From the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF)
Sen. Ron Wyden has sent a letter to the U.S. Department of Justice concerning disruptions to 911 emergency services caused by law enforcement's use of cell-site simulators (CSS, also known as IMSI catchers or Stingrays). In the letter, Sen. Wyden states that:
Senior officials from the Harris Corporation—the manufacturer of the cell-site simulators used most frequently by U.S. law enforcement agencies—have confirmed to my office that Harris' cell-site simulators completely disrupt the communications of targeted phones for as long as the surveillance is ongoing. According to Harris, targeted phones cannot make or receive calls, send or receive text messages, or send or receive any data over the Internet. Moreover, while the company claims its cell-site simulators include a feature that detects and permits the delivery of emergency calls to 9-1-1, its officials admitted to my office that this feature has not been independently tested as part of the Federal Communication Commission's certification process, nor were they able to confirm this feature is capable of detecting and passing-through 9-1-1 emergency communications made by people who are deaf, hard of hearing, or speech disabled using Real-Time Text technology.
The full text of the letter can be read here.
Researchers of CSS technology have long suspected that using such technologies, even professionally designed and marketed CSS's, would have a detrimental effect on emergency services, and now—for the first time—we have confirmation.
So not only does it snoop on all calls in the area, it also disrupts emergency calls. And why is everything about Stingrays, even their existence, such a huge secret, even to the point of dropping prosecutions?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by jmorris on Tuesday August 28 2018, @06:14PM (34 children)
Anyone who is posting here should be able to figure out the secrecy around Stingrays. Only two ways they can do what they do.
1. The government has the private keys of every cell provider. From the big four down to the smallest reseller of burner phones and SIMs.
2. The entire cell network's security, all these years after a demonstration that 2G was entirely breakable, is still intentionally insecure and a menace to national security. That isn't being done so law enforcement can bag a few drug dealers.
Once you understand that the nature of the cell network leads to one of those two, and only those two, conclusions it be painfully obvious why it all wrapped in secrecy. And again, since all this is obvious to anyone skilled in these arts, all nation states understand this, so the secrecy is not for them. It is to prevent citizens in Western countries from realizing how totally they have been betrayed by their own governments and perhaps / probably the telecoms.
(Score: 2) by crafoo on Tuesday August 28 2018, @06:18PM (13 children)
after the retroactive immunity granted to the telecoms for their felonies / crimes against the citizens, and what happened to the one CEO that held out against the government .. I'm inclined to believe your Option #1 is the case.
(Score: 2) by hendrikboom on Tuesday August 28 2018, @09:51PM (11 children)
Which CEO? What company? And what was done to him?
(Score: 3, Funny) by Joe Desertrat on Tuesday August 28 2018, @09:55PM (9 children)
Exactly.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday August 28 2018, @10:33PM (8 children)
(Score: 3, Informative) by sjames on Wednesday August 29 2018, @02:00AM (7 children)
Your "urban myth" is named qwest. It was the one holdout that wouldn't hand call records over to the NSA.
The CEO was Joseph P. Nacchio. He went up the river for insider trading after his defense was barred from presenting evidence based on a dubious national defense claim by the prosecution.
The remains of Qwest were absorbed by Centurylink.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday August 29 2018, @12:05PM (5 children)
(Score: 2) by sjames on Thursday August 30 2018, @08:33AM (4 children)
Perhaps OP didn't remember the name. That didn't make what he said a myth, it made it incomplete.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday August 30 2018, @11:36AM (3 children)
(Score: 2) by sjames on Thursday August 30 2018, @05:16PM (2 children)
OTOH, the information found it's way to the page with no problem, so youi got your spoon feeding after all. Was it nummy?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday August 31 2018, @03:47AM
Indeed, my little buttercup.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday August 31 2018, @12:34PM
So did hendrikboom who asked in the first place. Remember one poster, many readers. Foisting work off on your reader wastes much more time than it saves.
(Score: 2) by hendrikboom on Monday September 03 2018, @11:31PM
Thank you.
(Score: 3, Informative) by fadrian on Tuesday August 28 2018, @11:02PM
Qwest.
That is all.
(Score: 2) by canopic jug on Wednesday August 29 2018, @03:01AM
I'm inclined to believe your Option #1 is the case.
I'm inclined to say both because the two scenarios are not mutually exclusive. It is feasible to both extort the CEOs and have a permanently insecure network design. After all, look at former Qwest CEO Joseph Nacchio and what happened to him. It was then easy to hang the same threat over the executives at other companies. Yet at the same time look at the mobile phone networks, which although they still require the phone to authenticate to the network, they still do not require the network to authenticate to the phone.
Money is not free speech. Elections should not be auctions.
(Score: 5, Informative) by DannyB on Tuesday August 28 2018, @06:21PM (1 child)
That is similar to the two theories that I've long maintained. (in reverse order)
1. The security was designed a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away. It is extremely vulnerable. The secret is that Stingray uses some exploit that any high school kid would be able to exploit. Possibly many exploits.
