5 ms·

The Supreme Court ruled in 2018 that obtaining phone location data requires a warrant. [1] So no, neither one is okay. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpen

The Supreme Court ruled in 2018 that obtaining phone location data requires a warrant. [1] So no, neither one is okay. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpenter_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpenter_v._United_States

anonymousiam 7y ago
So this Supreme Court ruling has eliminated all use of Stingray-like equipment by all law enforcement agencies unless they have a warrant? Wow! Looks like Harris will be going of business soon, and no more DRT boxes flying over cities?
- jagged-chisel 7y ago
  How did you get from “mobile company providing location data” to “law enforcement use of stingrays to obtain location data”?
  - anonymousiam 7y ago
    Not much of a difference really. Mainly just that LE uses their own equipment instead of that of the carrier. This brings up a separate FCC issue: Why is it okay for LE to transmit on the cellular bands for this purpose, when it provably can interfere with emergency communications (such as a 911 call)?
    - jagged-chisel 7y ago
      It’s a huge difference. The technical difference is that law enforcement is doing an end-run around the carrier to have phones just give up information. Carriers have zero control over that.
      - ta999999171 7y ago
        Sure they do! (Assuming you're not kidding.) Make the cell connections a secure protocol, instead of something any asshole with an antenna can spoof & create a portable "cell tower".
        jagged-chisel 7y ago
        Yes, they could have that control. But they currently do not.
        vageli 7y ago
        > Sure they do! (Assuming you're not kidding.) > Make the cell connections a secure protocol, instead of something any asshole with an antenna can spoof & create a portable "cell tower". A single carrier likely couldn't do that without coordinating with other carriers (as a client roams to a new net).
- cortesoft 7y ago
  Obtaining phone location data is different than a stingray. Not saying it is ok, just totally different.
  - ta999999171 7y ago
    Triangulation, signal strength, etc. 0 effective difference.
    - cortesoft 7y ago
      No, a stingray is an active surveillance method... the authorities deploy it and can get information from that point on. It is generally used for an active investigation against a target; of course, it is super problematic because it also intercepts innocent people's calls and can track them, and it is also being used for more and more cases where it is not justified. However, it is still not the same as the phone company selling location data. They have EVERYONE's location data for all time; it is not like they have to 'turn it on' for you and then are only able to spy on you going forward. They just have all of it, all the time. The difference is that a stingray is like one cell tower being able to spy on people... the phone company is ALL THE CELL TOWERS being able to spy on you... and not only being ABLE to, are just always doing it no matter what, for everyone.
- conradev 7y ago
  > The Court did not expand its ruling on other matters related to cellphones not presented in Carpenter, including real-time cell site location information (CSLI) or "tower dumps" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpenter_v._United_States https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpenter_v._United_States
- unapologetic 7y ago
  Why are you being downvoted for pointing out mass surveillance and extremely targeted surveillance are both still legal and frequently used.
  - loeg 7y ago
    Because it's hyperbolic, sarcastic, and unhelpful. Your question rephrased as a statement is completely fine: "Unfortunately, mass surveillance and extremely targeted surveillance are both still legal and frequently used."
  - Sarcasmatic 7y ago
    As you pick up on, the question was just used to make a statement, not gain information. That could be considered bad-faithy. But at the very least it annoys with its overused tone of sarcastic outrage, especially because it was the second such comment in the thread, made after the first was already shown to be entirely wrong. On its merits, the accusation of hypocrisy is also a non-sequitur: from "one bad thing is stopped" never follows "all bad things are stopped". The implied expectation is impossible to fulfill. It's also unhelpful, politically, in a way that this thread, HN generally, or even "the internet" are full of: If everyone is always assuming the worst while expecting the best, it removes all incentives for anyone in power to behave honorably. After all, if you're going to be accused to be corrupt and/or incompetent anyway, why even try?
bitexploder 7y ago
They (NSA / govt) still warehouse it. They just don’t access it without a warrant. That is the current legal fiction they operate the surveillance state under.
- Spivak 7y ago
  Does that matter to the legal theory though? Like they’re free to pass a law that says that carriers have to keep logs for X years and then get a warrant anytime they want them. Like if you don’t trust the government to follow their own rules then why do the rules matter?
- sjg007 7y ago
  NSA monitors foreign traffic.
  - bitexploder 7y ago
    On paper. How do you know it’s foreign? That’s why they warehouse it. As much as they can. Figure out if it’s foreign later on. Don’t underestimate the laws they will skirt to collect data.
    - GhettoMaestro 7y ago
      You have a boner for the NSA. Seek help.
  - hnuser123456 7y ago
    Look up how 5 eyes works.
- dudus 7y ago
  They were once caught doing that, which caused a shit show. It doesn't mean they are currently doing that. Maybe they are, I don't know, and neither does you, asserting that they do it only spreads panic and misinformation
  - 7y ago

anonymousiam 7y ago

So this Supreme Court ruling has eliminated all use of Stingray-like equipment by all law enforcement agencies unless they have a warrant? Wow! Looks like Harris will be going of business soon, and no more DRT boxes flying over cities?

