FBI says search warrants not needed to use “stringrays” in public places

Feds' position on decoy cell-site towers continues anti-privacy theme.

Read the whole story

 

[DNick]

Jaysyn[/url]":3gn4xjsp]

DNick[/url]":3gn4xjsp]Someone will eventually build a phone (or an app) that will prevent this, or at least notify the user that they're possibly connected to a rogue cell. Then the FBI will issue statements about facilitating crime and not caring about the poor, poor children.

Like this one?

https://play.google.com/store/apps/deta ... id.towerid

Sort of. But if you're near a known tower but connected to a stingray, won't that app just tell you about the nearby tower it knows, and ignore the stingray it doesn't know? If the app just uses GPS, it seems like it's not adding much in the way of protection.

 

[groovestar]

For example, we understand that the FBI’s new policy requires FBI agents to obtain a search warrant whenever a cell-site simulator is used as part of a FBI investigation or operation, unless one of several exceptions apply, including (among others): (3) cases in which the technology is used in public places or other locations at which the FBI deems there is no reasonable expectation of privacy.

When I use a landline phone, the signal travels from my phone through the copper wire on my property into the big cable located in the public right-of-way and from there to the telco's facility. i.e. Most of the landline infrastructure is in fact located in public places.

So why would they not need a search warrant to set up a stingray in a public place, when they do need a warrant to tap a landline call which also travels through a public place?

 

[Sillyfugger]

Nixon was impeached for recording people , even Supreme court told him he had no protection from the law. take notice to this code specifically states "interception " what does this stingray device and what FBI are doing is legit ?

18 U.S. Code § 2511 - Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications prohibited

so how is a law passed by congress and a precedence set by unanimous ruling , that fbi,police now can get away with it. another funny point they claim authority is from Reagan E.O.12333 but they failed to read section 2.8 with in that order .. 2.8Consistency With Other Laws. Nothing in this Order shall be construed to authorize any activity in violation of the Constitution or statutes of the United States.


Quote:

While arguing before Sirica, St. Clair stated that:

The President wants me to argue that he is as powerful a monarch as Louis XIV, only four years at a time, and is not subject to the processes of any court in the land except the court of impeachment.

Sirica denied St. Clair's motion and ordered the President to turn the tapes over by May 31

Quote:

Less than three weeks later the Court issued its decision; the justices struggled to write an opinion that all eight could agree to. The stakes were so high, in that the tapes most likely contained evidence of criminal wrongdoing by the President and his men, that they wanted no dissent. All contributed to the opinion and Chief Justice Burger delivered the unanimous decision.
After ruling that the Court could indeed resolve the matter and that Jaworski had proven a "sufficient likelihood that each of the tapes contains conversations relevant to the offenses charged in the indictment," the Court went to the main issue of executive privilege. The Court rejected Nixon's claim to "an absolute, unqualified Presidential privilege of immunity from judicial process under all circumstances."
Nixon resigned 15 days later.

 

[soulsabr]

Sillyfugger[/url]":3bnx1fkl]Nixon was impeached for recording people , even Supreme court told him he had no protection from the law. take notice to this code specifically states "interception " what does this stingray device and what FBI are doing is legit ?

18 U.S. Code § 2511 - Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications prohibited

so how is a law passed by congress and a precedence set by unanimous ruling , that fbi,police now can get away with it. another funny point they claim authority is from Reagan E.O.12333 but they failed to read section 2.8 with in that order .. 2.8Consistency With Other Laws. Nothing in this Order shall be construed to authorize any activity in violation of the Constitution or statutes of the United States.


Quote:

While arguing before Sirica, St. Clair stated that:

The President wants me to argue that he is as powerful a monarch as Louis XIV, only four years at a time, and is not subject to the processes of any court in the land except the court of impeachment.

