Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

ACLU sues Homeland Security over 'stingray' cell phone surveillance

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 163 posts

Re: ACLU sues Homeland Security over 'stingray' cell phone surveillance

#61

Post by jammygit »

chaps wrote: post #43
calibas wrote: post #12

Stingray use requires a warrant and every case should be dismissed where one was used without a warrant. I'm sure that's the main reason they want to hide the use of stingrays, they know they're doing something wrong. Police having the ability to spy on everyone with little to no oversight is nightmarish authoritarianism, it's completely against the spirit of American democracy, not to mention in violation of The Con…

As part of some volunteer work I'm doing with Lucy Parsons Labs, I submitted a FOIA request to every single state's largest city, asking for search warrant records that would likely exist on complaints for search warrants, the warrants themselves, or from any audit. About 100 requests in total. After two months, only two cities have sent me their search warrant records. All other states have given me rejections sayin…

Thanks for your work

Re: ACLU sues Homeland Security over 'stingray' cell phone surveillance

#62

Post by blotter_paper »

abeppu wrote: post #24

Some informed person can probably tell us: are there any technical developments on the horizon which could plausibly make stingrays unviable? From a lay perspective, it seems like cell tech hasn't been designed to meet some criteria that ought to be achievable. - Are there future cell technology standards being planned which would make it harder for a 3rd party device to impersonate a cell tower? (e.g. the police wou…

> Why can't we encrypt calls and texts in a way which doesn't let all this stuff get read? Like (handwaving) either trust the network and encrypt with a key they provide, or else some form end-to-end encryption (where maybe generating keys is part of what happens when you activate a sim card or something)?

We can have E2E encryption on cellphones today, just make calls and send texts over Signal (with other people who also have Signal installed).

Here's an article on using SIM cards as a secure element: https://nelenkov.blogspot.com/2013/09/using-sim-card-as-secu...

I would really like a hardware interface for changing a key, or a mechanism where you flip the card over to expose a separate set of contact plates which have write permissions. Stock Android will allow carriers to fuck with your SIM card sans user permissions.

Re: ACLU sues Homeland Security over 'stingray' cell phone surveillance

#63

Post by jokoon »

Knowing Bellard managed to build a 3G cell tower just by using a cheap antenna, I guess it means anybody can build a stingray, although connecting to the cellphone network might not be a trivial thing to do. No idea how companies secure their networks, and I wonder if there are security standard about it.

Re: ACLU sues Homeland Security over 'stingray' cell phone surveillance

#64

Post by jammygit »

mrandish wrote: post #52
chaps wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As part of some volunteer work I'm doing with Lucy Parsons Labs, I submitted a FOIA request to every single state's largest city, asking for search warrant records that would likely exist on complaints for search warrants, the warrants themselves, or from any audit. About 100 requests in total. After two months, only two cities have sent me their search warrant records. All other states have given me rejections sayin…

Thanks for sharing. Sounds like a useful project. > don't make records on search warrants even remotely easily available to the public, It seems like the right reform would be for all approved search warrants to be automatically posted online one year after issuance.

If an innocent person had a warrant issued for them, and they were cleared, I bet employers would still routinely query those records if they were able to. It could affect people’s lives if it was too public

Re: ACLU sues Homeland Security over 'stingray' cell phone surveillance

#66

Post by chaps »

jammygit wrote: post #64
mrandish wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for sharing. Sounds like a useful project. > don't make records on search warrants even remotely easily available to the public, It seems like the right reform would be for all approved search warrants to be automatically posted online one year after issuance.

If an innocent person had a warrant issued for them, and they were cleared, I bet employers would still routinely query those records if they were able to. It could affect people’s lives if it was too public

This is a non-issue within the context of these requests. The only names that I am requesting are the names of the officers and judges involved. The requests are not seeking any names of anyone the search warrants are meant for.

Re: ACLU sues Homeland Security over 'stingray' cell phone surveillance

#67

Post by [deleted] »

caconym_ wrote: post #19
opportune wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or staging a shootout over property theft in an area full of civilians

or taking a guy to the hospital in chains so that doctors can spend the night inspecting the inside of his rectum and colon with increasingly invasive procedures because you think he might be hiding drugs in there

[deleted]

Re: ACLU sues Homeland Security over 'stingray' cell phone surveillance

#69

Post by soraminazuki »

throwaway894345 wrote: post #40
calibas wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems like the police casually breaking the law is the core of the issue. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

The judiciary branch.

That very same judiciary branch has a secret court that rubber stamps almost all mass surveillance requests given to them.

Re: ACLU sues Homeland Security over 'stingray' cell phone surveillance

#70

Post by gbear605 »

m10i wrote: post #58
calibas wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems like the police casually breaking the law is the core of the issue. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Latin for "Who will guard the guards themselves?".

Alternatively also translated as “Who watches the watchmen?”
Post reply on HN