Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Secret Stingray Warrantless Cellphone Tracking

Soulskill posted about 2 years ago | from the your-phone-is-broadcasting-an-ip-address dept.

Electronic Frontier Foundation 62

Penurious Penguin writes "Last year a Slashdot story mentioned the case of Daniel David Rigmaiden, or 'the Hacker.' With the help of an IMSI-catcher device, law enforcement had been able to locate and arrest the elusive 'Hacker,' leading to U.S. v. Rigmaiden. But far more elusive than the 'Hacker,' is the IMSI-catcher device itself — particularly the legalities governing its use. The secrecy and unconstitutionality of these Man In The Middle devices, i.e. 'stingrays,' has caught some attention. The EFF and ACLU have submitted an amicus brief in the Rigmaiden case; and EPIC, after filing an FOIA request in February and receiving a grossly redacted 67 out of 25,000 (6,000 classified) pages on the "stingray" devices, has now requested a district judge expedite disclosure of all documents. Some Judges also seem wary of the 'stingray,' having expressed concerns that their use violates the Fourth Amendment; and additionally, that information explaining how the technology is used remains too obscure. Perhaps the most controversial aspect of ISMI-catchers is their several-kilometer range. When a "stingray" is used to spoof a cellphone tower, thousands of innocent users may be collaterally involved. And while the government claims to delete all gathered data unrelated to the target, it also means no one else can know what that data really was. The government claims that because only attributes of calls — but not their content — are captured in the attack, search warrants aren't necessary." (More, below.)Penurious Penguin continues, "The use of a pen-register (outgoing) and trap & trace (incoming) device, requires little more than a mewl of penal curiosity before a court, and no warrant or follow-up on the case is needed. The pen/trap seems unwieldy enough, as the EFF explains:

"Most worrisome, we've heard some reports of the government using pen/trap taps to intercept content that should require a wiretap order: specifically, the content of SMS text messages, as well as "post-cut-through dialed digits" (digits you dial after your call is connected, like your banking PIN number, your prescription refill numbers, or your vote for American Idol). intercept information about your Internet communications as well."

Precisely what data these "stingrays" collect will hopefully be soon revealed through such efforts as those of EPIC. It should be noted that the Stingray is one of multiple devices with the same application. The Stingray and several others are trademarks of the Harris Corporation. Some are quite pricey ($75,000), and others are, as mentioned last year by a Slashdot reader, peculiarly affordable — and available. For a more comprehensive overview of the subject, see this Wall Street Journal article."

cancel ×

62 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Harris Corporation or Harrison Corporation? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41789433)

What the fuck is going on here? The Slashdot summary says "Harrison Corporation" near the end, but looking at the links show "Harris" as the company behind these particular devices. I mean, it says the name right in the logo in the pictures of the device, and on the document! The logo basically is the name, for Pete's sake!

I'm going to go on the assumption that the linked-to content is right, and that Harris Corporation is the correct name to be used in this case.

Penurious Penguin , you need to get your shit together and use the right company name. Maybe it was an honest mistake, but it really makes me think less of what you're saying when you can't even express such basic facts correctly. Do you see where I'm coming from? Do you?

And the Slashdot editors should have caught that right away. It is absolute rubbish that such an obvious mistake could be made. Absolute rubbish, I tell you!

Re:Harris Corporation or Harrison Corporation? (4, Funny)

Penurious Penguin (2687307) | about 2 years ago | (#41789733)

That was a typo; it is Harris. You are correct.
I have bad momentson' good ones, like some mad vacillating, deliriouson Ferrison wheel.

Re:Harris Corporation or Harrison Corporation? (1)

couchslug (175151) | about 2 years ago | (#41789917)

"And the Slashdot editors should have caught that right away."

WHAT editors? All they do is SORT content, not edit it.

Re:Harris Corporation or Harrison Corporation? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41790089)

"And the Slashdot editors should have caught that right away."

WHAT editors? All they do is SORT content, not edit it.

Objection!

Your Honor, the witness is commenting on facts not in evidence.

