Sunday, January 7, 2018

Children killing children

CHILDREN KILLING, SLAUGHTERING CHILDREN! SURE SIGN OF THE END OF THE AGE!
This latest incident of children killing other children is one of the most serious, and obvious, signs of the End of the Age. A brief look behind the scenes also reveal deep problems within our society.
The New World Order is coming! Are you ready? Once you understand what this New World Order really is, and how it is being gradually implemented, you will be able to see it progressing in your daily news!!

Learn how to protect yourself, your loved ones!

Stand by for insights so startling you will never look at the news the same way again.

YOU ARE NOW ON

THE CUTTING EDGE

NEWS BREIF: "Five die In Ark. school ambush: Two boys, 11 and 13, held in shooting of classmates, teacher", by Rick Bragg, The New York Times, reported in The Providence Journal Bulletin, Wednesday, March 25, 1998, P. A-1, 7.

"JONESBORO, Ark. -- An 11-year-old boy, who reportedly vowed to kill all the girls who had broken up with him, and his 13-year-old cousin, opened fire on students outside a middle school here yesterday, killing 4 girls and one teacher, and wounding 9 other students and another teacher, the authorities said. Law-enforcement officers said the two boys, dressed in camouflage clothing, apparently lay in wait in a wooded area near the school after someone -- perhaps a third person -- set off a fire alarm, forcing students and faculty members outside."

"Dazed students described how dozens of seventh- and eighth-grade students filed out of the tan one-story building at 12:45pm, and thought they heard firecrackers. But, as the students started to fall outside Westside Middle School, 12- and 13-year-olds dove for cover and one teacher threw herself in front of a student to save her. Within seconds, several students lay in their own blood on the school grounds, some screaming, some unmoving."

"Officers with the sheriff's department arrested the two boys as they ran through a wooded area near the school, apparently heading for a white van that was parked nearby. The two boys were apparently less than 100 yards from the school when they started firing ... students said they knew one of them [the shooters] as an 11-year-old who attended the school and had bragged that he was going to shoot all of the girls who had ever broken up with him. Joshua Reynolds, a 13-year-old seventh-grader, said the boy 'had told a bunch of people that he was going to kill them. he bragged a lot because he was into gangs and stuff ... he has said he was mad at everybody and that he was going to kill them. Nobody believed him." [Pages A-1, 7]

This spectacle of children slaughtering children goes far beyond just horror of the event. The larger unanswered question was how could anyone only 11 and 13 years old get to the point where they were so mad at "all the girls that had ever broken up with them" that they would murder them in ambush style? As the story unfolded, we could see that these boys had planned this rampage with the greatest possible premeditation. Consider the acts of premeditation that have come to light thus far:

* They broke into the house of one of their grandfathers to steal nine guns from his weapons collection, including the most sophisticated hunting rifle.

* They planned their getaway by obtaining the keys to their father's van.

* When the time came for their murder, they drove the van to a spot near the area from which they would launch their attack. The van was filled with several thousand rounds of ammunition.

* The boys planned to wear army style camouflage clothing, presumably to make it more difficult for the victims to see them and evade their fire.

* On the days before the shooting, the boys bragged to the students at this middle school that they were going to kill them.

* They devised a plan whereby they could get all their victims outside the school, where they would be clear targets. They correctly concluded that the ideal plan would be to pull the fire alarm, forcing students to come walking out of the building, knowing they would walk slowly down the concrete sidewalk.

The premeditation aspect of this tragedy is one of the most troubling to thinking adults. How could children so young be so mad at the world? Stories of the 11-year-old, Andrew Golden, have since surfaced that show him to be a most troubled young man, a kid who was angry at the world generally, and at the girls who had broken up with him specifically. But, evidently, some of the girls who were murdered had broken up with Mitchell, not Andrew. Therefore, Mitchell had become just as evil in his intentions as had Andrew.

How can this happen? In the entire hyperbole surrounding the aftermath of this terrible tragedy no one has even hinted at the fact that, since murder starts in the heart of the perpetrator, the real source of this slaughter is spiritual. I have been listening and reading carefully to all sorts of media discussion of this tragedy, and have not heard one tiny hint that anyone is thinking that this event had a spiritual source, and a spiritual solution. Rather, our society seems to be trying to find a secular, non-God reason these children could have committed these murders. We hear all sorts of excuses, like these children had bad homes to the Southern Culture being obsessed with guns. None of these supposed answers addresses the real spiritual disaster in which these two boys found themselves, and which American society mirrors perfectly.

GOD'S NATIONAL MORALITY

Christian leaders have been warning for at least 4-5 decades now that America is courting God's judgment because the vast majority of our citizens are deliberately walking away from God, His Son, Jesus Christ, and His commandments. As we walk away, we begin to do the things which seem right in our own eyes [Deuteronomy 12:8; Proverbs 12:15; and 14:12]. Let us examine this last verse, for it has great implications for this country.

"There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death." [Proverbs 14:12]. Remember, God is constantly assigning the morality of a nation by the morality of the leadership and the morality of a majority of its people. Therefore, as the individual morality of this nation dramatically became anti-God, anti-Bible, God assigned that attribute to America. Listen to God's revelations about national immorality.

* "Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD; and the people whom he hath chosen for his own inheritance." [Psalm 33:12]. The inescapable conclusion from this verse that God will curse the nation whose god is not the Lord God of the Bible.

* "Righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people." [Proverbs 14:34]. We have spent much time and effort in past articles to demonstrate all the many ways in which we are sinning grievously against God.

* "Ah sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity, a seed (offspring) of evildoers, children that are corrupters: they have forsaken the LORD, they have provoked the Holy One of Israel unto anger, they are gone away backward. Why should ye be stricken any more? ye will revolt more and more: the whole head is sick, and the whole heart faint. From the sole of the foot even unto the head there is no soundness in it; but wounds, and bruises, and putrifying sores: they have not been closed, neither bound up, neither mollified with ointment." [Isaiah 1:4-6] God uttered these awful words to Israel shortly before He sent in the Babylonian army to utterly destroy Israel in judgment. God is literally saying to Israel here, "why should I continue to punish you, since My correction is bringing no correction in your behavior?" God then pronounced national death upon Israel.

