I used to work for DRT, they make the "dirtbox" mentioned in the article. I would really encourage journalists to dig more into this company and their products.
Can these do MITM attacks that inject content into what you are reading?
Stingrays and Dirtboxes: how cops can secretly track your phone
161–170 of 215 posts
Re: Stingrays and Dirtboxes: how cops can secretly track your phone
#162Anyone know of any progress in 6G, that would improve privacy in this area? For example randomized (or truly encrypted) IMEI numbers? Also, I found this SIM card which seems to be doing IMEI randomization: https://omertadigital.com/blogs/news/encrypted-sim-cards-wha...
There are some interesting blogs articles out there on what has been done in 5g.
Basically moving from transmitting a fixed device imsi, to temporary identifiers.
https://www.ericsson.com/en/blog/2019/5/fighting-imsi-catche...
Re: Stingrays and Dirtboxes: how cops can secretly track your phone
#163Earlier quoted context omitted.
I feel like you're ignoring a key point here, which is that these stingray devices can MitM your phone by forcing it to send essentially unencrypted messages. That's both more technically complicated and more serious than passive tracking.
> these stingray devices can MitM your phone by forcing it to send essentially unencrypted messages. Earlier Harris equip did that by forcing 2g mode but 2g is being turned off: https://1ot.mobi/resources/blog/a-complete-overview-of-2g-3g... I'm less familiar with the capabilities of current IMEI catchers tho.
> Earlier Harris equip did that by forcing 2g mode but 2g is being turned off
Even if the carriers switch off all their 2G towers (which happened here in .au years back), I wonder how many handsets will still happily connect to a Stingray-type device that offers it a 2G connection?
Re: Stingrays and Dirtboxes: how cops can secretly track your phone
#164Hey. Someone who briefly worked on the Stingray team here. I left the company that develops the stingray (who’s name is mentioned in the article but I shall not say it) because I didn’t feel comfortable with the ethics of how it could potentially be easily abused without legal permission and/or repercussion. I fear these technologies will become more commonly used against Americans by low level law enforcement withou…
- In your opinion, is there a difference between an innocent person being materially and demonstrably harmed ("harmed," i.e. tort) by a stingray deployment and an innocent person harmed by any other tool misused in this way by the government? - Do you think there's a better alternative to tort that could as clearly limit the tools government uses to fight crime? - If harmless mass surveillance replaces concretely and…
Legality is, in general, a matter of fact. The legality or constitutionality of a matter is determined in the courts.
Morality is a matter of opinion, and, I believe, pretty much independent of legality.
That means a law can be both immoral and legal, depending on your perspective.
Policing technology is a constantly evolving marketplace and technologies that strike some as immoral frequently are tested in court where their legality is determined.
Many folks weighing in see the act of developing Stingray technology as an immoral act, and it seems that thereby, those who engage in such development are immoral people.
In my opinion, labeling others as immoral for engaging in something you don't approve of is a double edged sword and the more you wield it, the more jeopardy you put yourself in. Anyone who works for a mainstream technology company can have that same finger pointed at them for some facet of their employer's actions.
People who believe that this technology should not be deployed would find it just, if not moral, to pursue a political change rather than shaming those who see a valid purpose for what they are developing.
Re: Stingrays and Dirtboxes: how cops can secretly track your phone
#165Re: Stingrays and Dirtboxes: how cops can secretly track your phone
#166Earlier quoted context omitted.
- In your opinion, is there a difference between an innocent person being materially and demonstrably harmed ("harmed," i.e. tort) by a stingray deployment and an innocent person harmed by any other tool misused in this way by the government? - Do you think there's a better alternative to tort that could as clearly limit the tools government uses to fight crime? - If harmless mass surveillance replaces concretely and…
Legality is, in general, a matter of fact. The legality or constitutionality of a matter is determined in the courts. Morality is a matter of opinion, and, I believe, pretty much independent of legality. That means a law can be both immoral and legal, depending on your perspective. Policing technology is a constantly evolving marketplace and technologies that strike some as immoral frequently are tested in court wher…
>Legality is, in general, a matter of fact. The legality or constitutionality of a matter is determined in the courts
This makes absolutely no sense. If it is a matter of fact, it should be independently provable not require courts to decide.
Legality is supposed to be the public's opinion of the morality of an action, but in reality it is the ruling class' opinion of how the action impacts them.
An employee knowingly assisting their company commit immoral acts should try to stop them, though a concern about you or your families well-being is a legitimate reason to just try and walk away. Don't delude yourself into thinking tools will be used legally so it is acceptable.
Re: Stingrays and Dirtboxes: how cops can secretly track your phone
#167Hey. Someone who briefly worked on the Stingray team here. I left the company that develops the stingray (who’s name is mentioned in the article but I shall not say it) because I didn’t feel comfortable with the ethics of how it could potentially be easily abused without legal permission and/or repercussion. I fear these technologies will become more commonly used against Americans by low level law enforcement withou…
Any reason to think usage is limited to law enforcement?
The linked article talks about usage by the military
Re: Stingrays and Dirtboxes: how cops can secretly track your phone
#168I used to work for DRT, they make the "dirtbox" mentioned in the article. I would really encourage journalists to dig more into this company and their products.
Can these do MITM attacks that inject content into what you are reading?
Or could they change the CSS so as to, say, have Amazon's website exhibit underhanded "dark pattern" behavior?
Re: Stingrays and Dirtboxes: how cops can secretly track your phone
#169> stingrays can force phones to downgrade to 2G, a less secure protocol, and tell the phone to use either no encryption or use a weak encryption that can be cracked. Can android, iOS, or an open phone os prevent 2g communication?
Hey, I used to briefly work on the device in question. It’s capabilities go far beyond just downgrading cellular service. I obviously can’t say much more about it but I am a huge proponent of creating strong laws regarding who can use such a device and when. Putting such devices in the hands of low level law enforcement officers to use against their communities for trivial reasons can only turn out poorly.
jdefr, can it change what I read?
Re: Stingrays and Dirtboxes: how cops can secretly track your phone
#170Earlier quoted context omitted.
Used to work for makers of the dirtbox. I would hope anyone curious about this issue also spends a lot of time digging into those devices as well.
The majority of us are well aware how these devices create a MITM attack against your phone, but is there anything you found particularly interesting or egregious that we should know about? Especially how LE are using them to abuse every group who desperately needs protection from these devices.
Can it change what I read?