5 ms·

Are we powerless to stop it? Should we bother?

by jjawssd 10y ago

Retric 10y ago
There are options between stop it and do nothing. I would assume cellphone companies can easily give access to any conversation from their internal network so that's probably a more cost effective solution at all levels. The question becomes, why do police feel the need for other tools?
- barake 10y ago
  Cellphone companies is one more layer in their trust circle. It's easier to just bypass them and collect the data yourself. Warrants only really became a requirement in 2015. And police were misleading judges on Stingray usage to hide the tech. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/03/appeals-court-no-stingrays-without-a-warrant-explanation-to-judge/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/03/appeals-court-no...
- upofadown 10y ago
  Casual ad hoc surveillance can be very useful for law enforcement. It can save a tremendous amount of time and money keeping track of where people are and where they are planning to be. The fact that the information gained is not admissible in court is not important. From the article: >“You guys picking up any information? Where they're going, possibly?" Law enforcement has become somewhat dependent on this sort of access and would not be able to do their job as effectively without it. Hence the desperation shown by the use of things like Stingrays where the network is actively attacked in what is arguably a straight up illegal way.
  - naasking 10y ago
    > Law enforcement has become somewhat dependent on this sort of access and would not be able to do their job as effectively without it. I've seen this claim repeated, but never with any evidence.
    - upofadown 10y ago
      It doesn't matter if the claim is objectively true just as long as law enforcement people continue to believe it. ... and it is obvious from comments coming out of that community that they do. What has to happen now is that law enforcement has to come clean and there has to be a public discussion about this stuff. Otherwise the private and public hand wringing will continue indefinitely and things will continue to get worse. The general public is ultimately responsible here as they are effectively the boss of the law enforcement people. We need to take the time to understand why our employees are acting the way they are.
  - wwweston 10y ago
    "Effectively." "Why are you looking for the lost keys by the lamppost when they were lost on the other side of the street?" "Well, it's dark over there, and the lamppost is where the light is."
- JustSomeNobody 10y ago
  Power. Invoking public fear. Using that as an end-around the 1st Amendment.
  - thehardsphere 10y ago
    You mean the 4th Amendment?
    - JustSomeNobody 10y ago
      I meant 1st. If you have concern they may be listening, you may be less likely to say something.
tr1ck5t3r 10y ago
Just use a landline phone with a cable although you call will still be listened into like mine currently are, but anything using radio frequency can be hacked easily, which also means vpn's in the online sense. There is an illusion of security which naive pen testers like to sell.

Are we powerless to stop it? Should we bother?

by jjawssd 10y ago

Are we powerless to stop it? Should we bother?

There are options between stop it and do nothing. I would assume cellphone companies can easily give access to any conversation from their internal network so that's probably a more cost effective solution at all levels. The question becomes, why do police feel the need for other tools?

barake 10y ago
Cellphone companies is one more layer in their trust circle. It's easier to just bypass them and collect the data yourself. Warrants only really became a requirement in 2015. And police were misleading judges on Stingray usage to hide the tech. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/03/appeals-court-no-stingrays-without-a-warrant-explanation-to-judge/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/03/appeals-court-no...
upofadown 10y ago
Casual ad hoc surveillance can be very useful for law enforcement. It can save a tremendous amount of time and money keeping track of where people are and where they are planning to be. The fact that the information gained is not admissible in court is not important. From the article: >“You guys picking up any information? Where they're going, possibly?" Law enforcement has become somewhat dependent on this sort of access and would not be able to do their job as effectively without it. Hence the desperation shown by the use of things like Stingrays where the network is actively attacked in what is arguably a straight up illegal way.
- naasking 10y ago
  > Law enforcement has become somewhat dependent on this sort of access and would not be able to do their job as effectively without it. I've seen this claim repeated, but never with any evidence.
  - upofadown 10y ago
    It doesn't matter if the claim is objectively true just as long as law enforcement people continue to believe it. ... and it is obvious from comments coming out of that community that they do. What has to happen now is that law enforcement has to come clean and there has to be a public discussion about this stuff. Otherwise the private and public hand wringing will continue indefinitely and things will continue to get worse. The general public is ultimately responsible here as they are effectively the boss of the law enforcement people. We need to take the time to understand why our employees are acting the way they are.
- wwweston 10y ago
  "Effectively." "Why are you looking for the lost keys by the lamppost when they were lost on the other side of the street?" "Well, it's dark over there, and the lamppost is where the light is."
JustSomeNobody 10y ago
Power. Invoking public fear. Using that as an end-around the 1st Amendment.
- thehardsphere 10y ago
  You mean the 4th Amendment?
  - JustSomeNobody 10y ago
    I meant 1st. If you have concern they may be listening, you may be less likely to say something.

tr1ck5t3r 10y ago

Just use a landline phone with a cable although you call will still be listened into like mine currently are, but anything using radio frequency can be hacked easily, which also means vpn's in the online sense. There is an illusion of security which naive pen testers like to sell.