Re:Harris Corporation or Harrison Corporation? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41790641)

Also, is it IMSI or ISMI - again, make up your fucking mind.

Is it REALLY that fucking hard to write a good summary?

Re:Harris Corporation or Harrison Corporation? (1)

JakeBurn (2731457) | about 2 years ago | (#41790771)

Aw! Poor little fella needs a nap I think. I can understand disappointment at someone not bothering to properly proofread a submission but anger? REALLY? Lol you are too funny in your sad, little fucked up life. Posting anonymously? Why? Stand behind your anger little bitch and if people don't like your attitude live with a lower karma score on Slashdot. Who cares? At least be a man about it.

Re:Harris Corporation or Harrison Corporation? (1)

Penurious Penguin (2687307) | about 2 years ago | (#41791767)

Admittedly, I put too much on the editors with this one. It's a lesson learned and I think I'll write my submissions in something other than Geany next time. That's it! From here on, it's vim only.
But to the angry AC above, it's not a matter of "mind" -- more so, it's a cognitive issue, and I apologize for making it a problem for others. And yes, it is an IMSI catcher [wikipedia.org] . I wanted to embed a wiki url in it, but I've seen readers complain about including too many links. Regarding summaries, I don't know; try it sometime.

Re:Harris Corporation or Harrison Corporation? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41792395)

Aw! Poor little fella needs a nap I think. I can understand disappointment at someone not bothering to properly proofread a submission but anger? REALLY? Lol you are too funny in your sad, little fucked up life. Posting anonymously? Why? Stand behind your anger little bitch and if people don't like your attitude live with a lower karma score on Slashdot. Who cares? At least be a man about it.

Some people don't want an account, you arrogant twat.

If you think that some user ID means someone is acting like a "man",
and you fancy yourself a tough guy, why don't you post your residential
address and your phone number, bitch ? Of course you won't do that
because you are just another shit-talking cock-gobbler on the internet,
pretending to be a badass.

Any real links out there (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41789475)

Does anyone have any links to an actual story so we don't have to link to a link to a link on slashdot so we can understand what "stingray" is. Lame editors.

Re:Any real links out there (4, Informative)

SomePgmr (2021234) | about 2 years ago | (#41789601)

If 'stingray' is the IMSI catcher MITM device, you can watch these from a defcon demonstration: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wjYAAmHvt-g [youtube.com]

In short, you pretend to be the cell network and pass communication through. The handsets generally don't care or warn the user, you can issue all kinds of instructions to the handsets, it doesn't take a whole lot of gear, and you're now the network before the network.

Re:Any real links out there (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41789721)

Nokia Lumia 900 phones easily warn the user by randomly launching Bing or Microsoft Tellme without the search or home button being pressed. This can happen 2 to nearly 13 times in a row when it does occur. Users think this is a bug. Neither Nokia nor Microsoft is quick to fix it. Phone monitoring is the obvious reason why.

Re:Any real links out there (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41789957)

You're just guessing, right? I mean, you aren't totally sure it's the Stinger or AT&T. But, it seems like a logical guess that someone or something seems to ben randomly pinging phones because mine will do it too. Right in the middle of web browsing or playing a game, bzzz, then Bing or else tones then Microsoft TellMe pops up. I'll see your 13 times and raise you to 14 times I pressed the Back button and Microsoft TellMe popped right back up. Very annoying. Another time, I pressed the Back button and Bing popped right back up for a total of 8 times. Equally annoying. A user on one of the Nokia support forums guessed it was the speaker, but it happens with earphones too.

SOMETHING IS WRONG WITH THOSE PHONES! Nokia, Microsoft, and AT&T owe someone an honest explanation as to what is going on. Otherwise, I too will suspect some sort of random phone monitoring going on. That's because it doesn't happen with any sort of regular pattern. The phone will go an hour without doing that and then it happens. Then it will go several hours or even an entire day without it happening again. I'm not buying the Lumia 920 because of what happens with the 900, and if it is phone monitoring then I will file a lawsuit.

