Vacant cells reduce revenue. Fully occupancy results in higher revenue, thus higher profit, executive bonuses and increased shareholder value. Thus it's good for everyone to keep the prisons full for maximum profitability.
Law enforcemnt is extremely secretive about Stingray. Why? Their suppliers even require them to sign agreements with extreme conditions. Why?
(Sorry, this is only quasi related to the lack of warrants. But the lack of warrants relates to the secrecy issue.)
1. The wireless network standards were designed when we were still using Windows 3.1.
2. The designers may have considered security, in some sense, but not in a way that can withstand 21st century attacks. The security may be in large part due to obscurity.
3. Stingray is not authorized by the mobile network operators who have not given Stingray any SIMs (subscriber identity module) or other cryptographic keys necessary to access the network. Those network operators have exclusive rights to spectrum which Stingray is subverting.
4. Stingray works by compromising the security of the network. Effectively a genuine hack or intrusion into the network.
5. There may be no effective fix short of redesigning the network.
6. If the mechanism of the hack were generally known, mass chaos could ensue.
7. The network operators are strongly against this but powerless to do anything about it, other than potentially litigate.
8. The secrecy of Stingray is largely due to several factors such as:
A. If the mechanism of the attack became generally known, there could be vast numbers of unauthorized "stingrays" compromising everyone's privacy -- including (OMG!) rich and powerful people!
B. It would be possible for a network of distributed "stingray" clones to disrupt mobile network service by tricking nearby phones to connect to fake networks. What if this were deliberately done during an emergency?
C. The creators / operators of genuine(tm) Stingray devices don't want to be exposed to the potential of litigation for actionable things that Stingray may be doing as part of its operation. Including disrupting networks, stolen proprietary or trade secret information, having compromised individuals into divulging network secrets, keys, etc.
This hypothesis would explain observed evidence about why those who built Stingray want desperately to keep it secret. Please consider. The secrecy is so important, that it leads to:
1. Dismissing or disposing of prosecutions rather than reveal any information about Stingray.
2. Binding agencies and organizations using Stringray to high levels of secrecy, including keeping THE VERY EXISTENCE of Stingray a secret.
3. Outright Brazen Perjury a.k.a. Parallel Construction, which is a euphemism for conspiracy to lie to the court and the defense, concealing discoverable information.
The behavior of those behind Stingray fits this hypothesis. They want to use it "for truth, justice and the corporate way", but are desperately fearful of the secret hack escaping.
Don't forget that if you use a CRT at night in a dark room, like back in the covered wagon days, a van on the street can capture the glow of the CRT on the wall or ceiling and re-create a fairly decent readable copy of what is on the CRT. It just takes a few guesses at the refresh rate and how many scan lines tall the screen image is.
Another thing. Suppose there is some subject that you are not supposed to see. It is in an area not exposed to public view. But part of the walls of the area are visible to public view. So you could capture the color of the light reflecting on one of those walls visible to the subject. Now suppose you could replace a light source in the secure area with digital projector such as used in a conference room. The projector would, like a flood light, project light upon the subject. But that light is a rectangular array of pixels. And it would illuminate the area, one pixel at a time, at high speed. Now it is possible to capture the reflected light on the wall, from a public area, and re-create what the light source can "see". The recreated image looks as though you "see" it as through the projector (eg "light bulb") as if it were a camera. I'm not sure of the practicality of this, but I know there was a good article about the success of the technique on Slashdot some years ago.
Based on my experience, I would recommend that when you fashion your aluminum headwear that you use TWO layers of tin foil rather than just one. This more than doubles the effectiveness. The reason is that a resonance effect develops between the two layers, at exactly double the frequency of the government's invisible brain lasers.
In addition, if you create two antennas on the top instead of one, it further increases the effectiveness by an additional 37 percent.
I don't need the doom and gloom preface either. Especially since I generally engage in the doom and gloom outlook myself.
But some people DO need it. Wake up! That is the message.
From TFA . . .
paranoiacs take note
No matter how paranoid and tin foil hat crazy sounding my concerns have been over the years, it always turns out that things are already worse than I imagined.
I DO NOT need to now be told of every example of new malware that can listen through my ear buds. The general purpose takeaway message is: unplug earbuds when not in use. Just as with the camera, put black tape over it when not in use. But I don't need to know about every new instance of web cam spyware.
I DO need to know about every new capability, such as using the earbuds as microphones.
Pissed Consumer is also asking courts to take a closer look at some suspicious libel lawsuits that have resulted in delisting of its content -- lawsuits that follow the same M.O. as the ones spotted by Levy.
So we may learn of more pissed off judges and other companies such as Profile Defenders.
Righthaven. Prenda. Profile Defenders. Popcorn is starting to get old. Pretzles in a bag are gratification without waiting for it to pop.