Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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