Cops Say NDA Kept Them from Notifying Courts About Cell Phone Tracking Gadget

schwit1 writes "Police in Florida have offered a startling excuse for having used a controversial 'stingray' cell phone tracking gadget 200 times without ever telling a judge: the device's manufacturer made them sign a non-disclosure agreement that they say prevented them from telling the courts. The shocking revelation, uncovered by the American Civil Liberties Union, came during an appeal over a 2008 sexual battery case in Tallahassee in which the suspect also stole the victim's cell phone. Using the stingray — which simulates a cell phone tower in order to trick nearby mobile devices into connecting to it and revealing their location — police were able to track him to an apartment."

Comments

Abjectly false argument

[Anonymous Coward]

Confidentiality agreements do not supersede the law, court orders, the constitution, or anything else. Private contractual agreements always take a back seat to binding Law and Court Orders.

The police department in question probably asked for an NDA to give them rationalization for breaking the law.

Re:Abjectly false argument

[Anonymous Coward]

The police department in question probably asked for an NDA to give them rationalization for breaking the law.

You certainly give the police a lot of credit.

Re:Abjectly false argument

[Anonymous Coward]

But you forget in the world we live in where Republicans control nearly all aspects of our lives, companies are more important than people since they are, in their view, super people. We have no rights. The agreements they force us into with corporations do supersede the law in their minds. That is why things are they way they are. Ignoring that will not make the problem go away.

Re:Abjectly false argument

[Immerman]

Indeed. If a contract requires you break the law, you are legally obligated to refuse to sign. Signing with the intent to obey the law would be fraud, and signing with the intent to break the law would be conspiracy to commit a crime.

Re:Abjectly false argument

[Anonymous Coward]

"false argument" says what it needs to. "abjectly" says you are so partisan I will need to look very carefully at your argument.

Re:Abjectly false argument

[msauve]

Additionally, using one of those boxes would require court approval. Perhaps not for a traditional search warrant, but certainly to allow the police, who are not licensees of the radio frequencies involved, to operate these intentional transmitters. And that probably means federal court approval.

Re:Abjectly false argument

[Anonymous Coward]

If a contract requires you break the law, you are legally obligated to refuse to sign

Not really. If contract is in violation of municipal, state, or federal laws, either in whole or in part, the contract is unenforcable. E.g. if your contract states you must smoke weed while performing some duty, it is illegal to smoke weed and so the contract would not hold up in court. However, most contracts have a provision which would only mark the unenforcable section invalid but due to seperation of parts the rest can be considered valid E.g. if your contract states you must not drive between certain hours and in another section states you must smoke weed, the provision would mean not smoking weed won't violate your contract but driving outside of the hours would.

I always look for contracts that have illegal provisions and make sure I sign the document. Then I can get out of the contract without worry.

Re:Abjectly false argument

[Anonymous Coward]

By the same standards, writing a contract that would require the other party to break the law would also be "conspiracy to commit a crime"?

Re:Abjectly false argument

[Aighearach]

False. Illegal portions of the contract are not enforceable, and you simply are NOT required to do those parts. And if you knew they were not enforceable, then there is no conspiracy. This happens frequently.

To have a conspiracy you have to have some action taken in furtherance of the crime. Signing the contract and then also taking a step to further the illegal actions, then the contract proves intent. But only once they already have you in those other details.

Re:Abjectly false argument

[Jane Q. Public]

"And if you knew they were not enforceable, then there is no conspiracy. This happens frequently.

But the police department is claiming they are enforceable. So by this logic, there is conspiracy, since they reasonably must have known it was not so. Not conspiracy with the other party, to be sure, but conspiracy to break the law.

To have a conspiracy you have to have some action taken in furtherance of the crime."

You mean like illegally tapping telephones then giving obviously bogus justifications to the court?

Re:Abjectly false argument

[Jane Q. Public]

"Additionally, using one of those boxes would require court approval. Perhaps not for a traditional search warrant, but certainly to allow the police, who are not licensees of the radio frequencies involved, to operate these intentional transmitters. And that probably means federal court approval."

That's an interesting point. I wonder if the apellants in this case thought of it.

Re:Abjectly false argument

[causality]

You mean like illegally tapping telephones then giving obviously bogus justifications to the court?

Don't worry. No matter how many cases like this we know about, the next time you are in a courtroom and it's your word against the police officer's, you will lose. Every time.

So you see, they have everything under control.

Re:Abjectly false argument

[Immerman]

Well, intent to commit conspiracy to commit a crime at least.

Re:Abjectly false argument

[Anonymous Coward]

Similarly, I regularly sign contracts with clauses I know are not enforceable because they are superseded by law and that I have no intention of following. Almost always, these contracts also have a severability clause so I carefully read, understand and follow the enforceable provisions.

Re:Abjectly false argument

[Anonymous Coward]

That is fraud, accruing the benefits with the intention of shirking the reciprocal duties. If the subsection violated some obscure subsection of law nobody is really aware of then fine, but if you knew or should have known, it's fraud.

