Seems like a strong case for encryption. Why is it even possible for these devices to read your info?
Seems like a strong case for making all of your phone calls over an encrypted VoIP channel.
The StingRay Is Why the 4th Amendment Was Written (2017)
61–70 of 155 posts
Re: The StingRay Is Why the 4th Amendment Was Written (2017)
#62Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Without the warrant, they have every right to shoot a strange person walking through their property without permission. What kind of hellish "right" is that? You should not have the right to shoot someone for merely walking on your property. That is preposterous!
So I am sitting in my living room at 12:25 in the middle of the night in Brooklyn right now. If I look up from my phone and I see someone standing unexpectedly in my kitchen, I should give them the benefit of the doubt and not assume I am in mortal danger? I mean, what would you think?
In most of the world, yes, you don't assume you're in mortal danger. This is the kind of logic that makes US police officers shoot everyone on sight.
An intruder most likely wants to steal your stuff, which hardly requires a death sentence, as you seem to want to offer.
Re: The StingRay Is Why the 4th Amendment Was Written (2017)
#63Where I live I see police SUVs driving around with these types of devices on their roofs, this is a couple of times per day occurrence. I was wondering strictly for research purposes what kind of attacks are these devices vulnerable to? Could one for example spoof enough phones/connections to cause some DoS like affect.
Re: The StingRay Is Why the 4th Amendment Was Written (2017)
#64Where I live I see police SUVs driving around with these types of devices on their roofs, this is a couple of times per day occurrence. I was wondering strictly for research purposes what kind of attacks are these devices vulnerable to? Could one for example spoof enough phones/connections to cause some DoS like affect.
Those devices are license plate readers. They use them to scan plates for “hits”. I’ve heard of units in police departments that use stingray but they are detached with the feds and are on NDA’s. How’s that legal I don’t know. You should be more worried about who agencies give body cam videos to and plate reader data too. I can tell you this if you dig it won’t be good news. Axion is a for profit company pretty sure facial recognition is in there plans.
-from definitely not a cop
Re: The StingRay Is Why the 4th Amendment Was Written (2017)
#65Between this example and “no knock” warrants (where people get killed, including police) I think it seems obvious that people have forgotten what the point of a warrant is. A warrant is suppose to prevent either of the two cases from resulting in lengthy court battles or death from confusion, and it’s very simple: YOU SHOW THE PERSON BEING SEARCHED THE WARRANT IN ADVANCE! That is how you gain authorization... somehow…
I'm not sure where you are getting this definition of the purpose for warrants, but it's not based on any historical fact that I'm aware of. The way I'm aware of history, a warrant simply allows for an individual or group to take an action on behalf of the state, specifically by statement from a judge, which would have otherwise been illegal. For some individuals and groups, specifically sworn Law Enforcement officer…
Well if you’re not suppose to search me without the warrant, the difference between following that rule and not following it is producing the warrant... otherwise I must assume the duty to defend my family/children and my property for I am being waylaid... the risk the risk of not making that assumption may be very dire circumstances.
Re: The StingRay Is Why the 4th Amendment Was Written (2017)
#66It should be fairly easy to put together a Raspberry Pi as a stingray detector?
Re: The StingRay Is Why the 4th Amendment Was Written (2017)
#67Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can update iOS devices through iTunes via USB, or buy an ethernet adapter.
But your computer does need internet, see https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT201442 > If your computer can’t communicate with Apple's software update server, you might see one of these messages.
But at least I have more control over what my computer does when it connects to the internet than I do over what my phone does.
Re: The StingRay Is Why the 4th Amendment Was Written (2017)
#68Do y'all remember the (likely fake, but widely reported) news about Israeli stingrays in DC a few months back, in September of this year? Whatever happened to that story? It was memory holed very quickly, which makes me suspicious that those weren't actually Israeli stingrays.
I've read news reports that half the "cell towers" in DC are suspicious. So it's not about one particular organization or foreign government doing shady stuff. So "likely fake" => "almost certainly true." FTFY.
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.
Re: The StingRay Is Why the 4th Amendment Was Written (2017)
#69Earlier quoted context omitted.
So I am sitting in my living room at 12:25 in the middle of the night in Brooklyn right now. If I look up from my phone and I see someone standing unexpectedly in my kitchen, I should give them the benefit of the doubt and not assume I am in mortal danger? I mean, what would you think?
In most of the world, yes, you don't assume you're in mortal danger. This is the kind of logic that makes US police officers shoot everyone on sight. An intruder most likely wants to steal your stuff, which hardly requires a death sentence, as you seem to want to offer.
What if the intruder isn't perpetrating this "most likely" case of theft? The other possibilities aren't exactly great alternatives for the occupant. That seems like a very risky gamble to me.
Re: The StingRay Is Why the 4th Amendment Was Written (2017)
#70Earlier quoted context omitted.
So I am sitting in my living room at 12:25 in the middle of the night in Brooklyn right now. If I look up from my phone and I see someone standing unexpectedly in my kitchen, I should give them the benefit of the doubt and not assume I am in mortal danger? I mean, what would you think?
In most of the world, yes, you don't assume you're in mortal danger. This is the kind of logic that makes US police officers shoot everyone on sight. An intruder most likely wants to steal your stuff, which hardly requires a death sentence, as you seem to want to offer.
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 your valuables to drugs and put your family at risk in the process. Even junkies can grasp that housebreaking is dangerous which is why they try to at least avoid people most times.
Being kinder to garbage changes that dynamic.