jagged-chisel 7y ago
How did you get from “mobile company providing location data” to “law enforcement use of stingrays to obtain location data”?
- anonymousiam 7y ago
  Not much of a difference really. Mainly just that LE uses their own equipment instead of that of the carrier. This brings up a separate FCC issue: Why is it okay for LE to transmit on the cellular bands for this purpose, when it provably can interfere with emergency communications (such as a 911 call)?
  - jagged-chisel 7y ago
    It’s a huge difference. The technical difference is that law enforcement is doing an end-run around the carrier to have phones just give up information. Carriers have zero control over that.
    - ta999999171 7y ago
      Sure they do! (Assuming you're not kidding.) Make the cell connections a secure protocol, instead of something any asshole with an antenna can spoof & create a portable "cell tower".
      - jagged-chisel 7y ago
        Yes, they could have that control. But they currently do not.
      - vageli 7y ago
        > Sure they do! (Assuming you're not kidding.) > Make the cell connections a secure protocol, instead of something any asshole with an antenna can spoof & create a portable "cell tower". A single carrier likely couldn't do that without coordinating with other carriers (as a client roams to a new net).
cortesoft 7y ago
Obtaining phone location data is different than a stingray. Not saying it is ok, just totally different.
- ta999999171 7y ago
  Triangulation, signal strength, etc. 0 effective difference.
  - cortesoft 7y ago
    No, a stingray is an active surveillance method... the authorities deploy it and can get information from that point on. It is generally used for an active investigation against a target; of course, it is super problematic because it also intercepts innocent people's calls and can track them, and it is also being used for more and more cases where it is not justified. However, it is still not the same as the phone company selling location data. They have EVERYONE's location data for all time; it is not like they have to 'turn it on' for you and then are only able to spy on you going forward. They just have all of it, all the time. The difference is that a stingray is like one cell tower being able to spy on people... the phone company is ALL THE CELL TOWERS being able to spy on you... and not only being ABLE to, are just always doing it no matter what, for everyone.
conradev 7y ago
> The Court did not expand its ruling on other matters related to cellphones not presented in Carpenter, including real-time cell site location information (CSLI) or "tower dumps" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpenter_v._United_States https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpenter_v._United_States
unapologetic 7y ago
Why are you being downvoted for pointing out mass surveillance and extremely targeted surveillance are both still legal and frequently used.
- loeg 7y ago
  Because it's hyperbolic, sarcastic, and unhelpful. Your question rephrased as a statement is completely fine: "Unfortunately, mass surveillance and extremely targeted surveillance are both still legal and frequently used."
- Sarcasmatic 7y ago
  As you pick up on, the question was just used to make a statement, not gain information. That could be considered bad-faithy. But at the very least it annoys with its overused tone of sarcastic outrage, especially because it was the second such comment in the thread, made after the first was already shown to be entirely wrong. On its merits, the accusation of hypocrisy is also a non-sequitur: from "one bad thing is stopped" never follows "all bad things are stopped". The implied expectation is impossible to fulfill. It's also unhelpful, politically, in a way that this thread, HN generally, or even "the internet" are full of: If everyone is always assuming the worst while expecting the best, it removes all incentives for anyone in power to behave honorably. After all, if you're going to be accused to be corrupt and/or incompetent anyway, why even try?

bitexploder 7y ago

They (NSA / govt) still warehouse it. They just don’t access it without a warrant. That is the current legal fiction they operate the surveillance state under.

Spivak 7y ago
Does that matter to the legal theory though? Like they’re free to pass a law that says that carriers have to keep logs for X years and then get a warrant anytime they want them. Like if you don’t trust the government to follow their own rules then why do the rules matter?
sjg007 7y ago
NSA monitors foreign traffic.
- bitexploder 7y ago
  On paper. How do you know it’s foreign? That’s why they warehouse it. As much as they can. Figure out if it’s foreign later on. Don’t underestimate the laws they will skirt to collect data.
  - GhettoMaestro 7y ago
    You have a boner for the NSA. Seek help.
- hnuser123456 7y ago
  Look up how 5 eyes works.
dudus 7y ago
They were once caught doing that, which caused a shit show. It doesn't mean they are currently doing that. Maybe they are, I don't know, and neither does you, asserting that they do it only spreads panic and misinformation
- 7y ago