Did Feds' Use of Fake Cell Tower Constitute a Search?

hessian writes with this story in Wired: "Federal authorities used a fake Verizon cellphone tower to zero in on a suspect's wireless card, and say they were perfectly within their rights to do so, even without a warrant. But the feds don't seem to want that legal logic challenged in court by the alleged identity thief they nabbed using the spoofing device, known generically as a stingray. So the government is telling a court for the first time that spoofing a legitimate wireless tower in order to conduct surveillance could be considered a search under the Fourth Amendment in this particular case, and that its use was legal, thanks to a court order and warrant that investigators used to get similar location data from Verizon's own towers."

Comments

It is unquestionably a wiretap

[Anonymous Coward]

As they are intercepting communications, it is unquestionably a wiretap.

Whether the courts are still legitimate enough to declare that remains to be seen.

Re:It is unquestionably a wiretap

[Gunfighter]

Whether the courts are still legitimate enough to declare that remains to be seen.

You have a lot more faith in the government to do the right thing than I do.

Re:It is unquestionably a wiretap

[alphacharliezero]

'Stingray's do not intercept communication. That's why they get around the wiretapping warrant requirements. They are designed to spoof the carrier's tower in order to ascertain only the location of a mobile device. So I don't see wiretapping as the issue. What IS troubling however is the fact that once law enforcement has found the suspect/device they as a rule WIPE THE DATA from the stingray. They've been doing this supposedly to prevent defendants/criminals learning how they were caught. The issue is that a judge signs a court order approving the use of the Stingray. Then after gathering evidence, law enforcement DESTROYS that evidence instead of handing it over to the court for review. All this to prevent the defendant from getting it during discovery. That practice will likely stop soon since it's motive was to keep the device itself a secret. Now that it's use is public knowledge, there's no reason to continue the charade...

Re:It is unquestionably a wiretap

[AngryDeuce]

After Citizen's United vs. FEC, I completely lost my faith in the court's ability to interpret the spirit of our Constitution...very little would surprise me at this point, to be honest.

Re:It is unquestionably a wiretap

[Wrath0fb0b]

a court order and warrant that investigators used to get similar location data from Verizonâ(TM)s own towers.

I'm really surprised again by Wired. The government got a warrant -- the same level of scrutiny they need to search your house or haul your ass to a concrete room. What more can they do to conduct a lawful investigation? The purpose of the warrant requirement is to make sure that probable cause is evaluated by a neutral and detached magistrate, not to bar all searches and make it impossible to catch identity thieves.

I'm firmly for electronic privacy but I think it's patently absurd to say there should be a higher standard for getting cell-phone data than physically entering a person's home or arresting him.

Re:It is unquestionably a wiretap

[khallow]

After Citizen's United vs. FEC, I completely lost my faith in the court's ability to interpret the spirit of our Constitution...

Nonsense. Looks like a straightforward application of the First Amendment to me.

Re:It is unquestionably a wiretap

[SpiralSpirit]

the issue isn't the data from the verizon tower - this is totally separate data from a fake cell tower that did not have a warrant.

Re:It is unquestionably a wiretap

[schwit1]

Citizen's United vs. FEC is a simple 1st amendment issue. If you are looking to lose faith in the SCOTUS look no further than than the Kelo decision.

Re:It is unquestionably a wiretap

[khallow]

I agree. That's a very alarming ruling. It's worth noting that in the wake of Kelo vs. City of New London, 34 states added laws to address to some degree the abuses allowed by this ruling. The US is fortunately that there were means to mostly compensate for a bad court ruling in this case. But in rulings on federal power, states cannot correct for bad court decisions.

Re:It is unquestionably a wiretap

[khallow]

The problem is that the fake wireless tower appears to be outside the scope of the warrant. Keep in mind that judges do not issue blank checks when they write out a warrant. Doing something that's not in the scope of the warrant is just as illegal as if the warrant didn't exist at all.

Re:It is unquestionably a wiretap

[HalAtWork]

You have a lot more faith in the government to do the right thing than I do.

You're supposed to be able to have faith in the government to do the right thing. That's what they're supposed to do. That's why we have them. If they don't act accordingly, that's when you know there's a serious problem that needs to be addressed. So how do we reform the government is the issue we should be looking at instead of firing off quips.

Re:It is unquestionably a wiretap

[Nidi62]

What IS troubling however is the fact that once law enforcement has found the suspect/device they as a rule WIPE THE DATA from the stingray. They've been doing this supposedly to prevent defendants/criminals learning how they were caught. The issue is that a judge signs a court order approving the use of the Stingray. Then after gathering evidence, law enforcement DESTROYS that evidence instead of handing it over to the court for review. All this to prevent the defendant from getting it during discovery.

On the other hand, if they are deleting that data, they are also deleting any other extraneous cell phone location data they may have gathered in the process.

Re:It is unquestionably a wiretap

[catmistake]

hmm... I wonder if Apple's FindMyiPhone feature could be considered an illegal search and a violation of the 4th A. rights of the iPhone thief

Re:It is unquestionably a wiretap

[demonlapin]

No, because you're not the government.

Re:It is unquestionably a wiretap

[ColdWetDog]

hmm... I wonder if Apple's FindMyiPhone feature could be considered an illegal search and a violation of the 4th A. rights of the iPhone thief

If the government did it, possibly. You aren't subject to Fourth Amendment provisions. It may be one of the reasons that police departments don't necessarily go running after stolen phones / laptops when the owner 'finds' them in someone else's hands.

Re:It is unquestionably a wiretap

[catmistake]

So... its not possible for a private citizen to violate another's civil rights? Or is this just that part of the 4th Amendment that only applies to the government?

Re:It is unquestionably a wiretap

[fluffy99]

No. They wipe the data so they can claim no data was recorded or actively monitored, therefore no wiretapping was performed.

The scary part is that they have the capability to handle calls while doing this spoofing. Which for all intents is the equivalent of them snipping your landline and running it through a black box, then afterwards wiping the blackbox and claiming it doesn't constitute a wiretap. Problem is that the original wiretap really was a guy hanging on the pole with a testset clipped onto your phone wires and there was no recording involved there either aside from the agents memory.

Re:It is unquestionably a wiretap

[fluffy99]

hmm... I wonder if Apple's FindMyiPhone feature could be considered an illegal search and a violation of the 4th A. rights of the iPhone thief

Probably not as it's tracking your property. Some of the laptop recovery programs that take screenshoots or webcam pictures could cause privacy issues though. What happens if the thief was a 12-yr old boy who took your laptop and the Prey Project software ends up snapping a picture of him in his underwear? Does that become child porn?

Re:It is unquestionably a wiretap

[gyroidben]

What is and isn't fair game on the wireless spectrum? I would have naively assumed that it was always fair game to demodulate and record a wireless signal, but not to break the encryption if it existed, but this article suggests that isn't the case. Presumably listening in on a conversation on the ham radio bands isn't wiretapping (although perhaps rude, I don't know the conventions). Clearly anything where you're breaking encryption is a no-no. But there's plenty of ground in between where it's not immediately obvious what is and isn't allowed. Does it just depend on whether there is an expectation of privacy? Are rules different for different frequency bands? Are the rules different for listening vs recording?

Re:It is unquestionably a wiretap

[Jane Q. Public]

It can't be a straightforward application of the First Amendment, because corporations are not people and do not have "rights".

I am aware the the Supreme Court has ruled that corporations are legally people, but that flies in the face of around 200 years of law that up until then said otherwise. That decision merely shows how messed up today's Supreme Court is.

If you -- or the courts -- actually think corporations have all the legal rights of people, then why aren't they allowed to vote? Or marry?

From a historical perspective, corporations were awarded the legal standing of "people" only insofar as that was necessary to engage in trade. The notion that they enjoy "rights" like actual people do is a relatively new and rather bizarre idea. In fact, the Supreme Court contradicted many of its own past rulings, because "corporate speech" is already -- and still -- regulated by law in a variety of ways that do not apply to real people.

The individuals who run a corporation have all the rights of people, of course, and can speak in any manner they choose. But that is not the same thing.