Re:Any real links out there (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41789785)

you're now the network before the network.

add a beowulf cluster of smartphones and you'd have the network before the network before the network.

Re:Any real links out there (1)

lsatenstein (949458) | about 2 years ago | (#41798167)

If 'stingray' is the IMSI catcher MITM device, you can watch these from a defcon demonstration: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wjYAAmHvt-g [youtube.com]

In short, you pretend to be the cell network and pass communication through. The handsets generally don't care or warn the user, you can issue all kinds of instructions to the handsets, it doesn't take a whole lot of gear, and you're now the network before the network.

===============
All that is going to happen is that communications will be encrypted on the device before being transmitted. With this mode, stingray operations will intercept encrypted data.

yup... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41789497)

yup, turnkey police state

Ubuntu releases (5, Funny)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about 2 years ago | (#41789513)

Penurious Penguin

Too late for that one...

Secret Stingray

That'll do!

Evil (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41789555)

The government is evil.

Re:Evil (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 2 years ago | (#41790355)

Ah, but being the 'lessor' evil makes it all okay.

Re:Evil (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41812265)

So they've got into that loan business too?

Re:Evil (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 2 years ago | (#41812657)

Actually they have :-)

Re:Evil (2)

petsounds (593538) | about 2 years ago | (#41792417)

I don't believe most people in government are evil. Most people in government just want to do their job, and groupthink overtakes them such that their ethical compass points in whatever direction gets the job done. The same thing can be seen in corporations. Most people are too weak-willed to stand up for what they believe in, and become part of the machine. Is this evil? I don't think so, it is a failing of the human spirit. These people, when the shit hits the fan, may come to see the error of their ways. People who are truly evil chose that path of their own accord, and not much could ever sway them from that path.

Re:Evil (1)

udoschuermann (158146) | about a year ago | (#41806033)

Well said. In fact, the blanket claim that some institution (company, government, etc.) is evil, takes people out of the equation, absolves them of blame, and simultaneously detracts from the fact that any solution must involve people. I think it is for that reason that freedom of speech and the use of protest actually are so important. Without such tools in the hands of the population the perpetrators (let's simply call them misguided, sloppy, and/or too caught up in their work) cannot even be made aware of the fact that they ought to look up, look around, and perhaps realize that their actions may be way out of line.

New Law: If it is redacted, it counts as illegal! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41789595)

The only point these "redacted" things have, is to hide criminal activity.
A government has no right to keep privacy from its citizens. Just like it has no right to take privacy from them.

If they redact it, it must count as treason and result in jail until the full info is released.

Re:New Law: If it is redacted, it counts as illega (5, Interesting)

Anon-Admin (443764) | about 2 years ago | (#41789773)

Summed up as

"A government by the people and for the people should not be allowed to keep secrets from the people!" -- Me for the last 8 years.

The problem is that if it is deemed of National Security, they get to redact it. There is no punishment in place that could be applied if they remove it for national security reasons and it is later found to have been for criminal reasons. Example: the fact that a us company paid in tax payer dollars provided young boys for sexual use by Afghan Cops.

http://blogs.houstonpress.com/hairballs/2010/12/wikileaks_texas_company_helped.php [houstonpress.com]

Which was classified and thanks to WikiLeaks is now known.

Re:New Law: If it is redacted, it counts as illega (2)

artor3 (1344997) | about 2 years ago | (#41790429)

Some things need to be kept secret. For example, the identity of undercover cops infiltrating gangs. But of course, secrecy can also be abused to cover up wrong-doing.

The only way to determine whether or not something should be secret, is to look at it. So we need a third party trusted by both sides to do the looking. They need to be trusted by the government not to reveal something that really ought to be secret, and they need to be trusted by the people not to cover-up something that should be exposed. Sadly, I doubt such a party could ever exist. There will always be some fascists in the government trying to corrupt it, and there would always be some tin-foil paranoids insisting it's all a big conspiracy.

