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

141–150 of 155 posts

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

#141

Post by lidHanteyk »

michaelmrose wrote: post #133
lidHanteyk wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 post…

In the original context, at the top of the thread, we are talking about whether it is reasonable to respond to police executing a no-knock warrant with deadly force. I contend that it is not, and further, indeed I am judging you harshly for your apologetics. You have run with a manufactured red herring wherein the people entering the house are some sort of subhumans who may be shot on sight.

If you are the sort of person who is having a no-knock warrant executed upon them, and moreover if the police executing the warrant are armed and dangerous, you may presume that you have done something to convince them that you are worth the effort of going above and beyond what is otherwise reasonable, as most jurisdictions with no-knock warrants require a reason for the surprising entry.

On the gripping hand, feel free to move to someplace like Oregon where no-knock warrants are illegal and to keep a baseball bat by the door; I do both.

I hope that this is clear enough. It's not going to get more respectful; I cannot empathize with your perspective because of my own life experiences, and further your inability to use a search engine or come up with your own original thoughts is not endearing to me. Your memes taste of Scared 90s American Dad.

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

#142

Post by gruez »

mirimir wrote: post #139
gruez wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

>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.

So your threat model is that you can't trust the device itself? If that's your threat model, you'd probably need a phone with hardware kill switches. Also, if you can't trust the device itself, why would you be carrying the device around? What would you use it for?

>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.

On android you can explicitly disable that ("device only" in location settings). There's no such option on ios, although you could still disable wifi/bluetooth and still have working gps.

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

#143

Post by saagarjha »

giancarlostoro wrote: post #100
saagarjha wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If someone breaks into your home and you shoot them to death they have zero chance of harming your family. Shooting at a burglar sounds like a great way to turn them into a robber or murderer.

Only if you miss.

Or you fail to injure them sufficiently, or there are other people. There’s a number of ways this can go wrong.

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

#144

Post by curryst »

remote_phone wrote: post #33

Unfortunately the only way around this is to donate to the ACLU and have every single case thrown out no matter how egregious until the police learn their lesson.

I'm curious how this doesn't qualify as wiretapping if they can read the calls without a warrant. Does that make it legal for anyone to operate a StingRay?

If it does, another option would be malicious compliance. Have anyone who's interested run their own StingRay and collect information on Law Enforcement and government representatives. I think the laws around it would change very quickly if you leveraged the loophole against the government.

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

#145

Post by jijji »

jb775 wrote: post #27
jijji wrote: post #11

the simple solution is for cell phones to have a whitelist of cell towers that they connect to with GPS locations of those towers, it could even compare against known databases of towers [0]... Until some software like that gets implemented, this will keep happening. [0] https://opencellid.org/

great idea...I wonder if a 3rd party app could enable this or if that type of access is currently closely held? I'd only consider software that has super low level hardware access so you could basically control electrical access to that part of the phone's circuitry (so backdoor features can't be built that make sneaky connections).

The closest thing I've seen was an opensource app called SnoopSnitch, but it requires root on the phone and supposedly only works on Qualcomm modems.

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

#146

Post by mirimir »

gruez wrote: post #142
mirimir wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>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. So your threat model is that you can't trust the device itself? If that's your threat model, you'd probably need a phone with hardware kill switches. Also, if you can't trust the device itself, why would you be carrying the device a…

> So your threat model is that you can't trust the device itself?

Yes. I don't trust a phone OS where I lack root privileges. And I entirely don't trust the baseband.

> If that's your threat model, you'd probably need a phone with hardware kill switches.

Yes. Or with disabled GPS, baseband and WiFi. And with Internet connectivity via external WiFi router, or cellular modem/router.

> Also, if you can't trust the device itself, why would you be carrying the device around? What would you use it for?

I'd use it as a phone. Albeit just using VoIP.

And if I had all the iffy stuff in a separate device, connected via USB, I could trust the phone as much as I trust the host machine I'm using now.

I mean, I'm working in a Debian VM that hits the Internet through a nested VPN chain. And the Debian host has no access to GPS or WiFi. So I'd want to replicate that on a phone.

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

#147

Post by michaelmrose »

lidHanteyk wrote: post #141
michaelmrose wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 post…

In the original context, at the top of the thread, we are talking about whether it is reasonable to respond to police executing a no-knock warrant with deadly force. I contend that it is not, and further, indeed I am judging you harshly for your apologetics. You have run with a manufactured red herring wherein the people entering the house are some sort of subhumans who may be shot on sight. If you are the sort of pe…

> In the original context, at the top of the thread, we are talking about whether it is reasonable to respond to police executing a no-knock warrant with deadly force

I don't think anyone suggested that it was reasonable to respond to the police executing a no knock warrant with bullets. In fact a massive downside of no knock warrants is that a police search may be mistaken for a home invasion.

In a home invasion one can in most places render your home safe by shooting an invader but in most places shooting the cops will result in a very long prison sentence. We segwayed into a discussion of what the right thing to do in the event of an actual intruder. Perhaps you didn't notice?

> you may presume that you have done something to convince them that you are worth the effort of going above and beyond what is otherwise reasonable, as most jurisdictions with no-knock warrants require a reason for the surprising entry.

You presume wrongly about the cause of no knock warrants. Most are for drugs. Most find no drugs. 10% in new york city actually involved kicking down the wrong door.

https://www.newsmax.com/FastFeatures/no-knock-raids-SWAT-fac...

> It's not going to get more respectful

Yes. Yes it is.

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

#148

Post by CapricornNoble »

BoiledCabbage wrote: post #128
CapricornNoble wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you lock your doors and windows? In what scenario does someone who has bypassed your domicile's security at night have anything other than malicious intentions?

His point that you keep missing is that malicious intentions doesn't equal death. Someone wanting to steal from you doesn't mean the death penalty. Stealing is malicious.

And you are willing to gamble the lives of yourself and your loved ones on the assumption that the intruders' only intentions are theft? Why? To protect the intruders' physical wellbeing?

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

#150

Post by giancarlostoro »

saagarjha wrote: post #143
giancarlostoro wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only if you miss.

Or you fail to injure them sufficiently, or there are other people. There’s a number of ways this can go wrong.

As opposed to much worse happening to you and your family. Someone willing to break into a home is not thinking clearly and willing to do much worse more than likely, that might even be their original intent: do much more harm.
Post reply on HN