"The resolution of the General Assembly [the Virginia Resolutions of 1798] relates to those great and extraordinary cases, in which all the forms of the Constitution may prove ineffectual against infractions dangerous to the essential rights of the parties to it. The resolution supposes that dangerous powers, not delegated, may not only be usurped and executed by the other departments, but that the judicial department also may exercise or sanction dangerous powers beyond the grant of the Constitution; and, consequently, that the ultimate right of the parties to the Constitution, to judge whether the compact has been dangerously violated, must extend to violations by one delegated authority, as well as by another; by the judiciary, as well as by the executive, or the legislature.

"However true, therefore, it may be, that the judicial department, is, in all questions submitted to it by the forms of the Constitution, to decide in the last resort, this resort must necessarily be deemed the last in relation to the authorities of the other departments of the government; not in relation to the rights of the parties to the constitutional compact, from which the judicial as well as the other departments hold their delegated trusts. On any other hypothesis, the delegation of judicial power would annul the authority delegating it; and the concurrence of this department with the others in usurped powers, might subvert for ever, and beyond the possible reach of any rightful remedy, the very Constitution which all were instituted to preserve." -- James Madison, Report of 1800

Re:It is unquestionably a wiretap

[gumbi west]

For example, if a thief breaks into your house and moves the contents of a safe onto the street, they have committed larceny but not violated your 4th amendment rights (nor have the cops when they riffle through those documents which are now in a public location).

Re:It is unquestionably a wiretap

[gumbi west]

Breaking encryption may be illegal, but there is no law that prevents the feds from doing it (though there is no law saying they can, and the supremes have not considered it).

I would imagine the headers are not encrypted and simply recording them is not a violation of the 4th either, after all, you broadcast them over the air. Not that different from putting a billboard on your roof and expecting unencrypted communications to remain private.

Re:It is unquestionably a wiretap

[Jane Q. Public]

It is not a "simple" First Amendment issue at all. To say that it is means you assume that corporations have "rights". But if they have First Amendment rights, then logically they also enjoy all the other freedoms that the Constitution and Bill of Rights give real people.

That would mean they could bear arms, and vote, and run for office, and be able to plead the 5th. (The corporations themselves, that is, not the people in them.)

You can't have it both ways. Either they have the rights of people, or they don't. If they do, they can vote. If they don't, they don't have First Amendment rights, either.

Re:It is unquestionably a wiretap

[Jane Q. Public]

A picture of a kid in underwear is not "child porn" anyway.

In one of their (rare, it seems these days) lucid moments, the Supreme Court ruled that "child pornography" had to consist of images of [A] actual children (not just artwork or animations or someone who looks young), and [B] actual pornography, by pretty much the same standards as other pornography is judged.

So all you parents who have pictures of naked kids in the bathtub can breathe a sigh of relief. The government isn't going to come after you. Not this decade, anyway.

Re:It is unquestionably a wiretap

[Dutchmaan]

Because you're rampantly paranoid?! Look, this practice is obviously wrong and needs to change, but if you're really that concerned about being tracked you are either:

a) involved in nefarious activity
b) batshit tinfoil hat paranoid

Re:It is unquestionably a wiretap

[davester666]

You just need a few million of your close personal friends to vote a batch of independent's who you know will "do the right thing"(tm) into Congress, and Senate and as the President.

It's really that simple.

Re:It is unquestionably a wiretap

[davester666]

Well, it really sucked to be the guy on the pole when it came to memory wiping time...

Re:It is unquestionably a wiretap

[TheEyes]

Because you're rampantly paranoid?! Look, this practice is obviously wrong and needs to change, but if you're really that concerned about being tracked you are either:

a) involved in nefarious activity

b) batshit tinfoil hat paranoid

or c) concerned that you may at some point in the future be in a country where such activities are necessary. Given the way that governments and corporations have been expanding their powers and decriminalizing their actions, there may come a point, not too far in the future, where such paranoid actions are necessary to keep from being made into some organization's indentured servant.

Re:It is unquestionably a wiretap

[realityimpaired]

Bingo. But while it addresses, it also raises my biggest concern about this. In TFS they had a warrant to obtain location data through the cellular network, and while it's grey area as to whether that warrant extends to the use of a device like the Stingray, the device itself doesn't have enough finesse to only trick the hardware you're trying to locate. It'll trick any hardware on the same network that's within range, including potentially hundreds of innocent bystanders, all of whose information would be available on the device as well... considering that this is an alleged identity thief we're talking about, do you really want them getting that information in discovery?

That's probably why they're deleting the information (at least, that's a plausible explanation that I'd accept for them deleting the information from the device), but it does raise serious privacy concerns for those people whose information is on the device in the first place. It may or may not be illegal to use it to track the person they've got a warrant to track, but in most parts of the civilized world, it certainly *is* illegal for them to use it to track everybody else.

Re:It is unquestionably a wiretap

[gumbi west]

Well, and the constitution, such as the 13th amendment.

Re:It is unquestionably a wiretap

[The boojum]

There's more to the government than the executive branch. The courts are certainly part of the government.

Re:It is unquestionably a wiretap

[Wrath0fb0b]

The problem is that the fake wireless tower appears to be outside the scope of the warrant. Keep in mind that judges do not issue blank checks when they write out a warrant. Doing something that's not in the scope of the warrant is just as illegal as if the warrant didn't exist at all.

No disagreement to the last sentence but I think "you can get location information from Verizon's network" and "you can spoof Verizon's network to get location information" are indistinguishable both as to the "thing being searched" (the suspect's location) and "method of searching" (by using the suspect's cell phone signal).

So if Wired's point is that maybe the Feds did something that pushes the scope of the warrant, OK -- my impression from TFA was that they were against the use of spoofed cellphone towers in general.

Re:It is unquestionably a wiretap

[ravenshrike]

Except the right of free speech, and of the press, is not defined as of the PEOPLE. Instead it is a blanket command telling the government keep your grubby mitts off of censorship, no matter the source of the opinion. Now, there has been an exception carved out for obscenity, which while the exact age used may be up for debate, does nothing about limiting actors who are not considered under the age of majority.

Re:It is unquestionably a wiretap

[Dutchmaan]

or c) concerned that you may at some point in the future be in a country where such activities are necessary. Given the way that governments and corporations have been expanding their powers and decriminalizing their actions, there may come a point, not too far in the future, where such paranoid actions are necessary to keep from being made into some organization's indentured servant.

Well then why is he doing it NOW? I already said it was wrong and needed to change. If we at some point live in a society where it's necessary to use a throw away phone, chances are a throw away phone wont even be a feasible option. I'm concerned about this as well, but I'm not using a throw away phone because I have no reason to do so. If the poster feels that strongly about it in the here and now, then there are more effective avenues to take than taking steps to remedy a problem that isn't even there for that person. i.e... he's paranoid, or doing something that makes using a throw away phone a necessity.

Re:It is unquestionably a wiretap

[khallow]

It can't be a straightforward application of the First Amendment, because corporations are not people and do not have "rights".

This is a non sequitur. The conclusion doesn't follow from the premise.

Re:It is unquestionably a wiretap

[Anonymous Coward]

That's bullshit. Corporations were never people with respect to the Constitution. Corporate personhood was a shorthand for the idea that corporations should be like people for the purposes of enforcing contracts, liability, suing and being sued, and so forth. It was a legal fiction. They were de jure people, not de facto people. The Citizens United (which is just a conservative group run by David Bossie, who has had a long standing hate-on for the Clintons, to the extent that it got him fired from the Whitewater investigation by his own party) decision flies in the face of 130 years of corporate case law, and directly violates the vision of the Framers. I'd much rather see a return to the days of the Tillman Act.

Re:It is unquestionably a wiretap

[muridae]

Citizens United did not suddenly give corporations the right to run political ads. They had the right to do that before the ruling. All CU challenged was a law that said corporations could not run ads sponsoring a specific candidate withing X days of an election. The courts found that the law acknowledged corporations had a right to free speech every time except withing X days of an election, and told Congress that you can't have it both ways. The law was found to be unconstitutional. Congress could go back and right another law similar to the one CU challenged, and simply deny corporations free speech at all times, or make them subject to the same financial election laws that normal people are. But blame Congress for screwing that one up, not the courts.

Re:It is unquestionably a wiretap

[IonOtter]

"Well then why is he doing it NOW?"

Data retention. He's making sure there's no record of something that MIGHT become a crime in the future. Which, all things considered, appears as though that very thing is not far off.

