8 ms·

Could folks share more accessible methods for developing counter-Stingray type activities described in this paper, or rather, which ones they themselves have us

Could folks share more accessible methods for developing counter-Stingray type activities described in this paper, or rather, which ones they themselves have used with varying degrees of success? https://www.cise.ufl.edu/~butler/pubs/ndss25-tucker-marlin.pdf https://www.cise.ufl.edu/~butler/pubs/ndss25-tucker-marlin.p... Ideally, this is something I could hack together in the next few days since ICE is prepping to invade my city.

therobots927 1y ago
I can't help you, I'm just here to thank you for your service.
allseeingimei 1y ago
burner phones and sunglasses are probably easier
- therobots927 1y ago
  My understanding of the linked paper is that it details methods of detecting stingrays. Not jamming them...
  - boston_clone 1y ago
    I could've been more clear :) don't think I could engage in prevention without violating some FCC laws. But in general, yes - prevention > detection > awareness > ignorance.
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
- nisegami 1y ago
  'no phone' is the only safe option
  - mdhb 1y ago
    No phone actually stands out a lot in real life surveillance systems and will very quickly get you a bunch of additional attention because it’s so unusual. Not usually that I’m aware of as a single data point in any system but if there are other reasons to thing you’re trying to act surreptitiously you are going to be very close to the top of the list of people of interest. There’s a lot to be said in 2025 for appearing uninteresting to anyone who might be watching.
    - MandieD 1y ago
      Dreh dich nicht um, schau, schau… Der Kommissar geht um, oh oh! Alles klar, Herr Kommissar?
    - antonvs 1y ago
      There’s no information or evidence about any system capable of detecting someone without a phone being in use today. You’d have to combine multiple technologies to do it, and while it might be technically possible the details go beyond any known current systems.
      - mdhb 1y ago
        What on earth are you talking about… that is not even a little bit true. I think you’re over complicating this in your head quite a bit. Here’s something [1] that’s was public almost 20 years ago at this point. Things have advanced a lot since then. I don’t think you quite understand just how much of a pipeline there was for this kind of technology that went almost directly from quite classified SIGINT stuff in the GWOT to casual LEO / domestic stuff. I know the whole no phone thing sounds like a real high speed operator move but it’s very literally a signal they go looking for when trying to sift through large amounts of data. [1] https://www.pnnl.gov/main/publications/external/technical_reports/PNNL-17734.pdf https://www.pnnl.gov/main/publications/external/technical_re...
        antonvs 1y ago
        They can detect the presence of phones, yes. But that doesn’t automatically mean being able to detect people that aren’t carrying phones. To do that, you’d need to integrate the phone detection data with some other source of data on people present in the area in question. I’m saying there’s no evidence of such a system actually being used in practice. The paper you linked doesn’t address that at all. Btw, to help understand the technical challenges involved with this, the whole reason Tesla focused on vision-only for its self-driving was the difficulty of integrating sensor data from multiple sources, e.g. lidar + vision would be significantly more difficult to achieve. It’s not that this isn’t possible in theory - it’s just that there’s no evidence of anyone having done it for “lack of phone” detection, and that’s probably because it’s not really a requirement that’s in high demand.
- boston_clone 1y ago
  I leave mine at home, but you're right; I should also get some counter-facial recognition paint. However, my endeavor here is more focused on awareness and transparency for the masses than subterfuge for the individual.
- dredmorbius 1y ago
  "Israel targeted top Iranian leaders by hacking, tracing their bodyguards’ phones — report" <https://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-targeted-top-iranian-leaders-by-hacking-tracing-their-bodyguards-phones-report/ https://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-targeted-top-iranian-le...> I'm listing the Times of Israel first as it's an Israeli publication, though it cites the following NY Times article which researched the story: "Targeting Iran’s Leaders, Israel Found a Weak Link: Their Bodyguards" Despite all the precautions, Israeli jets dropped six bombs on top of the bunker soon after the meeting began, targeting the two entrance and exit doors. Remarkably, nobody in the bunker was killed. When the leaders later made their way out of the bunker, they found the bodies of a few guards, killed by the blasts. The attack threw Iran’s intelligence apparatus into a tailspin, and soon enough Iranian officials discovered a devastating security lapse: The Israelis had been led to the meeting by hacking the phones of bodyguards who had accompanied the Iranian leaders to the site and waited outside... <https://www.nytimes.com/2025/08/30/us/politics/israel-iran-assassination.html https://www.nytimes.com/2025/08/30/us/politics/israel-iran-a...> (Archive / paywall: <https://archive.is/XdZet https://archive.is/XdZet>) It's not just your phone, it's the phones of those around you. Whether or not you have a security detail. This is one factor which makes pervasive surveillance so absolutely insidious.