Re:New Law: If it is redacted, it counts as illega (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41792531)

The FISA court was doing this, in a way, a while ago. Now, of course, the govt just bypasses FISA.

Re:New Law: If it is redacted, it counts as illega (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41791959)

But But But .....is for you good.

VoIP (2)

nurb432 (527695) | about 2 years ago | (#41789655)

Problem solved ( for at least one side of the call.. )

Re:VoIP (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41789745)

A broadband card would also be affected.

Re:VoIP -- problem NOT solved (2)

louarnkoz (805588) | about 2 years ago | (#41790061)

VOIP will protect the data if the content is properly encrypted, but headers and locations are still exposed. The phone can still be identified and located, which is already great information for the police. The IP addresses can be tracked in the header and voila, pen-register services without a warrant. And if VOIP is not encrypted, or if the encryption is weak, even the content can be accessed.

Re:VoIP -- problem again solved (1)

Yoik (955095) | about 2 years ago | (#41790703)

TOR is the next step of escalation. The cyberwar arms race has been going on for a long time, and it's it's not just governments.

Horse (& cow) traders in the Midwest caused a surge of demand for cell phone encryption in the early 90's when news of how easily one could tap FM cell calls got out. The FCC's stand was that they were secure because listening in was illegal, even if the needed equipment was sold at Radio Shack.

Re:VoIP -- problem NOT solved (1)

nurb432 (527695) | about 2 years ago | (#41791395)

Sure, location could be gathered but that doesn't always tell you much ' he was in a Starbucks making a call ', its who you call when that is a bigger deal.

Also, i was thinking wifi, and turning off the cell radio. Harder to track that way. Plus this is all done on a throaway ( used or other cash market ) cellphone so it isnt traced back to you personally.

Assumption is that proper encryption is being used, of course if its not then all bets are off.

Not so fast (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41790105)

It is easy to listen in on a VOIP call:

http://www.google.com/search?q=voip+spy

It is sad that we need encrypted tunneling just so our government won't listen in on our private conversations.

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin, 1775

Sick of these freedom of speech advocates (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41789793)

People are generally good. Many times, however, there are a ton of people you call criminals. You know those fucked up members of society that feed of the public like cockroaches.

If the technology is setup in such a way that the police or FBI have to use these devices to catch people breaking the law. Then so fucking be it.

I'm so fucking tired of these civil liberties unions blowing bullshit out their asses. If you're not a fucking criminal then you have nothing to worry about.

I could care less if the FBI hears me telling my wife I want fuck her brains out tonight while they are investigating a drug trafficker in my neighborhood. The sooner they get him, the less they'll hear me dirty talking with my wife.

Re:Sick of these freedom of speech advocates (2)

ThatsMyNick (2004126) | about 2 years ago | (#41789867)

I could care less if the FBI hears me telling my wife I want fuck her brains out tonight while they are investigating a drug trafficker in my neighborhood. The sooner they get him, the less they'll hear me dirty talking with my wife.

Unless they hear you talking about why you hate the government (or a particular FBI officer), of course. Your life could instantly become hell.

Re:Sick of these freedom of speech advocates (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41791541)

THIS.

Why is it that all you idiots still parrot the "well, if you're not doing anything wrong ...". There may come a time that the government is your enemy, and I DAMNED SURE would not want to be listened in on at that point in time, so just don't ever let it happen.

Re:Sick of these freedom of speech advocates (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41789903)

Hey Mitt,

Your wife likes it better when I talk dirty to her.

Re:Sick of these freedom of speech advocates (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41792441)

Hey Mitt,

Your wife likes it better when I talk dirty to her.

Actually, Mitt's wife prefers the company of women.

Poor Mitt, no wonder he is running for office, he probably doesn't
enjoy being at home.

