Department of Justice Harvests Cell Phone Data Using Planes 202
Tyketto writes The US Department of Justice has been using fake communications towers installed in airplanes to acquire cellular phone data for tracking down criminals, reports The Wall Street Journal. Using fix-wing Cessnas outfitted with DRT boxes produced by Boeing, the devices mimic cellular towers, fooling cellphones into reporting "unique registration information" to track down "individuals under investigation." The program, used by the U.S. Marshals Service, has been in use since 2007 and deployed around at least five major metropolitan areas, with a flying range that can cover most of the US population. As cellphones are designed to connect to the strongest cell tower signal available, the devices identify themselves as the strongest signal, allowing for the gathering of information on thousands of phones during a single flight. Not even having encryption on one's phone, like found in Apple's iPhone 6, prevents this interception. While the Justice Department would not confirm or deny the existence of such a program, Verizon denies any involvement in this program, and DRT (a subsidiary of Boeing), AT&T, and Sprint have all declined to comment.
About time for a Free baseband processor (Score:4, Interesting)
Having a database of the cell towers a phone *should* see in a given region (it should be possible to crowdsource that) should make it possible to throw an alarm if a cell tower with suspicious characteristics "appears" at some spot.
For that, we'd need reasonably documented baseband processors.
Of course, political involvment is the more adequate approach to a political problem. But why neglect the technical tools?
Re:About time for a Free baseband processor (Score:5, Funny)
Of course, political involvment is the more adequate approach to a political problem.
According to the US constitution, arms is the correct approach to governmental oppression.
But far be it for me to advocate the constitution, because that's illegal...
Re: (Score:2)
You sound like you're having subversive thoughts, citizen.
A car has been dispatched to bring you to the nearest thought re-alignment camp, where you will realize the government is here to serve you, and these are necessary steps.
Your kitchen should be dispensing a nice, tasty glass of Kool Aid for you.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, political involvment is the more adequate approach to a political problem. But why neglect the technical tools?
According to the US constitution, arms is the correct approach to governmental oppression.
But far be it for me to advocate the constitution, because that's illegal...
Why not both? The database of cell phone towers that shows you which tower you're connected to already exists:
http://opensignal.com/android/ [opensignal.com]
It's more useful for trying to figure out where to go to get the best signal in your environment, but if you can use it to figure out when you're being oppressed, then all the more power to you.
Re:About time for a Free baseband processor (Score:5, Informative)
"...Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government.......But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security
Re: (Score:3)
Don't confuse "legal" for "ethical", Mr. Rules Lawyer.
All people have a right - An obligation - To resist an oppressive government to the greatest extent possible. For some people, that means voting. For some, it means running for office. For some, it means running issues ads. For some, it means stalling paperwork as a low-level clerk in some off
Re:About time for a Free baseband processor (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem with this approach comes from trying to define 'oppressive.' You may like the idea of a clerk misplacing the paperwork required to authorise the use of force on peaceful protesters, yes. But elsewhere, another clerk has decided that the government has no right to 'redefine marriage' and is quietly smuging the ink on the appropriate applications to make sure gay couples don't get processed. Both would view themselves as the heroes, bravely risking their job to fight against a government exceeding lawful authority.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, the "why bother resisting treasonous dictators" crowd shows up. Good job sitting on the sidelines.
Re: (Score:2)
"Right of the People to alter or abolish it" and "their right [and] duty, to throw off such Government" kind of speaks to that. I think it is obvious that many of the same people involved in writing the Declaration of Independence were also instrumental in writing the Constitution.
They recognized that extreme measures may be called for to perform one's duty and that required being armed. Only blubbering idiots beholden to an ideology of lies would even consider the premise that the Founding Fathers had any
Re: (Score:2)
Unlike in the rest of the world, we as civilians have access to just about everything your standard infantryman is issued.
Re: (Score:3)
Sure they don't sell bombers and guided missiles, but then if we ever get to that point, there won't be much of a military left for the gov't to use against us, because they are US.
LOL. It is so cute when someone who has never served brings out the "they'll never attack US citizens!!! DERP!" line.
