10 ms·

Congressman introduces bill to end warrantless Stingray surveillance

155 points by rcurry 11y ago

rcurry 11y ago
I like the idea of a 10 year prison sentence for surveillance of cell phones without first obtaining an actual warrant.
- roflchoppa 11y ago
  10 years seems to be a long time. How ever i do feel that there needs to be a way to keep people that work in the public sector under checks that can affect their personal liberties. it emphasizes the check.
  - pdkl95 11y ago
    The specific number of years is a tunable value. Any prison sentence at all sends an important message about the importance of respecting personal liberties. As for the length, a good argument can be made that violations done under the color of authority[1] should always be punished more severely than "regular" violations of the law. The people who have the power to enforce the law have much greater power than the average citizen. Abuse of that greater power should require a similarly larger punishment. That said, I have no idea if 10 years is appropriate. If it isn't I'm sure a better length of time can be negotiated. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_%28law%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_%28law%29
    - maxerickson 11y ago
      So why not make an abuse of power registry and require people that have been convicted of abusing power to disclose this fact? It would also be necessary to have hiring institutions publicize that they are hiring a power abuser (i.e., if a police chief didn't care about the previous abuse of power he would still be required to inform the community of the situation). Someone running for office would be required to do it to, it'd be great, tack "I was convicted of blah blah blah" on somewhere near the "I approve this message". The above is still a much more substantial punishment than I would want to see for an average citizen that was eavesdropping on cell phone calls.
      - pdkl95 11y ago
        > eavesdropping on cell phone calls That's not the part that warrants a strong punishment. Jail time is justified for the abuse of power while acting under the color of law. The particulars about that abuse (eavesdropping on a cell phone) is less important. > registry While this is an interesting idea, I caution strongly against creating any kind of "registry". The current examples we have seen (e.g. "sex offenders") has shown how registries dilute important concepts like "innocent until proven guilty" when presence on the registry doesn't map 1-to-1 with "found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt". Even more worrying is the idea that someone should be tainted for life (or "a long time") for a mistake. Branding people with a modern "scarlet letter" for their mistakes doesn't create an incentive for that person to change their behavior[1]. Once someone has "paid their debt to society", they deserve a 2nd chance that is free of past accusations. There may be a way to make some aspects of a registry work without these problems, but I'm haven't seen it. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBmJay_qdNc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBmJay_qdNc ("The Truth About Dishonesty")
        maxerickson 11y ago
        So make it for 15 years. The thought is that a registry/disclosure rule is still a strong punishment (it presumably prevents them from using their primary skills to repeat the offense) but should cost less than a prison sentence. I suppose I don't care if incarceration is justified, I'm more interested in whether it is necessary.
        scintill76 11y ago
        Another unfortunate thing about the sex offender registry is that it lumps, e.g., 18-year-olds who had a 17-year-old quasi-consensual partner (whom the law decrees can't actually consent), together with much worse criminals -- at least under some jurisdictions' laws. I suppose an abuser-of-power registry would have similar issues with minor infractors getting too much punishment because people pay more attention to "he's listed" than to what he actually did.
      - awqrre 11y ago
        Maybe they should not be able to be hired by the government again (directly or via a contractor) and be released from their current function right away (prison would be an option, depending on the severity of the offense).
    - roflchoppa 11y ago
      Wow, i never even considered the aspect of the violations under the color of authority.... So when you guys wanna try to make this a bill?
- devit 11y ago
  Might be worth considering giving that 10 year prison sentence (or perhaps a per-user fine of at least $100k) to people who are offering cell phone services where surveillance is possible. The root cause of these issues is that there is no liability for people who sell systems with security holes.
mtgx 11y ago
I don't get why scenarios involving FISA are exempt. Stingray surveillance is a physically local thing - FISA is about spying on foreigners living abroad - is it not? I mean don't privacy laws apply to foreigners visiting the U.S., too? It seems to have a few too many loopholes for my taste, but I guess it could eliminate 80% of the abusive uses of Stingrays out there.
- Laaw 11y ago
  Foreigners living abroad communicate with people in the US.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
randomname2 11y ago
Interestingly Congressman Chaffetz is a Republican, good to see him stand up for the Bill of Rights rather than give lip service to it.
- thadd 11y ago
  *Interesting that this seems to be an opposition party thing. I'd love to see Republicans still singing this tune if they get the Presidency back, but we'll see.
  - JustSomeNobody 11y ago
    Sigh The sooner we stop thinking one party is looking out for us more than the other, the better off we _citizens_ will be.
    - TallGuyShort 11y ago
      I think his point is more opposition vs. incumbent than Democrat vs. Republican. Democrats were more against military action until it was their own candidate directing it, Republicans were more for it until it was no longer theirs. If you look at the commonalities between the two parties when they've each been in the same role, it supports your point.
  - jonathanoliver 11y ago
    He represents the district I live in. This type of thing is very much him.
  - disposition2 11y ago
    I wonder how much this has to do with him defending _freedom_ from the right to be spied on without a warrant vs him wanting the IRS to stop using Stingray's. There are still exemptions in the proposed bill...granted they are in the FISA court and related to perceived danger related to 'terrorism' or 'organized crime'.
    - 11y ago
supergeek133 11y ago
Wasn't this illegal already? Or no?
- rcurry 11y ago
  It's covered under those more obscure and ambiguous parts of the constitution that law enforcement has always struggled to understand - you know, like the 1st and 4th amendments.
- awqrre 11y ago
  The government is currently trying to push the boundaries and is waiting to see what happens.
JustSomeNobody 11y ago
Why aren't there anti-stingray ROMs or apps yet? In my, admittedly naive, understanding is that cel towers have signatures. For instance, using Tasker for Android, I can know when I'm near home by the tower it detects. When the Stingray overpowers that tower, can't I just have a tasker task or an app or something that would detect that and shut down my celphone? *Note: I don't really need this, but if the law wants a tech fight, they should get one.
- snerbles 11y ago
  You'd ideally need a Stingray to develop against, and they're only sold to government customers.
  - pavel_lishin 11y ago
    Unless someone finds and confirms one in the wild. Which would be an amusing scene; cars full of people with laptops and phones, sitting around a telephone pole, or wherever they mount the damned things.
- sp332 11y ago
  There is an IMSI Catcher Detector, called AIMSCD, available from https://secupwn.github.io/Android-IMSI-Catcher-Detector/ https://secupwn.github.io/Android-IMSI-Catcher-Detector/ (also Aptoide or F-Droid, but not the Google Play store).
- kazazes 11y ago
  The existing Android solution only works for Qualcomm chipsets [1], so it must require some radio-level access to verify the presence of an IMEI device. You won't be seeing it in the iOS App Store. Maybe someone can find the relevant private APIs to make it happen. http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/12/31/snoopsnitch_is_an_app_by_the_german_srlabs_that_detects_imsi_catchers_stingrays.html http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/12/31/snoopsnit...
  - toomuchtodo 11y ago
ck2 11y ago
I wonder if police will also harass congresspeople, guess we are about to find out.
- benjarrell 11y ago
  Yes they will, and they already have with this same congressman: http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/secret-service-broke-privacy-law-embarrass-critic-inspector-general-n436541 http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/secret-service-broke-pri...
discardorama 11y ago
Why do you even need a bill for this? It's against the Constitution!
- laotzu 11y ago
  >In time of actual war, great discretionary powers are constantly given to the Executive Magistrate. Constant apprehension of War, has the same tendency to render the head too large for the body. A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defense against foreign danger have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people. -James Madison, Speech, Constitutional Convention (1787-06-29)
notthemessiah 11y ago
Wouldn't the FISA exemptions for this bill be subject to the same Section 702 loophole that permits PRISM to exist?

