HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » friendly_iconoclast » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 ... 46 Next »


Profile Information

Member since: Fri Sep 8, 2006, 12:47 PM
Number of posts: 13,666

Journal Archives

In honor of packman's "I'll be there - Grapes of Wrath" video post...

packman's post, with Henry Fonda in John Ford's magnificent film version:

Posted by friendly_iconoclast | Thu Feb 25, 2016, 03:19 PM (3 replies)

Boston Police use of cell phone trackers kept private

Source: Boston Globe

By Eric Levenson @ejleven
Boston.com Staff | 02.24.16 | 1:59 PM

The Boston Police Department is staying quiet on how it uses cellphone tracker technology, causing concerns among civil liberties advocates, according to a report from the New England Center for Investigative Reporting.

Boston Police and the Suffolk County district attorney’s office have agreements with the Federal Bureau of Investigation not to release information about the trackers, according to documents obtained by NECIR through a public records request.

The devices, known as “StingRays,” are capable of identifying all phones in a given area and logging their movements over time, NECIR reports. In New York, the technology has been used in more than 1,000 cases to investigate rapes, murders, and missing people, as well as lower-priority crimes like identity theft and money laundering, The New York Times reports.

But in Boston, police spokesman Lt. Michael McCarthy told NECIR it has no list of cases that used trackers and declined to provide examples of their use.

Read more: https://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/2016/02/24/boston-police-use-cell-phone-trackers-kept-private/mhICsYrsOpj4wEHBUbKxcN/story.html

From a prior article:

Under the pacts, police and prosecutors agreed not to provide information about the devices, even in court proceedings, without prior approval of the FBI. They also agreed to seek dismissal of a case, at the FBI’s request, rather than disclose sensitive information about them in court.

The US public defender’s office in Boston, which represents indigent defendants in federal prosecutions, says that prior to a New England Center for Investigative Reporting story in November, it was unaware that any such agreement existed. The center revealed the Boston Police Department’s use of the devices.

“The danger is that nondisclosure agreements foster mischief,” said William Fick, an assistant US public defender. He said such agreements “create perverse incentives” for law enforcement and prosecutors to omit or misrepresent how they obtained information.


How many defense attorneys are going to start researching old court records to see
if someone was convicted with fudged or perjured court representations?

It's happened elsewhere:


"2,000 cases may be overturned because police used secret Stingray surveillance"

Posted by friendly_iconoclast | Wed Feb 24, 2016, 10:30 PM (5 replies)

On Apple v. the FBI: "(Y)ou can't make a backdoor that only good guys can fit through"

X-post from GD:

Posted by friendly_iconoclast | Wed Feb 24, 2016, 03:56 PM (0 replies)

On Apple v. the FBI: "(Y)ou can't make a backdoor that only good guys can fit through"

An astute observation from Cory Doctorow, here:


in regard to his Guardian op-ed...


The FBI’s demand that Apple create a defeat device for decrypting a phone that belonged to a mass murderer has all the ingredients for a disastrous public conversation.

Combine a highly technical debate about information security with an emotionally charged subject matter, then confuse the whole issue with a 24-hour news cycle tick-tock about who did what, when, and you end up bogged down in questions like, “Does it matter if the FBI directed the local cops to try to change the phone’s password, inadvertently creating the lockout?”

The questions raised by this court order are deliberately the wrong ones: questions whose answers don’t get us any closer to a lasting peace in the crypto wars. After all, the order emanates from a lowly magistrate judge, meaning that no matter how the ruling comes down, it will be appealed, possibly all the way to the supreme court, given the seriousness of the issue. It could be years before we even get a final ruling...

...The thing about this controversy is that it isn’t one. Independent cryptographers are virtually unanimous in their view that you can’t properly secure a system while simultaneously ensuring that it ships with a pre-broken mode that police can exploit.

X-posted in Civil Liberties:


Posted by friendly_iconoclast | Wed Feb 24, 2016, 03:55 PM (0 replies)

Eleven years and counting: EFF scores a major victory in its NSA mass surveillance suit

X-post from LBN:

Posted by friendly_iconoclast | Sat Feb 20, 2016, 01:33 AM (0 replies)

Eleven years and counting: EFF scores a major victory in its NSA mass surveillance suit

Source: BoingBoing

In 2005, a former AT&T engineer named Mark Klein walked into the Electronic Frontier Foundation's offices and revealed that he had helped the phone company build a secret NSA surveillance outpost at the Folsom Street switching station, through which AT&T was helping the US government conduct mass, warrantless, domestic surveillance.

EFF has been in court with the US government ever since, fighting round after round of attempts by DoJ lawyers to get the case thrown out, usually on the basis that since all the evidence of NSA wrongdoing was secret, EFF couldn't proceed. The Snowden revelations helped some, but it's been touch and go for more than a decade.

Now, Judge Jeffrey White has ruled in Jewel, a case that's been underway since 2008, and given EFF leave to conduct discovery on the NSA, forcing the agency to produce documents that will answer key questions about their program of mass domestic spying.

This marks the first time a party has been allowed to gather factual evidence from the NSA in a case involving the agency’s warrantless surveillance. The government had fought all our requests to proceed with this lawsuit, arguing that the state secrets privilege protects it against both discovery and liability. Judge White previously rejected that argument for our statutory claims under the Wiretap Act, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, and the Stored Communications Act. This ruling affirms Judge White’s previous decision and opens the door for discovery.

Read more: https://boingboing.net/2016/02/19/eleven-years-and-counting-eff.html

More here at the EFF site:

Posted by friendly_iconoclast | Sat Feb 20, 2016, 01:29 AM (12 replies)

Four men—including a pair of pastors—sue Tacoma police over stingray documents


Four men—including a pair of pastors—sue Tacoma police over stingray documents

The American Civil Liberties Union of Washington state has sued the Tacoma Police Department (TPD) on behalf of four community leaders, claiming that TPD has not adequately responded to their public records requests concerning the use of cell-site simulators, or stingrays.

