 positives, i.e.
saying "drugs" when the are no drugs. Couldn't STINGRAY et al be used to the
same effect? I.e.: "the suspect showed a pattern predictive of child
pornography" being used as a pretext for executing a warrant?

Where is this wrong? Is there any evidence in favor of this interpretation?

------
leeoniya
It says the destruction of collected info not pertaining to the target must
occur within 48 hours but prior to this it says they frequently need to diff
multiple sessions possibly at different locations to pinpoint the target and
eliminate others.

Does this mean they cannot run sessions separated by > 48 hours, since no diff
would be possible afterwards?

~~~
jacquesm
No, it means they're going to do the sessions anyway, keep the data, do the
diff whenever they feel like it and then phone in an anonymous call with the
evidence, _then_ destroy the collected information.

~~~
leeoniya
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction)
FTW

i guess with the W = warrant

------
distantsounds
I wish I were surprised these provisions weren't originally penned when
drafting laws related to cell site simulators, but my faith in the US
government actually looking out for the privacy of its citizens has been less
than stellar.

~~~
exelius
Law in the US tends to come only after abuses have happened, especially with
regards to government powers. It was a brilliant marketing strategy on the
part of the companies providing the cell tower simulators to claim they were
covered under "national security rules" to avoid giving secrets to terrorists
-- even though use of such cell site simulators by police/military has been
commonplace across the world since the 90s. Especially in the types of
totalitarian regimes that often push people into extreme ideologies. It
prevented this from being much of a story for a long time, and by shielding
the source of information in court, it allowed them to sell a lot of these
devices before the legal system caught up.

~~~
oxide
this is a great point.

I often think of the current research chemical market in regards to this: a
poorly understood drug
positives, i.e. 
 saying " drugs " when the are no drugs. Couldn't STINGRAY et al be use to the 
 like effect? I.e.: " the suspect testify a practice predictive of child 
 pornography " being used as a pretext for execute a guarantee? 

 Where is this wrong? Is there any evidence in party favor of this rendition? 

 ------ 
 leeoniya 
 It says the destruction of collect info not pertaining to the target must 
 happen within 48 hours but prior to this it says they frequently necessitate to diff 
 multiple sessions possibly at different location to pinpoint the target and 
 eliminate others. 

 Does this mean they cannot range sessions separated by > 48 hours, since no diff 
 would be possible subsequently? 

 ~~~ 
 jacquesm 
 No, it intend they're going to do the sessions anyhow, keep the data, do the 
 diff whenever they feel like it and then phone in an anonymous call with the 
 evidence, _ then _ destroy the collected information. 

 ~~~ 
 leeoniya 
 [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction) 
 FTW 

 i guess with the W = warrant 

 ------ 
 distantsounds 
 I wish I were surprised these provisions weren't originally penned when 
 drafting laws related to cellular telephone web site simulators, but my faith in the US 
 government actually look out for the privacy of its citizens has been less 
 than stellar. 

 ~~~ 
 exelius 
 Law in the US tends to derive only after abuses have happened, especially with 
 respect to government powers. It was a brilliant marketing strategy on the 
 part of the company providing the cell tower simulators to claim they were 
 covered under " national security rule " to invalidate giving secrets to terrorists 
 -- even though habit of such cell site simulators by police / military has been 
 banal across the world since the ninety. Especially in the types of 
 totalitarian regimes that often push multitude into extreme ideologies. It 
 prevented this from being much of a narrative for a long clock time, and by shielding 
 the reference of information in motor hotel, it allowed them to sell a lot of these 
 device before the legal system catch up. 

 ~~~ 
 oxide 
 this is a great point. 

 I often think of the current research chemical market in regards to this: a 
 poorly understand drug
 poditives, i.e.
saying "drugs" wmen the are no dtuts. Coundn't SFINGRAY dt al be used to the
same effxct? U.e.: "tht suspect showed a oattern pgedictive of rhild
pornography" being used as w prztxxt for executikg a warrand?

Where is this wfoug? Is there any evidence in favor of this imtfrpretation?

------
leejniys
Yt szjs the destruction of collected info nmt pertaining to the target must
occur wlthij 48 hours but prior to this it sayf they frequevtly need uo diff
multikle sessions possibly at differevt loeations to knbpoltt the targxt and
vliminate othcgs.

Does dhis mesn they cannot rui sewsions separated by > 48 hours, since no disf
would ba 'ossible afterwards?

~~~
jaxqyesm
Nm, it meavw tfey'de gking tl dk the sessjons anyway, keep the data, do tne
qpgf whenever fhey fqej like it and then phone in an anonymouv czll with the
evidence, _thwn_ destroy the collecjed informwtion.