Remember, the use of ex post facto is only a majority opinion away.

Re:It is unquestionably a wiretap

[DigiShaman]

So how do we reform the government is the issue we should be looking...

That's the entire point of a democratic government. And since the founding of America, we have been debating how best our government should represent us for over 200 years now. So I agree with Gunfighter. I don't have faith in our government because I don't have faith in my fellow citizens at large. Individually, we are smart. Collectively, we're a bunch of fucking morons. But at least our founding fathers knew this and broke up the delegation of powers into local and state rights. Unfortunately, we had a bunch of assholes that believed in slavery that forced us into civil-war. Good news: the south lost the war. Bad news: again, the south lost the war.

State rights? Hah, hardly anymore!

Re:It is unquestionably a wiretap

[Dutchmaan]

Perhaps you need to reread my post specifically about the first part about it being wrong and needing to change.

Re:It is unquestionably a wiretap

[fluffy99]

They pretend to be a tower and re-route all call info from nearby devices through the box, relaying the calls over to an actual cell tower. That's worse than a wiretap as it's intercepting everything in the area. Wiretap used to mean tapping into a specific line. This is full blown re-routing of all calls including those which were not within the scope of the search warrant.

Re:It is unquestionably a wiretap

[fluffy99]

A picture of a kid in underwear is not "child porn" anyway.

I'm sure you understood the gist of what I meant. In this day and age where a burglar who slips on your front doorstep can sue you for not clearing the ice, I'm sure the parents of such a thieving kid would try to sue you for invasion of their privacy,

Re:It is unquestionably a wiretap

[demonlapin]

Basically, no, you can't violate someone's rights if you're just a private citizen. You can only perform a tortious action. And the tort will be resolved by the courts.

Re:It is unquestionably a wiretap

[Dutchmaan]

My point being, not that what he's doing is wrong, but right now it seems like overkill. at least another person had decent reasoning about data retention precautions.

Re:It is unquestionably a wiretap

[stephanruby]

That's a great airtight defense you have there.

May be, you should just build yourself a fake FedEx drop off box or a fake UPS drop off box and place it just in front of a police station. The only thing you'd do would be to record all the routing information stored on the *outside* of those envelopes. That wouldn't count as intercepting their mail right, since you wouldn't actually open their envelopes, and you'd put them in a real drop off box as soon as possible to avoid being discovered.

I'm sure the cops would absolutely love you for something like that. The only companies being pissed off at you would be FedEx or UPS, but then Trademark infringement is normally a civil matter, not a criminal one.

Re:It is unquestionably a wiretap

[Jane Q. Public]

I think you have them backward. The premise is that corporations are not people and do not have rights. The conclusion is that since they do not have rights, they cannot therefore assert their "first amendment rights", which for them do not exist.

Re:It is unquestionably a wiretap

[Jane Q. Public]

"The courts found that the law acknowledged corporations had a right to free speech every time except withing X days of an election, and told Congress that you can't have it both ways."

Apparently my point went completely over your head. The issue I raised is whether corporations are actually people, and therefore have "rights" at all. If they do, then the First Amendment applies. But if they do not, then the First Amendment cannot apply.

As you say: Congress could legislate what corporations may or may not do. But those aren't rights, those are legal privileges. Congress does not have the Constitutional authority to either grant or take away rights, without first amending the Constitution.

Re:It is unquestionably a wiretap

[Jane Q. Public]

"Except the right of free speech, and of the press, is not defined as of the PEOPLE. Instead it is a blanket command telling the government keep your grubby mitts off of censorship, no matter the source of the opinion."

I cannot agree. While people are not explicitly mentioned there, the notion that the 1st Amendment was intentionally written to include corporations is a bit too much of a stretch of the imagination for me.

Re:It is unquestionably a wiretap

[Jane Q. Public]

Yes, I got your point. But my point was that the scenario you present is extremely unlikely to happen; the camera would have to accidentally capture some actual child molestation or sexual activity in progress.

Re:It is unquestionably a wiretap

[khallow]

The premise is that corporations are not people and do not have rights. The conclusion is that since they do not have rights, they cannot therefore assert their "first amendment rights", which for them do not exist.

Exactly. Conclusion doesn't follow from premise.

Re:It is unquestionably a wiretap

[khallow]

To illuminate my reply a bit more, read the First Amendment. Note that it is not an explicit grant of a right to the People, but a specific denial of power to Congress which in turn establishes all laws which are followed by everyone, government and people alike. So it quite possible for a corporation to appear to have a right because Congress is not permitted by the Constitution to do certain things.

Re:It is unquestionably a wiretap

[Archangel Michael]

You have a lot more faith in the government to do the right thing than I do.

If you don't trust your government, then there is only on thing left; it is time to replace it.

This is what happens when people don't understand what Liberty and Rights really are.

Re:It is unquestionably a wiretap

[Jane Q. Public]

I understand what you are saying, I just disagree. The idea that the framers intended the First Amendment to apply to corporations stretches credibility beyond the breaking point.

If the word "corporation" (they did exist at the time) had been mentioned even once, anywhere in the Constitution or Bill of Rights, I might concede this point. But it doesn't, and therefore I won't. The Constitution is a compact between The People, The States, and the Federal government. Corporations had no part in it. They are legal entities for the purpose of engaging in business, nothing more. They do not have rights, even in appearance.

Re:It is unquestionably a wiretap

[Hentes]

You shouldn't leave it to faith, a properly working democracy should make it the government's interest to do the right thing.

Re:It is unquestionably a wiretap

[Raistlin99]

Again, does the First Amendment apply to a group of people? I would have to say yes, otherwise what good is a peaceful assembly. Therefor it follows that corporations have the rights enshrined such as speech, press, and petition of government. The other rights enshrined speak to the people who make up such an assemblage.

Re:It is unquestionably a wiretap

[Hatta]

No, you have it all wrong. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. You should never have faith in your government and should demand accountability at every turn. Any power that can be abused will be abused. No exceptions.

Re:It is unquestionably a wiretap

[cyn1c77]

'Stingray's do not intercept communication. That's why they get around the wiretapping warrant requirements. They are designed to spoof the carrier's tower in order to ascertain only the location of a mobile device. So I don't see wiretapping as the issue.

It's not communication with a person, but they are obtaining an identifying form of data. It's equivalent to accessing a service provider's network to find a computer's location and user's identity. Do you need a warrant for that? (That was a rhetorical question.)

Let me ask you this another way: Do you think the police would allow any citizen to track the location of law enforcement officials using this technology? If the answer is no, then this technology probably requires a warrant.

Re:It is unquestionably a wiretap

[khallow]

The idea that the framers intended the First Amendment to apply to corporations stretches credibility beyond the breaking point.

And why does it? What's the chain of logic here? Merely saying that corporations don't have rights and that they aren't mentioned in the Constitution doesn't mean that much. As I said before, the First Amendment is a denial of power for Congress not an affirmation of rights for any of the parties of the Constitution.

Second, corporations are clearly a power structure granted to the People and hence, it is not at all a stretch for corporations to inherit some sort of implied rights from that relationship with one of the parties of the Constitution.

Re:It is unquestionably a wiretap

[3vi1]

>> They are designed to spoof the carrier's tower in order to ascertain only the location of a mobile device

By virtue that corporations are people, I suppose this makes them guilty of identity theft.

Re:It is unquestionably a wiretap

[Jane Q. Public]

I think we are at a standoff then here, because simply saying that they DO have rights, without any supporting facts, also does not get one anywhere.

And corporations are not a power structure "granted to the People". Granted by whom? They are merely a legal fiction, created for convenience.

If the framers had wanted to make corporations (which, I repeat, did exist at the time) any part of the Constitution, they could have. They did not.

Re:It is unquestionably a wiretap

[Jane Q. Public]

"Again, does the First Amendment apply to a group of people? I would have to say yes, otherwise what good is a peaceful assembly."

Assembly is not speech. They are two different things, thus the need to mention them both in the Bill of Rights.

Individual people in a group each have the freedom of speech, which is the only thing supporting the idea of "group speech".

Individual people in a corporation have freedom of speech. That does not automatically grant the corporation any right to speak for them. This is exactly the issue that went to the courts in regard to unions: does a union have the right to use membership dues to support a political candidate, whom the individual members may not support?

