Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Florida Scandal, Mar 17, 2014.
Warrants were a good idea. Were. They seem to have found ways to dispense with them.
Can we try to not derail threads with stupid .jpg for once? That would be neat for those of us trying to keep up
Local LE are given grants by the department for homeland security to buy these devices.
If any of use tried to buy a stingray, we would ne reported to the nsa
The FCC are the ones who give le permission to use these devices (which have been around for about 20 years)
Your nice shiny 4g phone is backwards compatible, if it can't find a 4g/3g mobile tower it uses 2g.
This is the exploit these devices use.
The sad thing is its easily patched, but for what ever reason they won't
They block the higher 4g/3g bands which are encrypted so your phone reverts to 2g which isn't.
Thanks for the link Shaw. Hopefully the Feds won't charge u with conspiracy for posting a link.
From the above:
Does this work?
Is. It any better than turning the phone off or putting it in airplane mode? If we kept out phone off, turning it on briefly at intervals to collect messages, would that work just as well?
I agree. Part of the struggle here is to help the great unwashed masses try and understand the implications of LE use of this technology-- what it means to THEM and THEIR privacy. Do you want your government capturing and monitoring your porn consumption on your private laptop? Your late night chats with that hunky co-worker that your husband doesn't know about? You want the local hometown police to have the ability to track your movements as you make that late night visit to your local pot dealer or liquor store? What about the ability of that security camera on the street outside the Happy Ending Asian Spa massage parlor to use facial recognition to namefag you as a client?
First is the need to for the public to ACQUIRE the information. Techfags need to interpret the information, and understand the technology and its implications. Socialfags need to get this out to the public and get them off their asses so they demand change or justification. Politicalfags need to help organize the masses and steer the conversation to appropriate legal challenges and issues, so we aren't just yelling into the wind.
The formula for this is easy, but the execution takes work and coordination-- piss the public off, then point them where you want them to go, and make it easy for their short attention span selves to go there.
PISS--- POINT--- CLICK
To that I agree. Hell, it'd be interesting to see this device in action if just to divulge in intellectual curiosity. There is absolutely nothing wrong with legally protesting police abuse. I even mentioned in my post that this Stingray is proof that tools in the wrong hands has disastrous unintended consequences. (My exact words too.)
Current information about the device and how it functions might be enough for the more advanced to create a countermeasure without having to actually get the device. I hold the utmost confidence in the thought with enough info, a more savvy mind will figure it out. Considering that the ACLU is also taking action into finding out how these devices are being used (from the OP's post), perhaps more information will become available and the need to purchase one will not be required. There is also the slim possibility that with the ACLU getting involved, this Stingray will be discarded outright.
The issue here is whether or not obtaining the device by non-LE is in the realms of legal action or cost possibility. As I said: It wouldn't be too much of a stretch that the makers of this device don't allow sales to the average Joe and make those who do buy one sign away their lives in a mountain of paperwork. That way, should somebody create a work around or leaks info about it's inter workings, the search to who did it gets narrowed down quite a bit. Not to mention, based on the info, it probably costs more money than most here make in a year/lifetime.
Maybe a retired LE would be kind enough to leak/give the info if it is possible to do so? (It is a possibility the makers of the tool or the LE that use it must sign NDAs on it's workings. Although that is purely speculation on my part.)
People "get on their high horses" sometimes because a lot of times those "proposing things that doesn't go the same way law enforcement would like it to" involve things that are flat out illegal. You know how often WWP gets "crack this" or "DDoS that" from people who confuse Chanology/WWP Anons with the Anons they see on television responsible for some latest cracking attack.
The OP sounded almost similar to that since the legality of owning the device by a non-LE is in question. The OP didn't divulge much other than "buy this tool!" and a couple links to what happens when the wrong people get powerful tools. The OP has since clarified their intent and thus it is no longer in the same boat as those who wish illegal actions.
Your guess is as good as mine on this. Got me where this came from...
So if I disabled the 2g on my Android or jailbroken iPhone, it would not be trackable by this technology?
this thread gave out the wrong impression.
Quotes From the other thread stared by Florida Scandal that got him called a pedo.
This is done by the search engines limiting content, not forced by police.
"Alleged child predator stings"
These are child predator stings, not alleged. When you accuse ICAC and claim child predator stings are instead a group smearing innocent men going to sex sites you cause a atom bomb go off here. Internet pedophiles activists work with the ICAC, it is an excellent partner and has saved many children.
As soon as an innocent man realizes they are communicating with a minor they end the conversation or at least do NOT arrange for sex, this sting was not for chatting, this sting was for arranging sex with minors.
Florida Scandal- these are the comments that caused problems for you.
Yeah I have a problem with not filling in the blanks. The truth is that most if not all men do not arrange for sex when they realize that sex with a minor is being offered. Nonetheless, in any case, since these men are not suspected of being child predators or even criminals for that matter, it is a violation of their due process rights to try to talk them into a crime and be investigated for a crime that law enforcement created just to make an arrest.
Right as in you agree? This reminds me of a case where the man responded to an ad that was explicitly and obviously advertising sex with a grown woman on the casual encounters section in Craigslist. The man responded to the ad saying sure I will have sex with you and are you still interested. The undercover responded with something like "of course I am". Then the man masterbated and took pictures during the time and sent them to the undercover. The conversation ensued and there was initially never any mention of age because of the adult age on the ad (don't remember how old but certainly an adult). The undercover was encouraging him to come have sex with "her" getting the man even more "excited" for lack of a better word. It was not until the man was on his way over to the undercover location that the undercover stated, right in the middle of the sexually heated conversation that "she" was encouraging, "oh by the way, I'm only 15".