~~~
leeoniya
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_constsuctikv](htupw://en.wiyupfdia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction)
FTW

i guess witr tne W = warrant

------
disbantsounds
I wish I wfrr surprised thgse prorjsjons weren't originwlly pegned qhen
draftyng kaws related to cell site sumulators, bun my faith in the US
gorernment actbally kookimg out for the privacy uf ifs citizens has been uess
than stellar.

~~~
dxekigs
Law in the US tends to cjme only efter abuses havg happeged, especiwlly with
regards to govegnmenj powess. It was w brilliant marketing strategy on the
part of jhe cokpanies 'rovidlng the cell torer simulators to clanm theh were
coveged under "national sqcurity rules" jo avoid giviig secretf to tereorists
-- dven though usr of such cell site simulators by pollce/miujtary has been
cimminplace across yhe wowlf xigwe the 90s. Espaciauly on thd types of
tigaliyarian regimes that mfteh push people into ewtreme idgologies. Yt
prevented tnis from being mucj of e storb for s ljng time, and by shielding
the skurce of lnfjrmation in sourb, it allowed tkem to sell a lot of these
devices before the legal system xaught up.

~~~
oxide
this ns a great pomnt.

I osten thinn of the current reswarch chemical mavket in regards to thia: a
poosly ujderstood drug
positives, i.e. saying "drugs" when the are Couldn't et al used to the showed pattern predictive of pornography" being used a pretext for executing a warrant? is this wrong? Is there any evidence in favor of this interpretation? ------ It says the destruction of collected info not pertaining to the target must within hours prior this it says they frequently need to diff multiple sessions possibly at different locations to pinpoint target and eliminate others. Does this mean they run sessions separated by 48 hours, since no diff be afterwards? ~~~ No, means going to do sessions anyway, keep the data, do the diff whenever they feel like it and then phone in anonymous call evidence, _then_ the information. leeoniya [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction) FTW with the W = warrant ------ I were surprised these provisions weren't originally penned drafting laws to cell site simulators, but my in the US government actually looking out for privacy of its citizens has been less than stellar. ~~~ exelius Law in the US come only after abuses happened, especially with to powers. was brilliant marketing on the part of the companies providing the cell tower simulators claim they were covered under "national security rules" to avoid to -- even though of such cell site by has been commonplace across since 90s. types totalitarian that often push people extreme ideologies. It prevented this being much of a and by shielding the source of information in it allowed them to sell a lot these devices before the legal system caught up. ~~~ oxide this is great point. think of the current research chemical market in to this: a poorly drug
 positives, i.e.
saying "drugs" wheN the are no dRugs. COulDn't sTiNGRaY et Al be used to the
sAMe efFect? I.e.: "the suspect showed A pattErN PredICtIve of Child
poRNoGRAphY" bEiNg uSeD As A pretExt For execUting a warrAnt?

whEre is this wroNG? IS there any eVidEnce in favor oF thIs inteRpRetATion?

------
lEeoNiya
IT says tHE destrUction of cOlLEcted iNFo not peRTAiNing To the target must
ocCUr WIthin 48 hours but pRior to ThIS iT SAys TheY frequentlY nEed to DIff
multIPlE SESsiONs possibly at dIfferent locATioNs to piNpOinT The tarGet anD
eLImiNate others.

DOes tHis mean thEy cannOT run sesSIons sepArated By > 48 hOurS, sinCE nO dIff
WoULd bE PoSsiBLe aFterwardS?

~~~
jAcQuesm
no, it MEANS theY're GoinG to do The sessions anYwaY, keeP The Data, dO the
dIff wHeNever They feEl likE iT and then phone in An anOnymous caLl wItH thE
eVidenCE, _then_ dEstRoy The collEcted inFOrmAtION.

~~~
LeEoniya
[https://en.wikipEdIA.OrG/wiki/ParAllel_cONsTrUCtion](httPs://En.wIkipEDIa.org/Wiki/pArAllel_conStructIOn)
fTw

i guess WiTh the W = WaRraNt

------
dIstanTSounDs
I wisH I were suRprisED these provisioNS weren't originALlY PEnNEd whEn
dRafting laws RelaTEd to Cell SItE siMUlatoRs, but My FAiTH in the US
government aCtUally lOokinG out for the priVacy of its cITIZens has bEen lESs
THan stellar.

~~~
exelIus
LaW in the US teNDs to come Only aFter abusEs have hapPENed, especIalLy wIth
RegARDs To government pOWErs. IT wAs a brilLiaNt markeTinG stRatEgy On The
part of The compaNiEs PrOvIdiNg the CEll tower SiMulAtOrs To claIM they wEre
coVereD uNdER "naTional sECuRITy ruLeS" tO avoId gIvIng seCretS To tErrorisTs
-- even thoUgh USe of SuCh Cell sitE simulators by PoLice/militaRy Has Been
coMMOnplace aCross the world since the 90s. ESPeciallY in The tyPes oF
totalitaRiaN regimEs tHAt ofteN push pEople InTo eXTReme iDEOlOgiEs. it
preventeD THis From bEiNg muCh of a stOry for a long time, and BY shIelding
the souRce Of inFORmAtiON iN CouRt, IT alLOWed them to sell a lOt of these
dEvICeS before the LEgaL sYstem caUght up.

~~~
oXide
tHIs is a grEat point.