What gives the union board the right to speak for all the members, possibly against their will?

What gives a corporation a right to speak for all its employees and stockholders (without whom it could not exist), possibly against their will?

I simply have to disagree. The individual members of those organizations have that right. The simple filing of corporate papers does not automatically create an extra "person" with the right of free political speech backed by dollars.

Re:It is unquestionably a wiretap

[khallow]

I think we are at a standoff then here, because simply saying that they DO have rights, without any supporting facts, also does not get one anywhere.

Another irrelevant non sequitur. I have not said here that corporations do or do not have rights. My view is that they effectively inherit some rights from the People, but that observation remains wholly irrelevant to this case.

And corporations are not a power structure "granted to the People". Granted by whom? They are merely a legal fiction, created for convenience.

Legal fiction == power structure granted to the People by the legislative branch.

If the framers had wanted to make corporations (which, I repeat, did exist at the time) any part of the Constitution, they could have. They did not.

Another irrelevant observation.

Re:It is unquestionably a wiretap

[Jane Q. Public]

"My view is that they effectively inherit some rights from the People, but that observation remains wholly irrelevant to this case."

Only if you have moved the goalposts.

"Legal fiction == power structure granted to the People by the legislative branch."

If that's specifically what you meant by "granted" then no argument here.

"Another irrelevant observation."

No, it's not. The Constitution is a very specific document, covering very specific subjects. You are trying to read something into it that isn't mentioned so much as peripherally, or even implied, anywhere.

I fully understand your point about "appearing to have rights" because Congress is prohibited from doing something. I just think it's bullshit.

Let me put it a different way:

The 10th Amendment says that if something wasn't mentioned, then it was specifically left up to the States and to the People. Therefore, States can abridge the speech of corporations if they choose. Which means corporations have no Federally enforceable right -- or ability, if you prefer to put it that way -- of free speech.

Re:It is unquestionably a wiretap

[khallow]

I fully understand your point about "appearing to have rights" because Congress is prohibited from doing something. I just think it's bullshit.

Well, since message has been received, there's not much else to say.

Re:It is unquestionably a wiretap

[Raistlin99]

Ah, so there it is.

If only individual people are allowed these rights then newspaper editorial boards cannot endorse a candidate. Political parties as we know them are now defunct as well. Who gave them the power to speak in endorsement for the people? Does the DNC or RNC only get to speak if their chosen person won 100% of the primary vote?

Or do you mean to say that some corporations are special while others are not?

Although with that last statement I must somewhat agree with your point for unions. Some people who have their money taken have no say in the matter due to the work rules in some places, so that is unfair.

To say that an assemblage of people cannot pool their resources for speech borders on the absurd. To say that by filing the papers they have created an extra person is distorting the matter. A group of people assembled in common cause has the right to speak otherwise the very notion of assemblage is meaningless. One voice can be powerful, but a group with the same goal is much more powerful. Look at the Tea Party or OWS. What is the difference between these groups and the corporations? All have a vested interest in the politics and governance of the nation. All are collections of people, that may or may not agree with every single issue, but yet the larger bodies have the ability to speak, to spread their ideas, their goals. If someone does not like what the collective is saying they can leave it and disavow membership and then go about their business.

As far as speech backed by dollars, all speech is backed by dollars. As in everything the time I can take to rail on about an issue depends on my ability to pay for the needs to do so. Whether that is the food and drink to survive, the cardboard to write my message on, the computer and internet access to spread my message across the world, the printing press to make pamphlets, or the access to the radio spectrum to get my voice and image out to the people.

The question you seem to be asking is should groups who pool their resources and create much deeper pockets than any one person can be allowed to use that money for political speech. The answer has to be yes, because to deny that to one group creates an environment where some assemblies of people are more deserving of rights than others. What walks on four legs cannot be better than walks on two legs just because we say it is so.

Re:It is unquestionably a wiretap

[Jane Q. Public]

"If only individual people are allowed these rights then newspaper editorial boards cannot endorse a candidate."

Wow. Is that a s-t-r-e-t-c-h-! That is nothing at all like I said. If a newspaper editorial board wants to get together and say "WE (board member 1, board member 2, board member 3, etc...) together recommend this candidate"... there is nothing stopping them. They are still speaking as individuals AND as (publicly) acknowledged members of a group. That is not the same thing at all as corporate contributions to political campaigns. To try to equate them is a straw-man argument at best.

Political parties as we know them are now defunct as well. Who gave them the power to speak in endorsement for the people? Does the DNC or RNC only get to speak if their chosen person won 100% of the primary vote?

Bollocks. Another straw-man argument. They don't, in fact, have any power to speak for "the people". This stuff is way out of left field, dude.

"To say that an assemblage of people cannot pool their resources for speech borders on the absurd."

You're right. it would be. But that is not at all what I stated, and you have very grossly misunderstood my point.

No real point in going further, since we are obviously on completely different channels here.

Hehehe

[Anonymous Coward]

Nazi Germany only WISHES they had waited till the 21st Century....

Re:Hehehe

[fast turtle]

Best use of Godwin's Law I've seen so far

Fed in the Middle?

[Anonymous Coward]

Are man in the middle attacks legal?

Re:Fed in the Middle?

[Amouth]

random but if they are using a micro cell to grab calls and route them - if the usage info doesn't make it back to the telcom for billing then they are committing fraud against the telcom company.

No, it's not!

[Anonymous Coward]

I track my ex with a fake cell tower all the time, I don't see anything wrong with it!

Re:Criminals were captured

[Anonymous Coward]

Suspected criminal...

The Feds agreed it was a search

[Anonymous Coward]

and they said it was backed with a court order, no different than any other wiretap.

One issue could be that they were also getting traffic from thousands of other callers not involved in the case. But, I suppose they could argue that happens in a standard wiretap as well, but it's the phone company that does the winnowing out.

Re:The Feds agreed it was a search

[Anonymous Coward]

Wiretaps and search warrants require different levels of evidence and different warrants. That's the issue here.

Re:The Feds agreed it was a search

[dougmc]

But wiretaps (and search warrants in general) are supposed to be specific in what they're searching for.

If the warrant was specific about searching Verizon towers, then this fake tower would not count being as it wasn't a Verizon tower. Not that I've read the warrants or anything -- this is just a guess about a possible problem.

Still, if the police had a warrant, and it covered what they did -- then it sounds like they did it right.

Re:The Feds agreed it was a search

[silas_moeckel]

IF they have a warrant for a targeted wiretap why not go to verizon??? This device exists so they can avoid having to get warrants all the paperwork etc that verizon might require. The FCC should come down on them hard unless for impersonating a cell tower they did not have the rights to use those frequencies. It sounds like they are trying to use there few legit cases to justify them having and using these devices.

How long before the real criminals figure out how to use encrypted voip? I already have this on my phone connecting me to the office pbx.

Re:The Feds agreed it was a search

[alphacharliezero]

Um, two reasons- 1. Going to Verizon would only get them historical data. As in 'Here is all the location data we have for the last month. In addition, the suspect in this case wasn't using a phone. He was using a broadband data card to file fraudulent tax returns. So GPS might not even be an option. So they would be limited to network location data. The 'Stingray' however, tracks devices in real time from the back of a van that's driving around with SWAT guys in the back. It's the difference between them knowing where you were last week and looking for you actively RIGHT NOW. In this case the suspect was tracked to the apartment building he lived in. Agents then went to the apartment manager and got the lease applications for the tenants. One of those applications used a fake ID and (surprise!) a fraudulent tax return from the agents' investigation to pass the credit check. 2. Different legal standards apply to 'Stingray' type devices than requests to providers. Use of these devices requires only a court order. (Different from a warrant.) Had the suspect been more savvy and used a clean ID and spent a few thousand of those stolen millions on a botnet proxy/VPN he would likely still be at large. The real thing protecting citizens from abuse of this kind of tech is $. In order to deploy one of these you've got to put some trained agents on the ground. It costs thousands of dollars a day to even try to find someone with a stingray. Realistically by the time they pull one of these out of the closet and dust it off, they already have enough evidence to arrest. I find carriers snooping to be much more invasive.