Sirica denied St. Clair's motion and ordered the President to turn the tapes over by May 31

Quote:

Less than three weeks later the Court issued its decision; the justices struggled to write an opinion that all eight could agree to. The stakes were so high, in that the tapes most likely contained evidence of criminal wrongdoing by the President and his men, that they wanted no dissent. All contributed to the opinion and Chief Justice Burger delivered the unanimous decision.
After ruling that the Court could indeed resolve the matter and that Jaworski had proven a "sufficient likelihood that each of the tapes contains conversations relevant to the offenses charged in the indictment," the Court went to the main issue of executive privilege. The Court rejected Nixon's claim to "an absolute, unqualified Presidential privilege of immunity from judicial process under all circumstances."
Nixon resigned 15 days later.

Times were different back then you young whipper snapper.

 

[Sobad]

DNick[/url]":6sdtn1aq]Someone will eventually build a phone (or an app) that will prevent this, or at least notify the user that they're possibly connected to a rogue cell. Then the FBI will issue statements about facilitating crime and not caring about the poor, poor children.

Already exists, I have gone into length about technologies involved to counter IMSI/IMEI catchers.

What is a law abiding, educated technophile going to do if they discover they have been hoovered (the term used) by a stingray though? Nothing really, you don't know who is running it, you can't really blanket sue... what do you do exactly? The only ones that would benefit from determing if they are getting sucked up are people who are doing illegal shit.

**DISCLAIMER** I work with "stingrays" and other stuff for a living..

 

[lost_gweedo]

Such crap. How about everyone in their apartments/homes/offices/vehicles that expect privacy but are still connecting to towers (and now stingray) that are in "public places"??

Everything needs to be reigned in. Executive, legislative, judicial. They forget who they are supposed to work for.

 

[Fatesrider]

With regard to privacy, I'm FINE with intrusions being done - as long as due process is followed. If there's PC and no emergency, get a damned warrant to intrude on people. And as far as "blanket" stuff like this goes, I think there should be oversight by non-appointed, non-elected citizens (say a grand jury kind of thing) to ensure data obtained under warrant that is not germane to the cited case is discarded and/or wiped to DoD standards.

I wouldn't trust the government to do it without oversight.

Word to the FBI: This is not cool. Get a warrant or get sued for invasion of privacy.

 

[cbpelto]

RE: Heh

What did you expect after Congress passed the National Intelligence Act of 2015 late last year. In it, it authorized FBI, CIA, NSA, DHS to spy on every cell phone and computer in the country.

Late last month my work station had a 'security update' installed from Apple WITHOUT my permission. Ever since then, my surfing the web is MUCH SLOWER in making connections.

 

[DNick]

Sobad[/url]":3kq3stbz]

DNick[/url]":3kq3stbz]Someone will eventually build a phone (or an app) that will prevent this, or at least notify the user that they're possibly connected to a rogue cell. Then the FBI will issue statements about facilitating crime and not caring about the poor, poor children.

Already exists, I have gone into length about technologies involved to counter IMSI/IMEI catchers.

What is a law abiding, educated technophile going to do if they discover they have been hoovered (the term used) by a stingray though? Nothing really, you don't know who is running it, you can't really blanket sue... what do you do exactly? The only ones that would benefit from determing if they are getting sucked up are people who are doing illegal shit.

**DISCLAIMER** I work with "stingrays" and other stuff for a living..

I'm guessing you'll disagree with my position that law abiding citizens need to do everything they can to lock down their communications from warrantless, suspicionless spying by the US government and its minions. I don't encrypt my data because I've got something to hide, I encrypt it because it's none of anyone else's business. I'm repulsed by the idea that some bureaucrat needs to know everything I say, who I associate with, and where I go as if I were a common criminal. I'm prepared to do everything I can to thwart their unconstitutional efforts.

 

[soulsabr]

Sobad[/url]":2l4dihmh]

DNick[/url]":2l4dihmh]Someone will eventually build a phone (or an app) that will prevent this, or at least notify the user that they're possibly connected to a rogue cell. Then the FBI will issue statements about facilitating crime and not caring about the poor, poor children.

Already exists, I have gone into length about technologies involved to counter IMSI/IMEI catchers.