2. There are stolen credentials or crypto keys. If what keys were used became known, the stolen keys / credentials would be revoked and Stingray would be over.
I've posted that here before. I can only agree with you -- YES -- that is the explanation for the extreme secrecy.
They are willing to drop prosecutions or commit perjury rather than disclose anything about Stingray. For a long time even its existence was secret. And local police that were allowed to use one had to agree to keep its very existence a secret (from TechDirt story quite some time back).
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Tuesday August 28 2018, @08:13PM
What I am wondering right now is how often do my local Police use these things?
I am not American, and have never heard a single mention about Stingrays in my local media which makes me wonder why.
It is fairly widely assumed in my country that the media takes special care on reporting about the Police because they get so much access when they want it.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 28 2018, @06:23PM (16 children)
Experience has repeatedly shown we are being surveilled 24/7 -- some under greater scrutiny than others.
Short of a revolution, there is nothing we can do about it, and even that would only grant a VERY short reprieve.
Damned technology makes it not only possible, but quite cheap.
What government ever willingly gave up control? NONE.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 28 2018, @06:42PM (2 children)
Tech can also make it cheap to be relatively secure, but first you have to prevent those nasty NS letters from preventing businesses from reporting backdoor requirements and constitutional violations.
National security, HA! The last 17 years have put a lot of evidence to that lie, even with so much hollywood complicity trying to sell us "scurry turrists!!!" stories.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 28 2018, @07:32PM (1 child)
I'm old enough to remember when as kids we'd let someone do something or just shrug after they did it and, "It's a free country."
Is that expression even known anymore?
(Score: 2) by Joe Desertrat on Tuesday August 28 2018, @09:59PM
Well, yes, but we ordinary citizens do not inhabit those circles anymore.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 28 2018, @07:34PM (12 children)
Hey mods, the parent post is simple, demonstrated fact.
I didn't know on-topic facts were now considered trolls.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 28 2018, @07:57PM (4 children)
A post can be on topic and yet deliberately provocative. (Or offensive, but I don't know that applies in this case).
The truth can be delivered in a method which is deliberately provocative, too.
So yep. On-topic facts (if this is any of the above - not proven) can be considered a troll. So can tinfoil hat theories.
You're welcome.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 28 2018, @08:13PM (3 children)
"Provocative" in this case is pretty subjective.
No personal attacks, no call for attacks on people.
I see nothing more provocative in my post than ones that get ++ upmods here.
As a matter of fact, I have seen so many personally attacking posts from named accounts that seem to dominate this site get +2 or higher.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 28 2018, @08:21PM (2 children)
Welcome to this site where the group think is real. I'm surprised your post got modded troll though, doesn't seem in keeping with the general site aesthetic.
There has been a major uptick in alt-right trolling, and those types tend to intersect with authoritarian "its the law" types, so yeah your post might trigger them. Or possibly some people are just overly sensitive to harsh words and are downmodding everything that even comes close.
this site is infested and becoming more authoritarian all the time, of course the aforementioned people will try and play whataboutism and project their flaws onto others.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday August 29 2018, @12:52AM
Oh come now! Group think? Can such a motley crew agree on anything? Yes, there are our resident nazis, but last I checked our red brothers and sisters were still with us. That's why I personally love it here--we have every flavor of asshole. Some are sour, while others are nutty.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday August 31 2018, @03:54AM
Two troll mod points is not group think. Keep in mind that subscribers get ten such mod points per day and that the above post received three other mods up to those two points.
(Score: 2) by requerdanos on Tuesday August 28 2018, @09:33PM (6 children)
Distributed community moderation takes the moderation opinions of the best and brightest, the moderation opinion of the average joes, and the moderation opinions of opinionated idiots, and aggregates them for a moderation result that is often astonishingly correct, considering that any person basically off the street can register an account and start moderating with no qualifications whatsoever.
Of course, the system is imperfect, and sometimes the not-so-great moderators carry the moderation for a particular post.
Often, if a post is initially modded down against the spirit of moderation, it will be later modded up. The site's moderator guidelines [soylentnews.org] say, in part, "Concentrate more on promoting than on demoting. The real goal here is to find the juicy good stuff and let others read it." Thus, those following the guidelines will often promote posts that need it irrespective of whether they agree with them or like them. Right now the post is showing as "0, Troll" which means it's been modded down, then up at least once each.
The surveillance state, pervasive corporate surveillance, and constant attacks on the privacy of individuals aren't a conspiracy theory, but rather are pretty well supported [aclu.org] by [theguardian.com] evidence [theintercept.com]. Anyone who thinks that mentioning this is "trolling" probably is in the minority, especially on a site such as this one.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 28 2018, @09:55PM (4 children)
Democratic moderation is great, but there has been much political troll modding recently. As in entire threads being systematically modded Troll.