Everyone's a criminal. (5, Insightful)

MRe_nl (306212) | about 2 years ago | (#41789935)

"There are many more laws than can possibly be enforced by, or even known to, our ever-growing army of cops, judges, lawyers, and lowly citizens. This isn't an accident of the system run amok, it's the way the government WANTS it. There are at least two reasons for this:

One, the more laws there are to be broken (and the more obscure, the better ) the greater the stream of revenue from fines and violations and the more government jobs there are (cops, health inspectors, banking commissioners, etc.) in enforcing these laws and processing both the violators and the revenues.

Secondly, the fact that since there are probably 1,000 times more laws on the books than are known to the citizenry all but ensures that everyone's guilty of something. And in the government's eyes, it's good that virtually everyone is a criminal of one type or another. Here's why: Because if you ever challenge any part of the government; the Housing Department, the Board of Education, the Bureau of Licensing and Regulation, the Election Board, the DNR, the DMV, the BLM, or whatever, it'll be able to find something, maybe many things, you're guilty of.

And that, my friends, is its insurance policy against you. If you raise a stink about anything, no matter how legitimate, the full force and power of the government could be channeled into crawling up your wazoo with a microscope to find out everything you've ever done wrong and then using those transgressions to either discredit you or to bully you into staying mum about whatever gripe you've got or scandal you could expose. It's nothing but a racket. Blackmail. A seedy bastardization of the "checks and balances" system your nation's founders envisioned and engineered to protect you from governmental abuses".

http://whiskeyandgunpowder.com/everyones-a-criminal-there-ought-not-to-be-a-law/ [whiskeyandgunpowder.com]

Re:Sick of these freedom of speech advocates (1)

mianne (965568) | about 2 years ago | (#41791807)

So sayeth the person who posted AC.

Another /.'er posted a quote a while back that I've, umm, appropriated in other conversations on this topic: "Everybody poops, but it takes a very special person to do so in public." Suppose it wasn't your wife you were talking dirty to, but your mistress--or secret gay lover. Have you ever used marijuana, or taken medicines prescribed to someone else, or driven over the speed limit, or overestimated your charitable contributions come tax time, or many other laws, or indiscretions? Certainly you've kept track of the tens of thousands of laws on the books religiously and ensured you've never violated any of them right? And you've never done anything which while not illegal; may not be something with with you'd want to share with your spouse, boss, preacher, mother, etc?

The FBI may one day pay you a visit while you're mowing the lawn or at work and say, "Hey, we understand that you really don't like those folks pushing drugs in your neighborhood; how about you give us a hand?
You: "How so, exactly?"
FBI: "Well, you're obviously aware of the traffickers, why don't you point out the places you've seen them, identify them in a police lineup, and testify against them in court?"
You: "But wouldn't that put me in the cross hairs of the gang(s) running drugs in my neighborhood?"
FBI: "Possibly, but we'll review the case in 3-6 months and we may enroll you in the federal witness protection program if you help us secure some convictions."
You, "But I'll have to move, find a new job, and probably leave behind my friends if I did, and what if there wasn't a conviction? I'm not sure this is such a good idea."
FBI: "I thought you wanted these drug traffickers off your street, are you now trying to obstruct justice? Perhaps we should detain you, or how about we tell your wife about your liaisons with Tiffani."

Re:Sick of these freedom of speech advocates (0)

Fjandr (66656) | about 2 years ago | (#41792823)

Witness protection? Why? He's done nothing wrong, so obviously has nothing to hide. As long as he does right and testifies, nothing bad will happen to him because he did the right thing. Witness protection is hiding, and only people who have done something wrong have anything to hide.

Re:Sick of these freedom of speech advocates (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41796227)

I don't have a problem posting AC or with people that do. I don't need a username to post an opinion.

Like I said and in rebuttal to your bullshit. Don't come up with excsuses against law enforcement requirements to keep up with technology.

Re:Sick of these freedom of speech advocates (2)

Fjandr (66656) | about 2 years ago | (#41792799)

If you're not a fucking criminal then you have nothing to worry about.

I am also glad that law enforcement is made up of robots who can be trusted to never abuse private information which, while not illegal, could certainly be used to unduly influence or harm those to whom it pertains.

