In rare move, local cops reveal details to judges on “stingray” use

Charlotte police show more, "but this isn’t happening in every town in America."

Read the whole story

 

[Nowicki]

HOLD UP!!!! What about that damn non-disclosure. are the cops going to get sued now? If not they are just using that thing as a smokescreen

 

[Death_wish01]

Nowicki[/url]"t9qocgq]HOLD UP!!!! What about that damn non-disclosure. are the cops going to get sued now? If not they are just using that thing as a smokescreen

I was mostly thinking that they did this to throw us a bone.

 

[TimtheTaxMan]

If these things were being used with warrants and targeting only those for whom they had a warrant, I don't think the public would mind. The only logical reason I can guess that they are being so secretive is that they are using these to create huge dragnets that completely run against the 4th amendment.

 

[Meailda]

TimtheTaxMan[/url]":nh287ywd]If these things were being used with warrants and targeting only those for whom they had a warrant, I don't think the public would mind. The only logical reason I can guess that they are being so secretive is that they are using these to create huge dragnets that completely run against the 4th amendment.

C'mon guys it's not like we are talking about people that have done everything they can to erode and flat out go around the fourth...

nevermind.

 

[captainadamo]

TimtheTaxMan[/url]":kzfpds7r]If these things were being used with warrants and targeting only those for whom they had a warrant, I don't think the public would mind. The only logical reason I can guess that they are being so secretive is that they are using these to create huge dragnets that completely run against the 4th amendment.

Except by their very design these stingrays can't only just target a specific person.

 

[TimtheTaxMan]

captainadamo[/url]":rtihmm9c]

TimtheTaxMan[/url]":rtihmm9c]If these things were being used with warrants and targeting only those for whom they had a warrant, I don't think the public would mind. The only logical reason I can guess that they are being so secretive is that they are using these to create huge dragnets that completely run against the 4th amendment.

Except by their very design these stingrays can't only just target a specific person.

Well software could be written to immediately disconnect and purge all data from a non targeted handset. It's not perfect, but I think if the code was audited and they were upfront about it the public would approve.

Honestly, I think a lot of this dragnet stuff is in an effort to find more crime. Crime rates have been falling steadily for almost 30 years and these departments have to justify their budgets.

Another shocking thing is the increasing use of swat teams for response to all sorts of things they never used to be used for. Again, all while crime continues to fall.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the- ... ed-states/

edit spelling

 

[RedRobin]

They hear, but they don't listen.
They look, but they don't see.
They collect, but they don't seize.
They speak, but they don't talk.

DoubleSpeak, DoubleThink, DoubleTalk and Bullshit,....all the same thing.

The world needs an Electronic Magna Carta. They have no right to our data.

Electronic mass surveillance keeps getting more oppressive, intrusive and in violation of basic human rights every day.

That's DoubleBullshit.

 

[DontTrollMeBro]

“[It’s] definitely a step in the right direction,” said Hanni Fakhoury, an attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation and a former federal public defender. “Though the fact we're celebrating the police deciding to be forthright with judges is a sign of how bad things have been.”

This. This, this, this this. Out instinct as good citizens is to applaud this as a "step in the right direction", but the real point here is that our government has moved so far in the wrong direction as to have a huge chilling effect on the trust of the good, law abiding public at large. Boogeyman, Big Brother, and such...

It seems to me that the reason for all the secrecy involved with respect to the use of this particular technology is attributable to one of two motives. One, stingrays are trivially easy to block or spoof if knowledge of their design is known. Two, the government is using them in such a way as to raise alarm from the public. Think mass collection of phone data, calls, texts and such from people who aren't under any suspicion at all.

I wish I could say that I lean in the direction of the former, but at this point I think it's probably the latter, or a mixture of the two.

 

[jaalvey]

TimtheTaxMan[/url]":3hpe4owd]If these things were being used with warrants and targeting only those for whom they had a warrant, I don't think the public would mind. The only logical reason I can guess that they are being so secretive is that they are using these to create huge dragnets that completely run against the 4th amendment.

The big problem is that we have no way to confirm or disprove how Stingrays are being used. We only have the word of the people using them. Kind of like your ex wife's lawyer saying he's not going to screw you over.

 

[dbox1983]

In most parts of the country, most courts don't have enough information to do their job.

Then the requests should be denied, outright, in the first place, by the judges.

