Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

×

Comment: Re:But can it protect users against the Stingray? (Score 1) 45

If the Stingray is a threat to you, then I hope you're convicted of the criminal activities that make it so.

'Criminal activities that make it so' like civil rights protests and political demonstrations and gatherings?

You must share the government's views on what it would like to consider 'criminal' (basically anything it doesn't like, makes it look bad, limits government power, or interferes with the ability to confiscate and redistribute wealth as it sees fit).

Strat

Comment: Re:FCC? (Score 1) 147

by BlueStrat (#49167015) Attached to: Feds Admit Stingray Can Disrupt Bystanders' Communications

You keep insisting, not only in this article but also in other Stingray-related /. articles, that the NTIA allows the Feds to do whatever they want radio-spectrum-wise

I have said no such thing. In fact, whenever people like you try to twist what I've actually said into this lie, I've corrected you in public.

Once again, I find myself wasting time responding to people who either cannot understand the difference between "not subject to FCC rules" and "not subject to any rules", or who deliberately ignore the difference so they can lie about what I've said.

There you go again, trying to sidetrack and obfuscate the central issue. Neither the NTIA nor any other federal law or regulation allows Stingrays to be legally used in the manner that law enforcement has used them. That's why Stingray use by LE has been so secretive in the first place.

The fact is that the US government has been taken over by fascist oligarchs who wipe their asses with the Constitution, Civil Rights, Due Process, and Rule of Law, thus it is no longer the legitimate government of the US and has exactly the same type of authority that the Crips and Bloods have in L.A.. The power of fear, guns, and violence.

The US Government has slowly over the decades morphed to an ongoing organized criminal enterprise.

Strat

Comment: Re:Default Government Stance (Score 1) 147

by BlueStrat (#49166639) Attached to: Feds Admit Stingray Can Disrupt Bystanders' Communications

The FBI's activities are specifically authorized by a host of laws. That you didn't bother to learn about them doesn't invalidate their existence.

There is nothing there or in the NTIA that allows law enforcement agencies to violate FCC rules, especially without a warrant. Please point out the specific law that, in your opinion, authorizes such activities by law enforcement.

And even if such interference was allowed, that still does not invalidate 4th Amendment protections both for the intended targeted individual(s) nor the innocent people in the area whose civil rights are violated in the course of Stingray use.

Strat

Comment: Re:FCC? (Score 1) 147

by BlueStrat (#49166529) Attached to: Feds Admit Stingray Can Disrupt Bystanders' Communications

While I know it would never happen, I would love to see the FCC get involved in this. Spectrum is kinda their domain

But the FBI use of spectrum is not.

You keep insisting, not only in this article but also in other Stingray-related /. articles, that the NTIA allows the Feds to do whatever they want radio-spectrum-wise which simply and plainly is not the case.

I have to wonder if either you're that stubborn & obtuse, or do you get paid to shill?

Strat

Comment: Re:Canary in the Coal Mine (Score 1) 134

by BlueStrat (#49160211) Attached to: Under US Pressure, PayPal Stops Working With Mega

Based on what we're seeing, Paypal's previous history aside, it sounds rather like Paypal got served a National Security Letter telling them to dump MEGA.

It's the result of a US DoJ operation called "Operation Chokepoint" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O... which does an end-run around Constitutional limits on government power and the protections afforded by it to the people by putting pressure (Gee, we'd hate to have to come in and audit you to hell and back every 30 days for the next 10 years) on banks and other financial institutions and companies to stop doing business with those people & businesses the US government dislikes and/or finds inconvenient.

The US has become a 'Banana Republic', "democratic" and "representative" in name only, where corruption, greed, and lust for power pervades the entire system. The law no longer matters, it's who you know that matters.

All it will take is the right trigger for the US to go full fascist oligarchy.

Hey, I know! Let's put the government in charge of more stuff and give it more money and power! Problem solved!

Strat

Comment: Re:GNUradio? (Score 1) 131

We implement it as a chip that intercepts the serial bus to the VFO chip, and disallows certain frequencies. On FCC-certified equipment we might have to make that chip and the VFO chip physically difficult to get at by potting them or something. This first unit is test-equipment and does not have the limitation.