What is a law abiding, educated technophile going to do if they discover they have been hoovered (the term used) by a stingray though? Nothing really, you don't know who is running it, you can't really blanket sue... what do you do exactly? The only ones that would benefit from determing if they are getting sucked up are people who are doing illegal shit.

**DISCLAIMER** I work with "stingrays" and other stuff for a living..

Good lord. I really just don't know what to say to this. I just hope you can live with yourself as you help to fuck us all. If this is considered a trolling post I'm sorry but I'm not changing it.

 

[Sobad]

DNick[/url]":1p5e2hkt]

Sobad[/url]":1p5e2hkt]

DNick[/url]":1p5e2hkt]Someone will eventually build a phone (or an app) that will prevent this, or at least notify the user that they're possibly connected to a rogue cell. Then the FBI will issue statements about facilitating crime and not caring about the poor, poor children.

Already exists, I have gone into length about technologies involved to counter IMSI/IMEI catchers.

What is a law abiding, educated technophile going to do if they discover they have been hoovered (the term used) by a stingray though? Nothing really, you don't know who is running it, you can't really blanket sue... what do you do exactly? The only ones that would benefit from determing if they are getting sucked up are people who are doing illegal shit.

**DISCLAIMER** I work with "stingrays" and other stuff for a living..

I'm guessing you'll disagree with my position that law abiding citizens need to do everything they can to lock down their communications from warrantless, suspicionless spying by the US government and its minions. I don't encrypt my data because I've got something to hide, I encrypt it because it's none of anyone else's business. I'm repulsed by the idea that some bureaucrat needs to know everything I say, who I associate with, and where I go as if I were a common criminal. I'm prepared to do everything I can to thwart their unconstitutional efforts.

Actually I 100% agree, and sadly I got a downvote for asking what I believe is a legitimate question.

What recourse does the average technophile have in this day and age if they get swept? Until this practice gets smashed by the Supreme Court, the average person is hosed.

I do this shit for a living and everything I have is so massively locked down it's rediculious, because even though what I do for a living is overseas, I don't trust my Government(and employer) at all.

 

[Sobad]

soulsabr[/url]":tqxgomi5]

Sobad[/url]":tqxgomi5]

DNick[/url]":tqxgomi5]Someone will eventually build a phone (or an app) that will prevent this, or at least notify the user that they're possibly connected to a rogue cell. Then the FBI will issue statements about facilitating crime and not caring about the poor, poor children.

Already exists, I have gone into length about technologies involved to counter IMSI/IMEI catchers.

What is a law abiding, educated technophile going to do if they discover they have been hoovered (the term used) by a stingray though? Nothing really, you don't know who is running it, you can't really blanket sue... what do you do exactly? The only ones that would benefit from determing if they are getting sucked up are people who are doing illegal shit.

**DISCLAIMER** I work with "stingrays" and other stuff for a living..

Good lord. I really just don't know what to say to this. I just hope you can live with yourself as you help to fuck us all. If this is considered a trolling post I'm sorry but I'm not changing it.

Not a trolling post, I asked a legitimate question which you ignored in your illiteracy or whatever. Since I am not reposting the question a 3rd time, look 1 post higher and you can answer it in your spurious post.

Also as to fucking us all, I work overseas.

 

[vassago]

Sobad[/url]":1incc18x]What is a law abiding, educated technophile going to do if they discover they have been hoovered (the term used) by a stingray though? Nothing really, you don't know who is running it, you can't really blanket sue... what do you do exactly? The only ones that would benefit from determing if they are getting sucked up are people who are doing illegal shit.

After the fact, there's likely no recourse as you point out. But you could at least turn your phone off as soon as you notice.
Furthermore, I disagree on your final statement I quoted. There are a lot of reasons I don't want my cell phone data being "hoovered". Most importantly, I, in no way, need to justify my right to privacy.

