if you don't have it locked. Carrying that logic over to this argument, the poli
ce would be able to access your cell info as long as it isn't encrypted. It seem
s that you only have a "reasonable expectation to privacy" with your cell phone
if you've taken any steps to make your phone more private. If there were some wa
y to get your carrier to encrypt your data, then there'd be no question, but the
way cell providers are these days, that's not gonna happen.
permalinkparent
[ ]ThreeTimesUp 1 point 1 hour ago
Something that I have heard repeatedly (and I may yet have it wrong), is that if
your front door is closed, but unlocked, the police are free to enter without a
warrant.
This has always bothered me.
I could understand the mind-set of someone (i.e. a Justice of the Supreme court)
thinking that way if they grew up (or lived) in an area where they lived a life
always fearful of intruders and locking doors was a practical necessity.
But to me, a closed door means "Keep out, knock for admittance - no entry withou
t permission."
So, for naive, trusting, me, I would not expect the police (or anyone) to examin
e my phone (without a warrant) just to see what they could find.
permalinkparent
[ ]pion3435 1 point 3 hours ago
A technologically illiterate moron's expectation of privacy doesn't become a rea
sonable expectation of privacy just because the majority of the population is te
chnologically illiterate.
permalinkparent
[ ]F0sh 1 point 2 hours ago
This is totally wrong thinking. A private citizen can look for your car through
the garage window without legal repercussions, even though a police officer migh
t not be allowed. The police officer has to conduct his searches according to th
e expectation of privacy and you have every expectation that your private phone
conversations are private - even if you're sending your texts at the shopping ce
ntre.
This is a bullshit equivocation on the part of the FBI, who are claiming that si
nce any old person at the shops can see that you're also at the shops you have n
o expectation of privacy at all.
This logic, if extended, would also mean the FBI could clone your hard drive if
you took your laptop to a public place - after all, you have no expectation of p
rivacy there. No. Bullshit - just because you're in the park doesn't mean all yo
ur possessions and emails became public.
This has nothing to do with what an ordinary citizen is able to do in public or
in private.
permalinkparent
[ ]ThreeTimesUp 1 point 2 hours ago*
Well when police are trying to visually collect evidence they can in general onl

y search from public areas. If a cop is looking for a certain car and they see i
t on the street, that's fine.
To counterpoint this:
Infra-red light (heat) is just light that's at a lower frequency than humans can
detect.
Courts have ruled that the police using specialized equipment to detect heat sig
natures (Infra-red light) emanating from from houses for the purpose of snooping
for grow operations are an invasion of privacy.
The signals Stingray is picking up are just another frequency, even lower than I
nfra-red light, originating from inside your phone, that is your property, which
is in your possession.
Authorities are using all manner of logical distortions in an express attempt to
get around the ideals and principles expressed in the Constitution.
What law-abiding citizen would attempt such a thing?
What authority that the public has placed their trust in, would make continual a
ttempts to subvert the Constitution?
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
load more comments (2 replies)
[ ]kromem 2 points 3 hours ago
It is already criminal to capture and decrypt GSM traffic for citizens (Wiretap
Act), same as capturing and parsing WiFi data.
But I think I can point out the issue with your logic with a simple analogy:
Citizens can buy guns.
Law enforcement can be provided guns.
Citizens can practice shooting guns.
Law enforcement should do the same.
Citizens can't shoot other citizens with guns except in really specific exemptio
ns.
According to your logic, just because citizens can buy guns, and could possibly
go around shooting other people with them, law enforcement should not have any l
egal restrictions on their use of guns.
It is illegal for you to capture and decrypt anyone else's traffic, and it shoul
d be illegal for cops to do the same without a warrant. It's not that hard to ge
t a warrant when actually justified, creates a paper trail that can be examined
for abuses, and has been the case without serious issue for years now.
For what purpose does the law need to be changed to allow this? Because warrants
are inconvenient? Well then why not get rid of them for entering homes too? It'
s quite trivial to pick a lock, and even easier to smash a window and climb in.
Any citizen could do it. So why do we need to restrict the police from the same?
permalinkparent
[ ]dfioabnionjio 4 points 9 hours ago
I don't see how restricting the government's ability to do this would have any o
ther effect than to criminalize a private citizen's desire to experiment with GS
M.
Why not have it be illegal for government and legal for private citizens? Make i
t perfectly legal for private citizens to experiment with GSM, but don't let the
FBI do the same, like you can have a private citizen share something a defendan
t said in court while the police cannot do the same unless the suspect had been
told of their rights.
Of course, the problem here is not using GSM. It's tracking people who did not k
nowingly join your network. You could have it be legal to experiment with GSM an
d not legal to spoof a network, or make it so tracking someone on your network i
s illegal unless the person being tracked is aware they will be tracked and cons
ents to it.
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]confusiondiffusion 3 points 10 hours ago
Yeah, I really don't see the point in making laws against this, since they'll be
broken anyway. We need to fix the underlying technology. There is no excuse for

the sad state of cellphone security.


permalinkparent
[ ]HappyAtavism 18 points 10 hours ago
I really don't see the point in making laws against this
Then let's just flush the Constitution down the toilet. All laws get broken, the
question is what gets done about it.
since they'll be broken anyway
It's not very hard to break into my house either, but they're not supposed to do
it without a warrant.
permalinkparent
load more comments (4 replies)
[ ]HighMonster 1 point 7 hours ago
Wow that's intriguing
permalinkparent
[ ]lll_1_lll 1 point 6 hours ago
You act like this is realistically doable for the large majority of people and y
ou know that's BS.
permalinkparent
[+][deleted] 6 hours ago (1 child)
[ ]JabroniZamboni 1 point 5 hours ago
Are you suggesting that radar jammers should be legal? As well as cell phone or
wifi jammers? What if your neighbor wants to experiment with a jammer for the ne
xt 4 months? 6 years? I assume you wouldn't be too happy. There's experimentatio
n and then there's purposeful disruption and spying.
permalinkparent
[ ]egodeath92 1 point 5 hours ago
Yeah except "anyone with device X" can't prosecute people. It doesn't matter whe
n corporations do mass data collection because they are just trying to make mone
y/sell people shit. The government can create a database of people's private liv
es then prosecute them. You could even imagine a time where data collection is s
o widespread that this kind of info is used for political purposes rather then b
usting drug dealers/ other criminals which is what it's used for now.
permalinkparent
[ ]Kuusou 1 point 4 hours ago
What the people can do, and what the government can do, are no the same things,
nor should they.
permalinkparent
[ ]qdarius 1 point 4 hours ago
If a random person overhears my conversation I don't care. Even if they tell the
ir friends I'm still not too concerned.
If the government records my conversation and uses it to investigate or prosecut
e me that's clearly a different situation.
Just because someone can do something doesn't mean it should be legal. It defini
tely doesn't mean we should be okay with our government using it on us.
permalinkparent
load more comments (9 replies)
[ ]Sir_not_sir 52 points 13 hours ago
The main purpose of the stinger is to circumvent the need and time of acquiring
a warrant and getting the data from all the service providers.
Regardless of data retention plans, they should require a separate judicial warr
ant for each individual suspect in order to be deployed.
permalink
[ ]manoninternets 8 points 7 hours ago*
The time required to get a warrant is usually far less than what they make it ou
t to be, although cost is as factor. Phone companies make tons of money off poli
ce records requests.
To play devil's advocate (and I do think the STINGRAY arrangement is devilish):
once you request records from the phone companies, there's no guarantee that won
't get leaked to the people being investigated. The cartels have people everywhe