My main interest in this SDR project would be as part of a home-brew RF/digital test/research bench for a variety of mobile cell-based equipment and development of new types of devices for new uses.

How does a company like Harris Corp. get away with manufacturing/selling Stingrays for use in the US, and can this project possibly use the same technical exceptions used by Harris Corp. to negate the requirement to artificially cripple it?

Strat

Comment: Re:GNUradio? (Score 1) 131

The receiver has a block on certain cellular frequencies in the 800MHz band. This is the only restriction. The radio can tune to any frequency between 50MHz-1000MHz, otherwise.

Is this block implemented in software or hardware? Could it theoretically be bypassed/removed by someone technically oriented?

Strat

Earth

Lawmakers Seek Information On Funding For Climate Change Critics 386

Posted by Soulskill
from the all-about-the-benjamins dept.
HughPickens.com writes: John Schwartz reports at the NY Times that prominent members of the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate are demanding information from universities, companies and trade groups about funding for scientists who publicly dispute widely held views on the causes and risks of climate change. In letters sent to seven universities, Representative Raúl M. Grijalva, an Arizona Democrat who is the ranking member of the House committee on natural resources, sent detailed requests to the academic employers of scientists who had testified before Congress about climate change. "My colleagues and I cannot perform our duties if research or testimony provided to us is influenced by undisclosed financial relationships." Grijalva asked for each university's policies on financial disclosure and the amount and sources of outside funding for each scholar, "communications regarding the funding" and "all drafts" of testimony. Meanwhile Edward J. Markey of Massachusetts, Barbara Boxer of California and Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island. sent 100 letters to fossil fuel companies, trade groups and other organizations asking about their funding of climate research and advocacy asking for responses by April 3. "Corporate special interests shouldn't be able to secretly peddle the best junk science money can buy," said Senator Markey, denouncing what he called "denial-for-hire operations."

The letters come after evidence emerged over the weekend that Wei-Hock Soon, known as Willie, a scientist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, had failed to disclose the industry funding for his academic work. The documents also included correspondence between Dr. Soon and the companies who funded his work in which he referred to his papers and testimony as "deliverables." Soon accepted more than $1.2 million in money from the fossil-fuel industry over the last decade while failing to disclose that conflict of interest in most of his scientific papers. At least 11 papers he has published since 2008 omitted such a disclosure, and in at least eight of those cases, he appears to have violated ethical guidelines of the journals that published his work. "What it shows is the continuation of a long-term campaign by specific fossil-fuel companies and interests to undermine the scientific consensus on climate change," says Kert Davies.

Comment: Re:GNUradio? (Score 1) 131

This is meant to be an entire FCC type-approved transceiver with spurious emissions low enough to amplify to the full legal limit for the band.

Does being FCC Type approved mean there are certain frequency bands that are verboten? In other words, is the coverage continuous from 50mHz - 1gHz or are there required gaps?

I know that communications receivers capable of covering the cellphone bands were made illegal to sell in the US a while back. Just wondering how SDR will deal with such legislation going forward.

This may be a real concern where a SDR may cover bands where things like cellphones and police/military/air communications live and are heavily regulated and some portions restricted from even reception by unauthorized persons. Aren't many trunked police/fire/EMS radio systems in the 800mHz band, or is that dated? It's been a long time since I held an amateur radio license.

Strat

Comment: Re:But this isn't net neutrality at all... (Score 1) 593

by BlueStrat (#49126609) Attached to: Republicans Back Down, FCC To Enforce Net Neutrality Rules

Of course, we don't fully what the rules will do since they have been acting in secrecy!

They will be published when they are finalized.

We have to give the government the power to regulate the internet before we can know what they'll do to the internet.

Wait, this sounds sickeningly-familiar....

Oh well. I'm sure it'll be fine.

After all, it's only the same FCC that has pursued a "wardrobe malfunction" for nearly 8 years, pushed for the Fairness Doctrine, and whose "Diversity Czar" Mark Lloyd was quoted as admiring the way Chavez seized control of radio/TV/media and placed them under State control.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

I'm sure porn and less mainstream media outlets, political blogs, forums, etc that the government may dislike will have nothing at all to fear. /s (for the clueless)

Strat

Encryption

Gemalto: NSA and GCHQ Probably Hacked Us, But Didn't Get SIM Encryption Keys 98

Posted by Soulskill
from the hand-in-the-encrypted-cookie-jar dept.
An anonymous reader writes: Last week The Intercept published a report saying agents from the NSA and GCHQ penetrated the internal computer network of Gemalto, the world's largest maker of SIM cards. Gemalto has done an internal investigation, and surprisingly decided to post its results publicly. The findings themselves are a bit surprising, too: Gemalto says it has "reasonable grounds to believe that an operation by NSA and GCHQ probably happened."

