11–20 of 101 posts
As a resident, let me pose to you this : The government doesn't always know what the rest of the government is doing. I would be surprised if there weren't rogue Stingray's out there, and even more not surprised that it's some discreet arm of the government.
Why can't they find them the same way government agencies normally enforce radio licensing? Drive around with a receiver (a cell phone, basically) enumerating all the purported cell towers in a geographic area, then cross-check that with a list of legitimate carrier infrastructure?
I wasn't familiar with the term 'stingray', so this headline was both confusing an amusing to me. I was confused about why they would even be looking for 'hostile' cartilaginous fish. I can't be the only one.
I work in wireless telecom: Really doubtful "we don't know how to find them". The FCC's enforcement bureau has a set of vans equipped to find unauthorized transmitters. IMSI catchers must transmit and remain on the air. It would be very risky to operate, even briefly, a portable imsi catcher in a briefcase and move it around WA DC, nevermind one that remained in fixed locations for hours. The only other explanation I…
As a resident, let me pose to you this : The government doesn't always know what the rest of the government is doing. I would be surprised if there weren't rogue Stingray's out there, and even more not surprised that it's some discreet arm of the government.
Yes, I'm sure both likely exist, but that doesn't make Stingrays operated by eg. China, Iran, DPRK, Russia any less of a problem !
I work in wireless telecom: Really doubtful "we don't know how to find them". The FCC's enforcement bureau has a set of vans equipped to find unauthorized transmitters. IMSI catchers must transmit and remain on the air. It would be very risky to operate, even briefly, a portable imsi catcher in a briefcase and move it around WA DC, nevermind one that remained in fixed locations for hours. The only other explanation I…
Depends on how much the devices cost to procure, and the budget of the party using them. Seems like these could be treated as "black-throws" given the right cost:budget ratio.
That's assuming you don't mind losing the transmitting hardware.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Depends on how much the devices cost to procure, and the budget of the party using them. Seems like these could be treated as "black-throws" given the right cost:budget ratio.
Not even that, if you want to use them as a MitM just broadcast the data you want and any arbitrary receiver will pick them up that can't be pinpointed. That's assuming you don't mind losing the transmitting hardware.
My understanding is that all stingrays are by definition hostile.
And if the NSA and FBI had devoted less energy to turning this country into a corrupt republic on its way to a totalitarian nightmare, I am sure they would have had the ability and resources to ensure that such stingrays were impossible to set up.
This is what the FBI and NSA love. They never try to protect the American public from such weaknesses in the country's infrastructure, although that is what they are supposed to be doing. All so they can spy on everybody, feed illegal parallel-construction activities, and generally nurture the growth of a police state; it is also clear by now that these agencies have been interfering with national politics. These are not friends of our freedoms.
[1] https://www.eff.org/pages/cell-site-simulatorsimsi-catchers
I think this is good news. I think the kinds of politicians that are typically over-friendly with the police are also the kind that want a strong military. The use of "law enforcement" technology like stingrays by hostile intelligence agencies, might create a useful tension in them that could help convince them to harden domestic communications against law enforcement spying.