4 ms·

My biggest disillusionment when I learned about Stingrays was with the FCC. I had always thought of the FCC as good stewards of the broadcast spectrum and I did

by guelo 11y ago

My biggest disillusionment when I learned about Stingrays was with the FCC. I had always thought of the FCC as good stewards of the broadcast spectrum and I didn't think they would ever approve shenanigans like the commercial development of radios that impersonate commercial broadcasters.

schoen 11y ago
I'm still curious why they haven't decided that the fact that cell site simulators are possible is a super-grave bug! It's one thing to say "we think it might be legal to use a cell site simulator in some specific circumstances", but another thing to say "our cell phone infrastructure allows anyone to successfully pretend to be a tower and spy on people, and we're not going to try to fix that".
- guelo 11y ago
  Harris Corp is not sneaking behind the FCC's back, the FCC specifically approved this use and licensed the device. In any other situation if someone tried to broadcast on licensed spectrum the FCC would come down on them like a ton of bricks.
  - rickycook 11y ago
    I think his point though is that the wireless technology itself should make this impossible. The fact that it's not provably secure is problematic, because it's all well and good to say "you're not allowed to" until someone subverts the rules. People break laws all the time, including police
    - guelo 11y ago
      There are very few violations of the FCC's rules in general partly because the FCC regulates and certifies hardware manufacturers of radio equipment, so it's very difficult to purchase equipment that doesn't follow the rules. You can see this happening in the Wifi space where the FCC is clamping down on dd-wrt at the device manufacturer level because the software allows people to violate that frequency's rules. People with the right skills can build custom equipment to violate the rules but it's rare. And for the few people that do try to do things like pirate radio the FCC hunts them down and the penalties are stiff. My point being that for the most part the FCC's regulatory scheme works at keeping people playing by the rules without extra layers of technically complicated security.
      - jakeogh 11y ago
        Is it accurate to state they have made illegal (via 'rules') to use open source (user controlled) EM comm above 100um (below 3000GHz[1]) (except a few windows)? Or is it 9kHz to 275GHz? I bet when line of sight NIR comms (there's a nice window around 1550nm) get popular, they will (to stay relevant) want to 'regulate'[2] that too. Prior restraint is the problem here, anyone can mess with the spectrum with basic electronic skills, mandating 'approved' software seems less than pointless. [1] http://www.spectrumwiki.com/wp/allocations101.pdf http://www.spectrumwiki.com/wp/allocations101.pdf [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbYXBJOFgeI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbYXBJOFgeI
- jrcii 11y ago
  Does anyone know if LTE fixes this problem?
  - frandroid 11y ago
    Is the past, if you disabled your phone's 2G, possibly, but now there are new vulnerabilities that have been found with 3G and LTE.
themartorana 11y ago
Mine was that I thought this might stop once it became common knowledge - that courts would find it massively unconstitutional and it would end.
- cmurf 11y ago
  A big part of this problem was standing. There was no acknowledgment, in fact denial, that these things existed and were being used. It therefore was incumbent on the claimant to prove they existed. But now it's understood they exist, so that finally might work its way through the court system to see whether or not this is a legal search/seizure.
  - Joof 11y ago
    It's still up to the claimant to prove it was used on them personally and in some damaging manner. This has been a problem for people (Wikipedia) suing the NSA. Despite statistical analysis showing it's probably true, there isn't any 'beyond a doubt' evidence.
    - cmurf 11y ago
      I don't think they have to show beyond a doubt. But you're correct they have to somehow demonstrate not just that this capability exists, but that it was used on them, and that the court can provide a remedy. This is just one example of why whistle blower protections are necessary.
    - shiven 11y ago
      Basically, someone needs to go Snowden and publish the kitchen sink of Stingray records to allow people to even build a case and then to prove it went beyond reasonable use (if any).

by guelo 11y ago

schoen 11y ago

I'm still curious why they haven't decided that the fact that cell site simulators are possible is a super-grave bug! It's one thing to say "we think it might be legal to use a cell site simulator in some specific circumstances", but another thing to say "our cell phone infrastructure allows anyone to successfully pretend to be a tower and spy on people, and we're not going to try to fix that".

guelo 11y ago
Harris Corp is not sneaking behind the FCC's back, the FCC specifically approved this use and licensed the device. In any other situation if someone tried to broadcast on licensed spectrum the FCC would come down on them like a ton of bricks.
- rickycook 11y ago
  I think his point though is that the wireless technology itself should make this impossible. The fact that it's not provably secure is problematic, because it's all well and good to say "you're not allowed to" until someone subverts the rules. People break laws all the time, including police
  - guelo 11y ago
    There are very few violations of the FCC's rules in general partly because the FCC regulates and certifies hardware manufacturers of radio equipment, so it's very difficult to purchase equipment that doesn't follow the rules. You can see this happening in the Wifi space where the FCC is clamping down on dd-wrt at the device manufacturer level because the software allows people to violate that frequency's rules. People with the right skills can build custom equipment to violate the rules but it's rare. And for the few people that do try to do things like pirate radio the FCC hunts them down and the penalties are stiff. My point being that for the most part the FCC's regulatory scheme works at keeping people playing by the rules without extra layers of technically complicated security.
    - jakeogh 11y ago
      Is it accurate to state they have made illegal (via 'rules') to use open source (user controlled) EM comm above 100um (below 3000GHz[1]) (except a few windows)? Or is it 9kHz to 275GHz? I bet when line of sight NIR comms (there's a nice window around 1550nm) get popular, they will (to stay relevant) want to 'regulate'[2] that too. Prior restraint is the problem here, anyone can mess with the spectrum with basic electronic skills, mandating 'approved' software seems less than pointless. [1] http://www.spectrumwiki.com/wp/allocations101.pdf http://www.spectrumwiki.com/wp/allocations101.pdf [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbYXBJOFgeI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbYXBJOFgeI
jrcii 11y ago
Does anyone know if LTE fixes this problem?
- frandroid 11y ago
  Is the past, if you disabled your phone's 2G, possibly, but now there are new vulnerabilities that have been found with 3G and LTE.

themartorana 11y ago

Mine was that I thought this might stop once it became common knowledge - that courts would find it massively unconstitutional and it would end.

cmurf 11y ago
A big part of this problem was standing. There was no acknowledgment, in fact denial, that these things existed and were being used. It therefore was incumbent on the claimant to prove they existed. But now it's understood they exist, so that finally might work its way through the court system to see whether or not this is a legal search/seizure.
- Joof 11y ago
  It's still up to the claimant to prove it was used on them personally and in some damaging manner. This has been a problem for people (Wikipedia) suing the NSA. Despite statistical analysis showing it's probably true, there isn't any 'beyond a doubt' evidence.
  - cmurf 11y ago
    I don't think they have to show beyond a doubt. But you're correct they have to somehow demonstrate not just that this capability exists, but that it was used on them, and that the court can provide a remedy. This is just one example of why whistle blower protections are necessary.
  - shiven 11y ago
    Basically, someone needs to go Snowden and publish the kitchen sink of Stingray records to allow people to even build a case and then to prove it went beyond reasonable use (if any).