 

[knbgnu]

Sobad[/url]":u0h8ap7x]

DNick[/url]":u0h8ap7x]Someone will eventually build a phone (or an app) that will prevent this, or at least notify the user that they're possibly connected to a rogue cell. Then the FBI will issue statements about facilitating crime and not caring about the poor, poor children.

Already exists, I have gone into length about technologies involved to counter IMSI/IMEI catchers.

What is a law abiding, educated technophile going to do if they discover they have been hoovered (the term used) by a stingray though? Nothing really, you don't know who is running it, you can't really blanket sue... what do you do exactly? The only ones that would benefit from determing if they are getting sucked up are people who are doing illegal shit.

**DISCLAIMER** I work with "stingrays" and other stuff for a living..

The problem is that 'people who are doing illegal shit' can be the good guys when the government is the bad guy, and it often is. Authority should never be trusted blindly.

 

[shadedmagus]

CQLanik[/url]":2wlqwf1s]

calvinh09[/url]":2wlqwf1s]"The bureau's position on Americans' privacy isn't surprising. The Obama administration has repeatedly maintained that the public has no privacy in public places. "

So can the device maker(s) and law enforcement agencies guarantee that individuals in the privacy of their own homes, hotel rooms, etc. will not need to worry about being caught by the dragnet? I would like to hear precisely how that works out. (Forgive my ignorance if I missed something)

They can't, and don't. In the best case, hundreds of entirely innocent people are spied on with every use of a stingray, even when a warrant is used. The argument is that the US government would never keep data collected about innocent people, and anyway, if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.

The problem with that, as someone said in the NSA-Skype article thread, is that the government has a different definition of collect than we would expect - basically, that it isn't collection to have the data, it's only collection when the data is searched by an agent.

 

[AutisticGramma]

I must insist that police treat the personal data of everyone else, like the personal data of the department.

If everyone can't have it, they can't have mine either.

All or nothing guys.

If you act like the bad guys, sooner or later, everyone will forget the difference.

 

[DeadGeye]

How else is the 0bama administration going to keep track of what the Congress is planning??

 

[OGIS]

Back in the day, when I was in the USN, a buddy of mine designed a wave gun to respond to cop radar when we traveled to and from San Diego on Navy business. Every time a radar gun acquired our car, his little infernal device would boost the radar gun's signal 100,000 times and beam it right back to the radar gun. (This was powered by a trunk full of batteries he installed.) I think that, over several months, we must have passed 3 or 4 cops frantically trying to put out burning radar guns they had dropped to the pavement.

So how hard would it be to do the same to these fake cell towers?

Just asking for theory's sake, because I like thinking about stuff like this. NO WAY am I suggesting that anyone actually DO this. That would be WRONG!

 

[hammerstamp]

Constitution? What Constitution?

 

[knbgnu]

Sobad[/url]":a4mebeto]
Not a trolling post, I asked a legitimate question which you ignored in your illiteracy or whatever. Since I am not reposting the question a 3rd time, look 1 post higher and you can answer it in your spurious post.

Also as to fucking us all, I work overseas.

Isn't that the exact attitude that lead to a huge share of our current issues? The notion that something doesn't matter because it's happening somewhere outside of our country is how we've picked up most of our enemies that have justified most of our domestic distress. So, if anything, I'm more concerned that you mentioned you work overseas, especially since it in no way indicates that similar people aren't working within the US, likely treating us as if we were a foreign threat.

 

[jdale]

OGIS[/url]":2w5byjiw]Back in the day, when I was in the USN, a buddy of mine designed a wave gun to respond to cop radar when we traveled to and from San Diego on Navy business. Every time a radar gun acquired our car, his little infernal device would boost the radar gun's signal 100,000 times and beam it right back to the radar gun. (This was powered by a trunk full of batteries he installed.) I think that, over several months, we must have passed 3 or 4 cops frantically trying to put out burning radar guns they had dropped to the pavement.

So how hard would it be to do the same to these fake cell towers?

Just asking for theory's sake, because I like thinking about stuff like this. NO WAY am I suggesting that anyone actually DO this. That would be WRONG!