These verses accurately describe America before God today. But, there is more:

GOD'S JUDGMENT ON REBELLIOUS NATIONS

* "But if any nation will not hear and obey, I will utterly pluck up and destroy that nation, says the Lord." (Jeremiah 12:17) [Parallel Bible, KJV/Amplified Bible Commentary]

Do not be deceived: America today is in the same spiritual condition as Israel was in just before God utterly destroyed her. Carefully reread the warning God gave Israel in Isaiah 1:4-6, quoted above. God listed the spiritual condition in which He found Israel. We have listed these specific conditions, and as we do, see for yourselves that America is in the same terrible spiritual terminal condition. God considered the Israel national condition to be:

1) "Sinful nation" -- America fulfills this condition perfectly. We threw God out of our national institutions in the early 1960's, epitomized by the ban on Christian prayer in our public schools. Since then, our spiritual condition has deteriorated severely.

2) "People laden with iniquity" -- As I look at society today, from people in everyday life, to the shows on TV, to the movies, and the books we read, I can see Americans loaded down with enormous burdens of sin.

3) "a seed (offspring) of evildoers" -- Since the early 1960's, the Baby Boomers who started this national slide into sin are now grandparents. This generation is the most godless and perverted generation in our history. We shall return back to this theme a little later.

4) "children that are corrupters" -- how appropriate can our current situation be, compared to the Jewish nation God was about to destroy. One of the major signs that a nation is about to undergo God's judgment is when their children begin acting like, and sinning like, adults. We certainly see that element in American society today, do we not? These murders most definitely show us that we have corrupted our children so much in so many ways, they are becoming the "corrupters".

These are the sins for which God was pronouncing judgment upon Israel. Now, in the next few sentences we see how God views the condition of the national body that is afflicted with these sins. Remember, God views sin as a disease that, if allowed to run unchecked, will destroy the entire body. Here, God considers Israel to possess a disease that is fatal, terminal. Listen to God's description of the national body of Israel:

1) "the whole head is sick,

2) "the whole heart faint.

3) "From the sole of the foot even unto the head there is no soundness in it; but wounds, and bruises, and putrifying sores: they have not been closed, neither bound up, neither mollified with ointment"

This is quite an indictment of Israel's national body before God, Who is the Creator, Sustainer, and Healer of Israel first, and then to all the nations of the world. God looked at Israel and saw only putrifying wounds, and open sores, and a body nigh unto death.

Do not be deceived: America is in the same condition today as was Israel in the days just before God destroyed her.

Yet, these murders are also a very strong fulfillment of certain End of the Age prophecies. As I said in the Title and Subtitle, these horrible acts seem to be fulfillment of Paul's prophecies as he spoke of the condition of the hearts and minds of the people who would be living in the End of the Age. Let us examine these prophecies.

CONDITIONS OF THE MIND AND HEART

2 Timothy 3:1-5, "This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come." How often have you sighed and moaned at the cumulative affect of living in this country during this time? How many times have you felt such a heavy load of care draping about your neck because of the spiritual condition of our country, because of the many wars and rumors of wars, and because of economic hardship and/or uncertainty? We most definitely live today in perilous times.

2 "For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy" We see these personal traits every day in so many people, do we not? These two little boys who committed premeditated murder certainly were thinking only of themselves as they planned their crimes.

3 "Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good" Again, these boys displayed a complete lack of natural affection. In no other time in our history have such young Americans been so callous, so hardened, and so capable of the most heinous of crimes.

4 "Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God" All we have to do to see how completely this verse is fulfilled is to look through a TV Guide or a Movie Guide. These traits are expounded by the heroes and heroines of too many of our shows. And, consider how completely taken over we Americans are by our sports. Stadiums fill to capacity with vast numbers of "fans" [taken from word, fanatic], while churches are mostly empty. Truly, America is a lover of vain, empty pleasures more than lovers of God.

5 "Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away." The papers noted that Protestant churches seem to be everywhere in Jonesboro, and we have read that young Mitchell had been attending one of the Baptist churches in town until a couple of weeks prior to the rampage. Yet, Mitchell was taken over by the hatred and ill will that they have expressed to other students prior to the crime. Too many churches today have a "form of godliness", but they do not possess the power of the Holy Spirit. If you are a member of a church that waters down, or denys, the cardinal doctrines of the Bible, you are commanded, by this verse, above, to leave. Paul commanded, "from such turn away". If your church is caught up in some aspect of the Ecumenical Movement, "from such turn away".

The key reason that we believe this type of crime is a fulfillment of End Times' prophecy, and not just the work of a couple of demented kids, is that this crime is just the last in a long line of similar crimes. Consider the recent carnage:

1) On December 15, 1997, Joseph Colt Todd, a 14-year-old eighth-grade student hid in a tree and shot two students outside his high school in Stamps, Arkansas. Stamps is a small town in the southwestern part of Arkansas.

2) On December 1, 1997, 14-year-old Michael Carneal walked into Heath High School in West Paducah, Kentucky, and opened fire on a student prayer group. Carneal killed three classmates and wounded five others as they gathered for a morning prayer.

3) In October, 1997, Luke Woodham, a 16-year-old student in Pearl, Mississippi, was distraught over breaking up with his girlfriend. He stabbed his mother to death, and then drove to school where he fatally shot his former girlfriend and one of her friends, plus wounding seven others. "Six other teenagers were later arrested as accomplices in what investigators described as a Satanic cult." [Ibid., p. A-7]

Some mass media apologists have tried to suggest that this behavior of children killing each other is nothing new, that such activity has always occurred within American society. Excuse me!! While it is true that kids will occasionally kill one another in a fight, and usually with a knife, we simply have never seen the crime of premeditated murder that each of these instances involves.