155 points by rcurry 11y ago

rcurry 11y ago

I like the idea of a 10 year prison sentence for surveillance of cell phones without first obtaining an actual warrant.

roflchoppa 11y ago
10 years seems to be a long time. How ever i do feel that there needs to be a way to keep people that work in the public sector under checks that can affect their personal liberties. it emphasizes the check.
- pdkl95 11y ago
  The specific number of years is a tunable value. Any prison sentence at all sends an important message about the importance of respecting personal liberties. As for the length, a good argument can be made that violations done under the color of authority[1] should always be punished more severely than "regular" violations of the law. The people who have the power to enforce the law have much greater power than the average citizen. Abuse of that greater power should require a similarly larger punishment. That said, I have no idea if 10 years is appropriate. If it isn't I'm sure a better length of time can be negotiated. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_%28law%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_%28law%29
  - maxerickson 11y ago
    So why not make an abuse of power registry and require people that have been convicted of abusing power to disclose this fact? It would also be necessary to have hiring institutions publicize that they are hiring a power abuser (i.e., if a police chief didn't care about the previous abuse of power he would still be required to inform the community of the situation). Someone running for office would be required to do it to, it'd be great, tack "I was convicted of blah blah blah" on somewhere near the "I approve this message". The above is still a much more substantial punishment than I would want to see for an average citizen that was eavesdropping on cell phone calls.
    - pdkl95 11y ago
      > eavesdropping on cell phone calls That's not the part that warrants a strong punishment. Jail time is justified for the abuse of power while acting under the color of law. The particulars about that abuse (eavesdropping on a cell phone) is less important. > registry While this is an interesting idea, I caution strongly against creating any kind of "registry". The current examples we have seen (e.g. "sex offenders") has shown how registries dilute important concepts like "innocent until proven guilty" when presence on the registry doesn't map 1-to-1 with "found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt". Even more worrying is the idea that someone should be tainted for life (or "a long time") for a mistake. Branding people with a modern "scarlet letter" for their mistakes doesn't create an incentive for that person to change their behavior[1]. Once someone has "paid their debt to society", they deserve a 2nd chance that is free of past accusations. There may be a way to make some aspects of a registry work without these problems, but I'm haven't seen it. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBmJay_qdNc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBmJay_qdNc ("The Truth About Dishonesty")
      - maxerickson 11y ago
        So make it for 15 years. The thought is that a registry/disclosure rule is still a strong punishment (it presumably prevents them from using their primary skills to repeat the offense) but should cost less than a prison sentence. I suppose I don't care if incarceration is justified, I'm more interested in whether it is necessary.
      - scintill76 11y ago
        Another unfortunate thing about the sex offender registry is that it lumps, e.g., 18-year-olds who had a 17-year-old quasi-consensual partner (whom the law decrees can't actually consent), together with much worse criminals -- at least under some jurisdictions' laws. I suppose an abuser-of-power registry would have similar issues with minor infractors getting too much punishment because people pay more attention to "he's listed" than to what he actually did.
    - awqrre 11y ago
      Maybe they should not be able to be hired by the government again (directly or via a contractor) and be released from their current function right away (prison would be an option, depending on the severity of the offense).
  - roflchoppa 11y ago
    Wow, i never even considered the aspect of the violations under the color of authority.... So when you guys wanna try to make this a bill?
devit 11y ago
Might be worth considering giving that 10 year prison sentence (or perhaps a per-user fine of at least $100k) to people who are offering cell phone services where surveillance is possible. The root cause of these issues is that there is no liability for people who sell systems with security holes.