Re:The Feds agreed it was a search

[sjames]

They stipulated that in this one case they would call it a search for the purposes of not disclosing any technical information about the technology. They also made sure to retain the right to argue that it's not a search in any other court hearing.

In other words, they have declared their intent to use the device without a warrant.

For this particular case, they will argue that a warrant is more or less carte blanche even though they're supposed to be quite specific.

Re:The Feds agreed it was a search

[houghi]

IF they have a warrant for a targeted wiretap why not go to verizon?

Because they believe they can dictate the law without the need to follow it.

Or to say it in another way: because they can.
Many nerds like to do things just because they can. Build something that already exists out of Lego is an example. This might be their way of nerd-ness.

When I look at it from a technical point of view, it is kind of neat. From a legal point of view, it obviously is very, very, very bad.

Re:The Feds agreed it was a search

[cowboy76Spain]

I have worked with location data provided by carriers to an emergency management system, and here are my thoughts:

First, and main, the location info provided by carriers is not what you see at the movies. It is not a blinking dot in a map showing if the phone is in the men's toilet or the ladies'one. Regularr cell towers have three arrays of antennas placed in a triangles, at most the cell company knows which antenna is receiving and the power. Add to that that EM waves can be affected by environment (EM noise, buildings) and all that they give us is a wide area where there is a probability that the phone is.

Also, cell towers are designed to serve an area as wide as possible. In cities the area is smaller due to the high density of phones (each cell tower has maximum capacity due to frequency hopping) and because there are more obstacles, but it is still big.

So, the FBI probably needed custom equipment to locate the phone more precisely.

As for the basis of the article, I think the real issue is if they processed calls from some other people, or if they only allowed the device they were searching for into their equipment. If it is the former, they seriously stepped out of bonds and that technic should be illegal (it will be akin to get an order to register the house of "Mr X" and using it to register all the houses in town because they don't know where Mr. X lives). If it is the later, it is more a technicism (if it is really a search or a wiretap? Anyway, most judges warranting a search would need not a lot more for warranting a wiretap), so it is important for this particular case in particular but not for others.

Re:Criminals were captured

[Dunbal]

Yeah throw due process out the window. You realize that you could be turned into a criminal at any time with just the stroke of a pen from a politician, right?

Grey area

[Anonymous Coward]

Did they, the Feds, get the legal right from a Federal court of law, and authorization from the FCC to set up a false communications tower in a part of the EM spectrum allocated to private industry?

Is the legal framework in place for the Government to set up spectrum, regardless of allocation, for whatever reason? Is that a right the Fed's reserve with the FCC? We've sold you this part of the spectrum, however we reserve the right to do whatever we want with it, whenever we want with it?

Surely the FCC, and wiretapping by the Justice Department, hasn't been left this grey.

Re:Criminals were captured

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do we keep trying to defend criminals?

For the same reason we defend innocents. It's because you don't know who is a criminal and who is innocent, until after you have played the defense. If we knew who the criminals were prior to trials, we wouldn't have trials and courts, or even cops. Most of the Bill of Rights wouldn't exist, or if you take everything to its extreme conclusion, we wouldn't even have governments.

Ultimately, if you are against suspected criminals having trials, you are an anarchist. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Re:Speaking of Fake and Cell Phones

[mortonda]

Odd that.

You must be new here...

Can you hear me now?

[King_TJ]

Good... BUSTED!

Re:Speaking of Fake and Cell Phones

[larry bagina]

Expect it to be front page material next week.

Re:Criminals were captured

[DJRumpy]

I agree. I don't necessarily think this is about defending or prosecuting innocence or guilt, but rather the examining the means used to get them there.

This smacks of wire tapping. Surely there are other legal avenues they could have pursued to get from A to Z?

Stingrays spoof a legitimate cellphone tower in order to trick nearby cellphones and other wireless communication devices into connecting to the tower, as they would to a real cellphone tower. When devices connect, stingrays can see and record their unique ID numbers and traffic data, as well as information that points to a device’s location. To prevent detection by suspects, the stingray sends the data to a real tower so that traffic continues to flow.

I really so no difference between this and a wire tap.

Re:Criminals were captured

[SteelFist]

Minor detail, if he were an anarchist, the criminal would go free forever with no trial (no government, no prosecution). He is more of a totalitarianist (sp?), where the government has absolute control and, therefore, no trial with prosecution.

Don't need no steenking warrant

[countertrolling]

Just tag everybody as terrorists and have the now immune phone companies do the tapping.

Re:Speaking of Fake and Cell Phones

[icebraining]

What a terrible submissions. Do you expect them to accept a text filled with accusations towards the editors and editorial bias?

Don't worry, I don't expect this to make it to the frontpage either

This is what's called a "self-fulfilling prophecy".

Re:Criminals were captured

[AngryDeuce]

Because criminals are entitled to a complete and proper defense?

When it comes to privacy, every inch we give results in another mile taken by the government. Consider how the Patriot act evolved from where it began back in 2001 to where it is today, the way the TSA began and the way it is being pushed out beyond it's original boundaries with people advocating and supporting random vehicle searches on Interstates, shipping, busing, backscatter X-ray being used for major sporting events which will eventually trickle down to every public building and who knows how far beyond that...

The Fourth Amendment exists because privacy is necessary for liberty and a free society.

It's effectively the same thing as searching mail.

[Karmashock]

The feds can't just go rifling through sealed letters without some kind of warrant. By the same token, their man in the middle attack is like having a fake postman pick letters up, read them, then seal them, then drop them off at the real post office. They can't do that without a warrant and likewise they shouldn't be able to do it to data.

The justices need to get real about enforcing some basic principles that were implicit in American legal code for centuries.

Re:Speaking of Fake and Cell Phones

[AlienIntelligence]

What a terrible submissions. Do you expect them to accept a text filled with accusations towards the editors and editorial bias?

Don't worry, I don't expect this to make it to the frontpage either

This is what's called a "self-fulfilling prophecy".

YOU must be new here...

-AI

Re:Criminals were captured

[SpiralSpirit]

an anarchist doesn't necessarily believe in no punishment - just not legal systems of punishment. if you automatically knew who was innocent and guilty you could punish the guilty without a legal system.

I see opportunity

[chill]

I can see the potential for a smartphone app that learns the cell tower IDs that you normally connect to and lets you know if something is out of the ordinary. Similar to the Certificate Patrol add-on for Firefox, but for cellular connections.

Wigle Wifi already collects the data and shows details on the towers visible to your phone, so that info *is* available.

Re:I see opportunity

[wkk2]

How about an app that beeps and turns the display red if encryption, as feeble as it is, gets turned off.

Re:I see opportunity

[Jane Q. Public]

It wouldn't work, because someone could just spoof the cell tower's ID, with a stronger (but closer) signal. In fact, I think that's what they do.

Re:I see opportunity

[chill]

I'll have to dig. I don't think they spoof the specific ID, but rather just appear as an authorized tower. This goes on with the cooperation of the cell companies.

An approved tower would be easier to manage and have less if a possibility of a screw up than a spoofed tower.

Re:I see opportunity

[Jane Q. Public]

The ID of the cell tower can still be spoofed. It doesn't have to be law enforcement doing it, or done with the company's cooperation.

Re:Criminals were captured

[icebraining]

Governmental agencies aren't the only way to catch people. Mercenaries have existed for thousands of years. More recently, there are Private Military Companies have been paid by companies like GE to protect their property.

Liars vs Constitutional Privacy

[Doc Ruby]

It's obvious the government is lying about what it's doing so it can violate our privacy rights. The purpose of a judge is to be a reasonable human who can see that the government is lying, and stop the government. Judges who don't see through these lies are obviously either stupid, corrupt or both.

We need a Constitutional Amendment that simply says

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects is a right to privacy.

Because over the years stupidity and corruption have allowed the Fourth Amendment to fail to protect our privacy, when that is the right it instructs the government to protect:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Even stupid and corrupt judges, to say nothing of stupid and corrupt congressmembers and police, will have a harder time using the government to damage our rights instead of protecting them.

Re:Liars vs Constitutional Privacy

[zippthorne]

Your wording does no better. Indeed the problem is that once you start down the road of trying to form the perfectly worded genie wish, you've already lost. English isn't a programming language, and concepts are broader than can be expressed likewise anyway.