For the past several decades, Christian leaders have been warning that our culture is robbing children of their innocent childhoods, and that we are hardening our young children terribly. Let us spend a few moments detailing some of the cultural influences which are hardening our children's hearts and minds, desensitizing them greatly.

In 1988, Christian authors Phil Phillips and Joan Hake Robie wrote a classic book on this subject, entitled " Horror and Violence: The Deadly Duo In The Media". We quote some pertinent segments of this book, which is even more relevant today than in 988.

* "Sex on television was practically nonexistent in the early sixties, unlike today's television. In soap operas almost everybody is fornicating or committing adultery of even incest. Ninety-eight [98] percent of all sexual scenes in 'soaps' represent fornication. Nothing is off limits -- euthanasia, homosexuality, abortion, drugs, child abuse, alcohol, rape, and murder." [Page 15]

* "Violence is being presented in many forms ... we are telling society that it is okay for the good guy to use violence, however excessive, as long as he beats the bad guy. Some people, we believe, are swayed by the 'good vs evil' to the extent that they become tolerant of the means involved." [Ibid] This is indeed the case, as Americans are constantly being fed the Communist principle that "the ends justify the means". Therefore, we find it perfectly acceptable for the Rambo-type character, or the many other similar characters to kill, maim, and break just about any law necessary to bring the truly bad guys to "Justice". This principle that the "ends justify the means" is one of the two key ingredients in Communism that has resulted in the death of hundreds of millions of people worldwide. The other principle is that people are inherently good, and are made bad only by bad environment. Therefore, to make good citizens you only have to eliminate the bad influences within society. Unfortunately, most of the "bad" influences are brought about by "bad" people; therefore, the answer is to kill these "bad" people off so they cannot influence anyone anymore. Whenever you hear anyone say that people are the way they are because of a bad environment, you should shudder and shake in your boots, because the person saying that is espousing deadly Communist doctrine that has produced the greatest bloodbaths in world history.

* "The U.S. National Commission on Causes and Prevention of Violence issued a statement in 1969 that concluded, 'A constant diet of violent behavior on TV has an adverse effect on human character and attitudes'." [Ibid,. p. 32] Furthermore, this study noted that the effect of violence is magnified greatly if the child is very young when witnessing the violence.

When you think of the violence of cartoons, even supposedly "children" cartoons that promote violence, you can begin to see the damage we are doing to our precious children. Road Runner and Looney Tunes cartoons are excessively violent; but, more than just violent, these cartoons give the young child the distinct belief that fatal violence will not result in any permanent harm, because they see the cartoon character falling hundreds of feet, landing on concrete or rocks, and then jumping up and resuming their life. When you couple that with the endless computer games kids play, in which they see heads, legs, and arms cut off, blood spewing everywhere, and the gravest result of it all is that the game is over, and a new game can begin, you can see how young children really believe, in their heart of hearts, that the victims of their actions will just get up and walk away.

* "Some researchers believe there is more danger in a child watching his favorite TV star commit violence on every episode than in exposing the child to gory, violent horror movies." How can this be the case? Because children will naturally want to imitate their hero or heroine and if they see them using violence regularly, the children will naturally believe violence is an acceptable way of dealing with situations in their lives. [Page 34]

* "TV violence makes young viewers apathetic to real-life violence". [Page 39] Just start counting the number of violent acts per hour in the shows you watch a lot. These authors discovered that Rambo movies averaged 161 acts of violence per hour! [Page 43]

* TV and movies impart the belief to children that no one is bound by society's rules and laws if the end result is truly worthwhile. We see this scenario played out in James Bond movies, where the hero gets the bad guys with incredible weapons and with utter disregard for the normal laws and rules of society.

* "A study of 430 boys, aged nine to eleven years, revealed that the more television violence they witnessed, the more the child was willing to use force as a solution to conflict and to perceive it as effective. Social psychologist Frederic Werthan noted that children have absorbed from the mass media an idealization of violence. 'Not the association of violence with hate and hostility, but the association of violence with the good and just -- this is the most harmful ingredient." [Page 45]

* "For years, psychiatrists have suspected that adults are as susceptible as children to TV's up or down mood effects. You are what you see." [Page 51]

* "... when preschoolers were provided with a reward they could recall and perform as much as 40% of the model's aggressive actions as long as eight months after viewing ... the period between 6 and 10 years is crucially sensitive for learning by observation. As for teenagers ... once an individual reached adolescence, behavorial dispositions and inhibitory controls have become crystallized to the extent that the child's agressive habits would be difficult to change with modeling." [Page 54]

* "The very fact that a violent act goes unpunished has the same effect." [Page 56] These two boys in Jonesboro probably felt, deep down, that they would really not have to worry about severe punishment.

* "The data suggests that aggressive habits are learned early in life, and once established, are resistant to change and predictive of serious adult antisocial behavior." [Page 56] This sentence seems to really have relevance to this Jonesboro crime, does it not?

* "Most children watch television an average of 26 to 33 hours per week .. If he sees .. violent and abusive behavior or language, there is little hope he won't be adversely affected ... Violence is addictive" [Page 59-60]

* "Did you know that the average American child has watched the violent destruction of more than 50,000 persons on television by the time he's eighteen?" [Page 63]

* "Media violence trains victims as well as criminals [by making everyone feel insecure and frightened]. The exaggerated sense of risk and insecurity may lead to increasing demands for protection and to increased pressure for the use of force by established authority. Instead of threatening the social order, television may have become our chief instrument of social control." [page 70] Wow! Is this the reason so many Americans today, especially young adults, look chiefly to the Federal Government for help and support in so many areas of our lives? We have lost the natural fear of powerful central governments which our Founding Fathers had in such abundance; rather, we look to the Federal Government as one would look at a loving King Kong, ready to pounce upon any and all of our enemies, not thinking that, one day, he could pounce on us.

