Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Indiana State Police Acknowledge Use of Cell Phone Tracking Device

Posted by timothy on from the hoosier-friend-on-the-phone? dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Indiana state police acknowledge use of cell phone tracking device 'Stingray', tricking all cellphones in a set distance into connecting to it as if it were a real cellphone tower. A joint USA Today and IndyStar investigation found earlier this month that the state police spent $373,995 on a device called a Stingray. Often installed in a surveillance vehicle, the suitcase-size Stingrays trick all cellphones in a set distance ('sometimes exceeding a mile, depending on the terrain and antennas') into connecting to it as if it were a real cellphone tower. That allows police agencies to capture location data and numbers dialed for calls and text messages from thousands of people at a time."

10 of 155 comments (clear)

  1. My Question is by dale.furno · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Who controls the Data that is collected?

    1. Re:My Question is by noh8rz10 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      srsly, that's your question? the collection itself is no biggie, but who gets the records? I assume the police are inept to handle this firehose of real-time data, and are just trying to spend down 9-11 anti-terrorist cash that US gives to agencies at every level. this is why the sheriff's dept in Wasilla, AK has an armored weaponized SWAT vehicle.

      I see a few important questions here, but tbh I'm feeling pretty weary to list them all.

    2. Re:My Question is by msauve · · Score: 4, Insightful

      More significantly - cell phone frequencies are licensed, and some have been "sold" to cell providers. Methinks there's a felony here by some within the Indiana State Police, regarding theft of services, or something similar regarding use of frequencies they're not licensed to use. Who watches the watchers?

      This is a recurring issue - what makes law enforcement think they can break the law in order to enforce it (this, and simpler things like speeding while on patrol).

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    3. Re:My Question is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I think you missed the point in that the police should not be in possession of this information without probable cause and a warrant in the first place. Asking who has access or control of the data skips that first step as if it isn't important when it is probably the most important.

    4. Re:My Question is by Artifakt · · Score: 4, Insightful

      To put it simply, there are things which should not be allowed at all by free men and women, and asking what safeguards are in place implies that there potentially exists some set of safeguards that should make those things allowable. Gathering evidence without both a warrant and probable cause is one of those things, as the U.S. Constitution says, that should NEVER be allowed.
                If you're going to ask a question that assumes there is some way around the Constitution, OR SHOULD BE, you're the person who has to defend your position. You're the person who might want to be more honest and admit you are implicity asking for the Constitution to be set aside. If you really feel that way, how about saying so explicity? Talking down to people who take exception to that point isn't clever, or adult, or enlightened, especially when it's an attempt to deflect that you are the one with the extreme, radical, and generally un-thought-out position you're scared to express openly. I say un-thought-out because if you are consiously supporting just ignoring that 'little' question of the large scale violation of fundamental human rights, you are something much worse than a person who needs things at the 1st grade level.

      --
      Who is John Cabal?
  2. I'll answer all questions now by wbr1 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Because fuck you, that's why.

    --
    Silence is a state of mime.
  3. Pussies. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Why is the most armed nation such pussies? Scared of any and every damn thing.

    Fuck the government.errr....my bad...FUCK the citizens!!!!!!!!!!!!

    ps....fuck your karma, slashdot.

  4. Re:Excellent! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    They who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
                                                              -- Benjamin Franklin

  5. Re:Excellent! by Skarecrow77 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I have nothing to hide, and if this helps catch bad guys, it's still a tremendous invasion of privacy and morally wrong under just about any definition of "moral" you want to use (aside from the "moral = whatever the hell I say it is" definition that seems to be increasingly more prevalent).

    If I spend my spare time doing the most boring, non-threatening things imaginable, that is nobody's business but my own. If I spend my spare time doing unusual or asinine things, that's still nobody's business but my own. If I spend my spare time hurting other people and committing crimes that result in damage... then hey, maybe it's time to look into what I'm doing, not before.

  6. Re:Is this legal? by DanielRavenNest · · Score: 4, Insightful

    > Nobody is going to arrest them.

    That's not necessary. The major phone companies can sue the Indiana State Police for whatever the corporate lawyers can come up with. And those lawyers don't live in Indiana, so they aren't subject to being pulled over in a traffic stop by the local cops. Alternately, independent lawyers can start a class action on behalf of the phone customers for violation of their civil rights. The cops may not go to jail, but their employers may face big financial settlements.