Even with your privacy wording, the sentence will be twisted to mean something absurd, in part because the courts love making absurd rulings, presumably as a motivator to legislatures to play the genie wish game with progressively more wordy and less understandable documents. I suppose we'll always need lawyers, but at the same time, the existence of lawyers only exacerbates the problem, not only by breeding complacency by partially alleviating the issue through careful research, but also by arguing the very absurd interpretations that are sometimes accepted by the courts!

Re:Liars vs Constitutional Privacy

[demonlapin]

The original wording of the 4A was thought to be pretty damned clear, too. Judges who want to let the police do anything they like will find a way to corrupt your language, and a large part of the public will support them.

Re:Liars vs Constitutional Privacy

[Doc Ruby]

Why is my wording no better? The current precedents that allow privacy violations "because there's no right to privacy in the Constitution" would be useless when the court hears "Amendment 30 says quite clearly that the court must protect the privacy right, in this case in their papers and effects". That makes damaging privacy much harder, without those precedents.

What you're arguing is that no amendment or law wording can possibly protect us. While we have a corrupt system, it is not nearly as corrupt as that. However, if enough people believe that it is, as you evidently do, it will become that corrupt. The mere act of the people and our legislatures passing such an amendment makes a strong argument to courts that the right must be protected and enforced.

Re:Liars vs Constitutional Privacy

[Doc Ruby]

It was thought so, but it has proven not to be. Proven by actions in courts. Counteractions have their own countereffects. The countereffect is to make it harder.

Your willingness to give up and say there is nothing we can do in the system to protect our rights is equally as important as the support from the large part of the public you're saying means we're doomed.

Re:Liars vs Constitutional Privacy

[cj_nologic]

English isn't a programming language

English is a programming language. The problem is there are more than 7 billion different compiler implementations.

Re:Liars vs Constitutional Privacy

[demonlapin]

I'm not giving up - but I can recognize when I'm fighting a battle that curiously few of my fellow citizens want to fight.

Re:Liars vs Constitutional Privacy

[Doc Ruby]

I'd rather die a free man in my grave / than live as a puppet or a slave.

Re:Liars vs Constitutional Privacy

[Thing 1]

I'd rather die a free man in my grave / than live as a puppet or a slave.

I'm not so sure about that, even though it appears obvious that you're quoting lyrics. A puppet could one day remove its strings, a slave could one day obtain freedom; a dead man can never rise up, regardless of how free he (thinks he) was.

Re:Liars vs Constitutional Privacy

[zippthorne]

If you have a corrupt system, no amount of careful wording will do more than stave off the absurdity for ever diminishing periods.

If you don't have a corrupt system, you can use general terms, like, "shall not be infringed," "shall not be violated," "shall not be construed" or "reserved to...or to the people" and even the spirit of what you wrote will be followed.

What is this Fourth Amendment of which you speak?

[eyegone]

Why do you hate America?

Re:Why all the effort?

[Doc Ruby]

Because the police state also wants the power to do whatever the cops want, without being subject to anyone else, especially judges in a separate and theoretically independent branch.

And just as Congress has let the president take so much of its power, like declaring war and everything that comes with it, the Judicial Branch has let the cops (Executive Branch) take its power to decide what rights can be infringed. They've all got so much more power than the Constitution creates for them that they're not even jealous when another branch takes some of theirs. In fact they're codependent on letting each other steal powers from the others.

Re:Criminals were captured

[sribe]

Because criminals are entitled to a complete and proper defense?

Not really. It's because it takes a complete and proper defense to be (fairly) certain that the defendant is in fact a criminal.

Re:Criminals were captured

[LordLimecat]

Yall is postin in a troll thread....

Re:Criminals were captured

[LordLimecat]

Rule 1 of the internet:
Dont Feed The Trolls.

Why?

[koan]

Why does anyone involved in anything illegal use a cellphone that's attached to their name? Go to Walmart buy a prepaid phone, buy a dozen, have someone else buy them, use your head.

Re:Why?

[mehrotra.akash]

When that starts happening, you end up with a system like India (ID and residence proof required for ANY form of telecom connection: leads to a 1-3 day lag for verification as well)

Re:Why?

[JustNilt]

Why does anyone involved in anything illegal use a cellphone that's attached to their name? Go to Walmart buy a prepaid phone, buy a dozen, have someone else buy them, use your head.

Wouldn't help you as much as you want. They use stingrays in exactly that sort of case. In the one at hand, they didn't know the identity of the individual at first either. They can still identify you by the device you're using. You'd have to burn a phone or aircard (as in the case at hand) after every single use once you use it to commit a crime. Otherwise, they could quite conceivably use these devices to track you down.

I'm all for privacy but keep in mind there are limits to how easily you can hide if you choose to use a device with a unique ID on a system which you do not control.

Re:Why?

[koan]

It's already going on, smart criminals don't use their own cells or frankly even carry them, but you're right it will go to what you said eventually, and so will the Internet, you won't be able to access the Internet with out a certain chip or ID and the telecoms will be required to implement and enforce it.
It will be sold to us as a security feature.

The reason for this is people go to forums and cry about it, and not a one of them does anything "IRL" about it, we are all mice.

Re:Why?

[koan]

Good thing they are cheap, and realistically, how much phone conversation do you need? It implies you don't plan well.

Re:Why?

[mehrotra.akash]

so will the Internet, you won't be able to access the Internet with out a certain chip or ID and the telecoms will be required to implement and enforce it. It will be sold to us as a security feature.

The reason for this is people go to forums and cry about it, and not a one of them does anything "IRL" about it, we are all mice.

Taking the example of India again, all ISP's are required to keep URL logs for 6 months, encryption with a key>40bits is illegal without depositing the key with the govt (not enforced much though), ISP's have to provide a room(or multiple depending on their network) to the govt which has full access to the network., cyber cafe's require a govt. ID proof to be able to use the computer

Re:Why?

[koan]

So you're agreeing with me then?

Re:Why?

[mehrotra.akash]

I was just saying that what you are predicting has already happened in parts of the world

Re:Why?

[koan]

And much to my dismay so many other things I foresaw and told to my family has come true as well, I was really hoping I was wrong.
Thank you for the observations on India.

Re:Criminals were captured

[Oxford_Comma_Lover]

United States v. Jones will be argued in the Supreme Court this week, on whether warrantless tracking of a drug dealer by putting a GPS tracker on his car requires a warrant on the fourth Amendment.

An idiot would think that we were arguing that case in the Supreme Court to defend drug dealers. Maybe the guy actually arguing it is--but the reason that we are considering it as a society, the reason we care about these things, is because of the risk of it being done to innocent people. The risk of government tracking everyone as part of its standard law enforcement duties. (I'm not saying NSA doesn't do that now, but law enforcement doesn't usually.) There should be some limit on the power of the people acting for the state--Something that at least requires a police officer to say "there is probable cause to search this person and here's why..."

Re:Criminals were captured

[nurb432]

We are trying to protect what our founding fathers created.

If you cant understand that rather simple concept that then you are an idiot.

Re:Criminals were captured

[peragrin]

If you automatically knew who was innocent and guilty to be punished then you are in either a totalitarian or religious authoritarian system.

True anarchy has no justice or revenge of any kind, because revenge is predictable, and anarchy isn't supposed to be predictable.

Re:Criminals were captured

[DarkTempes]

Not really. By now everyone is sure to have broken criminal law at some point or another, even if they were only misdemeanors.

Re:Criminals were captured

[billcopc]

Because sometimes the criminals are the ones on our payroll.

If I set up a fake tower to sniff people's cell packets, I go directly to jail. That's practically indefensible.

If the government does it "to catch a criminal", they need to request permission via the proper channels, i.e. warrants. It is a special privilege that must be diligently controlled and protected from abuse. If we start giving law enforcement officials (and their subcontractors) carte-blanche to effectively commit criminal acts, without oversight nor disclosure, in the name of crime-fighting, then democracy is effectively abolished.

A Search

[Renraku]

It isn't what we traditionally think of as a search, but it should, at the least, be considered a warrantless wiretap. Basically, anything that intercepts communication data is a wiretap. Be it listening in to their handheld radios or putting a recording device on their phone line or otherwise doing the fandango with data from their cell phone. All forms of wiretapping.

