The Supreme Court ruled in 2018 that obtaining phone location data requires a warrant. [1] So no, neither one is okay.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpenter_v._United_States
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpenter_v._United_States
Like if you don’t trust the government to follow their own rules then why do the rules matter?
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.
Make the cell connections a secure protocol, instead of something any asshole with an antenna can spoof & create a portable "cell tower".
> 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).
0 effective difference.
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.
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?