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

The StingRay Is Why the 4th Amendment Was Written (2017)

fee.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 155 posts

Re: The StingRay Is Why the 4th Amendment Was Written (2017)

#131

Post by gruez »

ceejayoz wrote: post #102
m0zg wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds implausible to me. In their useful (active) mode these things emit. The FCC (not to mention the other TLAs) can easily track this shit down and shut it down. Except of course if those are NSA/FBI/CIA stingrays.

Make them mobile, use them for short, unpredictable periods. Or site them in embassies, where the FCC can impotently yell through the locked gate.

>Or site them in embassies, where the FCC can impotently yell through the locked gate.

Two can play at that game. The FCC can retaliate by setting up jammers with directional antennas pointing towards the embassy.

Re: The StingRay Is Why the 4th Amendment Was Written (2017)

#132

Post by mirimir »

nine_k wrote: post #45
mirimir wrote: post #43

Back in 1989, I had this dream that the Poqet PC would evolve into a smartphone. And that one could install Linux or *BSD on it. But no, it just died.

An android phone already runs Linux; you can use it as such, and in many cases gain root. OTOH what's happening in the baseband processor is impenetrable, and that processor has much more control over the device than a cellular modem would.

OK.

But why did we end up with baseband radios instead of cellular modems?

Is it because they grafted "computer stuff" on phones? Instead of adding cellular capacity to computers?

Or is it just because we can't have phones without surveillance? All those wiretap-ready requirements, I mean.

Re: The StingRay Is Why the 4th Amendment Was Written (2017)

#133

Post by michaelmrose »

lidHanteyk wrote: post #120
oblio wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> human trash > Being kinder to garbage See, that's where we probably don't think the same way. I consider few people "human trash". Drug addicts I don't count as "human trash", they're just victims of an addiction and in need of help. People who are not drug addicts and are just plain evil, those would be "human trash" in my eyes (think Mengele). The words we choose to frame a situation are important. Your mindset c…

Meta-lesson: Not only are some people complete and total garbage, utter tools that have nothing to contribute to society aside from constant regurgitation of a corporatized and hateful memecomplex, but you have responded to one; grandparent is human trash.

I have sympathy for people who made bad choices. I believe in helping them get better and make better ones in the future. I don't think the time is when their presence represents a threat to one's family.

I also regard violation of a family home as such a crime as to render the person difficult to redeem. The kind of people that make such choices aren't just high right now they are also bad unethical people.

The poster above made a conjecture that it was incorrect to assume one was in mortal danger from a robber and that shooting such a person was an overreaction.

I considered that. Actual stats say that 1/4 robbers that break in while individuals are home victimize the people therein and 39% had a weapon.

https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/ascii/vdhb.txt

This says to me that a house breaker is a substantial risk refuting the prior posters expressed idea.

You will note that both the original poster and I had a point regardless of whether you agree with either.

I'm not even sure what idea

>constant regurgitation of a corporatized and hateful memecomplex

Is supposed to express. What is the memecomplex and wherein is it puked up repeatedly?

Would you like to try to express yourself more clearly and respectfully?

Re: The StingRay Is Why the 4th Amendment Was Written (2017)

#135

Post by michaelmrose »

meowface wrote: post #76
michaelmrose wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you think happens when someone just wants to steal your stuff and runs into property owners in the process? 1/4 of the time when a person is present for their burglary they are assaulted, robbed, raped, or murdered. If someone breaks into your home and you shoot them to death they have zero chance of harming your family. Decreasing the risk of breaking into people's homes incentivizes human trash to convert y…

I agree with you that lethal force is the only reasonable option in that situation, but a human doesn't become "garbage" simply because they fall victim to addiction to a substance which causes them such suffering during withdrawal that they feel like they have no other choice but to try to steal to end the withdrawal. If you were in that same situation after some friends got you hooked, you might steal something to…

If you provide free drugs what's stopping the person from just using drugs until they eventually die? I don't think most such programs actually provide the drugs can you provide an example?