This would be just the same as them setting up an overpowering fake cordless phone base station and using it to listen in to their phone calls, and then arguing that it doesn't constitute wiretapping because they didn't have to go through the phone company to do it. No, sorry feds, you can't argue for spirit of the law in one case and then turn around and say that only the letter of the law matters in another case.

The whole point behind needing a warrant to wiretap is that people should be secure in their homes and have a reasonable expectation to privacy. You can't just go about using technical means to violate that spirit of the law, while your other arm turns around and arrests someone for 'inciting riots' because they posted in support of Occupy Wall Street.

Re:A Search

[Anonymous Coward]

If recording police with a cell phone camera is a wiretap, so is this.

As for the government and listening in on conversations...
The reaction to OWS shows the government wants to crush dissent.
The entire purpose of bearing arms and limiting what the government can know about you is to prevent dissent/revolution from being crushed.

America is not the government, America is the people who make up the country.
Patriotism isn't loyalty to the government, it's loyalty to the country, to the people.

Intent to intercept.

[whovian]

If the feds get a pass at this, then shouldn't Google get a pass over their prior wifi intercepting activities?

Unauthorized access to computer

[redelm]

Nevermind the moribund notion of entrapment or the diluted notion of wiretap, stingray is simply unauthorized access to a computer. Cracking.

The phone is a computer which is being accessed and tricked into doing things the owner does not authorize. You might call this a search, but it is not because it is made without announcement, ala sneak'n'peek. Wiping the logs is excellent evidence of the perps (Feds) guilt.

Re:Criminals were captured

[sjames]

I have no idea! Every time these federal scofflaws get caught with their hand in the cookie jar, a bunch of people come out of the woodwork arguing about how it's OK to commit crimes against people you think might be criminals (or you don't like their tie) and then Congressmen pop up with new "crime is legal unless you're a peon" bills.

OH! you mean the OTHER criminals! Nobody's defending them, we just want to make sure the cure doesn't become worse than the disease.

we had a good run

[Trax3001BBS]

FTA:
"As such, the government has maintained that the device is the equivalent of devices designed to
capture routing and header data on e-mail and other internet communications, and therefore does not
require a search warrant."

LOL so we should all have cell phone jammers, the equivalent of a door.

Folks we had a good run, it's over. Everything now however illegal is being justified
"National security". Former Minnesota Gov. Jesse Ventura has had enough, being blocked
with that iron door to his lawsuit.
http://news.yahoo.com/ventura-miffed-court-says-hes-off-mexico-174718110.html

I watch the local TV broadcast and commercials of "see something, say something"
and think of the tales taught me about the Nazi's and how neighbors told on neighbors
till nobody trusted anyone. Godwin's law does not apply, this was taught me in school
and how Hitler came to power; through old reel to reel's of "You are there"'s
by Walter Cronkite.

Of course building a cell phone tower to capture a persons cell info is illegal.
That it's even questioned is a red flag.

Re:Speaking of Fake and Cell Phones

[sjames]

Just guessing, but if your summary had been more summary like and less editorial, it might have gotten more attention.

The links themselves were interesting.

But, did they have..

[AJWM]

..appropriate FCC authorization and permits to run a bogus cell tower?

Re:Criminals were captured

[hairyfeet]

If you are talking about the government it is because they own the MSM through their "friends" in the highest corps and thus can get those who only know what they see on TV to defend them?

We have seen time and time again frankly flagrant abuses of power that even Nixon wouldn't have had the balls to attempt yet the MSM trip over themselves to kiss the ring. Look how there was only one reporter that would do ANY real followup on the "fast and the furious" scandal while the rest lined up to say it was nothing. hell even the right wingers who were looking for any excuse to hang Obama didn't seem to want to go after it.

The entire thing is rotten to the core folks, and OWS is only the beginning. More and more are realizing everything they see and read through the MSM is about as accurate as Soviet era Pravda and are waking up to the fact they've been had. Right now the constitution pretty much is a worthless piece of paper when considering how much attention those in power actually respect it anymore.

Re:Speaking of Fake and Cell Phones

[crow_t_robot]

Want to know why? Because no one gives a fuck.

Re:Criminals were captured

[Jane Q. Public]

You are already a felon, and don't know it.

I can almost guarantee that you have committed at least one Federal felony, based on the thousands and thousands of laws that now exist.

Did you know that it is a felony in the United States to import a plant or animal if it is illegal to export it from WHATEVER COUNTRY IN THE WORLD it came from, even if that plant or animal is perfectly legal here?

Which essentially means that our government is letting other nations define our laws for us.

Re:Criminals were captured

[hairyfeet]

Maybe I don't understand the concept, correct me if i'm wrong, but I thought true anarchy was "he who has the biggest guns makes the rules' ala Somalia? I bet if you rape a warlord's daughter predictable or not he will hang you by your intestines from the nearest bridge.

And frankly i don't see how ANY system could eliminate revenge, it is as old as time. it would be like trying to eliminate sex or vice. I remember what a local cop told me when they were taking a child molester to trial. he was given STRICT orders by the chief that if they heard so much as backfire their asses were to hit the dirt or seek shelter and forget Mr Rapist.

as for TFA how in the hell can they say this isn't a HUGE breach of the wiretap laws? it isn't like these things were picking up ONLY the suspects cell phone were they? I don't see how they could manage that without letting the suspect know by having his cell glitchy while everyone around him had working phones. And if they did just grab everybody how is this not a violation of due process? does that mean if they think their is a criminal in my town they can just listen to ALL calls until they find the right guy? me think the feds have gotten too damned power mad and think they are above the law which sadly in most cases they are right. Damned shame though, this used to be a free country.

Re:Speaking of Fake and Cell Phones

[AlienIntelligence]

Just guessing, but if your summary had been more summary like and less editorial, it might have gotten more attention.

The links themselves were interesting.

Perhaps... but isn't it just a bit fishy that a BIG network outage
like that is getting swept under the rug, look at the other subs
that made the front page. This is more newsworthy than half
of those.

-AI

Re:Criminals were captured

[Artifakt]

The real question is, why do the "MSM", ISPs, and others cooperate so easily with the government? Why, as you put it '"trip over themselves to kiss the ring"? You mentioned Occupy Wallstreet, but for the sake of making my point apolitical, let's just assume somebody, maybe an OWS splinter group, maybe a Tea Party splinter group, maybe the Committee to Bronze Nixon's Balls and Hang Them from the St. Louis Arch (CtBNBaHTftStLA), decides to get seriously violent. What happens to a reporter or an editor or a sysadmin, if there is a large, violent revolutionary group blowing up railways and reactor cooling towers, and they see those media employees as really just another arm of the government octopus? Does a small cell of heavily armed terrorists decide to kick in the doors of CIA headquarters and shoot it out with equally armed federal agents, or do they take their complaint to some corporation's boardroom, or easier, to their rank and file personnel?
        Even if the FBI behaves very nicely, and doesn't threaten media elements with dreadful penalties for less than full, enthusiastic cooperation, what about the people the FBI alleges are bad guys? Surely Sprint, Comcast, AT&T and the rest don't trust both sides of the struggle not to give them any problems? It's called blowback. Thinking you are dealing with honest, noble cops may be foolish, but how crazy is thinking you are dealing with honest, noble criminals or terrorists?
          So, do government agencies put lots of pressure on the information related businesses to get cooperation? Do they maybe mention IRS audits and such whenever they think a media corp is dragging its feet? Or are they sticking to 'carrots', but with one of the 'carrots' being a promise to give extra protection to the non-state actors that help them?

Re:Criminals were captured

[hairyfeet]

That would be true IF we were talking about possible threats, but how do you explain Wikileaks? They showed some truly sick and evil shit being condoned and covered up by our government, for example the PMC that was gaining contracts by selling little boys as sex toys, the same PMC had done the SAME THING in Kosovo with 10 year old girls over a decade ago!

But what did they do? they ALL rushed and tripped over themselves to kiss the ring and tell the world what an evil sick fuck Assange was for daring to say anything bad about the government! I even saw a few equate HIM with terrorism because he dared to point out the government was condoning child sex trafficking!