re.
permalinkparent
[ ]kevincreeperpants 6 points 6 hours ago
What if they are the cartels!?...dun dun dun
permalinkparent
[ ]tughdffvdlfhegl 1 point 3 hours ago
I don't think anyone here has a problem with STINGRAY being used, given that the
y have a warrant for the person's data they're monitoring. So in your situation,
that's easy to do.
permalinkparent
[ ]manoninternets 2 points 3 hours ago
Yeah it's the same concept as going through my private letters, or close enough
to it anyhow. (Even though letters are physically sealed and radio waves permeat
e the air freely, my intention is for my text messages to be as private as posta
l mail.)
Even a child could rip open an envelope with ease. That doesn't mean police don'
t need a warrant to do so.
permalinkparent
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[ ]turnthatfrown 9 points 7 hours ago
I think the FBI is conveniently forgetting that they are intercepting a communic
ation that is normally secured via encryption and carried privately by your wire
less provider then switched privately all the way to the party on the other end
who has similar expectations of the connection.
I mean, come on, the Stingrays themselves are impersonating the carrier that you
have a contract with and using techniques to avoid the strong encryption. The p
rove by their own design and implementation that the FBI's argument is bullshit.
permalink
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]dontbullshityourself 27 points 11 hours ago
I'm so sick of the ways these callous assholes use to crush our freedom.
What is the point of massive expensive law enforcement agencies if the law can't
protect our rights and freedoms? Hasn't the cart been put before the horse here
?
permalink
[ ]donottakethisserious 13 points 6 hours ago
If you are told you are free enough times, you start to believe it. You start at
a young age with a pledge every day and then when you grow up you attend sporti
ng events and stand for the national anthem and tear up at how free you are. Tha
t way nobody will ever question whether or not this is actually a free country.
permalinkparent
[ ]dontbullshityourself 10 points 5 hours ago
When I was a kid I started to sit during the pledge. Honestly I think I just wan
ted to test and see how free I was. I knew that saying the pledge etc wasn't in
the school handbook. I knew there was no rule saying I had to say it or stand or
anything. The powers that be at my school just used the herd instinct to keep t
his shit going.
So I started sitting down. This resulted in a lot of attention from gangs of bul
lies. My home room teacher didn't like it either and lectured/bitched about it e
very day. But she stopped short of anything more than shaming me unlike the bull
ies.
Anyway I just decided to drop out. Fuck it. Humans don't like new things that co
nfuse them and challenge them to think. How interesting that was to be the last
thing I learned in school. I found another kind of freedom. The freedom to leave
the assholes mired in their stupidity and find my own path in life.
permalinkparent
[ ]joshyfitzo90 4 points 5 hours ago
I like your style.
permalinkparent

[ ]Jack41096 3 points 4 hours ago


I applaud you. I stood but that's all I did. it was in our rulebook to stand but
fuck them if they thought I was gonna do more than that. I started a wave of pe
ople standing and doing nothing.
eventually my first period class was reduced to two people and the teacher actua
lly doing anything. they bitches about it but we all had our own reasons.
permalinkparent
[ ]dontbullshityourself 2 points 3 hours ago
eventually my first period class was reduced to two people and the teacher actua
lly doing anything. they bitches about it but we all had our own reasons.
There are lots of reasons to resist and only one reason to obey. Fear.
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]CriticalThink 3 points 5 hours ago
Government hasn't been interested in protecting our rights and freedoms in a lon
g time.
permalinkparent
[ ]jkeyser14 5 points 7 hours ago
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety
, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. - Benjamin Franklin
permalinkparent
[ ]dontbullshityourself 5 points 6 hours ago
We didn't give it up. They are taking it.
permalinkparent
[ ]jkeyser14 10 points 6 hours ago
Only because we aren't rioting. The first group of rioters to tar and feather a
politician again will bring about change very quickly.
permalinkparent
[ ]dontbullshityourself 4 points 5 hours ago
People are gonna have to get a lot more desperate. I reckon we'll get our riot s
oon enough.
permalinkparent
[ ]Jack41096 1 point 4 hours ago
take the food. that's the surefire way to cause a riot.
people will be content as long as they're fed. you take that away and suddenly t
hey have nothing to lose. they have to survive. that is the most primal response
we have. to fight tooth and nail for food. to eat no matter the cost.
permalinkparent
[ ]RamsNation 1 point 4 hours ago
America has a very stable food supply so I doubt that will happen.
permalinkparent
[ ]dontbullshityourself 1 point 3 hours ago
I don't think we have to take the food. I think that people today are a lot more
self entitled and will jump into a fit without their iphones. They can't even i
magine a world without abundant food.
permalinkparent
[ ]grungebucket 1 point 4 hours ago
bring about change very quickly. street executions very quickly.
there. Corrected that for you. After all. You wouldn't want to be mistaken for a
terrorist endorsing a terrorist act now, would you?
permalinkparent
[ ]pion3435 2 points 3 hours ago
You never had it. You're just now finding out.
permalinkparent
[ ]hershmire 7 points 7 hours ago
Ok, I get the FBI's argument. Technically, we are all choosing to carry a digita
l device around with us that uniquely identifies us via radio frequency. It's tr
ue that we could very well decide not to partake in the use of cell phones if we
're so worried about being tracked. And thus because we decide to carry these pa