A stingray pretends to be a cell tower. How would you target a stingray and not also target actual cell towers?

 

[rick*d]

Where do I report to get my RFID implant and have my SSN tattooed on my forehead?

 

[Eurynom0s]

What kind of bullshit is this?

"No expectation of privacy in public places" means you can't get pissed off if someone takes a picture with your face visible in it. How is it not clearly different to do what amounts to the same thing as opening up someone's bag and rifling through its contents?

Furthermore, even if this was okay just because you're outside--especially but not only in densely populated areas, you're obviously going to be grabbing the cell phone traffic of people who are inside a private resident or office. Cell phone signals have no way of knowing whether you're inside or outside, only whether you're connected or not.

 

[Boskone]

CQLanik[/url]":37erc1ma]Use of a stingray consists of an unreasonable search of the phone of everyone in the area. Not only is there not a reasonable suspicion, the vast majority of those effected are suspected of no crime at all.

I've said it before, but if they'd alter the basic programming to only snarf up numbers from a discrete list, I'd have far less issues with these.

IMO, "is this number on the list? No? OK, next...yup. Record that one." is fine, but "MUST KEEP ALL THE NUMBERS!!!!111one" isn't.

 

[Hiketheball]

"cases in which the technology is used in public places or other locations at which the FBI deems there is no reasonable expectation of privacy"

Doesn't the FBI historically contend that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy anywhere?
This is an extremely self-serving stance to take--"We determine when, where, when and if we survail you"!

Personally, I don't recall the FBI or the Federal Government ever being given that right under the USA Constitution. Who missed this? Me? The FBI, the DOJ and POTUS Obama?

 

[Hiketheball]

심돌산[/url]":2r63vwmz]If the FBI wanted to argue that they have the right to sit down in a restaurant at a table near a person under investigation, and carefully eavesdrop on that person's conversations without a warrant, then I'd say they're right. Because anybody could do that, and that's what it means to have no reasonable expectation of privacy.

But using a stingray is more like putting a camera on your toe to take upskirt shots. Sure your subjects are in a public place, but you're making an effort to capture information that is not normally publicly observable.

Unskirt photos are not illegal in every jurisdiction. That's a flawed example. Try using a car analogy, please.

 

[z0phi3l]

The Obama admin keeps proving how transparent they really are and how much they truly care about our rights and The constitution

 

[MrRtd]

I'm sure the FBI's logic goes something like this; the NSA can invade everyone's privacy, therefore so can we.

 

[soulsabr]

Sobad[/url]":2m8dcsgw]

soulsabr[/url]":2m8dcsgw]

Sobad[/url]":2m8dcsgw]

DNick[/url]":2m8dcsgw]Someone will eventually build a phone (or an app) that will prevent this, or at least notify the user that they're possibly connected to a rogue cell. Then the FBI will issue statements about facilitating crime and not caring about the poor, poor children.

Already exists, I have gone into length about technologies involved to counter IMSI/IMEI catchers.

What is a law abiding, educated technophile going to do if they discover they have been hoovered (the term used) by a stingray though? Nothing really, you don't know who is running it, you can't really blanket sue... what do you do exactly? The only ones that would benefit from determing if they are getting sucked up are people who are doing illegal shit.

**DISCLAIMER** I work with "stingrays" and other stuff for a living..

Good lord. I really just don't know what to say to this. I just hope you can live with yourself as you help to fuck us all. If this is considered a trolling post I'm sorry but I'm not changing it.

Not a trolling post, I asked a legitimate question which you ignored in your illiteracy or whatever. Since I am not reposting the question a 3rd time, look 1 post higher and you can answer it in your spurious post.

Also as to fucking us all, I work overseas.

Because the US of A is the only country that A) The US of A spies on and B) is the only country that spies on its citizens. Congratulations ... *slow clap*

EDIT : The post before that one is irrelevant to the part I put in bold; the part of your attitude that simply sickens me. Basically you said that if we're doing nothing wrong then we've nothing to hide. Have fun at your "job".

