Dubstepforum.com

http://io9.com/fake-cell-phone-towers-c ... 1630378142

This map shows the locations of 17 mysterious cell towers in the United States that aren't part of any known cell phone provider network. Nobody knows where they came from, but they are busily intercepting the communications of any mobile in signal range.

Who is running these interceptors and what are they doing with the calls? Goldsmith says we can't be sure, but he has his suspicions.

"What we find suspicious is that a lot of these interceptors are right on top of U.S. military bases. So we begin to wonder – are some of them U.S. government interceptors? Or are some of them Chinese interceptors?" says Goldsmith. "Whose interceptor is it? Who are they, that's listening to calls around military bases? Is it just the U.S. military, or are they foreign governments doing it? The point is: we don't really know whose they are."

any ninjas getting matrixd?

To be honest anyone can do it nowadays, phones are like radio as in they're not encrypted.

Funny how my Android autospell doesn't have 'encrypt' in it...

thats not true, tcp/ip has basic encryption, pretty ure data and voice are both encypted on most cell networks

i mean thst they will be encypted between the phone and the cell, that doesnt matter if the cell itself is the culprit

nsa

san
sant
santa

Totally matrixed here.

I didn't read that article, but many of these permanent installations are on military bases. There are mobile units allover the place. Police agencies use them, and as a part of the contract they sign with the supplier of this tech, they cannot disclose their usage. So prosecutors who use this technology don't disclose it to the defense. Complete and total violation of fundamental rights protected in the constitution, and the rule of law generally. When governments do this and weaken the rule of law, the society as a whole suffers as it is only the belief in law that allows us to exist in any kind of orderly fashion.

The constitution doesn't protect public rights, it grants them.

jesslem wrote:The constitution doesn't protect public rights, it grants them.

That's actually quite profound of you sir.

There has been talk of codifying the UK constitution in a legible manner, which apparently already exists in a very messy and scattered form. I think the people in power actually want to keep it obscure because then only they understand it...

It is also incorrect, at least as far as the states go.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stingray_phone_tracker

old news

nowaysj wrote:It is also incorrect, at least as far as the states go.

How? The rights didn't exist before the constitution, the UK doesn't have the same rights as the US

Yeah, it is different here. Our constitution grants the federal government several limited rights/abilities, everything else is reserved to the people. A revolutionary concept.

rayman612 wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stingray_phone_tracker

old news

v v interdasting

nowaysj wrote:It is also incorrect, at least as far as the states go.

State constitutions further restrict though?

jesslem wrote:

nowaysj wrote:It is also incorrect, at least as far as the states go.

State constitutions further restrict though?

Not always. In my state marijuana is legal. It is not at the Federal level.

I've been following this fake cell tower story. It was found by people using the CrytpoPhone500.

http://www.cryptophone.de/en/products/mobile/cp500/

I just realized what I wrote might be confusing. When I said states, I meant like the United States of America, not the individual states themselves.

Also keep in mind that much of the legal structure that has been set up at the federal level as it relates to the states and to individuals is completely jerry-rigged. It was not supposed to be like this. We have worked ourselves into a situation where the whole structure is irrational, and unmanageable. No one, or even no group fully understands the whole system of codes. Moving forward becomes ever more complex as code is laid on top of code on top of deprecated code, but code that is still nonetheless active. If you are recognizing a familiar or similar scenario that arises in programming, you'd be entirely correct.

The bottom line is that the constitution was set up to prevent this type of situation, but through the predictable behavior of individuals and organizations that structure has been subverted. A return to constitutional ideals I believe would invigorate this country on every level, from the individual, to local through national economies, on a moral level, on a cultural level. People need to take ownership for themselves, their communities, their states, and ultimately this nation. In my opinion, if they did, this stingray bull shit wouldn't happen, Furgeson wouldn't happen, to big to prosecute wouldn't happen, the federal reserve wouldn't happen, and what is about to happen wouldn't happen.

Cheers.

Ah so it's like the inverse of what Jesslem said? So it's rules about what governments can do and they can't do anything else?

Yes, the government only has enumerated powers.

Are we missing that the constitution exists as more of a warning to the american public?
For instance, Americans are allowed to have guns to protect themselves from the government, why not write the country's public protection document in such a way that this isn't necessary, if, after all, a nation's government exists to serve the people's interests? Moreover, as evidenced by countries where entire populations aren't foreseeably subject to refugee status it's quite clearly possible to have a government that needn't put their citizens under threat, isn't it? It almost sounds like a good deal, but it's kind of a sick joke imo.