Here's how it goes down. First, the military brass will come up with some disparaging name for the citizens who are the new enemy, just as they did for every other war:
Next, the citizens (the bad ones) are depicted as subhuman. (The government will also
Re: (Score:2)
There are those that squealed like teenage girls when the President stopped by for a visit, but then the girls of the finance section are only a danger to you if you are a sugary baked good, the bulk of the rest of us would not tolerate the military turning on the civilian populati
Re: (Score:2)
Ah yes, the old "stop promoting adherence to an ancient document and get oppressed the modern way" argument.
Re:About time for a Free baseband processor (Score:5, Insightful)
The U.S. Constitution was written by people who had just violently overthrown their government, who were quoted saying things like "the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." If the American Revolution were happening today, King George would be calling them "terrorists." And you think the 2nd Amendment somehow doesn't suggest using force against government oppression?
Re: (Score:2)
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed
Where exactly does that text say anything about overthrowing the government?
Lets break this down: "Well regulated militia" because there was no standing military. Also, who do you think is actually doing the regulating? Why?"Necessary to the security of a free state" the 'militia' or 'military surrogate' defending its borders/people. "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" you can own a gun if you so choose, and no one can take it from you.
Looking at the time it was written, i
Re: (Score:2)
A properly functioning militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms sha
Re: (Score:3)
Although on the surface, that statement is technically correct (the best kind of correct), it is a bit disingenuous when folks stretch that definition to imply a lack of rul
Re: (Score:2)
And well regulated means registering with the government so it knows who has a gun so they can be called upon it times of invasion or insurrection.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Regulation doesn't mean "Control via government laws and edicts" in the 2nd Amendment. It means "well formed" and the SCOTUS decisions through the years have clearly indicated all able bodied men are to be considered the Militia.
If you want MHO, it means that EVERY able bodied man should be armed, according to his own conscience, and the government should fear its rightful masters, the citizens. The moment the government ceases to be afraid of its citizens, is the moment tyranny has already formed.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Militia still meant militia though, and not everybody.
It means just about everybody.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/usc... [cornell.edu]
US code Title 10, Section 311:
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
In other words, just about everybody.
Re: (Score:2)
a well regulated militia was the PEOPLE. That means the people have a right to bear arms....
And well regulated means registering with the government so it knows who has a gun so they can be called upon it times of invasion or insurrection.
No, it does not. It means "well trained".
No, it didn't. It meant that the guns had been properly tested.
Re: (Score:3)
The meanings of words change over time. This all gets confusing. A text with multiple meanings tends to reflect the reader's own views back upon them. Just look at what diversity of religious denominations may exist while sharing a common holy text.
Re: (Score:2)
You're both partially correct. A well-regulated militia, in the context of that century, meant that the militia was a precision organization, which by extension means properly trained and coordinated and ready to fight (e.g. with working weapons), as opposed to a loose-knit bunch of random people with guns that may or may not work. To that end, we have a well-regulated militia. It has five branches: the Army, the Navy, the Air Force, the Mari
Re: (Score:3)
It is quite apparent you have never read the words of the guy who wrote the Constitution, James Madison, because in both The Federalist Papers and in his own writings, he makes it very clear that the state shall have a listing of people to call up in case of invasion or insurrection and that these same lists would be used to insure the people could properly use their weapons.
In fact, this was the exact process put in place during Colonial times because how were you supposed to call up the militia if you did
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
While I applaud your interest in the Constitution, I'm not sure it says what you imply it says.
It just says that armies raised by Congress have to have a new budget written up every 2 years. This means that every newly elected House will have a say in continuing or changing the budget. One Congress can't set aside money for 10 years and send them off on an unpopular mission. The military budget ha
Re: (Score:2)
There is nothing in the Constitution about using arms against our oppressively corrupt government. You are thinking of the preamble of the Declaration of Independence.
Yes, I was. Which I consider a part of the constitution, because without the DOI, the constitution is null and void.
And to those who focused on the word "arms", I was not referring to firearms and the 2nd amendment at all - it's our duty to use what means we have to overthrow a despotic government no matter what type of arms we use - whether it's pitchforks, a designer virus, muskets, Internet mobs or beating them to submission with pink teddy bears. The trouble may be to get enough people to agree whethe
Re: (Score:2)
The DoI has no actual legal power or status. It's just a historical artifact.
Re: (Score:2)
There is nothing in the Constitution about using arms against our oppressively corrupt government. You are thinking of the preamble of the Declaration of Independence.
Yes, I was. Which I consider a part of the constitution, because without the DOI, the constitution is null and void.