* "Violence is a staple in the American television diet. We show more violent and fewer prosocial programs during prime-time than any other country in the world." [Page 74]

* "If your eight-year-old watches a lot of TV violence, you can predict that you'll shape him into an agressive child." [Page 75]

* "Over the span of a week, children can be presented with demonstrations of how to kill or maim other human beings and animals that range from the prosaic (guns, knives, bludgeons, poisons, electricity, gas, garrotes, hatchets, drownings) to the more exotic (bee venom, boomerangs, spears, maces, spike heels). They are shown, from time to time, how to make and handle firearms, molotov-cocktails, and other grisly weapons, and often given justification for their use. Dr. Richard E. Palmer, former president of the American Medical Association, adds that television violence is both a mental health problem and an environmental issue." [Page 94]

All of this carnage is available on TV! We have not even yet begun to discuss the carnage presented on movies, and in video films. In fact, horror videos even more greatly present human gore and carnage, producing more mental and emotional damage. We suspect that kids gravitate from TV to video gaming, to horror videos in much the way as people gravitate from taking mild marijuana to more hard drugs.

The fact is plain for all thinking people to see: American mass media has been hardening the tender minds and hearts of its young for over 30 years now, to the point where Americans generally fear kids from 10-18 like never before. Very soon, law enforcement authorities say, our crime rate will be skyrocketing as this group of kids begins to really commit crime. These youngsters who have committed this unbelievable murder rampage in Jonesboro are merely the tip of the proverbial iceberg. We face the prospect of tens of millions of youngsters for whom nothing is absolutely right or wrong, and who have no conscience.

Historians have long noted that Adolf Hitler could not have carried out his murderous holocaust had he not had the availability of several million German young soldiers who were willing to pull the trigger. Since the New World Order Plan envisions the murder of 4 billion people, instead of the "mere" 18 million victims of Hitler, we have long postulated that untold millions of young people will have to be so hardened that they will willingly "pull the trigger" on the planned victims that will have no place in the New World.

The mass media has been the primary agent in hardening our children beyond belief. TV, movies, video movies, violent and explicit computer game videos, cartoons, books, and pornography, are all responsible along with the adults who did not care what their children were watching. Only in this age could so much purient material been so accessible to so many young and impressionable minds. We are facing an historically unprecendented situation here, just as one might expect from End of the Age prophecies. We have already quoted 2 Timothy 3:1-5, but we would like to quote from Jesus' own words, as He spoke of the End of the Age signs by which we would know we were witnessing the arrival of the Day of the Lord.

In Matthew 24:12, Jesus said, And the love of the great body of people will grow cold because of the multiplied lawlessness and iniquity." Only now, in this age, with Mass Media, could this prophecy be fulfilled. Jesus is saying that the normal love for Him that generations of people in past history displayed will grow very cold because of the "multiplied lawlessness and iniquity [sin]."

Mass Media has fulfilled that prophecy in front of our unsuspecting eyes. I submit to you that Mass Media, coupled with a godlessness in the lives of at least the last three generations of Americans, has produced this coldness toward Jesus Christ spoken of here.

These two boys in Jonesboro, and the other boys, listed above, that also committed murder, are the tip of the godless culture we have created in America today. These boys, along with millions of others, have been bombarded their entire lives with millions of images of death, destruction, violence, and murder. Their hearts have been hardened and their consciences have been "seared as with a hot iron".

We should not wonder as to "why" these boys committed this terrible crime; we should wonder how much longer it will be before the Lord Jesus Christ returns for His own. These terrible events should cause us to look up, for our Redeemer is drawing nigh [Luke 21:28]

Are you spiritually ready? Is your family? Are you adequately protecting your loved ones? This is the reason for this ministry, to enable you to first understand the peril facing you, and then help you develop strategies to warn and protect your loved ones. Once you have been thoroughly trained, you can also use your knowledge as a means to open the door of discussion with an unsaved person. I have been able to use it many times, and have seen people come to Jesus Christ as a result. These perilous times are also a time when we can reach many souls for Jesus Christ, making an eternal difference.

If you have accepted Jesus Christ as your personal Savior, but have been very lukewarm in your spiritual walk with Him, you need to immediately ask Him for forgiveness and for renewal. He will instantly forgive you, and fill your heart with the joy of the Holy Spirit. Then, you need to begin a daily walk of prayer and personal Bible Study.

If you have never accepted Jesus Christ as Savior, but have come to realize His reality and the approaching End of the Age, and want to accept His FREE Gift of Eternal Life, you can also do so now, in the privacy of your home. Once you accept Him as Savior, you are spiritually Born Again, and are as assured of Heaven as if you were already there. Then, you can rest assured that the Kingdom of Antichrist will not touch you spiritually. If you would like to become Born Again, turn to our Salvation Page now.

We hope you have been blessed by this ministry, which seeks to educate and warn people, so that they can see the coming New World Order -- Kingdom of Antichrist -- in their daily news.

Finally, we would love to hear from you.

You can contact us by mail or email.

God bless you.
Subscribe to our email updates and messages from our editor by entering your email address below
Email:
Subscribe
Return to:
Cutting Edge Home Page
Index of Free Radio Show Transcripts
Currently In The News
Newsletters Archives
Freemasonry
Meet the Staff
From A Pastor's Heart
Supporting Your Internet Outreach Ministry
Cutting Edge Seminars On Tape
Cutting Edge Book Store
Thus Saith Rome
Teachings From the Catechism

Friday, January 5, 2018

Surveillance

Stingrays

AUTHOR: KIM ZETTERKIM ZETTER
SECURITY
10.28.1503:00 PM
TURNS OUT POLICE STINGRAY SPY TOOLS CAN INDEED RECORD CALLS

THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT has been fighting hard for years to hide details about its use of so-called stingray surveillance technology from the public.

The surveillance devices simulate cell phone towers in order to trick nearby mobile phones into connecting to them and revealing the phones' locations.

Now documents recently obtained by the ACLU confirm long-held suspicions that the controversial devices are also capable of recording numbers for a mobile phone's incoming and outgoing calls, as well as intercepting the content of voice and text communications. The documents also discuss the possibility of flashing a phone's firmware "so that you can intercept conversations using a suspect's cell phone as a bug."