This man is in prison right now for this scenario which is obviously entrapment. It is even suspected that he was telling the truth about not ever seeing the message about the "girls" age. However, the Supreme Court stated in Reno v. ACLU that it is not illegal to talk about sex with someone on the internet simply because they state they are a minor and that it is a "heckler's veto" for law enforcement to knowingly go to a location where sexually explicit speech occurs and try to make that speech illegal merely by stating they are a minor.
Anyhow, that really should have been posted on the other forum but since it got brought up here the conversation got changed a little but back to the stingray.
So we can't get these devices confiscated by the FCC to force them to obtain the required warrants? So can we somehow get law enforcement to do an internal investigation using one of these devices to catch illegal conduct?
Doubt that. Do not labor under the illusion that the FCC would do something about it, even if they could or should. The FCC is a political agency, just like all the agencies of the federal government. Putting the ban hammer down on local law enforcement is not politically expedient for the President or Congress. The only way to goad the FCC (or any government agency, for that matter) into doing something that isn't politically favorable for them (outside of the legal system i.e. court order) is to goad the public into outrage, thus MAKING it politically favorable for them.
Motivating Congress is the key to getting federal agencies to act. Congress funds all those bitches, and they know it. There are two ways to motivate our House and Senate-- money or votes. We ain't got the money, but public opinion can swing votes. Coordinated social media campaigns can inform and motivate the public.
Also, the masses of the public are stupid and self absorbed. You cannot just "educate" the public, and then think they will act on it. You have to chunk it WAAAAY down and scare the shit out of them about SOMETHING. Make it relevant to THEIR lives in your message.
ACLU-FL Sues for Stingray Cellphone Spy Records
11. Stingray devices are manufactured and sold to law enforcement agencies by the Melbourne, Florida, based Harris Corporation. Stingrays mimic cell service providers’ towers and broadcast electronic signals that force cell phones in the area to register their identifying information and location. Stingrays collect information not only about specific targets of investigations, but also about hundreds or thousands of innocent third parties.
AND THERE IT IS! The government will be stopped violating the constitution as long as people like the ACLU and us exist!
Meh, all it does is track placement/location/users, the issue is what they do with the info, why anyone not doing drug deals, engaging in crime, would even care is beyond me.
Face it, if you think that any cell phone is secure from prying eyes, then you should go to the back of the bus.
Hm, I could be missing the point, but ffs, the airwaves will never be secure, such is life IMHO.
The reason I posted was because OP, who came onto WWP flailing, flaming and pirouetting around about "we" (meaning his Anonymous Personal Army) had to get these appliances and use them against the police.
If you remember...
.....is Florida Scandal a dumbass?
IRS use of 'Stingray' devices to track cellphones sparks Senate inquiry
Erin Kelly, USA TODAY 5:26 p.m. EST November 3, 2015
(Photo: Uncredited, AP)
168 CONNECT 64 TWEET 1 LINKEDIN 33 COMMENTEMAILMORE
WASHINGTON — The Internal Revenue Service's newly revealed use of controversial "Stingray" cellphone trackers has prompted an inquiry by Senate Judiciary Committee leaders about how and why the IRS is using the surveillance equipment.
“We were surprised to learn that IRS investigators may be using these devices,” Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa and ranking member Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., wrote in a letter to Treasury Secretary Jack Lew, who oversees the IRS.
The senators said they are concerned that the IRS could be invading Americans' privacy by using Stingrays.
Stingrays mimic cellphone towers, tricking phones within a certain radius to connect and feed data to police about users' approximate locations. They also can pick up text messages and other data.
Law enforcement agents say Stingrays are key to tracking down criminals, but the devices also sweep up data from Americans who are not suspected of any crime.
"The (Stingrays) indiscriminately gather information about the cell phones of innocent people who are simply in the vicinity of the device," the senators' letter said.
Stingrays have drawn fire from both conservatives and liberals in Congress, who charge that government agents have been using the devices without search warrants in violation of constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures.
Pressure from lawmakers recently pushed the Departments of Homeland Security and Justice to enact policies that require federal agents to obtain warrants in most cases before deploying Stingrays.
The Guardian, a British newspaper, published a story last week saying the IRS has purchased Stingrays. The newspaper cited documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act. Lawmakers said they were unaware that the IRS had the devices until they read the story.
On this IMSI catching, fake cell tower thing, it 's not impossible to hack something together that doesn't require a massive budget...
Defcon 18 - Practical Cellphone Spying
Defcon 21 - Traffic Interception and Remote Mobile Phone Cloning with a Compromised CDMA Femtocell
and maybe combine something with War Kitteh
DEF CON 22 - Gene Bransfield - Weaponizing Your Pets: The War Kitteh and the Denial of Service Dog
Thank you thank you for the WarKitteh and the Denial of Service Dog!
Unbeknownst to Coco, he’d been fitted with a collar created by Nancy’s granddaughter’s husband, security researcher Gene Bransfield. And Bransfield had built into that collar a Spark Core chip loaded with his custom-coded firmware, a Wi-Fi card, a tiny GPS module and a battery—everything necessary to map all the networks in the neighborhood that would be vulnerable to any intruder or Wi-Fi mooch with, at most, some simple crypto-cracking tools.,
Enjoy, I laughed the whole way through.
Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!