rtially secure devices around with us, they FBI has every right to hack them and
track us.
But this argument is bogus. The FBI can't read our mail or tap our phones becaus
e legislators and judges at one time recognized that technology becomes indispen
sable, and therefore should be protected under privacy laws. Just because I choo
se to carry a cell phone around with me doesn't give the FBI to track my whereab
outs, or worse. That'd be like saying it's my fault for having my mail read by t
he FBI because I chose to write letters, or I chose to have my phones monitored
and recorded by the FBI because I chose to use telephones.
The FBI is part of the executive branch. They (supposedly) operate within the sc
ope of the law. If there's no specific law preventing their actions, they'll go
ahead and do it. So write your representatives and get shit like this regulated.
And use letters because they're obligated to at least open the envelope.
permalink
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]drakecherry 5 points 8 hours ago
we might as well get rid of warrants all together. they are gonna search if they
want to, and nothing will happen if they are wrong.
permalink
[ ]MeganNancySmith 6 points 6 hours ago
The FBI doesn't have the legal authority to make that determination.
It would be like if I said that murder is legal every other Sunday. I can say it
all I like, but it doesn't make it true.
permalink
[ ]Todda468 6 points 6 hours ago
Anything a private citizen can't do should require reasonable suspicion or a war
rent.
permalink
[ ]Sonotmethen 6 points 9 hours ago
Then signal jammers aren't either.
permalink
[ ]MrJDouble 4 points 9 hours ago
FBI tends to say a lot of things, doesn't mean it isn't a pile of horseshit.
permalink
[ ]blueiron0 4 points 6 hours ago
(3) cases in which the technology is used in public places or other locations at
which the FBI deems there is no reasonable expectation of privacy.
Love how the FBI gets to decide when it's ok for them to assume you shouldnt hav
e any expectation on privacy. "we saw a poop porn video on pornhub. you shouldnt
expect privacy when pooping then."
permalink
[ ]ragn4rok234 4 points 6 hours ago
Whoo! Now I don't need a warrant or sufficient reason to wire tap anyone and eve
ryone. Stalkers of the world rejoice! It's like Oprah is handing out privacy bre
aches in here
permalink
[ ]fourslaps 4 points 4 hours ago
This isn't what Steve Irwin would have wanted
permalink
[ ]knowyourbrain 7 points 8 hours ago
How sad is it that we have an R Senator trying to rein in a D president's FBI?
If Snowden et al have not been able to show the American people what a farce our
government is then I don't know how it can be demonstrated.
permalink
[ ]makingupdumbnames 1 point 5 hours ago
that's Chelsea to you, mister!
permalinkparent
[ ]StellarUsername 4 points 9 hours ago
Can someone ELI5 why my cell carrier lets this happen? Seems like it would be ea
sy enough for them to put a stop to it if they wanted.

permalink
[ ]giantgnat 13 points 8 hours ago
Because if you don't play nice with them, they don't play nice with you like wha
t happened to the CEO of quest after he refused to cooperate.
permalinkparent
[ ]lll_1_lll 6 points 6 hours ago
CEO of quest
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/09/30/a-ceo-who-resistednsa-spying-is-out-of-prison-and-he-feels-vindicated-by-snowden-leaks/
permalinkparent
[ ]WatchoutItsAllan 1 point 4 hours ago
Looks like the only way to be out of the eyes of the NSA is to go back to using
these http://imgur.com/JEFUt4h
permalinkparent
[ ]jkeyser14 4 points 7 hours ago
The cell and internet companies get paid millions by the government for direct a
ccess to their lines. This was one of the things Snowden blew the whistle on.
permalinkparent
[ ]MadPooter 2 points 7 hours ago
I believe that the technology behind our current cell phone towers needs to allo
w for widespread access to said cell phone towers from a wide array of technolog
ical devices.
The Stingray makes the cell phone tower believe that it's a cell phone--I don't
know that it's as easy as you might think to re-design all cell phone models to
differentiate themselves from what Stingrays currently are.
TL;DR: This might be a better issue for cell phone designers to solve rather the
n cell phone carriers.
permalinkparent
[ ]egalroc 2 points 6 hours ago
Maybe design a Falcon drone that homes in and locks on fake Stingray towers. Wou
ldn't the FBI just shit to see a couple sparrows zooming down on them?
permalinkparent
[ ]A530[??] 1 point 6 hours ago
Cell carriers couldn't care less. They're also packaging backdoors in their base
band software to do all kinds of functional crap, like over the air updates and
remote access.
permalinkparent
[ ]here4DaBacon 3 points 7 hours ago
So it's a honey pot for cell phones. This same method is used to intercept WiFi
internet traffic. The world is becoming a hackers paradise.
permalink
[ ]CapAnson 4 points 6 hours ago
I don't even think of the FBI's exceptions two and three are valid. And as for i
mminent danger to public safety I can't imagine when that safety hinges on inter
cepting a cell call right now this very second without a warrant
permalink
[ ]SquidwardSnowden1 3 points 6 hours ago
Let it be noted, I love big brother.
permalink
[ ]ryanknapper 3 points 6 hours ago
There was a comment asking what prevents private citizens from doing this. My re
ply was: Absolutely nothing. In fact, there are legal ways of doing exactly this
.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xKihq1fClQg
permalink
[ ]lll_1_lll 2 points 6 hours ago
inb4 this thread gets removed by the mods and/or shadowbanned
permalink
[ ]doctorshady[S] 3 points 6 hours ago
I was almost sure it was going to be removed when I submitted it.

permalinkparent
[ ]grtwatkins 1 point 3 hours ago
Wait, so mods = FBI?
permalinkparent
[ ]doctorshady[S] 2 points 2 hours ago
The mods here are quite restrictive about what is allowed to be submitted. Wheth
er or not they're under someone's influence is a question I can't answer (though
I'd honestly like to know), but you'll occasionally see high profile topics rem
oved, like the Snowden leaks back when PRISM was first pointed out.
permalinkparent
[ ]tomcat23 3 points 6 hours ago
If I had a hundred dollars for every time the FBI said it could do something une
thical or unconstitutional I'd be shooting rockets into space like Elon Musk rig
ht now.
permalink
[ ]leafygreenstuff 3 points 6 hours ago
Oh, well if they said....
permalink
[ ]wlxr 3 points 5 hours ago
Is this implying that they are going to repeatedly kill Steve Irwin?
permalink
[ ]Bulldog65 3 points 2 hours ago
Can I Use my Stingray in public places to intercept communications ?
If the answer is no, then the FBI needs a warrant.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effec
ts, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Wa
rrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, a
nd particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things t
o be seized.
This can only be changed by super majority votes in Congress and the States, not
treasonous opinions of mouthpiece lawyers in Department of Justice. This is why
prosecutions of torture memo writers is important. If they want to try and make
up laws they need to be held accountable under the law.
permalink
[ ]Do_Em_Till_They_Derp 13 points 12 hours ago
I don't think that is a good idea considering what happened to Steve Irwin.
permalink
[ ]Smgth 1 point 4 hours ago
I can't believe how far down I had to scroll to find this joke. I was worried I'
d have to make it myself. This thread is WAY too serious for my taste...
permalinkparent
load more comments (1 reply)
[ ]go1dfish 10 points 10 hours ago
This is what happens when you give a group of people authority over all else.
They use that authority to extort funds from you to pay for your own oppression.
But reddit still cheers it on. It seems to some; the concepts of roads or compas
sion cannot exist without specially anointed jack boot thugs.
permalink
[ ]Arael15th 3 points 6 hours ago
Do you see anyone in this post cheering this on? Moreover is this your first tim
e here?
permalinkparent
[ ]Flight_MH370 2 points 9 hours ago
Can the cell providers see every time this happens? If so, they could alert peop
le of fake towers or something. Alas, I'm pretty sure all the cell providers are
in bed with the feds already anyway.
permalink
[ ]leftnotracks 1 point 8 hours ago
This is why it s a good thing the FBI are not the people in charge of what is lega
l.