What is or isn't part of the US Constitution is fact, not a matter of opinion. And the Declaration of Independence is not part of it.
Since much of the discussion mentions the 2nd Amendment, I'll just point out that many of us Americans are willing to take up arms, if need be, to defend the Constitution from the addition of new extra parts and conditions that have never been ratified.
Nobody cares what you "consider." What Americans care about is what is actually in the Constitution. This isn't England, we do
Re: (Score:2)
What Americans care about is what is actually in the Constitution.
No, sadly, most of them do not. Most of them care about what they can get the government to do for them so they don't have to do it themselves. If what they want done doesn't happen to mesh with what the Constitution says can be done, well, if you change the meaning of the words and read them backwards then the Constitution says you CAN do what I want...
Re: (Score:2)
What is or isn't part of the US Constitution is fact, not a matter of opinion. And the Declaration of Independence is not part of it.
No, but without the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution has no legality. It's just pieces of paper you could wipe your ass with if it were softer.
The DOI is the foundation on which the Constitution rests, and from which it derives its powers.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
but it also says the right of the people and every other amendment that uses people (or the singular, person) has never been interpreted by the right of the left to mean anything other than individuals. really. Why don't we read the first amendment as claiming that State governments have the right to make political speech but no individual person does? It really is that simple; either the Constitution guarantees the right of individuals to be armed or it does not guarantee the right of any individual to fre
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There's no need for a free/open source baseband or really any technical changes at all to fix this at a technical level. Just disable 2G/GSM on your phone (not sure what the equivalent would be for Verizon). 3G/UMTS onwards involves the phone/SIM authenticating the tower cryptog
Re: (Score:2)
"But at least the phone companies can know about it and mount a legal fight, if they so choose'
Really hard with current legislation.
Remember Lavabit? It's already been proven that the government has been using legal means to acquire the private keys of service providers for the purposes of MITM attacks just like this one.
Re: (Score:2)
Lavabit is a bad example - the FBI only requested the private SSL key directly after the Lavabit guy refused to co-operate with a more tightly scoped warrant and claimed he had no way to intercept the data of just the user they were interested in (Snowden) ..... a claim that was manifestly false and everyone knew it. If he had handed over just the data of the one user requested, the SSL key would probably still be private. But after proving that he was utterly unco-operative and quite possibly untrustworthy
Re: (Score:2)
Wouldn't that just be a GSM modem? Instead of giving a baseband processor direct access to a phone's memory and storage, these are controlled over a serial link using an enhanced AT command set [wikipedia.org]. That gives a decent level of isolation between the RF processor and phone logic so as to prevent a network operator from poking around in the phone's OS. It is also reasonably well documented and, although it still might be possible for a malicious operator to monkey around in the modem's RF system, the phone OS as
Re: (Score:2)
There are certain practical reasons for the memory access. It's basically DMA. Faster data transfer for less power. In mobile devices, power is everything. The baseband processor runs a seperate processor and OS for legal reasons - no need to get approval for ever new minor revision of a phone that way, and less chance of some clever hacker managing to root the thing and modify it to trample everyone else's timeslots and make sure they can still place calls when the network is overloaded.
Re: (Score:2)
You think making it illegal without a warrant will actually stop it? Keep dreaming.
Re: (Score:2)
"individuals under investigation" (Score:5, Funny)
i.e., "everyone".
Re: (Score:3)
Boeing cooperating with the government is like my son cooperating with me and taking out the garbage. I'm his biggest source of income.
get over it (Score:2)
It's like melamine in you baby food.
Don't give me no shuck about "legal", "constitutional" or "moral".
Just assume if it's technically possible, somebody is doing it, and act accordingly.
I know you're hiding somewhere with your damsons and prunes. Well I'm ready for you. I've wired meself up to 200 tons of gelignite, and if any one of you so much as makes a move we'll all go up together! Right, right. I warned you. That's it...
-- NOTE -- the quote was satire, relevant to the arms race you've created, NSA
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Cellphone reception issues? (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not exactly against them catching criminals, but how often has someone receive shitty cell service and 'drops' because of these fake towers?
If they have caused just one 911 call to fail or be delayed, someone needs to be pilloried.
The end does not justify the means.
Re: (Score:2)
Never?
Your phone communicates with multiple towers at any given time if they are in range.