 

[Sehven]

If, as he says, it would be so easy for the bad guys to evade with a bit more knowledge, then the product should be deemed useless and abandoned. Keeping it secret from the public is too high a price to pay: if my phone data is collected even once without my knowledge and consent, they have trespassed as surely as if they had broken into my home and they should be prosecuted for it. If they are unable to answer such a simple question without revealing a weakness of the product, then they should not have the product. And to hell with the "we caught these bad guys." Catching bad guys does not justify trampling the rights of the good guys.

 

[Bash]

FBI Director James Comey said:
... It’s how we find kidnappers .... It’s how we find missing children .... It’s how we find pedophiles.

I mean, come on people, THINK OF THE CHILDREN. JUST THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!

 

[beebee]

TimtheTaxMan[/url]":1wsvwaif]

captainadamo[/url]":1wsvwaif]

TimtheTaxMan[/url]":1wsvwaif]If these things were being used with warrants and targeting only those for whom they had a warrant, I don't think the public would mind. The only logical reason I can guess that they are being so secretive is that they are using these to create huge dragnets that completely run against the 4th amendment.

Except by their very design these stingrays can't only just target a specific person.

Well software could be written to immediately disconnect and purge all data from a non targeted handset. It's not perfect, but I think if the code was audited and they were upfront about it the public would approve.

Honestly, I think a lot of this dragnet stuff is in an effort to find more crime. Crime rates have been falling steadily for almost 30 years and these departments have to justify their budgets.

Another shocking thing is the increasing use of swat teams for response to all sorts of things they never used to be used for. Again, all while crime continues to fall.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the- ... ed-states/

edit spelling

For the Stingray to work, every phone in the range of the Stingray will leave the official cellular network and use the Stingray. Clearly your phone has been hijacked. If they disconnect, you have no service at all.

I hate to say this, but the only way to insure privacy for the non-targets is to have the cellular provider do the sniffing.

If Charlotte PD is getting warrants, why even use a Stingray? The cellular provider will give them the tower ID. Once in the area, law enforcement can direction find the handset. The obvious answer is they want the ISMIs of all cell phones in the proximity of the target.

 

[infected]

When we’re talking about using a device to find the location of a particular individual and where they might be using their cellphone, it’s not about intercepting their calls, their communications. We can’t listen to their calls without a court order. It may be about finding what cell tower someone’s phone is pinging off of. And with appropriate authority, we, the feds, and our local brothers and sisters, have to be able to do that to be able to investigate all kinds of things. It’s how we find killers. It’s how we find kidnappers. It’s how we find drug dealers. It’s how we find missing children. It’s how we find pedophiles.

So it’s work that you want us to be able to do—again, appropriately, with appropriate authority, and with appropriate overseeing. But to me it’s not about—I didn’t mean to accuse you of asking a trick question. But you used the term “bulk collection.” That means something very different to me, and also “collection,” to me, means something very different to me. This is not about the content of people’s communications or collecting every number that they dial. OK? To me, it’s about—we are using some equipment, appropriately in my view, to find bad guys. I don’t want to say too much about that because I don’t want the bad guys to know how we might be able to find them. That’s one of the reasons why we ask local authorities who are working with us and using our equipment not to talk about it. It’s not that I have something to hide from good people, but I got a lot to hide from bad people.

That has to be one of the most disingenuous official statements I've read.

This man has no respect for the public. At all.

 

[Dadlyedly]

dbox1983[/url]":k29oncyb]

In most parts of the country, most courts don't have enough information to do their job.

Then the requests should be denied, outright, in the first place, by the judges.

But there's this problem: The judges don't know that they haven't gotten enough information on how Stingrays will be used because they haven't been given accurate information on how they can be used. Catch 22.

 

[Vapur9]

A device that can output a cell tower ping is far different than a device that can also output an oral communication intercept. A separate device should be created to enforce a limit on the scope of the warrant.

 

[biffbobfred]

What part of LOVEINT was about finding bad guys? Unsupervised power usually gets abused at some point.

 

[Thereitis]

I just wonder if a law should be written that essentially says that law enforcement can use the devices, targeted at one individual, with a warrant. Any data on other people cannot be used, period. Fruit of the poisonous tree and all that. That should help stifle the urge to gather too much data.

Edit: Clarify individual is targeted by a warrant.