permalink
[ ]iluvmilfs420 3 points 7 hours ago
Ohh cool more of my taxes wasted on stupid shit...
permalink
[ ]fuzzycuffs 3 points 7 hours ago
Then I can do the same thing with wifi and not be charged with hacking, right?
permalink
[ ]endprism 2 points 7 hours ago
Use of Stringray in America: https://www.aclu.org/maps/stingray-tracking-devices
-whos-got-them
http://rt.com/usa/215735-sandiego-police-phone-tracking/
http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/First-Amendment-Coalition-Files-Lawsuit-Ab
out-Stingray-Surveillance--286092741.html
http://www.miaminewtimes.com/2012-02-16/news/cell-phone-tracking-miami-cops-know
-where-you-are/
http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/Fort-Worth-Cellphone-Tracking-Rings-Controversy
-140796693.html
http://www.wgrz.com/story/news/investigations/2014/02/13/are-local-police-spying
-on-your-cell-phone/5462273/
Tick tock...
permalink
[ ]johnnybiggs15 2 points 7 hours ago
didnt know they had that type of power
permalink
[ ]jwyche008 2 points 6 hours ago
They would fucking say that wouldn't they? The thing is it isn't supposed to be
their damn decision to make!
permalink
[ ]ICEClownfishWok 1 point 6 hours ago
Did the US government learn nothing from Nazi Germany? I honestly won't be surpr
ised if WWIII occurs when the rest of the world gets tired of our governments bu
llshit
permalink
[ ]frankenstilskin 3 points 6 hours ago
America, for the corporations by the corporations
permalink
[ ]Elephant_rhino_tiger 3 points 5 hours ago
It sounds like a 6 year old coming up with a superhero. "This is FBI man, and he
can fly and like punch through the earth, and he can y'know like intercept cell
traffic if he thinks it's important. But he is weak against himself though, so
like if he punched himself he would die."
permalink
[ ]Banana_blanket 2 points 4 hours ago
Hey who wants to just sit around and let it happen? Oh, everyone? Perfect. Ready
? Go.
permalink
[ ]poopinbutt2014 3 points 4 hours ago
Ah yes, the cops deciding what laws they are and aren't subject to.
permalink
[ ]burnerthrown 2 points 2 hours ago
Has anyone else notied a pattern of more and more laws that protect enforcement
operations from civilians, and fewer nd fewer laws protecting civilians from enf
orcement?
permalink
[ ]siquisiudices 2 points 2 hours ago
Increasingly I am astonished by the state of democracy in the developed western
countries. What has happened and how? I realise that there have always been infr
ingements of liberties by the state - always. But it seems to me that what has c
hanged is the blatent nature of the compromise of democratic norms. I'm not a hi
storian but my impression is that the origins of our current situation lie in tw

o iconic regimes in the UK and US - Reagan and Thatcher (and those that followed
) - and in the fall of the soviet regimes.
The economic philosophy that Reagan and Thatcher promoted reduced liberty to pro
perty rights while at the same time it condemned (rightly) the soviet regimes fo
r their lack of respect for democratic norms. The appeal of this economic ideolo
gy to capital, to the corporations, was obvious especially as during the 1970s t
here had been intermittent but recurring periods when profitability had fallen.
In the context of declining profitability, a roll back of the state and public e
xpenditure was a quick win.
For the rest of society, the implication that growth in personal, individual wea
lth was being held back by public spending and that the welfare state eroded ind
ividual responsibility also won the day. A key element in this process was the d
efeat and denigration of trade unionism: Thatcher going so far as to suggest tha
t trade unions (in the person of the National Union of Miners) were dangerous tr
aitors. People bought into the arguments for radical individualism ("there is no
such thing as society") because, in part, the concrete experience of collectivi
sm in trade unions declined in the face a massive anti-trade union assault.
The fall of the corrupt and totalitarian soviet regimes underpinned this all by
giving concrete expression to the notion that there is no alternative.
Economically the result has been massive widening of the discrepancy in wealth i
n many western countries and increased immiseration of labour across the world a
nd no force to counterbalance the power of the corporations and the state that t
hey (quite naturally) control. The state is the central committee of capital.
In all of this, the oft misnamed "libertarian" tendencies were accompanied by an
increasingly authoritarian and intrusive state apparatus which was promoted and
defended around quite classical nationalist ideas but recast often as the defen
se of western democracy against various external enemies.
And so, little by little, we have allowed our civil liberties to be chipped away
. Even the radical libertarians have been sidelined and fooled into irrelevant s
truggles around gun control in the US. Really, if an armed citizenry were the gu
arantee of liberty then one wold have hoped it would have done a better job. But
overall anti-welfare, anti-European and anti-immigrant rhetoric in the UK and,
for example, religious manipulation of public discourse in the US have allowed t
he authoritarian, pro-corporate state to gradually encroach on political and per
sonal freedoms. And here we are.
We can't say we didn't know - we were warned but the ruling class managed to def
ame the messengers and in other ways render us impotent.
One can only hope that we wake up in time and that our new disdain for collectiv
ism is overcome by the necessity of taking collective action.
permalink
[ ]DinglebellRock [score hidden] 49 minutes ago
You have a right to privacy according to the Constitution. Except for maybe your
cell phone calls. Or email. Or handwritten or typed letters. Or what you read f
rom the library and Amazon. Or maybe your colon and lower intestine if you are i
n New Mexico. What a fucked up nation this has become...
permalink
[ ]nstalker91 [score hidden] 38 minutes ago
Oh sure, when they do it, it's "protecting" and "morally right", but when I do i
t, it's a "federal crime" and "the FCC watches me"
permalink
[ ]The_Media_Collector 3 points 9 hours ago
This is why my phone has an app to continually report IMSI changes to me. I swit
ch one tower to another, I get a warning.
permalink
[ ]Redd575 1 point 7 hours ago
How is that helpful? Not being an ass, just curious. Seems if a Stingray can spo
of a tower then the app does little unless you are standing absolutely still.
permalinkparent
[ ]The_Media_Collector 3 points 7 hours ago
it's my understanding that Stingray "towers" do not encrypt traffic. anytime I a