The information appears in a 2008 guideline prepared by the Justice Department to advise law enforcement agents on when and how the equipment can be legally used.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California obtained the documents (.pdf) after a protracted legal battle involving a two-year-old public records request. The documents include not only policy guidelines, but also templates for submitting requests to courts to obtain permission to use the technology.

The DoJ ironically acknowledges in the documents that the use of the surveillance technology to locate cellular phones "is an issue of some controversy," but it doesn't elaborate on the nature of the controversy. Civil liberties groups have been fighting since 2008 to obtain information about how the government uses the technology, and under what authority.

Local law enforcement agencies have used the equipment numerous times in secret without obtaining a warrant and have even deceived courts about the nature of the technology to obtain orders to use it. And they've resorted to extreme measures to prevent groups like the ACLU from obtaining documents about the technology.

Stingrays go by a number of different names, including cell-site simulator, triggerfish, IMSI-catcher, Wolfpack, Gossamer, and swamp box, according to the documents. They can be used to determine the location of phones, computers using open wireless networks, and PC wireless data cards, also known as air cards.

The devices, generally the size of a suitcase, work by emitting a stronger signal than nearby towers in order to force a phone or mobile device to connect to them instead of a legitimate tower. Once a mobile device connects, the phone reveals its unique device ID, after which the stingray releases the device so that it can connect to a legitimate cell tower, allowing data and voice calls to go through. Assistance from a cell phone carrier isn't required to use the technology, unless law enforcement doesn't know the general location of a suspect and needs to pinpoint a geographical area in which to deploy the stingray. Once a phone's general location is determined, investigators can use a handheld device that provides more pinpoint precision in the location of a phone or mobile device—this includes being able to pinpoint an exact office or apartment where the device is being used.

In addition to the device ID, the devices can collect additional information.

"If the cellular telephone is used to make or receive a call, the screen of the digital analyzer/cell site simulator/triggerfish would include the cellular telephone number (MIN), the call's incoming or outgoing status, the telephone number dialed, the cellular telephone's ESN, the date, time, and duration of the call, and the cell site number/sector (location of the cellular telephone when the call was connected)," the documents note.

In order to use the devices, agents are instructed to obtain a pen register/trap and trace court order. Pen registers are traditionally used to obtain phone numbers called and the "to" field of emails, while trap and trace is used to collect information about received calls and the "from" information of emails.

When using a stingray to identify the specific phone or mobile device a suspect is using, "collection should be limited to device identifiers," the DoJ document notes. "It should not encompass dialed digits, as that would entail surveillance on the calling activity of all persons in the vicinity of the subject."

The documents add, however, that the devices "may be capable of intercepting the contents of communications and, therefore, such devices must be configured to disable the interception function, unless interceptions have been authorized by a Title III order."

Title III is the federal wiretapping law that allows law enforcement, with a court order, to intercept communications in real time.

Civil liberties groups have long suspected that some stingrays used by law enforcement have the ability to intercept the content of voice calls and text messages. But law enforcement agencies have insisted that the devices they use are not configured to do so. Another controversial capability involves the ability to block mobile communications, such as in war zones to prevent attackers from using a mobile phone to trigger an explosive, or during political demonstrations to prevent activists from organizing by mobile phone. Stingray devices used by police in London have both of these capabilities, but it's not known how often or in what capacity they have been used.

The documents also note that law enforcement can use the devices without a court order under "exceptional" circumstances. Most surveillance laws include such provisions to give investigators the ability to conduct rapid surveillance under emergency circumstances, such as when lives are at stake. Investigators are then to apply for a court order within 24 hours after the emergency surveillance begins. But according to the documents, the DoJ considers "activity characteristic of organized crime” and “an ongoing attack of a protected computer (one used by a financial institution or U.S. government) where violation is a felony" to be considered an exception, too. In other words, an emergency situation could be a hack involving a financial institution.

"While such crimes are potentially serious, they simply do not justify bypassing the ordinary legal processes that were designed to balance the government’s need to investigate crimes with the public’s right to a government that abides by the law," Linda Lye, senior staff attorney for the ACLU of Northern California, notes in a blog post about the documents.

Another issue of controversy relates to the language that investigators use to describe the stingray technology. Templates for requesting a court order from judges advise the specific terminology investigators should use and never identify the stingray by name. They simply describe the tool as either a pen register/trap and trace device or a device used “to detect radio signals emitted from wireless cellular telephones in the vicinity of the Subject that identify the telephones.”

The ACLU has long accused the government of misleading judges in using the pen register/trap and trace term—since stingrays are primarily used not to identify phone numbers called and received, but to track the location and movement of a mobile device.

Investigators also seldom tell judges that the devices collect data from all phones in the vicinity of a stingray—not just a targeted phone—and can disrupt regular cell service.

It's not known how quickly stingrays release devices that connect to them, allowing them to then connect to a legitimate cell tower. During the period that devices are connected to a stingray, disruption can occur for anyone in the vicinity of the technology.

Disruption can also occur from the way stingrays force-downgrade mobile devices from 3G and 4G connectivity to 2G if they are being used to intercept the concept of communications.

In order for the kind of stingray used by law enforcement to work for this purpose, it exploits a vulnerability in the 2G protocol. Phones using 2G don’t authenticate cell towers, which means that a rogue tower can pass itself off as a legitimate cell tower. But because 3G and 4G networks have fixed this vulnerability, the stingray will jam these networks to force nearby phones to downgrade to the vulnerable 2G network to communicate.

“Depending on how long the jamming is taking place, there’s going to be disruption,” Chris Soghoian, chief technology for the ACLU has told WIRED previously. “When your phone goes down to 2G, your data just goes to hell. So at the very least you will have disruption of internet connectivity. And if and when the phones are using the stingray as their only tower, there will likely be an inability to receive or make calls.”