 

[Animedude5555]

If I am sitting next to a person talking on their cellphone on a public park bench, and I overhear what they are saying, that's rude of me if I intentionally listen to what they are saying, but not illegal. You don't suddenly get a legally recognized expectation of privacy because you have a phone up to your head. If you are in public, there is no expectation of privacy. Your expectation of privacy is based on where you are physically located. Are you in your own home? Are you standing on a sidewalk? Where you are is all that matters.

Likewise, following the same logic, electronic eaves dropping on a cellphone conversation, when said cellphone user is in public, is not any more illegal than listening with your own ears. The only difference is that with electronic eaves dropping, you don't have to be near the person you are listening to. With that said, there must be certain restrictions for warentless cellphone wiretaps to make sure that expectation of privacy laws aren't violated.
Reasonable restrictions are these:
The target you are trying to listen to must be in a public area (place where reasonable expectation of privacy does not exist)
You listen ONLY to that person's side of the conversation (configure the device to only record the one side of the conversation), unless you have previously confirmed that the person on the other side of the conversation is also outside in a public area.
Record nothing other than audio (you couldn't get electronic/digital data text messages/etc by standing next to a person listening to what they were saying, so don't use electronic devices to record it either)
Record only your intended target (configure the device to only record the target's conversation, not other people's as their's no way to verify that other people that might get intercepted are in fact out in public)
Make sure you have a visual on the suspect before recording their phone conversation (have a recon agent visually determine when the target is in a public space with their cellphone, and have that recon agent contact the Stingray's operator by encrypted 2-way radio, to indicate that it is safe to begin the cellphone call interception)

If you must do anything not in accordance with the rules I just listed, then it means that a warentless cellphone wiretap would NOT be legal. In such a case, you must get a wiretap warent from a judge before you use the cellphone wiretap (aka Stingray). If I could be sure that FBI or other law enforcement officers followed the above rules I layed out, so as to avoid violating a person's reasonable expectation of privacy, then I would have absolutely no problem with them using warentless cellphone wiretaps.

And I prefer the innocent until proven guilty approach. Unless proved otherwise, I will ASSUME that the law enforcement are following guidelines similar to those that I wrote up here, and that the behavior of law enforcement agents does not violate the law. I will only believe otherwise if a law enforcement officer is found guilty in court for violating a person's right to privacy, in connection with such a wiretap device. If you are going to accuse a cop or FBI agent of illegally violating privacy law, lets not jump to the assumption of guilt, until their is a trial that has proved him guilty. That is the right way. That is the American way. Law enforcement officers deserve due process, just like every other American.

 

[I_Series]

I'm so over the US violating every right from every which way to Sunday. I wish I was young again and unencumbered such that I could take action. I've never been one much for protests other than writing a few letters or making a few phone calls. I'm now completely disgusted with the Police State that the US has become. I don't care what anyone says, my interpretation of the Constitution and the goals of the founding fathers was that the state needed a warrant for anything and everything. I personally believe that this distinction between public and private spaces and public and private information is utter bullshit. I'll tell you what is private, anything I say is private. My personal effects from my wallet to my papers in my files to my cell phone are all private, period. The stuff in my car, my garage, and my grandmother's attic are all private. The information about me contained in businesses I do business with is private. If the state suspects me of any crime then detail that out to a judge and get a warrant, period.

I'll tell you how to stop this crap real quick. Someone needs to use a sting-ray device on members of the Supreme Court, top members of the Justice Department, the top of the FBI, Senators on the Judiciary committee, The Speaker of the house and other top members of congress. We need to have the powers that be subjected to the same surveillance that we the citizens are now exposed to. Then from time to time we need to expose the information about them. For instance we could show using "meta-data" where every supreme court justice was on any given day. When they were at home, when they were at the office, gym, doctor's office, golf course and shopping. We could show who their friends were and who they talked to and for how long. It would only take a few "a day in the life" stories to change the minds of those who aren't as upset as I am. We as a country called the life behind the "Iron Curtain" a police state and waved our flags as the country of liberty and freedom, today life in the US is worse than what we claimed the Staci did and worse than "1984" imagined was possible. I'm disgusted.