therobots927 1y ago

I can't help you, I'm just here to thank you for your service.

allseeingimei 1y ago

burner phones and sunglasses are probably easier

therobots927 1y ago
My understanding of the linked paper is that it details methods of detecting stingrays. Not jamming them...
- boston_clone 1y ago
  I could've been more clear :) don't think I could engage in prevention without violating some FCC laws. But in general, yes - prevention > detection > awareness > ignorance.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
nisegami 1y ago
'no phone' is the only safe option
- mdhb 1y ago
  No phone actually stands out a lot in real life surveillance systems and will very quickly get you a bunch of additional attention because it’s so unusual. Not usually that I’m aware of as a single data point in any system but if there are other reasons to thing you’re trying to act surreptitiously you are going to be very close to the top of the list of people of interest. There’s a lot to be said in 2025 for appearing uninteresting to anyone who might be watching.
  - MandieD 1y ago
    Dreh dich nicht um, schau, schau… Der Kommissar geht um, oh oh! Alles klar, Herr Kommissar?
  - antonvs 1y ago
    There’s no information or evidence about any system capable of detecting someone without a phone being in use today. You’d have to combine multiple technologies to do it, and while it might be technically possible the details go beyond any known current systems.
    - mdhb 1y ago
      What on earth are you talking about… that is not even a little bit true. I think you’re over complicating this in your head quite a bit. Here’s something [1] that’s was public almost 20 years ago at this point. Things have advanced a lot since then. I don’t think you quite understand just how much of a pipeline there was for this kind of technology that went almost directly from quite classified SIGINT stuff in the GWOT to casual LEO / domestic stuff. I know the whole no phone thing sounds like a real high speed operator move but it’s very literally a signal they go looking for when trying to sift through large amounts of data. [1] https://www.pnnl.gov/main/publications/external/technical_reports/PNNL-17734.pdf https://www.pnnl.gov/main/publications/external/technical_re...
      - antonvs 1y ago
        They can detect the presence of phones, yes. But that doesn’t automatically mean being able to detect people that aren’t carrying phones. To do that, you’d need to integrate the phone detection data with some other source of data on people present in the area in question. I’m saying there’s no evidence of such a system actually being used in practice. The paper you linked doesn’t address that at all. Btw, to help understand the technical challenges involved with this, the whole reason Tesla focused on vision-only for its self-driving was the difficulty of integrating sensor data from multiple sources, e.g. lidar + vision would be significantly more difficult to achieve. It’s not that this isn’t possible in theory - it’s just that there’s no evidence of anyone having done it for “lack of phone” detection, and that’s probably because it’s not really a requirement that’s in high demand.
boston_clone 1y ago
I leave mine at home, but you're right; I should also get some counter-facial recognition paint. However, my endeavor here is more focused on awareness and transparency for the masses than subterfuge for the individual.
dredmorbius 1y ago
"Israel targeted top Iranian leaders by hacking, tracing their bodyguards’ phones — report" <https://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-targeted-top-iranian-leaders-by-hacking-tracing-their-bodyguards-phones-report/ https://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-targeted-top-iranian-le...> I'm listing the Times of Israel first as it's an Israeli publication, though it cites the following NY Times article which researched the story: "Targeting Iran’s Leaders, Israel Found a Weak Link: Their Bodyguards" Despite all the precautions, Israeli jets dropped six bombs on top of the bunker soon after the meeting began, targeting the two entrance and exit doors. Remarkably, nobody in the bunker was killed. When the leaders later made their way out of the bunker, they found the bodies of a few guards, killed by the blasts. The attack threw Iran’s intelligence apparatus into a tailspin, and soon enough Iranian officials discovered a devastating security lapse: The Israelis had been led to the meeting by hacking the phones of bodyguards who had accompanied the Iranian leaders to the site and waited outside... <https://www.nytimes.com/2025/08/30/us/politics/israel-iran-assassination.html https://www.nytimes.com/2025/08/30/us/politics/israel-iran-a...> (Archive / paywall: <https://archive.is/XdZet https://archive.is/XdZet>) It's not just your phone, it's the phones of those around you. Whether or not you have a security detail. This is one factor which makes pervasive surveillance so absolutely insidious.