mtgx 11y ago

I don't get why scenarios involving FISA are exempt. Stingray surveillance is a physically local thing - FISA is about spying on foreigners living abroad - is it not? I mean don't privacy laws apply to foreigners visiting the U.S., too? It seems to have a few too many loopholes for my taste, but I guess it could eliminate 80% of the abusive uses of Stingrays out there.

Laaw 11y ago
Foreigners living abroad communicate with people in the US.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

randomname2 11y ago

Interestingly Congressman Chaffetz is a Republican, good to see him stand up for the Bill of Rights rather than give lip service to it.

thadd 11y ago
*Interesting that this seems to be an opposition party thing. I'd love to see Republicans still singing this tune if they get the Presidency back, but we'll see.
- JustSomeNobody 11y ago
  Sigh The sooner we stop thinking one party is looking out for us more than the other, the better off we _citizens_ will be.
  - TallGuyShort 11y ago
    I think his point is more opposition vs. incumbent than Democrat vs. Republican. Democrats were more against military action until it was their own candidate directing it, Republicans were more for it until it was no longer theirs. If you look at the commonalities between the two parties when they've each been in the same role, it supports your point.
- jonathanoliver 11y ago
  He represents the district I live in. This type of thing is very much him.
- disposition2 11y ago
  I wonder how much this has to do with him defending _freedom_ from the right to be spied on without a warrant vs him wanting the IRS to stop using Stingray's. There are still exemptions in the proposed bill...granted they are in the FISA court and related to perceived danger related to 'terrorism' or 'organized crime'.
  - 11y ago

supergeek133 11y ago

Wasn't this illegal already? Or no?

rcurry 11y ago
It's covered under those more obscure and ambiguous parts of the constitution that law enforcement has always struggled to understand - you know, like the 1st and 4th amendments.
awqrre 11y ago
The government is currently trying to push the boundaries and is waiting to see what happens.

JustSomeNobody 11y ago

Why aren't there anti-stingray ROMs or apps yet? In my, admittedly naive, understanding is that cel towers have signatures. For instance, using Tasker for Android, I can know when I'm near home by the tower it detects. When the Stingray overpowers that tower, can't I just have a tasker task or an app or something that would detect that and shut down my celphone? *Note: I don't really need this, but if the law wants a tech fight, they should get one.

snerbles 11y ago
You'd ideally need a Stingray to develop against, and they're only sold to government customers.
- pavel_lishin 11y ago
  Unless someone finds and confirms one in the wild. Which would be an amusing scene; cars full of people with laptops and phones, sitting around a telephone pole, or wherever they mount the damned things.
sp332 11y ago
There is an IMSI Catcher Detector, called AIMSCD, available from https://secupwn.github.io/Android-IMSI-Catcher-Detector/ https://secupwn.github.io/Android-IMSI-Catcher-Detector/ (also Aptoide or F-Droid, but not the Google Play store).
kazazes 11y ago
The existing Android solution only works for Qualcomm chipsets [1], so it must require some radio-level access to verify the presence of an IMEI device. You won't be seeing it in the iOS App Store. Maybe someone can find the relevant private APIs to make it happen. http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/12/31/snoopsnitch_is_an_app_by_the_german_srlabs_that_detects_imsi_catchers_stingrays.html http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/12/31/snoopsnit...
- toomuchtodo 11y ago

ck2 11y ago

I wonder if police will also harass congresspeople, guess we are about to find out.

benjarrell 11y ago
Yes they will, and they already have with this same congressman: http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/secret-service-broke-privacy-law-embarrass-critic-inspector-general-n436541 http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/secret-service-broke-pri...

discardorama 11y ago

Why do you even need a bill for this? It's against the Constitution!

laotzu 11y ago
>In time of actual war, great discretionary powers are constantly given to the Executive Magistrate. Constant apprehension of War, has the same tendency to render the head too large for the body. A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defense against foreign danger have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people. -James Madison, Speech, Constitutional Convention (1787-06-29)

notthemessiah 11y ago

Wouldn't the FISA exemptions for this bill be subject to the same Section 702 loophole that permits PRISM to exist?