 

[Sillyfugger]

soulsabr[/url]":2twsrcej]
Times were different back then you young whipper snapper.

[/quote]

thanks not been called that in many decades , might have to dye my grey beard now

 

[ChaosOverkill]

Draconian retardation from the FBI again.

Why do people talk on the phone without speaker phone on? For privacy. You need a warrant to get in my car without probable cause and the car is technically in a public place just happens to be considered private inside.

When I use my phone and step away from people the point of doing it and having an receiver and ear speaker is for privacy. FBI don't want to do any work or even acknowledge the constitution. The phone provides the option of stepping away from people, if someone follows you around to listen to your phone call, they are still:

A. Only getting one side of the call if they can hear me and
B. Stalking me, which public area or not is illegal

If I refuse to isolate myself from people and they want one side of a conversation, I have no expectation that what I say is private, if I move away from people, I can expect not to be harassed for one side of a conversation or assumed to be conducting illegal activity under some "probable cause" prima facia. This is a secondary layer to privacy in public on a device with the OPTION of privacy. No donut piggies.

And since when does the FBI even care about public and private rights? They and NSA will do as they please, they just want some technical victory with some half assed high-school debate logic.

Get bent.

 

[rmm200]

This behavior won't stop until we actually prosecute some of the agency heads responsible. Right now, they feel our laws do not apply to them.

 

[y*!|$7v0Qn]

rmm200[/url]":36r8js71]This behavior won't stop until we actually prosecute some of the agency heads responsible. Right now, they feel our laws do not apply to them.

Qualified immunity. Our laws don't apply to them.

 

[blacke]

Animedude5555[/url]":15hu2aw3]If I am sitting next to a person talking on their cellphone on a public park bench, and I overhear what they are saying, that's rude of me if I intentionally listen to what they are saying, but not illegal. You don't suddenly get a legally recognized expectation of privacy because you have a phone up to your head. If you are in public, there is no expectation of privacy. Your expectation of privacy is based on where you are physically located. Are you in your own home? Are you standing on a sidewalk? Where you are is all that matters.

Likewise, following the same logic, electronic eaves dropping on a cellphone conversation, when said cellphone user is in public, is not any more illegal than listening with your own ears. The only difference is that with electronic eaves dropping, you don't have to be near the person you are listening to. With that said, there must be certain restrictions for warentless cellphone wiretaps to make sure that expectation of privacy laws aren't violated.
Reasonable restrictions are these:
The target you are trying to listen to must be in a public area (place where reasonable expectation of privacy does not exist)
You listen ONLY to that person's side of the conversation (configure the device to only record the one side of the conversation), unless you have previously confirmed that the person on the other side of the conversation is also outside in a public area.
Record nothing other than audio (you couldn't get electronic/digital data text messages/etc by standing next to a person listening to what they were saying, so don't use electronic devices to record it either)
Record only your intended target (configure the device to only record the target's conversation, not other people's as their's no way to verify that other people that might get intercepted are in fact out in public)
Make sure you have a visual on the suspect before recording their phone conversation (have a recon agent visually determine when the target is in a public space with their cellphone, and have that recon agent contact the Stingray's operator by encrypted 2-way radio, to indicate that it is safe to begin the cellphone call interception)

If you must do anything not in accordance with the rules I just listed, then it means that a warentless cellphone wiretap would NOT be legal. In such a case, you must get a wiretap warent from a judge before you use the cellphone wiretap (aka Stingray). If I could be sure that FBI or other law enforcement officers followed the above rules I layed out, so as to avoid violating a person's reasonable expectation of privacy, then I would have absolutely no problem with them using warentless cellphone wiretaps.