Re: The StingRay Is Why the 4th Amendment Was Written (2017)

#136

Post by pandaman »

ceejayoz wrote: post #101
pandaman wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are confusing criminal punishment with self-defense. In the US people are allowed to use deadly force for self-defense. As far as I know, even in states where there is no death penalty for any crime. For example, "Manson Family" could not get death penalty for the murder of Sharon Tate and others because California banned death penalty at the time of their trial. Would you really argue that, if they had means to…

> In the US people are allowed to use deadly force for self-defense. It's not quite that simple. Self-defense must be proportionate, so you can only use deadly force against an imminent deadly threat.

I am not arguing how simple or complex it is. I am arguing against the claim that "you cannot kill a perpetrator who, most likely, was committing a crime, which does not warrant a death penalty". If you make such an argument you also must agree that in a state without death penalty you have no right to kill any perpetrator during any crime, which seems like an extremely ridiculous position to me.

Re: The StingRay Is Why the 4th Amendment Was Written (2017)

#137

Post by michaelmrose »

meowface wrote: post #124
celticmusic wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, but I'm going to fall on the side of the law abiding citizen here. If you can't know the intent (and you can't), then you must assume the worst intent and act accordingly. Anything else is naive. Because I promise you one thing, I look up and see a stranger in my house, I'm attacking them immediately with no thought towards anything except protecting myself and everyone in the house. There will be no questions…

As stated in my first sentence, I agree with you. I think lethal force is the only reasonable option here. I was just saying drug addicts aren't necessarily garbage. They face lethal force because they've broken into one's home; not because "they're garbage".

Yes it would be wrong to hurt people unless it was to protect oneself or others.

Re: The StingRay Is Why the 4th Amendment Was Written (2017)

#138

Post by michaelmrose »

oblio wrote: post #79
michaelmrose wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you think happens when someone just wants to steal your stuff and runs into property owners in the process? 1/4 of the time when a person is present for their burglary they are assaulted, robbed, raped, or murdered. If someone breaks into your home and you shoot them to death they have zero chance of harming your family. Decreasing the risk of breaking into people's homes incentivizes human trash to convert y…

> human trash > Being kinder to garbage See, that's where we probably don't think the same way. I consider few people "human trash". Drug addicts I don't count as "human trash", they're just victims of an addiction and in need of help. People who are not drug addicts and are just plain evil, those would be "human trash" in my eyes (think Mengele). The words we choose to frame a situation are important. Your mindset c…

Drug addicts need help. Intruders in your home need bullets. I don't hate people for being on drugs.

Re: The StingRay Is Why the 4th Amendment Was Written (2017)

#139

Post by mirimir »

gruez wrote: post #129
mirimir wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, but I was most curious about the persistence of the setting. Say you set airplane mode. And then the phone sleeps. Will it still be in airplane mode after you wake it? Or say you shut the phone off, and restart it. Is it still in airplane mode? That's an issue because, as soon as it's not in airplane mode, it knows where it is. And that reminds me, does airplane mode disable GPS? Because if it doesn't, it's mo…

>Say you set airplane mode. And then the phone sleeps. Will it still be in airplane mode after you wake it? >Or say you shut the phone off, and restart it. Is it still in airplane mode? Yes. >And that reminds me, does airplane mode disable GPS? Because if it doesn't, it's more or less pointless, from a geolocation perspective. Why does that matter? You can turn location services off. Moreover, GPS functions passively…

OK, that's good about airplane mode.

> Why does that [GPS] matter?

GPS matters because it's important that the phone doesn't know where it is. I mean, if it doesn't know where it is, there's no need to worry that adversaries will access the information.

> You can turn location services off.

Off entirely? Even for the OS? Or for rogue apps?

> Turning it on doesn't transmit your location to anyone.

No, but it generates location information that could leak. And if the phone uses WiFi to supplement GPS, it necessarily communicates with some remote server.

Re: The StingRay Is Why the 4th Amendment Was Written (2017)

#140

Post by ceejayoz »

pandaman wrote: post #136
ceejayoz wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In the US people are allowed to use deadly force for self-defense. It's not quite that simple. Self-defense must be proportionate, so you can only use deadly force against an imminent deadly threat.

I am not arguing how simple or complex it is. I am arguing against the claim that "you cannot kill a perpetrator who, most likely, was committing a crime, which does not warrant a death penalty". If you make such an argument you also must agree that in a state without death penalty you have no right to kill any perpetrator during any crime, which seems like an extremely ridiculous position to me.

Ah, in that case, we agree.
Post reply on HN