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.
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.
I often think of the current research chemical market in regards to this: a poorly understood drug like MDPV makes the rounds on the internet, someone decides to take the risks for the rewards in the gray-area and makes it widely available, someone buys it at a gas station and ends up in the hospital after doing something dumb, a panic ends up getting it banned, and a short while later the cycle restarts with a new drug that is still in the gray-area of the law.
Comments
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.
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.
this is a great point.
I often think of the current research chemical market in regards to this: a poorly understood drug like MDPV makes the rounds on the internet, someone decides to take the risks for the rewards in the gray-area and makes it widely available, someone buys it at a gas station and ends up in the hospital after doing something dumb, a panic ends up getting it banned, and a short while later the cycle restarts with a new drug that is still in the gray-area of the law.