 

[jaalvey]

RedRobin[/url]":1d30fnkq]They hear, but they don't listen.
They look, but they don't see.
They collect, but they don't seize.
They speak, but they don't talk.

DoubleSpeak, DoubleThink, DoubleTalk and Bullshit,....all the same thing.

The world needs an Electronic Magna Carta. They have no right to our data.

Electronic mass surveillance keeps getting more oppressive, intrusive and in violation of basic human rights every day.

That's DoubleBullshit.

Electronic Magna Carta. That is a very impressive idea.

 

[infected]

Thereitis[/url]":3kcrkf7p]I just wonder if a law should be written that essentially says that law enforcement can use the devices, targeted at one individual, with a warrant. Any data on other people cannot be used, period. Fruit of the poisonous tree and all that. That should help stifle the urge to gather too much data.

Edit: Clarify individual is targeted by a warrant.

I thought the American constitution basically says just that.

 

[Thereitis]

infected[/url]":174dvmm6]

When we’re talking about using a device to find the location of a particular individual and where they might be using their cellphone, it’s not about intercepting their calls, their communications. We can’t listen to their calls without a court order. It may be about finding what cell tower someone’s phone is pinging off of. And with appropriate authority, we, the feds, and our local brothers and sisters, have to be able to do that to be able to investigate all kinds of things. It’s how we find killers. It’s how we find kidnappers. It’s how we find drug dealers. It’s how we find missing children. It’s how we find pedophiles.

So it’s work that you want us to be able to do—again, appropriately, with appropriate authority, and with appropriate overseeing. But to me it’s not about—I didn’t mean to accuse you of asking a trick question. But you used the term “bulk collection.” That means something very different to me, and also “collection,” to me, means something very different to me. This is not about the content of people’s communications or collecting every number that they dial. OK? To me, it’s about—we are using some equipment, appropriately in my view, to find bad guys. I don’t want to say too much about that because I don’t want the bad guys to know how we might be able to find them. That’s one of the reasons why we ask local authorities who are working with us and using our equipment not to talk about it. It’s not that I have something to hide from good people, but I got a lot to hide from bad people.

That has to be one of the most disingenuous official statements I've read.

This man has no respect for the public. At all.

Yes, exactly. Imagine that the government, back in the day, wanted to hide the use of wire taps. Because "... I got a lot to hide from bad people." We all know that the government can wire tap. We all know that bad guys can use code words to communicate by phone, or avoid using phones for certain communications at all. The world didn't end because the bad guys know about wire taps. The world won't come to an end if they know how Stingrays work. And we'll still be an open society, rather than fearing a Soviet-style FSB in the US.

 

[Sillyfugger]

why are fbi trying to prevent disclosure as its illegal and unconstitutional .

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

The Fourth Amendment (Amendment IV) to the United States Constitution is the part of the Bill of Rights that prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and requires any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause

the following was enacted into law to prevent foreign crimes n espionage and has turned into tools for domestic crimes ... they claim authority under patriot act but lot that rests from executive order 12333 yet they failed to read section 2.8 or section 2.12 of that order . they also missed this portion of law . that also has had edits done to it by secret riders hidden in many pieces of legislation . look em up as-well as this

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.

2.12Indirect Participation. No agency of the Intelligence Community shall participate in or request any person to undertake activities forbidden by this Order.

now look at the NSA expenditure and see how many private industry has participated ..who was allowed was under section 3.4 definitions under section 3.4 subsection (f) Intelligence Community and agencies within the Intelligence Community refer to the following agencies or organizations:
(1) The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA);
(2) The National Security Agency (NSA);
(3) The Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA);
(4) The offices within the Department of Defense for the collection of specialized national foreign intelligence through reconnaissance programs;
(5) The Bureau of Intelligence and Research of the Department of State;
(6) The intelligence elements of the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Department of the Treasury, and the Department of Energy; and
(7) The staff elements of the Director of Central Intelligence.

this is shame as not even president nixon could claim executive protection when faced before a united supreme court ...

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
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 shortly after so if a president could not withstand judicial scrutiny over this issue how is it local law enforcement and the many alphabet agencies such as FBI,DEA,IRS,ECT ECT ETC can get away with such and command every corporation to particpate in the name of national security when in fact are using such against citizens on domestic crime issues was the patriot act n fisa set up to combat foreign threats .. so under the guise of security they have installed a guestapo to the likes hitler never even thought of for domestic control ... so when are we going to have a government that is lawful and not one that games the system..


also illegal is the seizure programs such as

~quote~

“Since taking control of Black Asphalt Law Enforcement Network in August of 2012 the entire website has been overhauled, updated, and improved,” Logan County Sheriff Jim Bauman wrote in an open letter to police.

