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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Hmmm ... (Score 5, Insightful) 312

by Marful (#49640673) Attached to: Defense Distributed Sues State Department Over 3-D Gun Censorship
A person has rights to privacy, disclosing said person's personal information, particularly with regard to a controversial topic is at the very least negligent and at worst directly contributing to any potential harm that may befall them.

There is quite a bit difference from public access to 3D printer files and public access to personal information of a specific person.

Comment: Re:Default Government Stance (Score 3, Insightful) 194

by Marful (#49168061) Attached to: Feds Admit Stingray Can Disrupt Bystanders' Communications
The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act makes it a federal crime to unlawfully access any computer device that is used by an financial institution, government institution or a private computer that is used for interstate commerce or communication.

This already covers cell phones as they are 1.) Computers, 2.) Used for interstate communication and 3.) Used for interstate commerce.

Given that the Stingray Devices operate by performing a "Man in the Middle" style attack by masquerading as a legitimate cell tower and thereby intercepting cellular data from all users in the vicinity of the Stingray Device (regardless of whether they are the target or not), and part of the cellular data transfer requires (non-secure) authentication (identifying carrier, ID, etc), I fail to see how use of a Stingray Device is legal even via a warrant.

First, the basic nature of the Stingray Device requires a violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act to operate (connect to the cell phone and send/receive data). Combine this with how the Stingray Device cannot operate in such a fashion that it targets a single individual; it intercepts ALL communications in it's area. This device is the epitome of unconstitutional. It cannot even be operated legally with a warrant because it can't narrow it's target to a single individual and thus runs afoul of the 4th Amendment (in addition to 18 U.S. Code 1030).

Comment: Re:Someone please aware me: (Score 1) 303

by Marful (#48750619) Attached to: FBI Says Search Warrants Not Needed To Use "Stingrays" In Public Places

Because when you are in a public place you have no right to the expectation of privacy. If you are walking and talking down the sidewalk in town other people are able to hear your side of the conversation. Depending on if your state and the state the other party is in are two or one party states it is a moot point.

This is true, in a public place you have no expectation of privacy... But this fact is completely irrelevant because the methods the stingray devices use to gain the data are deceptive. And more importantly, have absolutely nothing to do with whether you are in a public place or not.

You could be inside your own home, a location afforded and protected by the highest level of what is deemed to be "private", and a stingray device could still gain access to your private data. Again: being in public, or not, has absolutely NOTHING to do with how and why a stingray device operates.

The stingray devices deceives your wireless device into believing they are connected to a legitimate cell tower when it is, in fact, not connected to a legitimate cell tower. Then your phone, believing it is connected to a legitimate cellular tower, pushes it's data like it would to the carrier's cell tower.

The issue then, is not one of a location based privacy nature (re: public/private), but one of whether or not such actions by police are considered fraudulent. Clearly, in order for the stingray device to work, some form of deceptive action must be taken by the device at the behest of the police. The question then becomes: is such using deception to trick a person into believing they are dealing with a legitimate cell tower service that they are paying for a criminal act?

The answer is yes. Deceiving someone and intercepting their communications without their explicit knowledge is in fact a federal criminal act. Specifically, it is the criminal act known as "Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications" colloquially referred to as wiretapping and defined in the following United States Federal Statute:

18 U.S. Code 2511 (link: http://www.law.cornell.edu/usc...)

(1) Except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter any person who—

(a) intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept, any wire, oral, or electronic communication;
(b) intentionally uses, endeavors to use, or procures any other person to use or endeavor to use any electronic, mechanical, or other device to intercept any oral communication when—
(i) such device is affixed to, or otherwise transmits a signal through, a wire, cable, or other like connection used in wire communication; or
(ii) such device transmits communications by radio, or interferes with the transmission of such communication; or
(iii) such person knows, or has reason to know, that such device or any component thereof has been sent through the mail or transported in interstate or foreign commerce; or
(iv) such use or endeavor to use (A) takes place on the premises of any business or other commercial establishment the operations of which affect interstate or foreign commerce; or (B) obtains or is for the purpose of obtaining information relating to the operations of any business or other commercial establishment the operations of which affect interstate or foreign commerce; or
(v) such person acts in the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or any territory or possession of the United States;
(c) intentionally discloses, or endeavors to disclose, to any other person the contents of any wire, oral, or electronic communication, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire, oral, or electronic communication in violation of this subsection;
(d) intentionally uses, or endeavors to use, the contents of any wire, oral, or electronic communication, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire, oral, or electronic communication in violation of this subsection; or
(e)
(i) intentionally discloses, or endeavors to disclose, to any other person the contents of any wire, oral, or electronic communication, intercepted by means authorized by sections 2511 (2)(a)(ii), 2511 (2)(b)–(c), 2511(2)(e), 2516, and 2518 of this chapter,
(ii) knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of such a communication in connection with a criminal investigation,
(iii) having obtained or received the information in connection with a criminal investigation, and
(iv) with intent to improperly obstruct, impede, or interfere with a duly authorized criminal investigation,

shall be punished as provided in subsection (4) or shall be subject to suit as provided in subsection (5).

Comment: I believe this is already covered by scotus... (Score 1) 139

by Marful (#48707385) Attached to: Doppler Radar Used By Police To Determine Home Occupancy
There is already a SCOTUS ruling on this issue: Kyllo v. United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyllo_v._United_States)

In this case, the police used FLIR (Forward Looking Infra Red) cameras equipped on a police helicopter to look at the heat signatures through the walls of a house.

The courts ruled (5-4) that doing such is a defacto search of the property and a clear 4th amendment violation.

The point of the ruling, is not the intrusiveness or the technical means by which the police overcome the privacy and property rights, but the fact that doing so is a search of the property.

Justice Scalia, who wrote the presiding opinion, further went on to protect against all future attempts at bypassing the barriers of privacy and conduct searches of property without a warrant by the way he wrote his opinion. Again, it is not the technological means by which one overcomes the property's barriers to privacy, regardless how non-intrusive or passive such measures are, but the fact hat doing such is conducting a search of the property.

Comment: Re:Cameras only a partial solution (Score 1) 368

by Marful (#48671629) Attached to: Study: Police Body-Cams Reduce Unacceptable Use of Force

First responders that don't have to worry about every person potentially having a gun will have that luxury. Welcome to the US gun culture.

But that's just it, first responders don't have to worry about every person potentially having a gun.

Because, (CLUE-TRAIN!), every person doesn't have a gun.

Welcome to left-wing sensationalistic bullshit.

Comment: Will the LAPD arrest and fine themselves? (Score 3, Interesting) 108

Even the LAPD needs a license.

As per the FAA website:

Busting Myths about the FAA and Unmanned Aircraft
http://www.faa.gov/news/update...

Myth #3: Commercial UAS operations are a “gray area” in FAA regulations.

Fact—There are no shades of gray in FAA regulations. Anyone who wants to fly an aircraft—manned or unmanned—in U.S. airspace needs some level of FAA approval. Private sector (civil) users can obtain an experimental airworthiness certificate to conduct research and development, training and flight demonstrations. Commercial UAS operations are limited and require the operator to have certified aircraft and pilots, as well as operating approval. To date, only two UAS models (the Scan Eagle and Aerovironment’s Puma) have been certified, and they can only fly in the Arctic. Public entities (federal, state and local governments, and public universities) may apply for a Certificate of Waiver or Authorization (COA)

Comment: Pedestrian or Vehicle: Pick one. (Score 1) 490

How about instead of a 3rd set of rules for the road, cyclists just pick one and fucking stick to it?

Either follow the rules for vehicles or the rules for pedestrians.

If they want to ride on sidewalks and not have to wait in a line of cars, then they can be a pedestrian. If they want to take up a lane of traffic then they can fucking follow the rules for vehicles. Whichever they choose just fucking stick to it.

All of the problems I've had with cyclists comes from them following the rules for one and switching to the other when it's most convenient to them.

Because what we really need is another set of traffic rules to really confuse the shit out of people with.

Comment: Re: frosty piss (Score 1) 664

by Marful (#46915937) Attached to: Death Wish Meets GPS: iPhone Theft Victims Confronting Perps
But what makes the state more money?

Finding your stolen phone and arresting the perp, or writing 6 tickets in the span of an hour?

Modern policing has NOTHING to do with protecting society. It is all about revenue generation and enforcing the status quo so the populace doesn't get out of line.

Comment: Re:NSA (Score 1) 72

Of course "on paper" they actually did police work.

But what do you think gave them "the hunch" that so-and-so was the badguy and just so happened to have exactly the incriminating evidence they needed to bust him in folder XYZ in his "My Documents" folder?

"Police Work" is often just another term for collecting the evidence and creating the link from A to Z, after the fact, to justify the police's actions.

Comment: Re:Sure (Score 1) 500

by Marful (#46350465) Attached to: Supreme Court Ruling Relaxes Warrant Requirements For Home Searches
The only requirement is if one of the occupants consents to the search. It doesn't have to be someone that lives there or owns the property. Any random person whom is inside the property can give consent, including a 2 year old or a dog.

And you don't see this getting abused?

That is fucking absurd.

Programming is an unnatural act.

Working...