FBI agents have never engaged in practices using information about private, legal events to coerce or damage private individuals, or to enrich themselves at the expense of others. I am so glad it's not possible that could ever happen, either.

Tower spy apps? (2)

WaffleMonster (969671) | about 2 years ago | (#41789899)

I don't know what all mobile platforms there is APIs / permission for this but I do know theres enough information provided from the RIL to be able to detect and track tower data.

Reckon an app could be developed in to keep track of towers in the area and alert users if there are any changes.

It could also crowdsource and mine data to uncover patterns useful in catching anyone using such devices.

Re:Tower spy apps? (1)

CockMonster (886033) | about 2 years ago | (#41790063)

The problem with this is that in urban areas you'll encounter lots and lots of picocell towers, and these may vary over time. In short, with GSM/3G you're never really sure who you're connected to. Apparently the Chinese embassy in London has its own tower and uses it to gather info on any protestors outside.

Tor tunnel possible? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41789945)

Is it possible to use an encrypted tunnel phone app to blast across the Tor network? Please don't mention Skype.

Re:Tor tunnel possible? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41790375)

Skype! Skype! Skype!!

10 more days until we vote out Bush! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41790059)

I, for one, can't wait.

Re:10 more days until we vote out Bush! (1)

Fjandr (66656) | about 2 years ago | (#41792847)

I dunno, Bush III may get another 4 years before Bush IV gets his chance. It's a toss-up.

4th Amendment less than Lessened Expectations (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41790207)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution [wikipedia.org]

"The Supreme Court also held that individuals in automobiles have a reduced expectation of privacy, because vehicles generally do not serve as residences or repositories of personal effects."

Who expects their phone conversations to be private? And more importantly, what is this privacy thing anyway? (with apologies to Doug Adams)

Re:4th Amendment less than Lessened Expectations (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 2 years ago | (#41790405)

...what is this privacy thing anyway?

It's something to keep your friends from listening in on what you're saying to them.

Re:4th Amendment less than Lessened Expectations (2)

Lord Dreamshaper (696630) | about 2 years ago | (#41791027)

Can't find a link, but 15-20 years ago, Ontario courts ruled that banging your girlfriend in the backseat of a car wasn't public indecency (or whatever else they would charge with for doing it in public, say in the middle of a downtown park), if you were parked somewhere secluded. The ruling went that you had reasonable expectation of privacy by parking somewhere secluded, therefore you weren't accountable if you happened to get busted anyway.

Mentioning this to contrast with SCOTUS ruling people in cars have less expectation of privacy. Likewise, whether I'm whispering in low tones into my cellphone in a crowded room or whether I'm talking normally on my phone with no one visible around me, I expect my conversations to be private and not intercepted in anyway without a warrant.

fai7zors. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41790929)

fanatic known 'You see, even escape them by whet4er to repeat

Expense? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41792183)

After hearing about all the public delays and expenses of government projects, one has to wonder how much this actually cost the tax payer!

Roving Bugs (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41792271)

I'd have figured with the ability to remotely activate and tap cell phone mics that a physical MITM approach would be unnecessary. I guess they really needed to get at the content of SMS messages?

Loophole (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41792593)

"The government claims that because only attributes of calls — but not their content — are captured in the attack, search warrants aren't necessary." Just the fact that I called a specific number at a specific time is private information, regardless of the content. How is it a search warrant isn't necessary?

secret stingray? (1)

BozoForPresident (659559) | about 2 years ago | (#41792999)

Wasn't 'squirrel' macho enough for the brute force and ignorance crowd?

Are you surprised ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41793857)

Old news. Cops have been using this for at least 2 years. It's the US an its government sanctioned. Why are y'all so fucking surprised. By the way they can X-ray your fucking house and see what you are doing inside. Are you surprised that big brother is watching

This Stingray menace has gone on long enough (1)

Arancaytar (966377) | about 2 years ago | (#41794999)

First they assassinate Steve Irwin; now they spy on our cellphones? When is the government finally going to declare war?

You all need to wake up. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41795747)

This stuff is real.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>