Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Monday August 21 2017, @07:44AM   Printer-friendly
from the Don't-have-a-COW dept.

The acting head of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement says that the agency does not use cell-site simulators, aka IMSI-catchers or "StingRays", to locate undocumented immigrants:

The acting head of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the federal agency charged with deportations, has confirmed in a new letter that it does not use cell-site simulators, also known as stingrays, to locate undocumented immigrants. In the August 16 letter, which was sent to Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR), acting Director Thomas Homan wrote that, since October 2015, ICE has followed similar guidelines put in place by the Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security a month earlier, which require a warrant before deploying a stingray.

[...] The Homan letter makes a point though to say that "interference with non-targeted mobile devices is virtually nonexistent."

As he continued:

The mobile identifier of non-targeted mobile handsets is verified by the cell-site simulators automatically as a non-target and sent back to the best mobile network. This process is conducted in an amount of time that is not noticeable to the user. If a call is placed or received during the exact instant the verification is taking place, interference may result. The equipment software has provisions to allow a captured device one currently engaged by the cell-site simulator to return to the host network if the captured device initiates a call. In all circumstances, devices are always able to dial 911 without any disruption of service.

This description is curious given that a Friday warrant application, filed by an FBI agent in a drug case in Wisconsin, describes "service disruption" to phones that aren't targeted by the stingray as being "brief and temporary."


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by takyon on Tuesday August 22 2017, @02:40AM (5 children)

    by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Tuesday August 22 2017, @02:40AM (#557357) Journal

    He got butthurt over having several flamebait submissions deleted while two others got mashed up in a way he didn't like. Now you're seeing him protest these decisions (indistinguishable from a temper tantrum).

    --
    [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 23 2017, @08:54AM (2 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 23 2017, @08:54AM (#557902)

    [11:07:19] I tried to defang anonystarchus a bit - is the dept. line OK: https://soylentnews.org [soylentnews.org]
    [11:07:20] ^ �03Error�
    [11:07:55] upstart: go error yourself, you dumb bot!
    [11:09:34] Maybe if I had editor privs

    AC below may well have a valid point. Just saying.

    _anonystarchus_

    • (Score: 2) by takyon on Wednesday August 23 2017, @01:58PM (1 child)

      by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Wednesday August 23 2017, @01:58PM (#558005) Journal

      Department

      May be ignored by the Editors. They are a strange lot.

      Flamebait that you submit may also be ignored, deleted, or heavily edited.

      It's also bleedingly obvious that you are the only one posting those stories and certain comments.

      If you quote from IRC you need to use HTML entities so that the names don't turn into tags and disappear:

      &lt;NAME&gt; → <NAME>

      --
      [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 23 2017, @08:27PM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 23 2017, @08:27PM (#558154)

    As we do not want this used against non-spamers, we monitor all spam mods to make sure moderators are not abusing the spam mod. If we find a moderator that unfairly applied the spam mod, we remove the mod giving the poster back the Karma points, and the modder is banned from modding for one month.

    Except when "we" are giving the spam mods? Shame, eds, shame!