Skip to main content

View Diary: What in the Sheep-Dippin' Hell Are They Hiding? (82 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  depends, does the wireless provider (4+ / 0-)

    consent?

    •  Implying that the consent of all those people (4+ / 0-)

      in the area that also have their signal sucked up by the device don't have the right of non-interference with their communications? It is just to protect the wireless provider's business?

      Quite possible, in the current government climate. But do you have any indication that this is, in fact, the case?

      •  Your premise is that the device affects more (0+ / 0-)

        signals than that being targeted, for which there isn't evidence.

        In addition: what is the law on "consent," and who must and musn't?  Assume you are a drug dealer/murderer; would you consent to have law enforcement listen to your phone calls?

        This is the country of those three great rights: freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, and the wisdom never to exercise either of them. -- Mark Twain.

        by JJustin on Thu Jun 05, 2014 at 04:32:49 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  From the linked article: (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          shaharazade

          "not only does StingRay track the targeted cell phone, it also extracts data off potentially thousands of other cell phone users in the area."

          •  Sure. It tricks phones into thinking it's a tower, (0+ / 0-)

            so they register whatever ID# they use to register a tower switch.

            You could even get it to act as man-in-the-middle by forwarding signal to an actual tower.

            But you have to forward it to the network in order for the two parties to actually, ya know, converse or exchange sms data. A portable version of this could probably even be built that could forward one or two data streams. Any more than that, you need hardware w/ cell tower capacity, which is no longer portable or even stealthy.

            So yeah, your cell phones location is on a list. It's the same list that the cops would have been freely given by whoever owned the hardware providing cell coverage to that area at that time.

            Only difference is that cops are collecting it themselves, instead of just requesting it from cell companies, so it's a real time thing, not an updated however many times an hour thing. Seems kind of an academic difference to me, others may feel differently.

          •  "extracts data off" (0+ / 0-)

            The usage suggest that article was written a self-appointed "expert" in conspirabunk "getting the evidence" based upon bias.

            "extracts data from" would be correct.

            This is the country of those three great rights: freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, and the wisdom never to exercise either of them. -- Mark Twain.

            by JJustin on Thu Jun 05, 2014 at 10:38:03 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  It shouldn't matter patban (6+ / 0-)

      If the provider gives permission or not.
      We are supposed to be protected by something called the 4TH AMENDMENT!  
      I never signed my rights away.
      Did you?  

      "Americans don't understand that terrorists cannot take away habeas corpus, the Bill of Rights, or the Constitution. Terrorists are not anything like the threat that we face from our own government in the name of fighting terrorism."

      by snoopydawg on Thu Jun 05, 2014 at 12:27:43 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site