The Thursday lawsuit comes nine months after Washington imposed a new warrant requirement for stingray use in the state and about 15 months after local Pierce County judges imposed stricter guidelines for their use.

Stingrays are in use by both local and federal law enforcement agencies nationwide. The devices determine a target phone’s location by spoofing or simulating a cell tower. Mobile phones in range of the stingray then connect to it and exchange data with the device as they would with a real cell tower. Once deployed, stingrays intercept data from the target phone along with information from other phones within the vicinity—up to and including full calls and text messages. At times, police have falsely claimed that information gathered from a stingray has instead come from a confidential informant.

"Stingray devices provide police departments with an unprecedented ability to sweep up information from cellular devices. It affects many others in the neighborhood along with the targets of an investigation," La Rond Baker, an ACLU Washington attorney, said in a statement. "The Constitution protects Americans against searches without suspicion, and we are very concerned about the secrecy concerning the use of its stingray."



Lawsuit Says Tacoma Police Withheld Documents About Use of Stingray Surveillance Device

posted by ACLU of Washington on Feb 11, 2016

Suit Says Tacoma Police Department Violated Public Records Act

The ACLU of Washington today filed a lawsuit against the Tacoma Police Department (TPD) over its failure to disclose records related to its use of stingray surveillance technology. The suit says the TPD’s failure to produce these records violates the State’s Public Records Act, which is designed to ensure that the public can hold its government accountable.

The stingray is an invasive device that indiscriminately gathers information about cell phone locations and usage from any cell phone within its range. Every time the TPD uses its stingray to obtain information from one person for a criminal investigation it is actually gathering information from everyone whose phone is in range of the device – whether they are at home, at school, or just walking down the street.

“Stingray devices provide police departments with an unprecedented ability to sweep up information from cellular devices. It affects many others in the neighborhood along with the targets of an investigation.” said ACLU-WA Staff Attorney La Rond Baker. “The Constitution protects Americans against searches without suspicion, and we are very concerned about the secrecy concerning the TPD’s use of its stingray.”

For years, the Tacoma Police Department has hidden its use of stingray surveillance equipment from the public and from the courts. The suit seeks documents that would shed light on how and when this equipment is being used, both to help community members understand what their own police department is doing and to enable the public to hold its government accountable.

Posted by friendly_iconoclast | Sat Feb 13, 2016, 11:05 PM (1 replies)

Arcade Fire /w Preservation Hall Jazz Band tribute to David Bowie video:

Posted by friendly_iconoclast | Thu Feb 11, 2016, 05:10 PM (0 replies)

Boston Globe: "Gun licenses on the rise in Mass.; 7.8% increase seen" (+44% over 5 years)


Gun licenses on the rise in Mass.; 7.8 percent increase seen
By Matt Rocheleau Globe Staff January 27, 2016

Tens of thousands of new gun licenses were issued to Massachusetts residents in 2015, continuing a recent surge, according to state data.

There were 342,622 active Class A firearms licenses statewide, according to figures provided by the Department of Criminal Justice Information Services earlier this month. That was up about 24,700, or 7.8 percent, from the same time a year ago.

A Class A license, the broadest license available under state law and by far the most popular, allows the holder to carry rifles, shotguns, or handguns. It also allows the holder to carry a concealed handgun.

The number of Class A licenses has increased by 104,150, or 44 percent, from five years ago....

Of course, the Globe had to dig out John Rosenthal to peddle some more of his old claims:

“More guns, more fear — more fear, more gun violence — more gun sales.”

Too bad no one as yet has had the huevos/ovarios to tell him to his face that his
timeworn screeds are, frankly, bullshit:

Massachusetts Violent Crime Rates: 2010 (before the recent surge in
gun ownership) compared to 2014 (the latest available full-year statistics)

Source: FBI Uniform Crime Reports/ Crime in the United States


2014 is the latest full year available

Massachusetts violent crime rate

2010: 466.6 violent crimes per 100,000 inhabitants
2014: 391.4/100K

Murder/nonnegligent manslaughter:

2010: 3.2/100K
2014: 2.0/100K

Aggravated assault:

2010: 331.8/100K
2014: 267.6/100K


2010: 105.0/100K
2014: 89.5/100K

I didn't include rape as the reporting criteria changed. Nonetheless, the disinterested reader
can find at the FBI site that the rate under the old definition is also lower

Posted by friendly_iconoclast | Fri Jan 29, 2016, 11:00 PM (8 replies)

The prohibitionists have yet another truthiness problem:


Yet another study refutes the notion that guns make anyone safe.

I'll leave the citation-free argument from authority to the disinterested reader, my
interest lies in the last line from the OP

More guns, more dead women. Period.

hence my reply to their x-post in the Women's Rights & Issues group:


"More guns, more dead women. Period." Wrong- the number of women murder victims decreased...

...both in rate *and* absolute number over the last 15 years, all while the number of guns in
the US nearly doubled:

There were 3,076 women murdered in the US in 2000- source:


143.4 women in the US in 2000-source:


Rate: 1 in 46,619

There were 2,715 women murdered in the US (that number includes victims of unknown sex)
in 2014- source:


161,979,384 women in the US in 2014- source:


Rate: 1 in 59,661

A decision to obtain (or not) a gun should be made for real reasons, not ficticious ones.

Posted by friendly_iconoclast | Wed Jan 27, 2016, 03:27 PM (15 replies)
Go to Page: « Prev 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 ... 46 Next »