They're not hiding anything from me; the site is small enough that I can read everything at -1, but there are more people who will collectively organize a down modding campaign than there are people that care about up modding.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 28 2018, @11:23PM (3 children)
If you pay attention you'll notice there was a massive user drop off in the recent past. Some still float around, probably quite a few lurk, but people are tired of the same old arguments that go nowhere.
I think it was the repeated spamming of lame arguments by the resident ancap troll, the nasty violence posts, and the d**k n****rs spam. Obviously some little turd just couldn't handle being wrong and downmodded for repeatedly spamming the site so he decided to just spam the worst shit he could. I bailed on the site for a little while, and I continue to consider leaving altogether.
There used to be enough active users on both sides that bad moderation would usually be corrected. If your post was left downmodded it was a good indication that it was just bad. Recently the downmods are just stupid and the upmods are often pretty bad as well.
The extreme moderation of submitted articles also seems to have taken a toll in the ultimate irony of the catchphrase "soylent news is people" and the about section's "We are a volunteer-powered news aggregation site that deliver articles about technology, science, and general interest. .... Now, go forth and submit stories, comment, moderate, and be free!"
I've seen many articles in the queue that never reach publication, and while I agree there needs to be a minimal moderation of submissions to prevent blatant garbage there is now a concerted effort to minimize any controversy. Free indeed, we are now subject to the whims of the editors and stories where I really want to see the community's thoughts have been censored.
I'm poisoning the well with this list, but from the current submission queue I grabbed the most controversial articles. Let's see what gets through.
https://soylentnews.org/submit.pl?op=viewsub&subid=28635¬e=&title=Trump%E2%80%99s+tweet+echoing+white+nationalist+propaganda+about+South+African+farmers%2C+explained [soylentnews.org]
https://soylentnews.org/submit.pl?op=viewsub&subid=28639¬e=&title=The+Biggest+Threats+to+Humanity [soylentnews.org]
https://soylentnews.org/submit.pl?op=viewsub&subid=28653¬e=&title=Reddit+moderators+spotted+Iranian+fake+news+campaign+months+ago [soylentnews.org]
https://soylentnews.org/submit.pl?op=viewsub&subid=28664¬e=&title=DNC+votes+to+limit+influence+of+superdelegates+in+presidential+nominating+process [soylentnews.org]
https://soylentnews.org/submit.pl?op=viewsub&subid=28672¬e=&title=The+Oscar+Wilde+of+YouTube+fights+the+alt-right+with+decadence+and+seduction [soylentnews.org]
https://soylentnews.org/submit.pl?op=viewsub&subid=28673¬e=&title=The+United+States+didn%27t+sign+the+Paris+Climate+Accord%2C+but+beats+the+whining+signers+-+Washington+T [soylentnews.org]
The Emperor's New Clothes has never been a more fitting analogy for a variety of the current problems we are facing.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Wednesday August 29 2018, @12:20AM
Users were always subject to the whims of editors. They kind of have to take the submissions and post them. Otherwise the submissions just sit around in the sub list.
There is a concerted effort to minimize the posting of blatant garbage. As there should be. Users leave over trashy political stories.
And yet, if users want to talk about immigrants in Sweden, the exploits of the alt-right, or some other flamebait topic, they can write a journal about it. If they can't be arsed to make an account with a throwaway email, that's their problem.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 29 2018, @04:17AM
I hadn't noticed. I have been watching for high account numbers to see how the site is growing. ie not much at all, we are still a small community. What are we up to ~6k people?
The green site survived a whole lot worse, what with hot grits, goatse.cx, Natalie Portman and the Penis Bird people if I remember correctly. I think crazy story guy was allowed to linger for too long, but the DN idiots were frustrated in their efforts pretty quickly. I am getting annoyed at what appears to be block troll modding by a group of people that is willing to put in that much time to downmod things they politically don't agree with. But it will take a lot worse to get me to stop reading here.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday August 31 2018, @04:17AM
Yay, a concern troll. What exactly is the point of complaining about the site because of people who obviously are working counter to the goals and wishes of the site and its community? Should SN block all the stupid people in the world? Are you perhaps one or more of the very trolls you claim to be concerned about?
Many of those stories have serious problems with them such as a lack of content (at least three have that problem), narcissistic submitters who can't tell a story with even a moderate amount of objectivity (aristarchus being a particularly notorious example who shows up twice in your list), and links to websites with nasty behavior (such as TMB linking to the Washington Times).
Shitty != controversial.
How would that even work as an analogy? Or perhaps the "more fitting" in this context merely means that the analogy is purely delusional?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 28 2018, @09:56PM
I figure there are some here who have a vested interest in trying to quell such discussion.
(Score: 1) by nitehawk214 on Tuesday August 28 2018, @10:19PM
Makes sense. Also, the need to keep this a secret prevents this from ever helping a citizen. Since using it would reveal it, it's only used to protect the state itself, where it can be cover d by national security letters.
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh