They (NSA / govt) still warehouse it. They just don’t access it without a warrant. That is the current legal fiction they operate the surveillance state under.

Does that matter to the legal theory though? Like they’re free to pass a law that says that carriers have to keep logs for X years and then get a warrant anytime they want them.

Like if you don’t trust the government to follow their own rules then why do the rules matter?

NSA monitors foreign traffic.

On paper. How do you know it’s foreign? That’s why they warehouse it. As much as they can. Figure out if it’s foreign later on. Don’t underestimate the laws they will skirt to collect data.

Look up how 5 eyes works.

They were once caught doing that, which caused a shit show. It doesn't mean they are currently doing that. Maybe they are, I don't know, and neither does you, asserting that they do it only spreads panic and misinformation

Why would they ever stop? No one made them stop. They were cleared to operate under that legal theory. Go back and review the exhaustive testimony from that period and you will find they were never forced to stop collecting “potentially” domestic communications. I think its best to assume they are.

Edit: start with Hayden. They admitted exactly how it all works and what the judges allowed. Read up on the many EFF lawsuits that were shut down.

So this Supreme Court ruling has eliminated all use of Stingray-like equipment by all law enforcement agencies unless they have a warrant? Wow! Looks like Harris will be going of business soon, and no more DRT boxes flying over cities?

> The Court did not expand its ruling on other matters related to cellphones not presented in Carpenter, including real-time cell site location information (CSLI) or "tower dumps"

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpenter_v._United_States

Obtaining phone location data is different than a stingray. Not saying it is ok, just totally different.

Triangulation, signal strength, etc.

0 effective difference.

No, a stingray is an active surveillance method... the authorities deploy it and can get information from that point on. It is generally used for an active investigation against a target; of course, it is super problematic because it also intercepts innocent people's calls and can track them, and it is also being used for more and more cases where it is not justified.

However, it is still not the same as the phone company selling location data. They have EVERYONE's location data for all time; it is not like they have to 'turn it on' for you and then are only able to spy on you going forward. They just have all of it, all the time.

The difference is that a stingray is like one cell tower being able to spy on people... the phone company is ALL THE CELL TOWERS being able to spy on you... and not only being ABLE to, are just always doing it no matter what, for everyone.

How did you get from “mobile company providing location data” to “law enforcement use of stingrays to obtain location data”?

Not much of a difference really. Mainly just that LE uses their own equipment instead of that of the carrier. This brings up a separate FCC issue: Why is it okay for LE to transmit on the cellular bands for this purpose, when it provably can interfere with emergency communications (such as a 911 call)?

It’s a huge difference. The technical difference is that law enforcement is doing an end-run around the carrier to have phones just give up information. Carriers have zero control over that.

Sure they do! (Assuming you're not kidding.)

Make the cell connections a secure protocol, instead of something any asshole with an antenna can spoof & create a portable "cell tower".

> Sure they do! (Assuming you're not kidding.)

> Make the cell connections a secure protocol, instead of something any asshole with an antenna can spoof & create a portable "cell tower".

A single carrier likely couldn't do that without coordinating with other carriers (as a client roams to a new net).

Yes, they could have that control. But they currently do not.

Why are you being downvoted for pointing out mass surveillance and extremely targeted surveillance are both still legal and frequently used.

Because it's hyperbolic, sarcastic, and unhelpful. Your question rephrased as a statement is completely fine: "Unfortunately, mass surveillance and extremely targeted surveillance are both still legal and frequently used."

As you pick up on, the question was just used to make a statement, not gain information. That could be considered bad-faithy. But at the very least it annoys with its overused tone of sarcastic outrage, especially because it was the second such comment in the thread, made after the first was already shown to be entirely wrong.

On its merits, the accusation of hypocrisy is also a non-sequitur: from "one bad thing is stopped" never follows "all bad things are stopped". The implied expectation is impossible to fulfill.

It's also unhelpful, politically, in a way that this thread, HN generally, or even "the internet" are full of: If everyone is always assuming the worst while expecting the best, it removes all incentives for anyone in power to behave honorably. After all, if you're going to be accused to be corrupt and/or incompetent anyway, why even try?