m connected to an unencrypted "tower" the IMSI detector goes red and lets me kno
w.
permalinkparent
[ ]Redd575 1 point 6 hours ago
Wow. Whomever figured that out was clever.
permalinkparent
[ ]ExReverie93 1 point 7 hours ago
Which app? And would a normal person (not meaning you're not normal. You know wh
at I mean.) be able to use it?
permalinkparent
[ ]The_Media_Collector 1 point 7 hours ago
Requires Root. It's just caeld "Adnroid IMSI-Catchter"
permalinkparent
[ ]egalroc 1 point 6 hours ago
Makes a person want to be a criminal or spy just for the fun of it.
permalinkparent
[ ]Effo 3 points 7 hours ago
Goodbye America the Great, hello police state. :-[
permalink
[ ]Casemods 2 points 7 hours ago
Another reason why I don't have a cell phone.
permalink
[ ]GiveMe_TreeFiddy 3 points 7 hours ago
Things libertarians have been screaming about and offering solutions to for 500$
, Alex...
permalink
[ ]ilovesellinblow 1 point 9 hours ago
police and marshals have been running these for years.
permalink
[ ]bbelt16ag 1 point 8 hours ago
so FBI lets see what the Supreme court has to say to that. I am sure once they r
ule on this you will be going home with your tails between your legs.
permalink
[ ]Banana_blanket 1 point 4 hours ago
Do you people really have that much faith in our Supreme Court? Really?
permalinkparent
[ ]bbelt16ag 1 point 3 hours ago
gotta have some faith, other wise its just anarchy, or revolution. I am not read
y to give up quite yet.
permalinkparent
[ ]bonyponyride 1 point 8 hours ago
If digital communication in a public (and private) space is fair game, there's n
othing to stop an FBI tech specialist from stealing things like knowledge that w
ould be considered insider trading. There's an extreme potential for abuse.
permalink
[ ]jkeyser14 2 points 7 hours ago
If was fair game then hacking into wireless signals by private citizens wouldn't
be illegal.
permalinkparent
[ ]egalroc 1 point 6 hours ago
Just waiting for Anonymous to set up shop in a public park and hack into police
communications then dispatch them to bogus locations throughout the city. If any
thing goes wrong, they could always blame North Korea.
permalinkparent
[ ]coalbeeashi 1 point 3 hours ago
Aren't government agencies encrypting their digital communication - thus exhibit
ing an expectation of privacy?
I'm not sure what steps the "reasonable person" is taking to exhibit an expectat
ion of privacy over their data, tbh.
permalinkparent

[ ]hmmwhatsthisdo 1 point 8 hours ago


If you used RedPhone, Whisperpush/TextSecure, and a VPN, this wouldn't be of con
cern to you, right?
permalink
[ ]LucifersCounselNZ 1 point 7 hours ago
Wrong.
In other cases, the IMSI or equivalent identifier of a target is not known to th
e StingRay operator and the goal of the surveillance operation is to identify on
e or more cellular devices being used in a known area.[16] For example, if visua
l surveillance is being conducted on a group of protestors,[17] a StingRay can b
e used to download the IMSI or equivalent identifier from each phone within the
protest area. After identifying the phones, locating and tracking operations can
be conducted, and service providers can be forced to turn over account informat
ion identifying the phone users.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stingray_phone_tracker#Extracting_Data_From_Interna
l_Storage
Before any of that shit you're talking about comes into play, the IMSI number is
used when establishing the connection. It is uniquely identifying. With your IM
SI number and a court order (or cooperative telco) they will know who you are an
d who you were communicating with.
Then they can use that information to punish you for participating in legal prot
ests, associating with the wrong people, or simply because some Fed didn't like
the look of you.
permalinkparent
[ ]hmmwhatsthisdo 1 point 6 hours ago
So, the only way is to modify your IMEI (which is questionably legal) and use a
prepaid SIM?
permalinkparent
[ ]facepalmdude 1 point 5 hours ago
The IMSI part makes sense, but by using the mentioned tools authorities are very
unlikely to find out who you communicated with, or what the content was. All th
ey know is that you're the end point of an encrypted data connection.
permalinkparent
[ ]coalbeeashi 1 point 3 hours ago
I would assume that a court would view this as an individual exhibiting an expec
tation of privacy over their data.
permalinkparent
[ ]mambotangohandala 1 point 7 hours ago
Law?
We don't need no stinkin' law...
permalink
[ ]smilesbot 1 point 7 hours ago
You've just used a double negative! :P
permalinkparent
[ ]mambotangohandala 1 point 7 hours ago
no i did not, never would i do such a thing, nope, i don't think i ever did...
Ever see the movie 'blazing saddles'? Context kid, context
permalinkparent
[ ]smilesbot 1 point 7 hours ago
yup yup yup!
permalinkparent
[ ]mambotangohandala 1 point 7 hours ago
oh no a triple positive,what a stupendous faux pas!
permalinkparent
[ ]smilesbot 1 point 7 hours ago
yup yup yup!
permalinkparent
[ ]mambotangohandala 1 point 7 hours ago
Did mom give you too many sodas tonight?
permalinkparent