They say the two agencies were trying to intercept encryption keys that were being exchanged between mobile operators and the companies (like Gemalto) who supplied them with SIM cards. The company said it had noticed several security incidents in 2010 and 2011 that fit the descriptions in The Intercept's documents. Gemalto had no idea who was behind them until now. They add, "These intrusions only affected the outer parts of our networks – our office networks — which are in contact with the outside world. The SIM encryption keys and other customer data in general, are not stored on these networks." They claim proper use of encryption and isolation of different networks prevented attackers from getting the information they were after.

Comment: Re:Facts not in evidence (Score 1) 406

by BlueStrat (#49122793) Attached to: NSA Director Wants Legal Right To Snoop On Encrypted Data

Your (and my, and any individual citizen's) personal interpretation of the Constitution is not the measure. It is the interpretation and implementation by our three branches of government.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, 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, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Wrong.

Government's job is to secure and protect the rights of the people. The government can decide/declare anything it wants, but if the overwhelming majority of people refuse to comply there is actually very little it can do, and it risks being abolished and replaced/restored.

So how about you consider the alternative: one where you don't assume that everyone working at every/any level of government, e.g., NSA, doesn't have the worst motivations and is actually trying to do their best to honorably, legally, and Constitutionally, protect our nation and its people instead of the opposite. How about that?

Sorry, but that boat sailed with all the lawlessness and abuses that have been revealed regarding domestic data/comm interception/storage, the widespread use of parallel construction, and the mass compromise of encryption schemes.

History proves over and over that the biggest danger to life and liberty is and has always been one's own government. The kind of "trust" you advocate for in this context would be foolish.

Strat

Comment: Re:Why is the government scared to talk about thes (Score 1) 241

by BlueStrat (#49114365) Attached to: In Florida, Secrecy Around Stingray Leads To Plea Bargain For a Robber

Why is the federal government (and its agencies) so scared to allow state and local law enforcement agencies to reveal the use of these devices?

Well, you could find out by assembling your own "stingray" piecemeal using some of the test equipment in the links below, and use it to monitor/record police/DHS/NSA and wait to see what charges they decide to prosecute you for if you're arrested, and then take the government to court for the same charges.

http://www.testequipmentdepot....

http://www.testequipmentdepot....

Although your chances of getting the same 'justice' system that is complicit in these criminal acts by those in government to turn around and prosecute these same criminals are slim at best.

Strat

Comment: Re:How do Climate Change Believers Profit? (Score 1) 444

by BlueStrat (#49104719) Attached to: How One Climate-Change Skeptic Has Profited From Corporate Interests

Hmm, what industries could profit from climate change true believers?

How about governments, those who run them, and those tied to and who profit from government? They gain ever more power & control over ever-wider-ranging areas of life and have another excuse to squeeze the marks for more of their wealth.

Strat

The Almighty Buck

How One Climate-Change Skeptic Has Profited From Corporate Interests 444

Posted by timothy
from the note-that-doesn't-mean-he's-wrong dept.
Lasrick writes Elected officials who want to block the EPA and legislation on climate change frequently refer to a handful of scientists who dispute anthropogenic climate change. One of scientists they quote most often is Wei-Hock Soon, a scientist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics who claims that variations in the sun's energy can largely explain recent global warming. Newly released documents show the extent to which Dr. Soon has made a fortune from corporate interests. 'He has accepted more than $1.2 million in money from the fossil-fuel industry over the last decade while failing to disclose that conflict of interest in most of his scientific papers. At least 11 papers he has published since 2008 omitted such a disclosure, and in at least eight of those cases, he appears to have violated ethical guidelines of the journals that published his work.' The Koch Brothers are cited as a source of Dr. Soon's funding.

Time to take stock. Go home with some office supplies.

Working...