In an interview, Frye acknowledged that he and other Desert Snow trainers were on loan to Logan to help run the system. A search of the term Black Asphalt on Google takes computer users to the Desert Snow site.

David and Frye also have sought guidance from the Bureau of Justice Assistance at the Justice Department. David P. Lewis, a senior policy adviser at Justice, said it was “a positive step” that the network had gone under the authority of Logan County, according to a December 2012 letter obtained by The Post. Lewis said the network was then being used by 12,000 officers who accessed the system 1,000 times a day, an apparent decline from previous years.“We recognize the unique and innovative nature of the Black Asphalt Web site and its efficacy for law enforcement,” Lewis wrote. “However, it is not a criminal intelligence system” subject to federal law.

Lewis pointed out it did not meet federal standards for police intelligence systems, which require police to evaluate the information for relevance and a “reasonably suspected” link to criminal activity. It made 11 recommendations for improving the site, including requiring that BOLOs “be limited to situations of ‘significant investigative interest’?” and “be based on ‘credible and reliable’ information.”

Justice officials did not release data that pinpointed the geographic location of each seizure, so it is impossible to identify precisely how many seizures occur during traffic stops. To focus on roadside stops, The Post looked at cases that were not made at businesses and that occurred without warrants or indictments: 61,998 seizures have met those criteria since Sept. 11, 2001. That group of cases was then compared to a list obtained by The Post of 1,654 departments and agencies with officers who are members of an unofficial police intelligence network known as the Black Asphalt Electronic Networking & Notification System that is focused on highway stops and seizures.

While the network was originally established for use in CIA operations, documents show that Prado viewed it as potentially valuable to other government agencies. In an e-mail in October 2007 with the subject line "Possible Opportunity in DEA—Read and Delete," Prado wrote to a Total Intelligence executive with a pitch for the Drug Enforcement Administration. That executive was an eighteen-year DEA veteran with extensive government connections who had recently joined the firm. Prado explained that Blackwater had developed "a rapidly growing, worldwide network of folks that can do everything from surveillance to ground truth to disruption operations." He added, "These are all foreign nationals (except for a few cases where US persons are the conduit but no longer 'play' on the street), so deniability is built in and should be a big plus."
The executive wrote back and suggested there "may be an interest" in those services. The executive suggested that "one of the best places to start may be the Special Operations Division, (SOD) which is located in Chantilly, VA," telling Prado the name of the special agent in charge. The SOD is a secretive joint command within the Justice Department, run by the DEA. It serves as the command-and-control center for some of the most sensitive counter narcotics and law enforcement operations conducted by federal forces.


so who is exploiting the system criminals or law enforcement , the real question should be who are the real criminals ??

in Baltimore they dropped charges as they knew implications of disclosure in court . ~ quote~
Baltimore prosecutors withdrew key evidence in a robbery case Monday rather than reveal details of the cellphone tracking technology police used to gather it.

The surprise turn in Baltimore Circuit Court came after a defense attorney pressed a city police detective to reveal how officers had tracked his client.

City police Det. John L. Haley, a member of a specialized phone tracking unit, said officers did not use the controversial device known as a stingray. But when pressed on how phones are tracked, he cited what he called a "nondisclosure agreement" with the FBI.

"You don't have a nondisclosure agreement with the court," Baltimore Circuit Judge Barry G. Williams replied. Williams threatened to hold Haley in contempt if he did not respond. Prosecutors decided to withdraw the evidence instead.

why because they used illegal tactics the stingray technology ...

Decency, security, and liberty alike demand that government officials shall be subjected to the same rules of conduct that are commands to the citizen... If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy.
Justice Louis D. Brandeis 1928

 

[kurthr]

No better way for a foreign government to spy on the US population than to use the tools already provided by our "protectors". Seriously, the idea that foreign gov (Stingrays probably built in China) don't have the tools we developed to spy on ourselves and haven't deployed them both here and at home is hilarious. That our enemies would not spend significant resources to subvert both local (NoneSuch) and foreign (HeadQuarters) as the cheapest and easiest route to surveillance of the US, assumes that they are fools.