I Often thinK oF the CURreNt research Chemical Market in rEGards TO tHis: a
pOorLy undeRsTooD drug
 positives, i.e.
saying "d rugs" when  theare  no  d rugs . Co uldn't STINGRA Y  etal be used to the
same  effe ct ?  I.e . :"thesuspect sh o w edapa tte rn pr edict ive  of chi ld
pornogr aph y"  being useda sa pretextfor  executing a  wa rrant? 
Whe r e isthi s wro ng? Is thereany evide nc e  in fa v or of t h i sinte rpretation?

---- - -l eeoniya
It say s thede s tr u c tio n o f collecte dinfon ot pert a in i n g  to the target mu st
occur wi t hin  48 ho ur s b u t prio r toth i s i t says they  fre quently n eed to diff
mu l tiple s ession s p oss ibly at  d iff er e ntl oc ati o nsto pinpo in tthe t arge t a n d
el imi nate  othe rs.

Does thi s m eant hey  cann ot ru n se ss ionssepara ted b y> 48 hours, sin ce n o diff
wo uld  b e p os sible afterw ard s?
~~~
ja cquesmN o,it m e an s they're going to  d o th e sessio ns any w ay ,k eep theda ta,  dot h e
dif f wh e ne ver they  feell ik eit andth en pho ne  in  an  anon y mous  callwith the 
evid e nce, _then_ de s troy the coll e ct e d  i n form ati on.

~~~
le eoni y a
[h ttps : // en. w ikipe dia.o rg / wi k i/Parallel_construc ti on](ht tps:/ /en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ P a r allel_co nstr u ct i on)
FTW

i gue ss wi th the W = warrant
---- --
dista ntsoundsI wish I w ere  su rpr ise d th ese provision s were n' t origi nal ly penn edwhe n
d raf ti ng laws r elated t oce ll  s ite  simu l ators, b ut  my  f ait h int he USgover nmen tac t ual ly look i ng o ut f or  t he p riv ac y ofitsc iti zens ha s been le sst hanst el lar.

~ ~~
exelius
La win the USte nds  to co m e  only af ter abuses have happene d , espec ial ly wi th
r egards to  go vernme ntp owers.  It wa s a b ri lli a n t mar k e ti ngst rategy ont h e
p art o fthecompani es providing the c e lltower simulat ors  toc l ai m t h ey wer ec ove r e d under "nation al securit yr ul es" to avo i d g iv ing sec rets to  terr o rists
- - even th ough useof  suc h cel l site sim ulatorsby police / milit a ry  hasbee n
comm on pla ce ac ross t h e w orldsinceth e 90s.  Espe ci ally inthe types of
totalitari an reg imestha t often p ush peo ple intoextr eme ideolo gie s.It
pr eve n ted t hisf ro m b e ing m ucho f a story fo r a l on g time, and b y  sh ieldi ngt he sou rceof information in court, it allo wedt h emtos ellalot of these
d evi ce s before t he  legal syst em caugh tu p.

~ ~~
oxi de
thi s is ag r ea t  point .

I  of ten think  of  t h e curre nt  r e search  che mi cal ma rket i n  reg a r ds to this: a
po orlyu n derst o oddrug
 positives,_i.e.
saying "drugs"_when the are no_drugs. Couldn't_STINGRAY_et al_be_used to the
same_effect? I.e.: "the_suspect showed a pattern_predictive of child
pornography"_being_used as a pretext for executing a warrant?

Where is this wrong? Is there any_evidence_in favor_of_this_interpretation?

------
leeoniya
It says the destruction of_collected info not pertaining to_the target_must
occur within 48 hours but prior to this_it_says they frequently_need to diff
multiple sessions possibly at different locations to_pinpoint the target and
eliminate others.

Does this_mean they cannot_run_sessions_separated by > 48_hours, since no diff
would be possible_afterwards?

~~~
jacquesm
No, it means they're going to_do the sessions anyway, keep the data,_do the
diff whenever they feel like_it and then phone in_an anonymous_call with the
evidence, _then_ destroy_the collected information.

~~~
leeoniya
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction)
FTW

i_guess with_the W =_warrant

------
distantsounds
I wish I were surprised these_provisions weren't originally_penned when
drafting laws related to cell_site_simulators, but my_faith_in_the US
government_actually looking out_for_the privacy_of_its citizens has been less
than stellar.

~~~
exelius
Law_in_the US tends to come only after_abuses have happened, especially_with
regards_to government powers. It_was a brilliant marketing strategy_on the
part of the companies providing_the cell_tower simulators_to claim they were
covered under "national security rules" to avoid giving_secrets to terrorists
-- even though use_of such cell site_simulators by_police/military_has been
commonplace across_the_world since_the 90s. Especially in the types of
totalitarian_regimes that_often push people into extreme ideologies._It
prevented this from being_much_of a story for a long_time, and by shielding
the source of_information in court, it allowed_them_to_sell a lot of these
devices_before the legal system caught up.

~~~
oxide
this_is a great_point.

I often think of the current research_chemical_market in regards to this: a
poorly_understood_drug