[ ]mambotangohandala 1 point 7 hours ago


Now where are those kiddy downers?
permalinkparent
[ ]mambotangohandala 1 point 7 hours ago
Remember tomorrow is a school day
permalinkparent
[ ]BigTex8900 1 point 7 hours ago
The Federal Bureau of Investigation is taking the position that court warrants a
re not required when deploying cell-site simulators in public places.
Wait so can I take the position that it's not actually illegal to suck dick for
money in public places?
permalink
[ ]AssOrca 1 point 6 hours ago
Well thank god there not doing it in my home!
permalinkparent
[ ]Drunken_Economist 1 point 7 hours ago
The FCC says they are needed, FWIW
permalink
[ ]FadingEchoes11 0 points 6 hours ago
100% true, power to the people
You should learn about and try to understand firearms more, they are just tools
after all.
permalink
[ ]winstrol 1 point 6 hours ago
Can i use a stingray? Al stick to my snoopsnitch.
permalink
[ ]fatscat84 2 points 6 hours ago
Big fucking surprise, 4th amendment=toilet paper anymore. The rights of the citi
zens arent even considered anymore since we dont have lobbyists. Maybe ill start
a kickstarter campaign to make a lobbyist group to give americans a voice in d.
c.
permalink
[ ]urbn 2 points 6 hours ago
The Obama Administration has repeatedly maintained that the public has no privac
y in public places.
And yet the excuse always used when someone records a police officer breaking th
e law and is arrested, detained and has his property stolen is that it violates
their privacy.
permalink
[ ]Vigilias 1 point 6 hours ago
If it's stealing signals being send from private residences it sure should fucki
ng be wtf.
permalink
[ ]2013palmtreepam 1 point 6 hours ago
Because stingrays automatically stop working at private property lines? Don't re
call the part of the 4th Amendment that exempts the requirement for probable cau
se and a search warrant when one happens to be in a public place.
permalink
[ ]makingupdumbnames 2 points 6 hours ago
I don't think it would be too hard to develop a stingray jammer, something that
just floods their equipment with a bunch of useless/fake cell phone numbers...I'
m in favor of a more strategic response to these types of infringements of our r
ights. We actually have a right and responsibility to fight tyranny...
permalink
[ ]ghotiaroma 1 point 3 hours ago
It's possible, but you wouldn't know where and when to use it. And it would be d
etectable you are using a jammer and anyone using one would find themselves fill
ed with SWAT bullets in no time.
permalinkparent
[ ]ononewheel 1 point 2 hours ago

Cant you rent bot net time and do this?


permalinkparent
[ ]psilontech 1 point 5 hours ago
I think that's for the courts to decide, FBI.
permalink
[ ]coalbeeashi 1 point 4 hours ago
...the only way the courts could decide is if it were practiced and a lawsuit wa
s brought against those practices.
Of course the FBI is going to finagle ways to flirt with obscure, outdated laws
for the purpose of investigating, thus practice it. Of course some group or orga
nization is going to take issue with it, thus taking it to court.
permalinkparent
[ ]cynoclast 2 points 5 hours ago
And the 4th Amendment says the FBI is wrong. And to the idea that subsequent law
s or that prededence says otherwise, I say that lawyers who make those interpret
ations were paid to do so by people with a vested interest in saying otherwise.
The constitution and amendments were intended to be read and interpreted by ever
yone, not just lawyers and judges so it matters not at all what lawyers and judg
es say.
permalink
[ ]coalbeeashi 1 point 5 hours ago
The constitution and amendments were intended to be read and interpreted by ever
yone
Uhh...interpreted by everyone? Do you know how fucked up that would be? There's
a reason for the judicial branch.
permalinkparent
[ ]cynoclast 2 points 4 hours ago
More fucked up than corporations as people? The 4th Amendment being ignored by t
he DHS, Homeland Security, and the NSA? More fucked up than than all the ridicul
ous, unconstitutional restrictions on cosmetic features of firearms that all vio
late the 2nd amendment? More fucked up than justices appointed by war criminals
refusing to recuse themselves where they have a clear conflict of interest?
The judicial branch is staffed by people, just as fallible as the rest of us. Th
e judicial branch was nly ever an attempt to reign in the other two. It was alwa
ys intended that it was the right of the people to alter or abolish the governme
nt if it gets out of hand and it has.
permalinkparent
[ ]coalbeeashi 1 point 4 hours ago
I would still rather have the fate of laws be in the hands of individuals who sp
ecifically studied the very nature of their professional practice than leave it
up to a mass of people with little-to-no understanding of the law, outside of wh
at is force-fed to them by media (comparable to your assertion of less-than-idea
l practices by lawyer/judges)
I fully agree that laws should be written in ways that the public can understand
and interpret (however, you're never going to reach a consensus on laws written
200+ years ago). And I believe that, reading most supreme court decisions, the
justices advocate for specifics in laws and understand that outdated or vague la
ws is a main reason cases are brought before them. Laws aren't concrete or stati
c. It's a court of public opinion.
permalinkparent
[ ]cynoclast 1 point 4 hours ago
I would still rather have the fate of laws be in the hands of individuals who sp
ecifically studied the very nature of their professional practice than leave it
up to a mass of people with little-to-no understanding of the law, outside of wh
at is force-fed to them by media (comparable to your assertion of less-than-idea
l practices by lawyer/judges)
I think there's balance between the two. It's similar to the balance between IT
and the user. While the IT guy is more knowledgeable about the field than most o
f the users he's supposed to facilitate, he often forgets that his purpose is to
facilitate, not to rule, and what the users are doing is what keeps the lights

on. People in congress and the senate are mislabelled when called 'lawmakers' th
eir job is representative of their constituency. And lawyers face a conflict of
interest between simplifying the law and representing people fairly and seeing a
fter their own welfare and ensuring their own job security. Simple, clear, and u
nambiguous laws have little value to the professional attorney at law. But the p
eople at large have no interest, and in fact a reason to despise laws they don't
understand, especially ones decided by decades old case law they know nothing a
bout. But for too long the balance has been swinging in favor of the lawyer seek
ing payment for services from the rich instead of the poor seeking freedom from
those with the resources to hire teams of lawyers for years to drain them of res
ources. The day a rich man could sue an innocent poor man under false pretenses
and crush him is the day the justice department ceased to function as intended.
I fully agree that laws should be written in ways that the public can understand
and interpret (however, you're never going to reach a consensus on laws written
200+ years ago). And I believe that, reading most supreme court decisions, the
justices advocate for specifics in laws and understand that outdated or vague la
ws is a main reason cases are brought before them. Laws aren't concrete or stati
c. It's a court of public opinion.
Lawyers like to pretend that they are concrete or static. Just imagine the phras
e "settled case law" coming out of their mouths and you need go no further. It's
like they forget that eventually given the dynamic equilibrium of the poor vs.
the rich that sometimes words written on paper in a dusty library somewhere mean
absolutely nothing when the pitchforks and guillotines come out, the old laws t
hrown out, and new ones written even more strongly against tyrants. You're right
, sometimes, it's a court of public opinion. But sometimes the court is brutal,
but not unjustly so:
There were two Reigns of Terror, if we would but remember it and consider it; the
one wrought murder in hot passion, the other in heartless cold blood; the one la
sted mere months, the other had lasted a thousand years; the one inflicted death
upon ten thousand persons, the other upon a hundred millions; but our shudders
are all for the horrors of the minor Terror, the momentary Terror, so to speak; wh
ereas, what is the horror of swift death by the axe, compared with lifelong deat
h from hunger, cold, insult, cruelty, and heart-break? What is swift death by li
ghtning compared with death by slow fire at the stake? A city cemetery could con
tain the coffins filled by that brief Terror which we have all been so diligentl
y taught to shiver at and mourn over; but all France could hardly contain the co
ffins filled by that older and real Terror that unspeakably bitter and awful Terro
r which none of us has been taught to see in its vastness or pity as it deserves
.
permalinkparent
[ ]DongleNocker 2 points 5 hours ago
Don't you wish government organizations would get permission from congress prior
to assuming they have the authority?
permalink
[ ]Euracil 1 point 5 hours ago
Whoops! Someone just happened to spill wine all over the Bill of Rights! Well, a
t least the Second Amendment survived!
permalink
[ ]ripvannwinkler 1 point 5 hours ago
What is the practical operational radius of one of these things?
If my place of business or residence falls in this radius of an operating device
, is my phone subject to interception by the device?
If so, you require a warrant. Period. No equivocation.
permalink
[ ]bittopia 1 point 5 hours ago
What is going to be interesting is when systems and encryptions becomes so resil
ient and powerful that nothing can be spied on AT ALL. What will they do then?
permalink
[ ]johnnybullet 1 point 5 hours ago
I thought only God was listening to me... This changes everything!

