4 ms·
>Stingrays don't "force" your cell phone to do anything. Your cell phone reaches out and connects to it of its own accord. A distinction without a difference.
by fnordfnordfnord 12y ago
>Stingrays don't "force" your cell phone to do anything. Your cell phone reaches out and connects to it of its own accord.
A distinction without a difference. That's the nature of the prevailing wireless telephony technology. Users wouldn't be able to receive telephone calls if their equipment didn't coordinate periodically with the cellular system's base stations. Although a system that doesn't constantly leak user's data could conceivably be constructed, that is not what is currently in use. Turning one's phone off to avoid tracking isn't a good solution because then the device has ceased being a telephone.
>Your phone transmits your private data into the aether at the user's direction.
No, nobody directs their phone to 'transmit their private data into the aether' people direct their phones to place and receive telephone calls.
>I think this fact has major Constitutional implications.
I think you're inventing a business case for some group such as Aereo's engineers to form another technology company whose purpose is to engineer around weaknesses in the law.
> The police should not need a warrant to access information that you carelessly broadcast onto the public airwaves.
Telephone calls are private. Nobody would select 'carelessly broadcast my information' in their privacy options. The change in technology doesn't render privacy protections in the law moot.
>I don't think there is any privacy expectation there
I hope you're in the minority.
>(another example of judges not understanding technology?).
Perhaps they've rightly noted that a particular weakness of the technology du jour is unrelated to the individual's legal right to privacy.
- mason240 12y agoThe article initially claims that >Once these devices connect, the stingray can be used to actually eavesdrop on conversations, text messages, and web browser activity. Yet further reading shows that "all" it can do is triangulate your position, something no where near actually intercepting data.
- fnordfnordfnord 12y agoSomeone is probably playing fast and loose with terminology. There are apparently a number of optional capabilities. https://info.publicintelligence.net/Harris-SurveillancePriceList.pdf https://info.publicintelligence.net/Harris-SurveillancePrice... http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/09/meet-the-machines-that-steal-your-phones-data/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/09/meet-the-machines...
- nitrogen 12y agoI can see why it might be tempting for technologists to create these surveillance technologies -- a single Stingray II is quoted at $148000.
- rayiner 12y ago> A distinction without a difference. There is an enormous difference between you reaching out and contacting the outside world, and the police coming into your private space. > That's the nature of the prevailing wireless telephony technology. Then the prevailing wireless telephony technology is inherently incompatible with privacy under the 4th amendment.
- fnordfnordfnord 12y ago>There is an enormous difference between you reaching out and contacting the outside world, and the police coming into your private space. That's an important point of debate at the moment. I'm happy to report that one state disagrees with you at least WRT e-mail. http://txepc.org/sine-die/ http://txepc.org/sine-die/ >Then the prevailing wireless telephony technology is inherently incompatible with privacy under the 4th amendment. Actually it's not all that different from a POTS from the perspective that there are plenty of exploitable weaknesses in those systems as well; yet, despite despite weaknesses that would allow similar technological solutions to provide police with unencrypted telephone traffic, we've managed to keep a statutory barrier between police and our private conversations when they are held on a POTS. If I understand you correctly, your argument basically boils down to "When it becomes physically possible for police to eavesdrop on communications, they ought to be allowed to do so at will."