Talk:Harris Corporation/Archives/2015

Harris Corp history

This account fails to mention the Railroad Product Line that was created after the 'Locotrol' technology was acquired with the purchase of Radiation. GE (the GE Transportation Systems Business Division--GETS--as it was then known) partnered-up with Harris (Controls & Composition Division), as GE-Harris, to produce and sell Locotrol. This product might not figure much in the awareness of Harris or ex-Harris people who were engaged on other Harris projects, but Locotrol was a new--perhaps the first non-utility--use of SCADA, and was a seminal railroad technology that was innovative and disruptive, and that introduced revolutionary new practices and commercial outcomes for railroads around the world that purchased it. It deserves to be included and acknowledged as part of the history of Harris Corporation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Throttleer (talk • contribs)

Trying to find a bomb in a school = immoral?

An entry said, in effect, that trying to find a reported bomb in a local school was technically illegal. Less federal or state oversight, this sounds crazy on the surface. Harris is a large corporation. I'm sure they've done things that are more interesting and reportable and maybe even indictable. Right now, it's mostly the ACLU "doesn't like" something. That should be reported, but very succinctly. Nobody else cares! Student7 (talk) 20:20, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I have reinserted this entry as it discusses Harris' employees directly taking part in search and seizure of communications with these controversial tools. If one reviews source materials provided, your assertion is shown to be incorrect; Harris conducted interception of communication, not a search for mythical bombs. Neither morality nor legality are discussed at all.

I too am sure they've done other things (geospatial intelligence, microprocessors [switched to off-the-shelf commodity chips, unfortunately], broadcasting equipment, etc are areas I wouldn't mind seeing more of) but issues there are most of it being regurgitated press releases written by Harris. A large portion of this article is already sourced to Harris' PR Dept.; we certainly do not need even more of that. If you've content for other notable matters, please include in article.

These devices are notable; everyone from NBC, The New York Times, The Atlantic and others cover the matter. Such broad-based coverage from multiple media outlets would seem to indicate the assertion that "nobody else cares" rings hollow at best. ACLU is a well known and respected civil and human rights organization; the documents are obtained by them via FOIA etc, then Media does their reporting. Only once does the article speak directly to an ACLU position, which regards Harris & FCC OET correspondence; even that is only a single sentence. -- dsprc ^[talk] 05:09, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, ACLU has complained about it, filed suit, etc. There are NO findings against Harris or the PB Police, or anybody else. The claims should be stated as claims/suits only without adjective pov like "mass surveillance," a loaded term, "trick", "masquerade", etc. I realize you can find those words someplace. But unless they are in a neutral source they are not helpful to an npov article. And depending on the context, the adjectives in the NY Times may not be npov, just because it is the Times.

We're not the media. Let's stick to facts as an encyclopedia should. Student7 (talk) 20:45, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Since when is filing a public records request POV?

What would you then, propose the section be titled? As the products are marketed, and used for mass surveillance purposes, it would seem proper to group them under such a heading. What else would you call them when that is what they do?

Masquerade, trick, spoof, etc are legitimate terms and common parlance (this has been noted previously by others on this talk page), and is the language used in all media reports to explain these products. What language best explains the operation and function of this class of surveillance gear? (an example is ARP spoofing attack, where one floods a network and masquerades as the legitimate DHCP server, etc)

Do you have any proof that NYT is not neutral in their reporting in this matter (asked because you appeared to maybe not have reviewed sources previously)? Are you to claim all other sources provided are also not reliable? If so concerned about neutrality, where were the objections when Harris employees turned the article into a sales brochure, even when such editing is against Policy and a TOS violation?

Only facts have been included so am not sure what your issue is with the content. If you've evidence of something not being factual then present it (can go line by line). The only line containing an opinion is regarding FCC OET; which is presented as such. -- dsprc ^[talk] 01:51, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Student7, I've removed the word "trick" and altered language so it still accurately describes the systems. -- dsprc ^[talk] 02:08, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks.

I noticed that you've edited the Stingray article as well. Was hoping to get npov wording from there. I think the initial presentation should cite Harris or a secondary neutral source as to the intent of the device. Why is Harris selling this and to whom? Are there restrictions on it's sale? Would they sell ME one? How about Iran?

Then we can state who doesn't like it, and explain their reasoning. But it would be more like "The NT Times and the Washington Post have expressed concerns that this device allows government to invade privacy. [assuming they have done so editorially which I presume] The ACLU filed suit November 2014 in the Washington DC District Court to prevent the manufacture or sales of this device." Or whatever. I wouldn't think a public records request would be reportable. There are perhaps tens of thousands of these every year. We should require a threshold higher than that, I would think.

Harris is trying to sell these devices. The media is trying to sell time or space. Neither is intrinsically moral nor immoral. Presumption that Harris is guilty of something should be deferred until a court tells them not to do something. Or fines them or something overt.

Since you are apparently open to discussion, let me suggest that the subsection be retitled. Maybe "Eavesdropping devices." The first sentence would describe the devices, more or less from Harris' pov but from a neutral, perhaps business source. "Criticism" or "controversy" would be a subsection under there. Student7 (talk) 20:40, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

• Student7, sure we can pull from StingRay article, need to heavily compress here though. Anything specific stand out to you over there?