permalink
[ ]TronicTonic 2 points 5 hours ago
Thank god the FBI is in charge of the judicial branch and gets to decide what is
right vs wrong.
permalink
[ ]Vinven 1 point 5 hours ago
They can say whatever they want, it doesn't make it legal.
permalink
[ ]coffeethulhu 2 points 5 hours ago
Under this theory anybody could buy one of these devices and use it in "public s
paces" without fear of falling foul of the law....Who wants to start a kickstart
er campaign to buy one?
permalink
[ ]redditezmode 1 point 5 hours ago
Based on what, exactly? Why would they think search warrants aren't necessary?
permalink
[ ]Fucksfuturefatchicks 1 point 4 hours ago
If it stops me from downloading porn, it's a dead giveaway. If it doesn't, thank
s for the government funded and sanctioned porn.
permalink
[ ]egalroc 1 point 4 hours ago
I wonder if the FBI can upload unsanctioned porn to your computer using a stingr
ay? Interesting thought isn't it?
permalinkparent
[ ]winsomecowboy 1 point 4 hours ago
So my clandestine FBI staff list shouldn't be an issue.
permalink
[ ]Heisenpurrrrg 1 point 4 hours ago
Those guys can fuck right off, eh?
permalink
[ ]cerealcable 1 point 4 hours ago
Every time an invasion of our rights & privacy especially related to our establi
shed forms of communications happens it just terrifies me. Not because our gover
nment is throwing wind to established laws but because of what the future could
bring.
The reason why most of us are upset today over this is because we have an expect
ation of privacy when we pick up our cell phones. We expect our text messages, p
hone calls and data to be private thus protected by law requiring a warrant to "
tap" it only for Law Enforcement. Telecoms (wired, wireless, voip) will only com
ply to requests when required by law, but when it comes to the public air waves
using technology to just listen in we're starting a terrible precedent.
Essentially what I'm concerned about is that eventually it'll be so commonly acc
epted that these communications are not private (after all the government can sn
oop in on those conversations, and everyone already expects it) and thus we no l
onger have the expectation of privacy and thus no warrant is actually acquired.
The terrifying process is how it all started, with the government over stepping
their legal abilities with little to no repercussions.
Now that I'm reading that paragraph again, I honestly wouldn't be surprised if t
hat exact argument is/was/will be used in a secret court of which none of us wil
l be able to hold accountable.
It's scary to see what the future will hold for privacy related to technology. O
ur government is doing anything and everything they want and if people aren't sc
ared they need to get some tinfoil and make some hats because they're going to n
eed them.
Obligatory point: As the government snoops more and more, technology will just e
ncrypt more and more making it nearly pointless for the snooping, but it won't c
hange the expectation of privacy after say a decade of common knowledge that the
se communications are not private. Then Law Enforcement Agencies will just subpo
ena records instead of following due process of getting a warrant.
tl;dr It's a very slippery slope and I'm just watching us slowly sliding further

and further into the trap. :-(


permalink
[ ]coalbeeashi 1 point 4 hours ago
Honest question - in the eyes of laws, is our view on "expectation of privacy" i
gnorant or misguided? When I send a text - even though I don't think about it I gave permission to Apple, AT&T, my friend, their carrier, their phone, and pro
bably countless others that I don't even realize. When I download an app I give
them all sorts of permissions to access my information.
Also, what's stopping the government from creating an app, let's say some crazed
game like Trivia Crack, hide a bunch of permissions that no one looks at and do
it that way. They could have access to my photos, access to my microphone, acce
ss to my location, etc. (obviously I understand that you can retract most of tho
se permissions, but I doubt many people do)
So, I guess my question is, using multiple third parties, do I really have the r
ight to expect complete privacy?
permalinkparent
[ ]Rockerofboats 2 points 4 hours ago
I do what I wants to.
permalink
[ ]Gymshortsboner55 2 points 4 hours ago
I'm not trying to sound like the uncle that's always bitchin' at family reunions
but man is this country going down the shitter. I'm almost ashamed to live here
anymore.
permalink
[ ]kazuri85 2 points 4 hours ago
The government has no right to make your property do something you do not want i
t to do.
permalink
[ ]SpacemanLurker 2 points 3 hours ago
Crikey! Australian accent
Too soon?
permalink
[ ]Undisclosed-dopeness 1 point 3 hours ago
Really wish this was about actual stingrays
permalink
[ ]k-h 1 point 3 hours ago
Is that the "stingrays" that don't exist?
Of course they don't need a warrant on equipment that doesn't exist.
permalink
[ ]PhorTwenny 2 points 3 hours ago
if it picks up all cells text/call/info how do they know your not inside a house
or anyother private area? Either way this is disgusting!
permalink
[ ]MarxIzalias 2 points 3 hours ago
The more of these that get posted, the harder I laugh at America's freedoms.
You pretty much have the same as everybody else.
It seems as though the constitution is like bog roll to your law enforcement. Co
vered in meaningless shit that doesn't even stick to them.
What a joke.
The FBI stating that 'stingrays' don't apply to privacy laws because you're in a
public place makes no sense, otherwise you could walk around butt naked and arg
ue that "According to the FBI, personal privacy is not required in public".
Of course, they could say, what any deceitful peice of trash could say. "If you
weren't doing anything illegal then you have nothing to worry about."
Unless you were talking to you solicitor about a patent. In which case it would
be worthless the moment a third party heard about the invention.
Talking to your doctor about a condition that could prejudice a group against yo
u.
Talking to a solicitor about the details of a case.
Talking to fellow jurors over the phone about a details of a case, that's always

good to be spied on.