So you are on the "level" that they can warrantlessly only catch those things that they would be able to "observe" in person without technological aid/assistance (which includes "low level" tech like simple binoculars) and without undue intrusion on the suspect?
If so then I fully agree with you, and would add that it should be standards of what is reasonable expectation of privacy. From what I have seen law enforcement treats "reasonable expectation of privacy" more and more as an all or nothing deal (I feel they are getting dangerously close to a black and white fallacy) while in reality it should be a finely granular list, a list that gets more and more fine grained with technological advancements.

And I prefer the innocent until proven guilty approach. Unless proved otherwise, I will ASSUME that the law enforcement are following guidelines similar to those that I wrote up here, and that the behavior of law enforcement agents does not violate the law. I will only believe otherwise if a law enforcement officer is found guilty in court for violating a person's right to privacy, in connection with such a wiretap device. If you are going to accuse a cop or FBI agent of illegally violating privacy law, lets not jump to the assumption of guilt, until their is a trial that has proved him guilty. That is the right way. That is the American way. Law enforcement officers deserve due process, just like every other American.

I would have to disagree with you considering the "blue shield" and similar situation where they hardly even get a slap on the wrist even though they blatantly broke the law. I believe they have gone past the point where only actual convictions should count against them. After all, they are supposed to set an example on how to follow the law. In many cases victims of abuse or overreach from the "law enforcement apparatus" do not get their chance for due process against the wrongdoer.

By your logic we should still trust a police officer who guns down random people without even a suspicion or "hostile action" to back it up as long as they aren't convicted for it. I know it's an extreme example but your statement dictates it.

 

[dooza]

I was under the belief the FBI is there to enforce laws, not decide what they are.

 

[dooza]

Hiketheball[/url]":3vfb1kxk]

심돌산[/url]":3vfb1kxk]If the FBI wanted to argue that they have the right to sit down in a restaurant at a table near a person under investigation, and carefully eavesdrop on that person's conversations without a warrant, then I'd say they're right. Because anybody could do that, and that's what it means to have no reasonable expectation of privacy.

But using a stingray is more like putting a camera on your toe to take upskirt shots. Sure your subjects are in a public place, but you're making an effort to capture information that is not normally publicly observable.

Unskirt photos are not illegal in every jurisdiction. That's a flawed example. Try using a car analogy, please.

They are morally repugnant however. And if they are not illegal, then they should. Otherwise you should be free to dish out your own justice to those sick offenders.

Isn't that what the law and the courts were originally designed to do? To stop vigilantism?

 

[y*!|$7v0Qn]

dooza[/url]":14xoq6qq]

Hiketheball[/url]":14xoq6qq]

심돌산[/url]":14xoq6qq]If the FBI wanted to argue that they have the right to sit down in a restaurant at a table near a person under investigation, and carefully eavesdrop on that person's conversations without a warrant, then I'd say they're right. Because anybody could do that, and that's what it means to have no reasonable expectation of privacy.

But using a stingray is more like putting a camera on your toe to take upskirt shots. Sure your subjects are in a public place, but you're making an effort to capture information that is not normally publicly observable.

Unskirt photos are not illegal in every jurisdiction. That's a flawed example. Try using a car analogy, please.

They are morally repugnant however. And if they are not illegal, then they should. Otherwise you should be free to dish out your own justice to those sick offenders.

Isn't that what the law and the courts were originally designed to do? To stop vigilantism?

Are you seriously arguing that if things you dislike are legal you should skip the "work to get it made illegal" stage, and move on to vigilante justice?

 

[Shavano]

심돌산[/url]":kqvmxsxe]If the FBI wanted to argue that they have the right to sit down in a restaurant at a table near a person under investigation, and carefully eavesdrop on that person's conversations without a warrant, then I'd say they're right. Because anybody could do that, and that's what it means to have no reasonable expectation of privacy.

But using a stingray is more like putting a camera on your toe to take upskirt shots. Sure your subjects are in a public place, but you're making an effort to capture information that is not normally publicly observable.

Sure, they've got it in a car driving down a public street or flying through the air over my neighborhood. Does the stingray capture phone signals that are coming from inside my house? Yes it does. There's my reasonable expectation of privacy right there.