Hacker News

Exactly, it's not like Elon has been shy about using his toys for this admin.

Why wouldn't they do that in the case of other providers?

What if Starlink refuses?

Current Starlink direct-to-mobile is proprietary. It's kind of the opposite: 5G NR NTN so far has required new chipsets which haven't found their way into phones yet, whereas Starlink's LTE has been deployed with firmware changes to existing phones.

Yes?

>GrapheneOS has "2G Network Protection" which prevents your phone from connecting to 2G networks and it also can notify you if your cellular identifiers were accessed.

You should realistically be changing to it to "5G or LTE only", even better "5G only". The latter should provide complete protection from IMSI/IMEI sniffing by rogue base stations.

Yow, $70 a month is rather harsh. Honestly I'd rather just stick to Signal and avoid traditional calling/SMS and use HTTPS for everything over mobile data instead.

> Literally just airplane mode.

Almost everyone needs a solution that allows them to send and receive communication, including using the Internet, at arbitrary places and times.

> (Cape)

Cape is cofounded by Palantir alums; national security agencies are their main market. That doesn't condemn them - and it may speak to technical chops and requirements - though people should be informed so they can make their own decisions.

> They also donate 100k/year to GrapheneOS

Their valuation, as of this past March, is $900M [0]. GrapheneOS is mostly silent about donors and any arrangments with them, afaict.

[0] https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2026/03/19/ex-pa...

Lockdown Mode on iOS also disables 2G

Rayhunter is a great tool, but unfortunately, it is only a passive monitor for cellular state changes and not an active defense.

Modern Stingrays / IMSI catchers support all standards up to 5G. They easily exploit 4G networks and 5G Non-Standalone (NSA) deployments. The only effective active defenses include (a) using a device locked strictly to 5G Standalone (SA) mode with SUCI (Subscription Concealed Identifier) enabled, preventing fallback to 4G/3G/2G where identity spoofing is trivial, (b) keeping the device in airplane mode most of the time, only going online briefly from unpredictable, shifting locations, and (c) using custom cellular baseband firmware that can reject anomalies (like a tower suddenly appearing too close or lacking neighbor cell lists), though this requires custom building your own solution as ready-made consumer solutions are hard to find. The last one can be achieved with Rayhunter, of course, but it would require some patching to Rayhunter and always carrying a mobile phone connected to the Rayhunter-supported Wi-Fi hotspot device.

Finally, intelligence mercenaries (and therefore LE agencies that contract them) use warrantless network-side exploits like SS7/Diameter attacks to remotely query the core telecom routing system and harvest the location of the tower target's phone is currently using¹ ². This doesn't even require sending legal DD requests to telcos to get target's cell tower.

[1] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/370809133_Attacks_t...

[2] https://www.lighthousereports.com/methodology/surveillance-s...

Or collecting kompromat leverage

Being an illegal alien is not actually the problem though. It’s being poor and/or a minority while also being an illegal alien

Judges are now no longer giving the DoJ the benefit of the doubt and actually scrutinizing the charges.

Presumably they're relying on mass pardons, like for the profligate self-enrichment, the open treachery of deliberately alienating our allies, the domestic terrorist gangs killing protestors, etc.

But it occurred to me the other day - pardons aren't some ineffable thing, but rely on the discretionary power of the executive (plus some dubious ability to bind future executives). But if we actually get the rule of law back at some point (ie no more sparkling autocracy aka "unitary executive theory"), then Congress should be able to make a law declaring that all those prosecutions need to be pursued. And it wouldn't be an ex-post-facto law because the illegal actions had already been illegal when they were performed, rather the only legal effect would be declaring that the executive (or ideally an independent agency) must perform the prosecution.

(edit: pardon power is mentioned in the Constitution - "[the President] shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment". But that would seem to apply to only some of the crimes. And one would hope that if we were at the point where there was a political mandate to take these traitors to task, an impeachment and conviction could be quite swift - there needs to be impeachments and criminal convictions for most of the Supreme Council as well)

For context:

A law was passed under President Clinton that made it illegal for protesters to interrupt religious services or impede access to an abortion clinic.

> The Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act is a United States law that was signed by President Bill Clinton in May 1994, which prohibits the following three things: the use of physical force, threat of physical force, or physical obstruction to intentionally injure, intimidate, interfere with or attempt to injure, intimidate or interfere with any person who is obtaining an abortion, the use of physical force, threat of physical force, or physical obstruction to intentionally injure, intimidate, interfere with or attempt to injure, intimidate or interfere with any person who is exercising or trying to exercise their First Amendment right of religious freedom at a place of religious worship...

https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_Access_to_Clinic_E...

We've seen anti-abortion protesters found guilty and sentenced to prison under the same law in the past.

> Six pro-life activists convicted of federal FACE Act charges, face over a decade in prison

https://ewtn.co.uk/article-six-pro-life-activists-convicted-...

Reporting on an event is not the same as participating in it. The first amendment protects freedom of the press as much as it protects freedom of religion.

Some people are wondering if the government has to prove it is a mob, or can just say that, and then do a bunch of illegal things once they assert it. And, whether if that turns out to be a lie, if there are consequences for lying. It would be nice to have clarity there.

You're just thumping the table. It's illegal to discriminate against Jewish university students, too, but that doesn't mean that Trump's treatment of Columbia et al was justified. What do you think it means for an official to use the law as a weapon against his enemies?

"It's illegal in the United States to form or participate in a mob that interrupts worship service"

What if it is a mob of religious worshipers that are participating in the mob?

First Amendment, anyone? The right to protest and have a free press?

I guess we're raiding the homes of Congress members we simply disagree with, so Constitutional rights don't carry as much weight anymore.

That narrative is what the Justice Dept alleges, but it’s far from settled. Don’t be disingenuous.

he was acting as a journalist covering a protest. go lick a boot (earlier comment got flagged so im repeating the message)

There are many churches that have needed protesting.

For me it says “you read your last free article”

Banning all paywalls seems harsh. Some paywalls are perfectly readable in Reader Mode.