• Harris have been tight-lipped; only statements coming from Jim Burke (our friend from earlier) are refusals to comment. Can include information on sales and restrictions; they're brokered through the FBI (CIA in some cases [1][2] but that is Boeing, not Harris). Harris sells them to governments. If you want one, build your own. ;-)

• No one is reporting simple records requests (well, maybe MuckRock would). Reporting is on their contents, circumstances surrounding and involving Harris' NDA. Back to POV tag a bit; it states: "This is written as though the allegations from the ACLU were true", but nowhere is this the case. Again, the only place an ACLU position is stated is FCC OET, and is presented as a position of ACLU staffers. Since this concern is already addressed, addition of tag is unwarranted and not particularly helpful. Can include a different source [3][4][5] - which we probably should do anyway. If your issue involves Harris conducting surveillance on behalf of Palm Bay PD, ACLU have nothing to say on the matter and involvement is limited to being organization that requested records; which is why I asked "Since when is filing a public records request POV?".

• "Eavesdropping devices" is a poor choice as it does not accurately describe them and implies 'passive surveillance'; these are 'active surveillance' platforms. Passive operations are limited to 'site-surveys' only (similar to Kismet); all other modes are various forms of man-in-the-middle attacks.

• "...more or less from Harris' pov" is ironic, but (I think) I understand what you're saying. Will see what can be dug up (am sure there is a manual or document reported on somewhere).

• Am of the opinion that content in "controversy" sections should just be written into article as normal but, if you want to include one (everyone seems to) I won't object.

• I am open not just to discussion but to a full rewrite, and it certainly does need to be rewritten - current language really is garbage. Am traveling so if no one beats me to it, can maybe take a stab in a week or so (provided I don't forget, and cellular reception permitting). Namaste -- dsprc ^[talk] 09:55, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Agree mostly.

I may try to change the title while you're away, to "Products used for surveillance" or some such. And break off controversy.

I kind of agree that media editorials should be summarized together. I think maybe your hint that ACLU opinion really needs to be confined to formal suits. And requests for information is a routine matter, not really reportable here, unless the suit was based (in part) on that information maybe.

Probably should be shorter. We (both, I think) want this to be a "punchy" article. I want Harris' product to be the ultimate defense against terrorism. Another editor wants the product to be a great threat to liberty. Just want to be sure that weaker arguments do not tire reader or push her/his credulity.

And what we achieve here probably should find its way into other Harris product articles. I'm not really up to following them all.

Have a good trip! Student7 (talk) 18:30, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I tried to reorganize subsection somewhat. Put products at the top. Reader needs to know what Harris makes before "criticism."

I still think "bomb" material, reworded somewhat, tends to make Harris look GOOD, not bad! Not a strong argument. The "letter to FCC" is weak as well. I recommend deletion of both. Student7 (talk) 18:47, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Proof?

Unlike this article, Harris is innocent until proven guilty. No one has yet done that and that media adjective should be dropped in favor of an encyclopedic one. Imagine instead, the wording "Civil Rights groups have proven intractable when it comes to defending their country against terrorist groups." This would be equally false, or, by the terms suggested here, equally valid. Student7 (talk) 20:24, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

• Proof, and guilt, of what exactly? I notice you throw this around quite a bit. However (and repeatedly), the matter of guilt is not discussed at all in this article.

• The platforms are controversial; one need only examine the ad infinitum media reports which state as much. That is all we do here - parrot what others have published and back that by sourcing them. Statement is sourced. "Media" -in this case, journalists from reputable news organizations- are our sources; if you can demonstrate the sourcing is unreliable (other than nebulous claims like before), those can be addressed. Additionally, it was yourself who had suggested a "controversy" section; obviously you see controversy substantial enough to warrant such a heading. What is the real objection?

• You invoked "terrorism" previously to endorse these platforms, and insinuate my opposition to them. Please concentrate on actual content of article, not your personal opinions (injected into article previously) or presentation of logical fallacies and tired tropes. Likewise the trumpeting of "courts" for imposition of preferred language/view. All of which not particularly rationale justifications (or positions). The strawman has been killed already, we need not resurrect it. -- dsprc ^[talk] 03:48, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

The language looks more npov from what I read superficially.

For the record, the Stingray device monitors calls. I doubt that it replaces the function of the actual tower receiver. This would constitute interference with an FCC approved common carrier. So I believe it is merely a monitoring device, not that hard to make. The challenge for Harris is to record the information and relay it to the surveillance group that bought it, on a secure band that doesn't interfere with the cell phone service. Student7 (talk) 17:29, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

I suppose the gadget could mimic the function of a network sufficiently to get a phone to connect to it in lieu of an actual cell phone network (not all areas are covered by all suppliers). But proceeding from there to actually allow a call to go through seems very unlikely. It's just presumes too much support that can't be there for a single device. Student7 (talk) 17:17, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• w/o venturing into weeds: the platforms carry out man-in-the-middle attacks. They've wireless back-haul which is offloaded onto legitimate Stations for completion and Termination. Interference is why they're run past FBI.
• The devices are trivial and not difficult to produce; some links here: https://github.com/SecUpwN/Android-IMSI-Catcher-Detector/wiki ((particularly DEFCON (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQSu9cBaojc ) for detailed explanation of more simplistic "homebrew" kit)).
• This line of discussion is best directed toward Talk:Stingray phone tracker or elsewhere for clarification, not here. -- dsprc ^[talk] 09:08, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Exclusionary rule

See USA Today article. Some of that might go here. Or another article.

Note that the police/FBI are presuming Exclusionary rule. They do this for other stuff too. Hear something from someone who hasn't been warned and use information in some other manner so prosecutors can use it. We can't ahead of WP:RS here, but the article just mentioned probably needs improvement. I didn't notice Miranda. Don't have time to expand on this right now. Just wanted to see what you think. Student7 (talk) 01:37, 25 August 2015 (UTC)