Talk about family history and possible ties you might have to foreign nations, w
hich could put you on a watch list.
Give personal details to bankers about foreign business accounts which have diff
erent protection laws.
Discuss plans you may have that they could interfere with.
Or just miscellaneous emails to and from your employer that could be damaging to
the companies reputation if published and could be used against them as leverag
e with a false flag operation LOOKING AT YOU SONY!
This isn't even a comprehensive list of things that you could do, but hey, it's
America, the land where freedom is a lie and the constitution is apparently wort
h less and less with each new government. XFD
permalink
[ ]NightOfTheLivingHam 1 point 3 hours ago
while we're declaring bullshit, I declare I'm owed a million dollars.
permalink
[ ]ZedOud 1 point 3 hours ago
Most warrant-less law enforcement surveillance techniques are legal because they
can be performed by members of the public, in public. (ex. tailing)
So can we also legally operate a stingray?
Yes we can!
permalink
[ ]Wulfgar_RIP 1 point 3 hours ago
FBI protecting freedoms and constitution from terrorists
permalink
[ ]CantHugEveryCat 2 points 3 hours ago
I'm surprised the FBI still feel they have to justify their actions.
permalink
[ ]bazingabrain 0 points 3 hours ago
Here I am thinking the FBI is going to be throwing real stingrays around without
a search warrant. Can't have that
permalink
[ ]tobsn 1 point 3 hours ago
and whoever said that should be immediately terminated.
permalink
[ ]joshladd 1 point 3 hours ago
Didn't the supreme court just say that searching cell phones requires a warrant?
Is this different than searching cell phones? I might be uninformed but it seem
s like a blatant disregard for court rulings.
permalink
[ ]birdington1 1 point 3 hours ago
Can anybody explain what a 'stingray' is?
permalink
[ ]one_love_silvia 1 point 2 hours ago
the article explains it in literally the first paragraph.
permalinkparent
[ ]IllegalOperator 0 points 2 hours ago
Yeah right, dropping the case rather than reveal their methods says otherwise. I
f there weren't doing anything wrong they would have nothing to hide.
permalink
[ ]HauntedBeepers 1 point 2 hours ago
FBI says FBI can do what it wants
permalink
[ ]Fig1024 1 point 2 hours ago
does that mean I, as private citizen, can also use them? After all, there are no
laws against it
permalink
[ ]Monkeibusiness 1 point 2 hours ago
"FBI - out if control since 2001" -Simpsons
permalink

[ ]skztr 1 point 2 hours ago


good test for whether or not you need a warrant:
If any random person off the street did it, would that be legal? If not, you nee
d a fucking warrant.
permalink
[ ]Rusky82 1 point 2 hours ago
Land of the free eh......
permalink
[ ]WECGEWHYAAIORTNU 1 point 2 hours ago
So in some states its "wiretapping" to record with a microphone a conversation b
etween two people happening at a table, but pretending to be a cell tower is a-o
k?
permalink
[ ]Amanoo 1 point 2 hours ago
"concerned about whether the FBI and other law enforcement agencies have adequat
ely considered the privacy interests" of Americans
Privacy interests of Americans? Is that supposed to still be a thing? I thought
that privacy interests were considered something for terrorists in the US, by no
w.
permalink
[ ]raviddadford 1 point 2 hours ago
Stingray got Steve Irwin
permalink
[ ]Homarus_Americanus 1 point 2 hours ago
It's all good 'cause I can by me all guns I want.
permalink
[ ]anshu1234 0 points 2 hours ago
This is non-news if you are not a drug-peddler. Next please.
permalink
[ ]bubbafat1155 1 point 2 hours ago
It's over. "They" have won. The only hope now is for individuals, society is los
t. Get off the grid, or join the sheep. http://imgur.com/W7CdURh
permalink
[ ]Targun 1 point 2 hours ago
And how are they going to filter out cellphones of all the people who live next
to public places where stingray is located?
permalink
[ ]riderer 1 point 2 hours ago
So can i do the same in public place? just stingray everyone?
permalink
[ ]Neker 1 point 1 hour ago
There are blueprints and tutorials out there that put "stingrays" within reach o
f an hobbyist. Law-breaking hobbyist, that is, but still : mobile phones essenti
aly broadcast your conversations.
permalink
[ ]mindwandering 1 point 1 hour ago
The flying DRT box.
permalink
[ ]SilenceGivesConsent [score hidden] 48 minutes ago
In other words, FBI says it does not need search warrants to warrant a search.
permalink
[ ]Formally_Nightman [score hidden] 46 minutes ago
FBI: "Senator we have been monitoring your calls and your exact geographical loc
ation for years ... You shouldn't find that unconstitutional or the public and y
our wife will learn how unconstitutional you've been"
permalink
[ ]ActuallyNotSparticus [score hidden] 40 minutes ago
Fuck this shit. Stingrays killed the crocodile hunter. Are we ready for the gove
rnment to use these stingrays?
permalink

[ ]Rayhueston [score hidden] 38 minutes ago


The article says the Obama administration consistently maintains that people hav
e no privacy in public. Is that true or is that hyperbole?
If I'm walking down the street, do I have the right to keep the contents of my w
allet private? My blood type? My thoughts?
If I have no privacy with regard to these and many other sensitive things, who d
oes have the right to them?
permalink
[ ]swollennode [score hidden] 37 minutes ago
People don't have privacy in public places..hmmm, I think that people are entitl
ed to privacy if something private belongs to them. Sure, people's faces aren't
private when they're in public places. But people's phone calls and texts should
be.
permalink
[ ]pomod [score hidden] 18 minutes ago
Well if the FBI says they are not needed...
Seriously, this should be a court decision not a cop one. Cops, even a fancy cop
s like the FBI, should not make the laws just enforce them.
permalink
[ ]CJ59 [score hidden] 18 minutes ago
In other news, the FBI says, "You know what, screw it. There are no more laws. W
e'll do whatever the hell we want. Not like you're going to do anything about it
."
permalink
[ ]gkiltz [score hidden] 15 minutes ago
Just because the FBI says it, that does not mean it's true!
I don't envy the poor schmuck who has to stan in front of the Supreme Court and
argue that!!
permalink
load more comments (48 replies)
about
blog
about
team
source code
advertise
jobs
help
wiki
FAQ
reddiquette
rules
contact us
tools
mobile
firefox extension
chrome extension
buttons
widget
<3
reddit gold
store
redditgifts
reddit AMA app
reddit.tv
radio reddit
Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy
. 2015 reddit inc. All rights reserved.
REDDIT and the ALIEN Logo are registered trademarks of reddit inc.

Potrebbero piacerti anche