Cell phones don't ALWAYS use the strongest signal, in fact, I don't know of any cell phone in the US which is set to use signal strength as the highest value in its tower selection.
Provider comes first. Your phone will select a weaker but usable tower from a list the provider provides it over a flawless signal from a tower that would cost it 'roaming' charges.
So it really doesn't matter what these boxes put out from a
Re: (Score:2)
Cell phones don't ALWAYS use the strongest signal, in fact, I don't know of any cell phone in the US which is set to use signal strength as the highest value in its tower selection.
Any GSM phone that is set to full roaming, where it deliberately picks the provider based on signal strength, not provider.
And 911 calls, especially for devices that do not have a provider. When I go hiking, I bring a cell phone without a SIM card, expecting it to work for 911 calls, without anyone being able to contact me. And I expect anything it contacts that identifies as a tower to be able to relay my calls for help.
Re: (Score:2)
When I go hiking, I bring a cell phone without a SIM card, expecting it to work for 911 calls, without anyone being able to contact me.
That's a dangerous assumption; it may work to call 911, but even if you're able to call 911 they won't be able to call you back if the call should get dropped. You can call back of course, but you have no guarantee that you'll end up talking to the same PSAP [wikipedia.org], never mind the same 911 dispatcher. Additionally, without a SIM card the phone won't even try to connect to a network until you attempt to place the 911 call, which will delay your 911 call for seconds or even minutes. CDMA phones work a little di
Re: (Score:2)
What YOU expect and reality are two different things. There is no 'full roaming', there is only 'unconfigured', and that ends the instant your phone connects to a network and is considered active. The preference list will be sent to your device before you make the first normal voice call. If you never activate a phone, you may not have a preference list, but thats extremely unlikely in america as pretty much every phone is sold in a way that its biased towards one of the major providers, even with no con
Re: (Score:2)
Your phone communicates with multiple towers at any given time if they are in range
Caveat: These boxes could authenticate themselves as your provider (Sprint, AT&T, Verizon, etc), but there is no need to do so to get the IMEA number of your device so there is no reason for them to fake being a real provider.
But then these devices don't even need to appear as having the strongest signal to get your IMEI number either. So, if TFS is correct and they are doing this, they are doing a lot more than recording serial numbers. They are tricking your phone into negotiating connections through them. So they can intercept the content of these connections. And all without a warrant.
Re: (Score:2)
It has a say in the process, a tower can reject you, but the phone can also reject the tower and choose another as it sees fit. The negotiation can be rejected by either party, but has to be accepted by both tower and phone.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not exactly against them catching criminals, but how often has someone receive shitty cell service and 'drops' because of these fake towers?
You don't understand. You're a criminal. We all are. It's impossible to get through a day in this country without breaking federal law. You've probably done it multiple times this morning and aren't even aware of it. The perp they're after is you.
Re: (Score:2)
Federal Laws (Score:4, Interesting)
People always say this, but they neglect to mention WHICH FEDERAL LAWS are being broken daily by everybody.
I suppose people either just assume it is true, or they know details but do not want to get too sidetracked... This video may help explain which laws we break daily: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
On a more on topic note, StingRay devices cover a broad range of uses. Some simply harvest unique cellular IDs, while others do much more to intercept communication and emulate legitimate towers. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Have you ever read Slashdot at work?
That's a federal crime. You're not authorised by the owner of the system to use it for reading slashdot, so your usage of it is unauthorised. It's supposed to be a law against hacking, it's just badly worded.
Re: (Score:2)
People always say this, but they neglect to mention WHICH FEDERAL LAWS are being broken daily by everybody.
You know, the secret ones. They can't tell you what they are, though, that'll ruin the surprise. The essence of surprise is critical. CRITICAL!
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
In 1982 the Justice Department tried to tally the number of Federal Criminal laws. After a full two years of investigation among 50 titles and 23K pages of law, they approximated 3,000. However, they could not come up with an exact count because of the breadth and depth of the source material. 32 years later the situation is almost certainly worse.
In 2013 Federal Agencies issued 3,659 final rules. A violation of any of which could tie you up in court for years trying to resolve.
A real-world example: a dru
Dumbed down for ... who? (Score:5, Interesting)
Not even having encryption on one's phone, like found in Apple's iPhone 6, prevents this interception.
WTF does this statement have to do in TFS? There cannot possibly be any slashdotters ignorant enough about technology to think that encryption of a device would have any impact on the radio signals?