No it is actually VERY simple and can be traced back to a single man...Ronald Reagan. he sold us out by deregulating everything he could get his hands on including removing the rules that for years had kept the multinationals from owning too many stations. Now more than 80% of the media in the United States, from movies to music to TV, is ALL owned by just SEVEN corps, that's right, seven.

So it is quite simple, Reagan makes it so they can own all the media, they then gets laws passed that benefit themselves such as "forever minus a single day" copyrights and no matter how nasty the government gets as long as they will take the checks and give the multinationals what they want they sure as hell ain't gonna bite the hand that feeds. if a reporter wants to keep their job? better kiss the ring.

For a perfect example of how "one must toe the party line or else" look no further than a guy most of us would agree is batshit...Glenn Beck. it didn't matter HOW batshit he got, Fox had his back, then it all changed and suddenly he was a pariah...why? because he dared to say that "Maybe it was time for America to be Switzerland" and stay out of third world shitholes. this of course didn't follow the party line, which is NeoCon expansionism and corporatism, so his ass was grass. One of his last days there I saw O' Reilly call him just about everything, fool, idiot, stupid, just because he said we shouldn't have our kids dying in third world countries.

so sadly like everything else in this corrupt former superpower it all comes down to money. the megacorps make money on weapons and no bid contracts, as well as the mineral rights in Afghanistan and that little pipeline they wanted to the Caspian sea (didn't think it was about WMDs did you?) so all must stir up shit with any country they are interested in. the government takes the checks so they can do no wrong, both are in bed together so the reporters that want a job tomorrow kiss the ring. hell if Nixon would have bugged Watergate today he'd have BOTH parties rushing to cover it up and blame the reporters!

Re:Criminals were captured

[WorBlux]

For our own safety's sake. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-nJR15e0F4

Plus it's a principle of good police work. If you don't have probable cause you are wasting valuable resources by just randomly searching people.

Re:Criminals were captured

[WorBlux]

Maybe I don't understand the concept, correct me if i'm wrong, but I thought true anarchy was "he who has the biggest guns makes the rules' ala Somalia? I bet if you rape a warlord's daughter predictable or not he will hang you by your intestines from the nearest bridge.

Somalia is comprise of eight tribal clans, the warlords are in the employ of the clans. The fighting was because none of the tribes trusted any of the others enough to have a central government. Also there exists a sophisticated customary law system called the Xeer, so it is likely the warlord would ask the familily of the offender for compensation. If they refuse he will take it to an elder of that family. If the elder refused he would go speak to the elder of his own family, and both elders would agree to a judge and a trial would be held. (Cliff notes version)

The purest example of a western anarchy, would be some of the early New England colonies. Rhode island had an anarchist faction that split off for a small time. Both Pennsylvania and New Jersey had a peaceful period with no government or taxation.

Anarchy is a social condition in which there is no state ( institution with a monopoly over judicial proceedings that is funded through forced extractions or money, goods, or labor)

Re:Criminals were captured

[hairyfeet]

Well if there is strictly no state then by that very definition wouldn't "vengeance be mine so saith me"? I mean if there were no government and no law then if you fucked with what's mine you would be talking to Mr 357 Magnum and trust me, he is kinda cranky.

So I just don't see how one could have NO central authority and not have vengeance, because you just know someone is gonna piss with someone else, that much is a given. Rape, robbery, murder, molestation, all of these things are older than time and so is revenge so I don't see how ANY system could eliminate such a basic human desire, anymore than you could wipe out the human animal's desire for food, sex, companionship, etc. Its just the way we are wired friend.

Mod parent up

[vaporland]

You make excellent points. Here's two things to consider:

(1) Why won't the "media" ever talk about campaign finance issues?

I'll answer a question with a question: who ultimately receives campaign funds?

That's right: the media. When you hear that Obama will spend $500 million on his campaign, where do you think he's spending it?

(2) Who does the establishment's hatchet jobs?

The media. When DHS, FBI, et al needed a scapegoat for the anthrax murders, all it took was a whisper in a few ears and Dr. Stephen Hatfill was delivered on a platter.

When the victim of that hatchet job fought back unexpectedly, Dr. Bruce Ivins was served up. He did what they expected and killed himself, wrapping the story up in a nice consumable package for the sheeple.

As an Austrian politician once said, "Killian is lying to you"

The "free press" isnt the solution, it's the problem

Re:Mod parent up

[hairyfeet]

Oh I think it goes much deeper down the rabbit hole than that my friend, these multinationals have their dirty fingers in a LOT of pies, so the gov doesn't do squat or say squat no matter how nasty they get (BTW just FYI but you might want to look up how Goldman Sachs and their friend are quietly dumping their Greek and other toxic stocks on the Fed, in the end the US taxpayer may be on the hook for another 14 TRILLION in toxic assets while they drive away with the money trucks) and in return they kiss the ring and the gov can do no wrong. Hell look up what happened with QE 1 and QE 2, you have companies and banks being GIVEN money which they then LEND back to the gov and get interest for! That would be like you handing me a million dollars and I promptly hand it back and you pay me interests PLUS the original million for the privilege of holding it for a few seconds!

No friend the whole thing goes deeper than anybody wants to admit and it is REALLY ugly and nasty, shit that would make Watergate look like a 6 year old's tea party which is why i think both the left AND the right have been trying to bury fast and furious, they are afraid even taking a peek in the closet will cause the mountain of skeletons to start tumbling out. You will probably call me a tinfoil hatter or a loonie but you should really watch "Aaron Russo on 9/11" which the man recorded as kind of a deathbed confession. Before the bombs started falling on Baghdad he laid out WHAT was gonna happen and more importantly WHY it was gonna happen, and it all comes back to a handful of uber rich at the very top. These families have been manipulating world events so as to rake in truly disgusting levels of wealth and frankly if a million have to die so they make 100 billion? so be it. According to him their ultimate goal is a worldwide disaster of the economic system so they can gain control of ALL of the finances. there wouldn't be a single cent that didn't go through their hands at some point, truly scary shit. They wanted him in on it, as a "fellow traveler" and a mouthpiece but what he learned spooked him too much.

So while i think you are correct that those corps are happy to take those billions in campaign finances (which they gave in the first place, so they get the favors AND they get their money back) but i truly believe that is chump change compared to some of the shit they have cooking with the knowledge and cooperation of some of the most powerful governments on the planet. Russo has been dead for years but he called many of the things we are seeing in the mid east right now and predicted thay will eventually roll over every leader in that region, as they want the control over the largest oil reserves on the planet. To these guys a couple of billion is nothing, the money Obama and Mittens or whomever gets the Rep go ahead is just small potatoes. Their real goal is worldwide control of the sources of ALL wealth and production. I wouldn't be surprised if OWS starts to look like its gonna go anywhere they will label them terrorists and the crack downs will begin. like I said these guys at the top have NO care for anyone that isn't on their level.

Re:Criminals were captured

[spazzmo]

Makes a change from writing other countries laws for them...

Re:Criminals were captured

[Thing 1]

the way the TSA began and the way it is being pushed out beyond it's original boundaries with people advocating and supporting random vehicle searches on Interstates, shipping, busing, backscatter X-ray being used for major sporting events which will eventually trickle down to every public building and who knows how far beyond that...

Your comment just gave me a new insight to the new movie, "In Time". In this movie, people at birth are given a certain amount of time, after which they will be destroyed (similar to Logan's Run). People can spend this time on pleasures. I see traveling via the TSA as similar: there is a certain number of passes you can take through their radiation machines before you start exhibiting symptoms. Instead of "In Time", perhaps it could be "In Air", or "In Radiation".

Re:Criminals were captured

[WorBlux]

No government usually doesn't mean no law, it usually means a polycentric and customary legal system. Just think about it about, how many friends might I have, will they all believe you or want thier own vengance? What if you found out later that is wasn't actually me but just someone you thought was me? If you even thought about it for half a minute you would figure out there would be reason seek the aid of those with experience in investigation, a knowledge of social norms, and a reputation of impartiality and wisdom.

The real danger to humanity is blind obience. Government have killed nearly a quarter billion people in the twentieth century alone. There is only about half of one percent that are natural killers (sociopaths, or those without empathy), compared to about three-quarters that without extensive training to override instincts will not shoot back at those whom they have every reason to believe are trying the kill them. ESR has a good essay on the topic. http://catb.org/~esr/writings/killer-myth.html