
Congressman introduces bill to end warrantless Stingray surveillance - rcurry
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/04/house-bill-end-warrantless-stingray-surveillance-jason-chaffetz
======
JustSomeNobody
Why aren't there anti-stingray ROMs or apps yet?

In my, admittedly naive, understanding is that cel towers have signatures. For
instance, using Tasker for Android, I can know when I'm near home by the tower
it detects. When the Stingray overpowers that tower, can't I just have a
tasker task or an app or something that would detect that and shut down my
celphone?

*Note: I don't really need this, but if the law wants a tech fight, they should get one.

~~~
kazazes
The existing Android solution only works for Qualcomm chipsets [1], so it must
require some radio-level access to verify the presence of an IMEI device. You
won't be seeing it in the iOS App Store. Maybe someone can find the relevant
private APIs to make it happen.

[http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/12/31/snoopsnit...](http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/12/31/snoopsnitch_is_an_app_by_the_german_srlabs_that_detects_imsi_catchers_stingrays.html)

~~~
toomuchtodo
Preventing an iPhone from downgrading to 2G (as a user-configurable option)
would solve the problem. 3G/4G/LTE prevents spoofed tower issues.

------
rcurry
I like the idea of a 10 year prison sentence for surveillance of cell phones
without first obtaining an actual warrant.

~~~
roflchoppa
10 years seems to be a long time. How ever i do feel that there needs to be a
way to keep people that work in the public sector under checks that can affect
their personal liberties. it emphasizes the check.

~~~
pdkl95
The specific number of years is a tunable value. Any prison sentence at all
sends an important message about the importance of respecting personal
liberties.

As for the length, a good argument can be made that violations done _under the
color of authority_ [1] should always be punished more severely than "regular"
violations of the law. The people who have the power to enforce the law have
much greater power than the average citizen. Abuse of that greater power
should require a similarly larger punishment.

That said, I have no idea if 10 years is appropriate. If it isn't I'm sure a
better length of time can be negotiated.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_%28law%29](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_%28law%29)

~~~
maxerickson
So why not make an abuse of power registry and require people that have been
convicted of abusing power to disclose this fact?

It would also be necessary to have hiring institutions publicize that they are
hiring a power abuser (i.e., if a police chief didn't care about the previous
abuse of power he would still be required to inform the community of the
situation).

Someone running for office would be required to do it to, it'd be great, tack
"I was convicted of blah blah blah" on somewhere near the "I approve this
message".

The above is still a much more substantial punishment than I would want to see
for an average citizen that was eavesdropping on cell phone calls.

~~~
pdkl95
> eavesdropping on cell phone calls

That's not the part that warrants a strong punishment. Jail time is justified
for the abuse of power while acting under the color of law. The particulars
about that abuse (eavesdropping on a cell phone) is less important.

> registry

While this is an interesting idea, I caution strongly against creating any
kind of "registry". The current examples we have seen (e.g. "sex offenders")
has shown how registries dilute important concepts like "innocent until proven
guilty" when presence on the registry doesn't map 1-to-1 with "found guilty
beyond a reasonable doubt".

Even more worrying is the idea that someone should be tainted for life (or "a
long time") for a mistake. Branding people with a modern "scarlet letter" for
their mistakes doesn't create an incentive for that person to change their
behavior[1]. Once someone has "paid their debt to society", they deserve a 2nd
chance that is free of past accusations.

There may be a way to make some aspects of a registry work without these
problems, but I'm haven't seen it.

[1]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBmJay_qdNc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBmJay_qdNc)
("The Truth About Dishonesty")

~~~
scintill76
Another unfortunate thing about the sex offender registry is that it lumps,
e.g., 18-year-olds who had a 17-year-old quasi-consensual partner (whom the
law decrees can't actually consent), together with much worse criminals -- at
least under some jurisdictions' laws. I suppose an abuser-of-power registry
would have similar issues with minor infractors getting too much punishment
because people pay more attention to "he's listed" than to what he actually
did.

------
randomname2
Interestingly Congressman Chaffetz is a Republican, good to see him stand up
for the Bill of Rights rather than give lip service to it.

~~~
acheron
Obviously. If he were a Democrat, since this is something "good", the headline
would have said "Democratic Congressman".

Same as if something bad happens the headline will say "Republican
Congressman" but leave out party affiliation the other way.

Bias in journalism mostly isn't a matter of just making things up (Dan Rather
aside) or injecting blatant opinions into news (though that happens sometimes
too), but a matter of which stories get pushed and how they get framed.

~~~
pstuart
Dan Rather was likely set up. The gist of his story was true: GWB went AWOL
during his "service". Then the media focused on Rather instead of the Bush's
behavior. Karl Rove was a genius manipulator.

~~~
pstuart
[https://theintercept.com/2015/10/27/george-w-bush-was-
awol-b...](https://theintercept.com/2015/10/27/george-w-bush-was-awol-but-
whats-truth-got-to-do-with-it/)

------
discardorama
Why do you even need a bill for this? It's against the Constitution!

~~~
laotzu
>In time of actual war, great discretionary powers are constantly given to the
Executive Magistrate. Constant apprehension of War, has the same tendency to
render the head too large for the body. A standing military force, with an
overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. _The means of
defense against foreign danger have been always the instruments of tyranny at
home._ Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a
revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the
pretext of defending, have enslaved the people.

-James Madison, Speech, Constitutional Convention (1787-06-29)

------
mtgx
I don't get why scenarios involving FISA are exempt. Stingray surveillance is
a _physically local_ thing - FISA is about spying on foreigners living abroad
- is it not? I mean don't privacy laws apply to foreigners visiting the U.S.,
too?

It seems to have a few too many loopholes for my taste, but I guess it could
eliminate 80% of the abusive uses of Stingrays out there.

~~~
Laaw
Foreigners living abroad communicate with people in the US.

------
notthemessiah
Wouldn't the FISA exemptions for this bill be subject to the same Section 702
loophole that permits PRISM to exist?

------
ck2
I wonder if police will also harass congresspeople, guess we are about to find
out.

~~~
benjarrell
Yes they will, and they already have with this same congressman:
[http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/secret-service-broke-
pri...](http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/secret-service-broke-privacy-law-
embarrass-critic-inspector-general-n436541)

------
supergeek133
Wasn't this illegal already? Or no?

~~~
rcurry
It's covered under those more obscure and ambiguous parts of the constitution
that law enforcement has always struggled to understand - you know, like the
1st and 4th amendments.