I really miss /. - where did it go?
They Might be Giants Again (Score:2)
4th Amendment ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Unreasonable search and seizure.
I'm sorry, but this is blanket surveillance, without warrant, probable cause, or oversight.
At a certain point, the court needs to weigh in on this, because DoJ and the rest of law enforcement are completely ignoring the Constitution, the law, and pretty much everything else.
Why is this not landing these clowns in jail?
When your government becomes hostile to your rights, it's time to become hostile to your government.
Re:4th Amendment ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:4th Amendment ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Sadly, when 9/11 happened, they pretty much decided that the niceties of the Constitution and the law were far too dangerous to allow, and went straight to the fascism.
Essentially, the terrorists won, because they've more or less caused governments around the world to start ignoring our rights.
Now it's security at any costs, and since we're already tracking you, we'll pass that onto law enforcement and teach them how to hide the source of intelligence. Oh, and we'll share it among a bunch of other countries, and secretly enlist the corporations to hand over their data.
So, now we'll monitor everything you do, using laws we said we'd only use for terrorism, and then have the police perjure themselves to make it look like they obtained the information legally.
Papers please, comrade.
I wonder how long before they no longer feel the need to give us the illusion of freedom?
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder how long before they no longer feel the need to give us the illusion of freedom?
They'll keep it up as long as they can. Maintaining control through propaganda is preferable to maintaining it by force. It's cheaper and more stable. Most people still buy what they hear on the news. Even though people are starting to chafe under the surveillance, most still think it's about terrorism (as opposed to maintaining the status quo). If the powers that be do have to resort to jackboots in the streets, the media will make sure to characterize it in the right way. Again, most people will buy
Re: (Score:2)
They had requested the same level of rights pre 9-11. Using 9-11 as the moment they decided they wanted the powers is a lie. They wanted them and were told no many times. (-11 was convenient in scaring people enough to give up their privacy.
Re: (Score:3)
I do not disagree.
But 9/11 caused the passage of the PATRIOT act with very little thought for the consequences, and moved the "security at any cost" mentality into the daylight. And that was the one which gave them the keys to the kingdom to pretty much do anything they wanted.
Before 9/11, they had to at least pretend. After, they can do anything they want to in the light
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Some of this was started by Shrub. Some of this had been in the works for years before 9/11. Much of this was legalized in the days after 9/11 as everyone was in a panic. Some of it has been expanded since.
Now, all of the advisers are saying "gotta do this". All of the spy agencies are saying "fuck it, we're doing it anyway, even if we do have to lie to Congress".
When you create a climate of paranoia and hysteria, and suddenly d
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
As some comedian said recently, "the home of the brave" does not really fit anymore.
Is there anything Obama CAN do? (Score:2)
>> Yes, Obama has failed to stop it. But he didn't initiate it.
We voted for this guy to roll back the surveillance state, get out of the torture business, and retract our forces from Iraq. He had one job - roll back what someone else initiated - and he utterly failed.
>> I suspect a lot of people welcome this crap with open arms
How'd those past couple of mid-term elections go for the current pro-surveillance party (D)?
Re:Is there anything Obama CAN do? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Far from everybody were fooled by his charade. Many of us voted for him because the thought of Sarah Palin as Vice President was even worse and revealed a critical flaw in John McCain's leadership (while others were voting against McCain proper,) others were hoping to keep Republicans out of power period, and the next election, fielding Romney, was an even worse choice. So, no hope for change whatsoever and a desire to pick the lesser of two oligarchs.
If we're insistent upon an only-two-viable-party syste
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
when you learn that you have more than 2 choices, we will all be better off
as for obama and mccain, id say obama was the aids FWIW
Re: (Score:3)
I seem to recall a period of time where the Republicans more or less shut down government as they threw a major temper tantrum.
Are you honestly claiming that support for this crap doesn't enjoy support in both parties?
Because I'm afraid I'm going to call bullshit on that one. I'm not hearing Republicans saying this should stop.
BOTH partie
Re:I'm not hearing Republicans saying this should (Score:2)
>> I'm not hearing Republicans saying this should stop.
Meet Rand Paul (R): http://lmgtfy.com/?q=rand+paul... [lmgtfy.com]
Also, here's a 2013 poll demonstrating most of the support for wiretapping is now in the Democratic party:
http://blogs.marketwatch.com/c... [marketwatch.com]
Long story short, if you're not hearing people say it should stop, it's time to open your ears.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"We voted for this guy to roll back the surveillance state, get out of the torture business, and retract our forces from Iraq. He had one job - roll back what someone else initiated - and he utterly failed."
And don't forget the entire Russia is our friend and not a threat thing...
And how did that work out for you...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Same was true for all those calling out clinton under bushes admin.
there is nothing wrong will calling out the admin in power for abusing power, and deflecting to previous administrations is not only a useless fight, hes gone get over it but childish
I dont disagree with your point at all, but you also dont help with the way you go about it etiher
Re: (Score:2)
Possibly not because observation does not require warrant or a court order.
An example, someone is stealing stuff out of cars at a mall. An unmarked car cruises the mall looking for people breaking into cars.
This is not a search and is not taking anything. It is just observation which is completely legal.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Mod parent up (Score:2)
Thanks for that... I'm surprised that people on slashdot are calling for political solutions to political "problems" instead of technological solutions that do more to guarantee security and privacy against surveillance, be it "legal" or illegal.
I'll reserve my outrage for when using strong encryption becomes regulated.
And we used to make fun of my paranoid friend (Score:3)
I used to have a friend who was convinced that the CIA was flying around in black helicopters spying on everyone. Guess I owe him an apology. He just wasn't thinking big enough.
"Lap dog press"? (Score:3)
I find it interesting that we're getting great investigative journalism out of places like The Wall Street Journal - reread the name if you don't see the irony - rather than the New York Times, the Washington Post, etc. What ELSE do you guys know about that you haven't revealed yet?
From the Inside Out (Score:2)
As someone who has been through the federal justice system, I advise any American to assume that every piece of communication is tracked and saved under the guise of security. It was amazing to me how much information and how many resources the government has the ability to utilize if it wants to target one person, and even if I do make full restitution to my victims, I do not know if I will ever feel free again - not because of my situation, which you can read at The Market is not Random [tminr.com] - but because of
Awful, but ultimately not worth the effort? (Score:2)
The use of disposable phones, multiple SIM cards, etc, is a near-universal presence in any kind of mass entertainment featuring espionage or even semi-organized criminal enterprises.
Even at this point, how low-level and stupid do most criminals have to be to use/carry a cell phone any longer than absolutely necessary? And if they do use one, wouldn't it be a throwaway they would get rid of after a short period?
Ultimately sting-ray and it's ilk seem like they would just no longer be useful.
Re: (Score:2)
And if they do use one, wouldn't it be a throwaway they would get rid of after a short period?
That doesn't provide as much protection as you'd think it would. Criminals generally operate in a defined geographical area and it's rather trivial to look at the base stations serving that area to look for new devices popping onto the network. You then examine the numbers that those devices are calling; the game is over as soon as one of them places a call to a number that's already on your watch list. The Times Square would be bomber was caught this way; he used a burner phone that should have been unt
Had a weird one the other day (Score:2)
I had just landed at CLT airport from abroad. Turned on my Verizon phone and the little "roaming" triangle was flickering over the signal bars. Then I received some random text about subscribing to juice bar alerts (I get very few spam texts). So it may not be only the government up to this kind of shenanigans.
Flying Stringrays.... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't it about time we changed that line in The Star-Spangled Banner from: O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave ...to: O'er the land of the watched and the foul suspected knaves?
I think my country, 'Tis of Thee, would be a better and more mellow place if we reverted to the original lyrics to the song. [wikipedia.org].
Our problem is that too many fellow fucking Americans spend time looking for bogeymen instead of entwining the myrtle of Venus with Bacchus' vine.
Re: (Score:2)
Mmmm... conversate...
It's good to see evidence that the English language is still growing. Let's give this one a try: "I was conversating with these guys on slashdot." Yep, it works, though "conversing" would have saved a couple of keystrokes. Still, verbifying a noun that was nounified from a verb has a certain, je nes sais pas, roundness about it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I just do bilingual typos.
Re: (Score:2)
Were the government a force for good, I'd be pacified, but since they have proven to be in the service of big syndicate, I'm worried.
That's the problem of this post-modernist world. Your definition of "good" does not coincide with the next guy's definition of "good".
Re: (Score:2)
Because governmental employees get to decide when to enforce the law.