Concerns about the use of stingrays is growing. Last March, Senator Bill Nelson (D—Florida) sent a letter to the FCC calling on the agency to disclose information about its certification process for approving stingrays and any other tools with similar functionality. Nelson asked in particular for information about any oversight put in place to make sure that use of the devices complies with the manufacturer’s representations to the FCC about how the technology works and is used.

Nelson also raised concerns about their use in a remarkable speech on the Senate floor. The Senator said the technology “poses a grave threat to consumers’ cellphone and Internet privacy,” particularly when law enforcement agencies use them without a warrant.

The increased attention prompted the Justice Department this month to release a new federal policy on the use of stingrays, requiring a warrant any time federal investigators use them. The rules, however, don't apply to local police departments, which are among the most prolific users of the technology and have been using them for years without obtaining a warrant.

#CELLPHONES#SPIES#STINGRAYS#SURVEILLANCE
VIEW COMMENTS
SPONSORED STORIES
POWERED BY OUTBRAIN

YIELDSTREET
5 Ways to Build Wealth Outside the Stock Market

EVERQUOTE
Everett, Washington: This Unbelievable, New Company Is Disrupting a $200 Billion Industry

ADS NEW TRUCKS
Have You Seen These Awesome New 2018 Pickups?

BABBEL
This App Can Teach You A Language In Just 15 Hours

TOPHATTER
Amazon Doesn’t Want You To Find This Site
MORE SECURITY
PROPAGANDA
Pro-Kremlin Twitter Trolls Take Aim at Robert Mueller
AUTHOR: ISSIE LAPOWSKYISSIE LAPOWSKY
WIRED OPINION
Even Videogames like Call of Duty Won’t Help Us Win Wars
AUTHOR: LIONEL BEEHNER, JOHN SPENCERLIONEL BEEHNER AND JOHN SPENCER
INTERNET
What Happens If Russia Attacks Undersea Internet Cables
AUTHOR: LOUISE MATSAKISLOUISE MATSAKIS
ELECTIONS
A Dead-Simple Algorithm Reveals the Toll of Voter ID Laws
AUTHOR: ISSIE LAPOWSKYISSIE LAPOWSKY
SECURITY
Get a Password Manager. No More Excuses
AUTHOR: LILY HAY NEWMANLILY HAY NEWMAN
VULNERABILITIES
A Critical Intel Flaw Breaks Basic Security for Most PCs
AUTHOR: ANDY GREENBERGANDY GREENBERG
GET OUR NEWSLETTER
WIRED’s biggest stories delivered to your inbox.

Enter your email

SUBMIT
FOLLOW US
ON YOUTUBE
Don't miss out on WIRED's latest videos.
FOLLOW
LOGINSUBSCRIBEADVERTISESITE MAPPRESS CENTERFAQACCESSIBILITY HELPCUSTOMER CARECONTACT USSECUREDROPT-SHIRT COLLECTIONNEWSLETTERWIRED STAFFJOBSRSS
CNMN Collection

Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our user agreement (effective 3/21/12) and privacy policy (effective 3/21/12). Affiliate link policy. Your California privacy rights. The material on this site may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, cached or otherwise used, except with the prior written permission of Condé Nast.

Police Use “StingRay” Device to Monitor Cellphones

Police Use “StingRay” Device to Monitor Cellphones
Written by  Warren Mass Monday, 24 March 2014 00:00 Print Email font size   decrease font size   increase font size
Police Use “StingRay” Device to Monitor Cellphones
Using a device called StingRay, police across America are able to intercept calls and texts from cell phones — often without a warrant. The StingRay simulates a cell tower, prompting cellphones within its range to identify themselves and transmit their signals to the police instead of the nearest mobile network operator’s tower.

No one seems to know exactly how many local, state, or federal law enforcement agencies are using Stingray technology, how extensive the monitoring is, or even what information the devices are capable of capturing, such as the contents of phone conversations and text messages.

This information dearth is disturbing to all Americans who value their right to privacy, as protected by the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition of “unreasonable searches and seizures.” The amendment also prohibits the issuance of search warrants without “probable cause.” Yet there are indications that StingRay is commonly being used by police not only without probable cause, but also without a warrant.

Investigations by several news organizations revealed that the most likely reason that police do not want to obtain a warrant or reveal that they are using Stingray is that the device’s manufacturer, Harris Corporation of Melbourne, Florida, requires police departments who buy their equipment to sign a non-disclosure agreement.


Under normal operating procedure, when police suspect that an individual is engaged in criminal activity, they must show “probable cause” of such activity to a judge in order to obtain a search warrant. This would be the requirement for police to obtain authorization to tap a suspect’s landline phone.

While the same constitutional requirements should obviously apply in order for police to be able to listen to cellphone calls, technology such as StingRay makes it easier for law enforcement (ironically) to circumvent the law. And because the Harris Corporation is so adamant about protecting every detail of Stingray from public scrutiny, it does not want to share any information about the device — not even with the judges responsible for issuing warrants!

Sacramento News 10 (ABC affiliate, KXTV) recently submitted public records requests to every major law enforcement agency in Northern California to find out which departments are using StingRay technology. The station received information from several agencies, but “none would discuss how StingRays work, or even admit they have them,” reported News 10.

However, by piecing together brief statements from police officials and studying departmental purchase orders, News 10 was able to determine that StingRay was being used in Northern California.

Information culled from a 2012 grant application submitted to the Bay Area Urban Area Shield Initiative (UASI), indicated that the San Jose Police Department requested feedback from several other agencies that already use StingRays. The application noted:

Research of the [StingRay] product included testing by San Jose Police and technology and equipment feedback from the U.S. Marshals Service, (REDACTED), the Oakland Police Department, the Sacramento Sheriff's Department, the San Diego Sheriff's Department, the Los Angeles Police Department, and the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department. This technology is in use at the law enforcement agencies listed [above].

The language in San Jose’s grant application was frank in explaining how the technology would be used:

We will work with the Fusion Center to partner with San Francisco and Oakland to ensure we have the ability to cover all of the Bay Area in deploying cellphone tracking technology in any region of the Bay Area at a moment’s notice.

When News 10 contacted law enforcement agencies in Northern California that had (according to public records and purchase orders) acquired StingRay technology, police officials typically were evasive.

For example, following up on a Criminal Investigation Division report that stated that the Oakland Police Department’s Targeted Enforcement Task Force made 21 “Electronic Surveillance (StingRay) arrests” in 2007, and on a purchase order that showed that Harris Corporation had a $13,500 maintenance contract with Oakland police to maintain a StingRay S/N 303” in 2009, News 10 asked the department about their use of the StingRay.

However, reported the news outlet, Oakland police would not even admit to owning a StingRay, despite public records indicating that they did.

“Thank you again for your interest in the Oakland Police Department,” police spokesperson Johnna Watson replied to News 10 in an e-mail. “We cordially decline to comment further regarding your story.”

News 10 received similar runarounds or denials from several other police agencies, including the San Francisco Police Department, which said it could not find its grant application for funds to purchase a StingRay, and the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department, which said it had no records of purchasing a StingRay.

When News 10 again contacted the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department to ask them to explain the discrepancy between their statement and that of the San Jose Police Department, Undersheriff James Lewis e-mailed the station, saying:

While I am not familiar with what San Jose has said, my understanding is that the acquisition or use of this technology comes with a strict non-disclosure requirement. Therefore it would be inappropriate for us to comment about any agency that may be using the technology.

A December 2013 investigation by USA Today found that about one fourth of the more than 125 law enforcement agencies it surveyed had performed “tower dumps,” which allow police to request the phone numbers of all phones that connected to a specific tower within a given period of time), and that slightly fewer owned a StingRay. At least 25 of the departments own a StingRay. However, most of the departments denied the newspaper’s public-records requests.

Other news organizations across the country — including Palm Springs, Calif.; Tallahassee, Fla.; and Pittsburgh, Pa. — have run into similar roadblocks when asking local law enforcement about StingRay.

“I don’t see how public agencies can make up an agreement with a private company that breaks state law,” David Cuillier, the director of the University of Arizona’s journalism school and a national expert on public-records laws, was quoted as saying by the Associated Press. “We can’t have the commercial sector running our governments for us. These public agencies need to be forthright and transparent.”

An article in the Wall Street Journal on September 22, 2011 noted that the use of devices such as StingRay is prompting a constitutional debate “about whether the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures, but which was written before the digital age, is keeping pace with the times.”

The Journal article pointed to the case of Daniel David Rigmaiden, a hacker charged with fraud who was apprehended by law enforcement officers who had used a StingRay. Rigmaiden asked the court to require the government to disclose information about its surveillance techniques so he could use it in his defense. He also asserted that using StingRays to locate devices in homes without a valid warrant “disregards the United States Constitution” and is illegal.

Sherry Sabol, chief of the Science & Technology Office for the FBI’s Office of General Counsel, told the Journal that information about StingRays and related technology is “considered Law Enforcement Sensitive, since its public release could harm law enforcement efforts by compromising future use of the equipment.”

An article in ThinkProgress on May 17, 2013, “Meet Stingrays, the Surveillance Tech the Government Doesn’t Want to Talk About,” mentioned the outcome of a key aspect of the Rigmaiden defense:

Last week an Arizona judge ruled that a tracking warrant used to deploy the device against Daniel David Rigmaiden, who is accused of collecting millions of dollars in rebates by submitting fraudulent tax returns, was valid despite the fact that the FBI failed to disclose they would be using a stingray or explain how the devices functioned in that warrant.

A report in the Miami New Times on March 5 reported that the ACLU had filed several public records requests that week with 29 police forces around Florida asking for detailed information about how often StingRay has been used, whether warrants were obtained, and what cases were affected by the data gathered using the devices. The ACLU also asked a state court to unseal records about its use.

The newspaper noted that the lack of public records about StingRay use suggests that many police forces don’t bother with warrants before tracking phones.

“We would expect that if police were going to get warrants and disclose the use it would come up more often in prosecutions,” the Times’ Riptide blog quoted ACLU staff attorney Nathan Freed Wessler as saying. “We suspect there is excessive secrecy around these devices because there simply isn’t much information about them in court opinions and public records.”

“If police departments are going to use this kind of powerful surveillance technology, they need clear rules in place so they aren't collecting private information,” Wessler said.

And those rules need to conform to the Constitution, including the Fourth Amendment.

Photo: AP Imag

Wednesday, January 3, 2018

Porn is cheating

Yes, Using Porn is Cheating. Here’s Why.
Monday, January 19, 2015 | Written by Luke Gilkerson
I’ve heard it said that there are men who don’t look at porn, and then there are men who are breathing. If recent surveys are any indication, porn use has become the norm among men, not the exception.

Still, I get a lot of questions from women who are feeling the heartbreaking impact of porn on their marriages. To them porn feels like cheating, and for good reason.

It is.

Is Using Porn Cheating on Your Spouse?

I understand why many don’t think this is true (reasons I’ll address below), but first it is important that I define some terms.

By “using porn” I don’t mean merely seeing it. It’s hard not to walk about in public places or go online without seeing something that is at least meant to titillate the eyes of men. When I say “using” I mean intentionally taking porn in through one’s senses with the intention of being turned on and then, most likely, masturbating or at least getting sexually aroused.

By “cheating” I mean that using porn is breaking a vow—either implicitly or explicitly—made to one’s spouse. This is because marriage is, in part, about sexual exclusivity; it is about “forsaking all others.”

The Slippery Porn Slope
Take some steps with me down a morally slippery slope.

Step 1: Let’s say I were to visit a prostitute and have sex with her. That would be cheating on my wife. I assume no one would debate me on this point.

Step 2: However, let’s say that when I met with the prostitute we didn’t actually touch each other: I just watched her have sex with someone else while I masturbated in the same room. (Weird, I know. But just go with it.) Would that be cheating? Both in this case and in the previous case I am seeking the services of a prostituted woman for sexual pleasure—seeking out and enjoying the body of a woman who is not my wife in order to be sexually gratified. Could a man rightly say, “Yes, I pleasured myself in front of a hooker, but we didn’t touch each other. I stayed faithful to you”? I don’t think so. The pretense of no physical contact doesn’t matter because the action still violates the spirit of the sexual exclusivity.

Step 3: However, let’s say I didn’t visit the prostitute in person but only interacted with her online through erotic video chat. Let’s say I masturbated during the chat session while using the video image as the source of my fantasy. Is this cheating? Has the lack of physical proximity suddenly changed the situation that it is no longer breaking my marriage vow? I don’t think so.

Step 4: Now let’s say that instead of engaging in the video chat live, the prostitute recorded herself for me so I could masturbate at my convenience. Is this still cheating? Am I now suddenly remaining faithful to my marriage vows because someone hit the record button? No. That’s just stupid.

Step 5: Now let’s say the prostitute has a business card with a fancy title on it: “Pornographic Actress.” She even has a website with a resume listing of all the films she’s been in. Her pimp—I mean, agent—pays taxes and everything. Totally legit. Let’s say I reach out to this prostitute and pay her to view her recorded videos which she gladly sells me. Is this cheating? Does the change in title and the veneer of professionalism change the nature of the act? No.

Step 6: Now let’s say that this entire enterprise is industrialized so that this woman is part of a large network of other prostitutes who are doing the same thing. Much like walking into a brothel, I can pick the woman I want when I want, pay my fee, and enjoy her body for my lustful purposes. Is this cheating? What about the industrialized nature of the product changes the nature of the act? Nothing.

And on this last step we have arrived at what the modern porn industry is. This is why using pornography is cheating. It is engagement with a digital prostitute despite one’s vow to forsake all others.

Hold on, I’m not convinced.
I can hear the screeching of mental breaks right about now. Many are thinking, “Wait a second. Something major has shifted between the first scenario and the last. No one sees porn as digital prostitution. If this was the way our culture understood porn, it might be one thing. But very few people who watch porn go online thinking, ‘I can’t wait to get sexual gratification from a digital prostitute.'”

This is a good objection. After all, motive and intention count for something when it comes to the promises or vows we make. If I sign a contract saying I will not share proprietary information from my employer, but then forward a work e-mail along to a friend, not knowing it counts as “proprietary,” I’m not guilty of intentionally breaking my promise (even if my employer has grounds to fire me). Someone who uses porn might think along the same lines: “I’m just watching video clips made by actors and actresses, not intentionally seeking digital interactions with a prostitute.”

I agree, but motives only carry some of the weight when it comes to our moral decisions. The above slippery slope is not as much about motives as it is about the nature of the actions. Behind the making of pornography are real people really selling themselves for the sexual gratification of viewers. The medium doesn’t change the fact that a prostituted woman was used for her body and sex appeal, no matter the viewer’s understanding of the act.

This is why so many women say using porn feels like cheating: the act of seeking out another woman for sexual pleasure—even if she is hidden behind a veil of pixels and a sleazy acting agency—is not a movement towards faithfulness, but away from it.

Seeking out porn is engagement with a digital prostitute. #pornischeating
CLICK TO TWEET

Why cheating matters (and why it doesn’t)
However, by saying that using porn is breaking a marriage vow, I am not prescribing a specific reaction we should have to it. The six-step slippery slope presents six different scenarios, each having their own gravity of offense. They may all be cheating, but they all show different levels of intensity.

We need to turn the tables on those who ask, “Is using porn cheating?” and address why it matters.

For some, when they ask, “Is using porn cheating?” they bring a lot of baggage with the question. They think, “Since porn is cheating, I can never forgive you.” “Since porn is cheating, I have grounds to divorce you—and I will.” “Since porn is cheating, I will lash out and cheat on you.” These dispositions are, quite frankly, completely separate issues to address. To say a man has broken his marriage vow by seeking out porn is one thing. To say that he cannot be forgiven, that he should be divorced, or that he deserves revenge are other matters altogether.
For others, when they ask, “Is using porn cheating?” they simply want their spouse to know that when they said, “I do,” they expected a spirit of monogamy. Yes, the world is full of sexual temptations. Yes, they know their spouse is full of hormones and attracted to other people walking about in the world. But they expected to be the focus of their spouse’s sexual energy, attention, and devotion. When they vowed to “forsake all others,” that is what they promised and what they expected in return.
The heart of the matter
Two facts lie at the heart of the issue.

First, people often desire the perks of marriage, but marriage vows are not taken seriously. As such, we find ourselves straddling two worlds. In one world, we embrace an idyllic picture of finding “the one,” growing old together, loving and serving another person until death we do part. In the other world, we enjoy the convenience and self-centeredness of solo-sex in front of the computer screen. These two worlds mix like oil and water in our miry hearts. Before long, you will either have to abandon pornography or abandon a genuine spirit of monogamy.

Second, people have been blinded by the sense of distance the digital world places between ourselves and the real world. We believe something doesn’t count as much if it is “online” or “on television” or “just fantasy.” We rename offenses: stealing becomes downloading, cruelty becomes speaking one’s mind, and exploitation becomes entertainment. We have settled for what Chris Hedges calls an empire of illusion. “Pornography does not promote sex, if one defines sex as a shared act between two partners. It promotes masturbation,” Hedges writes. “It promotes the solitary auto-arousal that precludes intimacy and love. Pornography is about getting yourself off at someone else’s expense.”

So, he’s cheating. Now what?
If your husband (or wife) is engrossed in porn, you are right to feel like this is cheating. He is defrauding you of something that should be your exclusive domain. You are not a prude for thinking this. You just take your vows seriously, as everyone should.

But where do you go from here? Start by getting educated about the addictive nature of pornography and the steps other couples have taken to take a new direction. Read, “6 Common Questions Asked By Wives of Porn Addicts.”