Hacker News Reader

Comment by Retric | Hacker News Reader

There are options between stop it and do nothing. I would assume cellphone companies can easily give access to any conversation from their internal network so that's probably a more cost effective solution at all levels. The question becomes, why do police feel the need for other tools?

View on HN

Cellphone companies is one more layer in their trust circle. It's easier to just bypass them and collect the data yourself. Warrants only really became a requirement in 2015. And police were misleading judges on Stingray usage to hide the tech.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/03/appeals-court-no...

Casual ad hoc surveillance can be very useful for law enforcement. It can save a tremendous amount of time and money keeping track of where people are and where they are planning to be. The fact that the information gained is not admissible in court is not important. From the article:

>“You guys picking up any information? Where they're going, possibly?"

Law enforcement has become somewhat dependent on this sort of access and would not be able to do their job as effectively without it. Hence the desperation shown by the use of things like Stingrays where the network is actively attacked in what is arguably a straight up illegal way.

> Law enforcement has become somewhat dependent on this sort of access and would not be able to do their job as effectively without it.

I've seen this claim repeated, but never with any evidence.

It doesn't matter if the claim is objectively true just as long as law enforcement people continue to believe it. ... and it is obvious from comments coming out of that community that they do.

What has to happen now is that law enforcement has to come clean and there has to be a public discussion about this stuff. Otherwise the private and public hand wringing will continue indefinitely and things will continue to get worse. The general public is ultimately responsible here as they are effectively the boss of the law enforcement people. We need to take the time to understand why our employees are acting the way they are.

"Effectively."

"Why are you looking for the lost keys by the lamppost when they were lost on the other side of the street?"

"Well, it's dark over there, and the lamppost is where the light is."

Power. Invoking public fear. Using that as an end-around the 1st Amendment.

You mean the 4th Amendment?

I meant 1st. If you have concern they may be listening, you may be less likely to say something.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com