An anti-conspiracy is the belief that requires everyone of those interested state parties supplied with $Billions providing both means and opportunity to refrain for decades from doing anything morally questionable, because they are "boyscouts". Blackmailing heads of state, judges, and democratic institutions is a very short step... and not getting caught is their primary function.

Whether this was already accomplished by 1984 (or not) is history for the historians to re-write.

 

[omarsidd]

Wow, well said by the EFF fellow, “Though the fact we're celebrating the police deciding to be forthright with judges is a sign of how bad things have been.”

Also interesting that the FBI guy does the usual "what about the CHILDREN" as they trot out pedophiles as their rationale. Much like DHS trots out terrorism for every justification. Because you good citizens don't support terrorism and pedophiles, do you?!?

 

[Anon E. Mous]

“Since police departments that have and use this equipment aren’t willing to be transparent with the public, it seems that the best approach may be to inform the judiciary that they are being kept in the dark about the use of this equipment,” he continued. “It seems that most judges get very upset when the use of this equipment is kept hidden from them by law enforcement—which appears to be required under the [non-disclosure agreement] that police departments sign with the FBI.”

Katz-Lacabe hit the nail right on the head with that comment. The U.S. DOJ and its law enforcement entities are misleading the court and judges in what Stingray devices do and what they collect. Most judges would have an issue with what information a Stingray device collects if they knew that it was scooping all sorts of information on a potential suspect but also anyone else who happens to be in the vicinity and isnt even a part of any criminal investigation

Not only is the U.S. DOJ forcing state and local law enforcement to lie about a Stingray's information sweeping capabilities, it is also hiding this information from a defendant by not disclosing it to the defendant or their counsel during a criminal proceeding, which is violating a defendants right to a fair trial.

The fact that judges are being left in the dark about the Stingray's capabilities and the non disclosure to judges and defendants or their counsel prejudices and person charged with a crime to see all the evidence before them.

This is a further erosion of an any accused to get a fair trial. The U.S. DOJ is stacking the deck and tilting the scales in their favor by outright misleading the court and defendants and violating constitutional rights an accused has as well as violating laws they are supposed to be up holding

 

[NickN]

It’s not that I have something to hide from good people, but I got a lot to hide from bad people...

...and you need to just trust that I know the difference. But if a few good people and say, some judges get swept up in this and denied their rights or fair trials, well that's just acceptable collateral damage in our never ending hunt for terrorists and pedophiles.

 

[NickN]

Nowicki[/url]":3ophnhvf]HOLD UP!!!! What about that damn non-disclosure. are the cops going to get sued now?

I for one, as a taxpayer (albeit in a different jurisdiction), would consider the defense of such a lawsuit an excellent use of public funds.

 

[NickN]

Speaking of Comey:

The current F.B.I. director, James Comey, keeps a copy of the King wiretap request on his desk as a reminder of the bureau’s capacity to do wrong...King’s experience reminds us that these are far from idle fears, conjured in the fevered minds of civil libertarians. They are based in the hard facts of history.

What an Uncensored Letter to M.L.K. Reveals

It seems that this James Comey needs to meet that James Comey.

 

[Aslan7]

-

 

[jdale]

NickN[/url]":130vemuk]

Nowicki[/url]":130vemuk]HOLD UP!!!! What about that damn non-disclosure. are the cops going to get sued now?

I for one, as a taxpayer (albeit in a different jurisdiction), would consider the defense of such a lawsuit an excellent use of public funds.

And hopefully once those contracts see the light of the law, those terms can be thrown out, as they should have been long ago.

 

[mf2112]

I believe that these devices should start popping up close by police stations all over the country......

 

[TwistedKestrel]

Here's something that is not currently clear to me. Could law enforcement, theoretically, obtain this meta-data by working with wireless carriers directly? There are some short range capabilities that the stingrays have that I doubt carrier infrastructure could match. I get the feeling that's not the bulk of their use, however.

Put another way, are the stingrays merely being used as a way to sidestep existing wiretap legislation? Because that would pretty clearly speak to a need for expanded legislation to close the loophole.

 

[LeSamourai]

a particular individual

...got me thinking about Idiocracy.

 

[LeSamourai]

beebee[/url]":3gthw8tm]

TimtheTaxMan[/url]":3gthw8tm]

captainadamo[/url]":3gthw8tm]

TimtheTaxMan[/url]":3gthw8tm]If these things were being used with warrants and targeting only those for whom they had a warrant, I don't think the public would mind. The only logical reason I can guess that they are being so secretive is that they are using these to create huge dragnets that completely run against the 4th amendment.

Except by their very design these stingrays can't only just target a specific person.

Well software could be written to immediately disconnect and purge all data from a non targeted handset. It's not perfect, but I think if the code was audited and they were upfront about it the public would approve.

Honestly, I think a lot of this dragnet stuff is in an effort to find more crime. Crime rates have been falling steadily for almost 30 years and these departments have to justify their budgets.

Another shocking thing is the increasing use of swat teams for response to all sorts of things they never used to be used for. Again, all while crime continues to fall.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the- ... ed-states/

edit spelling

For the Stingray to work, every phone in the range of the Stingray will leave the official cellular network and use the Stingray. Clearly your phone has been hijacked. If they disconnect, you have no service at all.

I hate to say this, but the only way to insure privacy for the non-targets is to have the cellular provider do the sniffing.

If Charlotte PD is getting warrants, why even use a Stingray? The cellular provider will give them the tower ID. Once in the area, law enforcement can direction find the handset. The obvious answer is they want the ISMIs of all cell phones in the proximity of the target.

IIRC it has something to do with timely coordination with telecoms. Cell providers don't want to waste resources on catering to every whim of law enforcement. And the ever-whining-about-under-funding law enforcement isn't going to provide the telecoms with the resources ($) to pull this off responsibly. It's probably cheaper to buy a stingray anyway...

 

[policetac]

Go here to see the actual company's advert page for Stingray's.

http://pspc.harris.com/Solution/LTE.aspx

 

[policetac]

Dadlyedly[/url]":1n8sg00w]

dbox1983[/url]":1n8sg00w]

In most parts of the country, most courts don't have enough information to do their job.

Then the requests should be denied, outright, in the first place, by the judges.

But there's this problem: The judges don't know that they haven't gotten enough information on how Stingrays will be used because they haven't been given accurate information on how they can be used. Catch 22.

According to the courts, "Ignorance is no excuse."

 

[TWeaKoR]

Frankly, if the judges haven't been given accurate and detailed information on what the police require authorisation to do the warrants that were granted should be invalid.

 

[jdale]

LeSamourai[/url]":2wkodj47]

beebee[/url]":2wkodj47]

TimtheTaxMan[/url]":2wkodj47]

captainadamo[/url]":2wkodj47]

TimtheTaxMan[/url]":2wkodj47]If these things were being used with warrants and targeting only those for whom they had a warrant, I don't think the public would mind. The only logical reason I can guess that they are being so secretive is that they are using these to create huge dragnets that completely run against the 4th amendment.

Except by their very design these stingrays can't only just target a specific person.

Well software could be written to immediately disconnect and purge all data from a non targeted handset. It's not perfect, but I think if the code was audited and they were upfront about it the public would approve.

Honestly, I think a lot of this dragnet stuff is in an effort to find more crime. Crime rates have been falling steadily for almost 30 years and these departments have to justify their budgets.

Another shocking thing is the increasing use of swat teams for response to all sorts of things they never used to be used for. Again, all while crime continues to fall.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the- ... ed-states/

edit spelling

For the Stingray to work, every phone in the range of the Stingray will leave the official cellular network and use the Stingray. Clearly your phone has been hijacked. If they disconnect, you have no service at all.

I hate to say this, but the only way to insure privacy for the non-targets is to have the cellular provider do the sniffing.

If Charlotte PD is getting warrants, why even use a Stingray? The cellular provider will give them the tower ID. Once in the area, law enforcement can direction find the handset. The obvious answer is they want the ISMIs of all cell phones in the proximity of the target.

IIRC it has something to do with timely coordination with telecoms. Cell providers don't want to waste resources on catering to every whim of law enforcement.

Are you kidding? Telecoms love this stuff, it's a profit center for them. http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenbe ... -wiretaps/ They don't turn anything over for free, that would be un-American.

And the ever-whining-about-under-funding law enforcement isn't going to provide the telecoms with the resources ($) to pull this off responsibly. It's probably cheaper to buy a stingray anyway...

Well, here you have a point. It probably is cheaper to buy a stingray and use it instead of paying for tower dumps.