Re:Abjectly false argument

[Obfuscant]

Additionally, using one of those boxes would require court approval. Perhaps not for a traditional search warrant, but certainly to allow the police, who are not licensees of the radio frequencies involved, to operate these intentional transmitters. And that probably means federal court approval.

No. Federal courts do not issue FCC licenses for radio use, the FCC does. Licensing the radios would not be subject to a warrant request. Courts, federal or local, don't have the technical expertise to issue radio licenses, nor do they have statutory authority.

It appears that running a microcell is no longer a huge issue with respect to licenses. This company will sell you a complete cell system in a box, needing only an IP connection. How they deal with licensing is not apparent from their website.

On the issue of using the "controversial device" to track the criminal in this case, I'm not so ready to jump on the "police broke the law" bandwagon. If someone steals my LoJack equipped car (or OnStar) the police do not need a warrant to get location information from either source. The criminal has no reasonable expectation of privacy related to the location of MY CAR after he's stolen it. Why would a criminal who steals a cell phone, which by it's very nature is inherently trackable, have such an expectation for a phone he's stolen? This is not a case of "locate Frank Smith so we can track his whereabouts whenever we want to", it's a case of "find the location of stolen property so we can recover it for the rightful owner." If they happen to find that stolen property in the possession of a criminal and can arrest him at the same time, that's a plus.

Re:Abjectly false argument

[Anonymous Coward]

Sir, calm down. Stop resisting the baton!

Re:Abjectly false argument

[AdamThor]

"On the issue of using the "controversial device" to track the criminal in this case, I'm not so ready to jump on the "police broke the law" bandwagon."

So I don't know about actually using the device, I see your logic here. But isn't there a requirement that evidence be disclosed to the accused? I think that's the issue here.

Let us strive to be correct in our outrage...

Re:Abjectly false argument

[AK Marc]

Conspiracy requires two people. You can write the "illegal" contracts all you want, but until you ask someone else to participate, it isn't a conspiracy.

Re:Abjectly false argument

[Anonymous Coward]

"And if you knew they were not enforceable, then there is no conspiracy. This happens frequently.

But the police department is claiming they are enforceable. So by this logic, there is conspiracy, since they reasonably must have known it was not so. Not conspiracy with the other party, to be sure, but conspiracy to break the law.

To have a conspiracy you have to have some action taken in furtherance of the crime."

You mean like illegally tapping telephones then giving obviously bogus justifications to the court?

Police make all kinds of crazy claims. That is why there are so many court rulings against them....
The cops knew they were bound by the court order not the contract...even if they didnt know they would have to ask the city attorney who would tell them to give the informatoin to the court or risk being disbarred, and cops in contempt of court.

Re:Abjectly false argument

[DarwinSurvivor]

How many contracts do you seriously think are written by a single person?

Re:Abjectly false argument

[DarwinSurvivor]

False. Illegal portions of the contract are not enforceable, and you simply are NOT required to do those parts.

Not where I'm from (BC, Canada). Here, if part of a contract would require 1 or more parties to commit a crime to fulfill the obligations of the contract, the contract is considered completely null.

That is why most contracts have clauses at the end that stipulate "The restrictions above are enforceable to the greatest extent of the law except in such jurisdictions where such enforcement is not possible, in which case such restrictions do not apply." (or something like that). Basically, they are saying they are exempting you from anything they've stated that they can't legally require, which makes a nice little loop-hole so you can't nullify the entire agreement.

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, but have taken a couple of contract and business law classes.

Re:Abjectly false argument

[Anonymous Coward]

Private contractual agreements always take a back seat to binding Law and Court Orders.

That is not true. Pre-nuptual agreements are a perfect example. There is an extensive body of law detailing the nature of the business between two married partners which is completely overridden via a pre-nuptual agreement, which is a contract between two parties.

However, in this case, this is totally weird. I wonder of the NDA itself calls out not disclosing it in court, in which case the department's lawyers should have red-flagged that right away. An NDA should not override due process law so this is a very strange argument. The best that can be said of the police department was that they didn't know the ruling in how an NDA relates to due process law, but even if that's the case that's total negligence as they should have gotten a legal opinion first.

The police department in question probably asked for an NDA to give them rationalization for breaking the law.

Objection! Rampant, blatant and baseless speculation!

Re:Abjectly false argument

[AK Marc]

My beliefs on the matter are unrelated to the AC's comments on it, or my response.

Re:Abjectly false argument

[Obfuscant]

So I don't know about actually using the device, I see your logic here. But isn't there a requirement that evidence be disclosed to the accused? I think that's the issue here.

I think the issue was the actual act of sticking a foot in the door and how the consent was obtained to search, not anything to do with how the stolen device was tracked. At least, that's what the court seems to be interested in.

I read the Wired article. The "stingray" doesn't belong to the police department, it was on loan, so the licensing issue attaches to the company (Hughes), which almost certainly has such a license. They make radios. They'll have all kinds of licenses. And Wired doesn't even know for sure what the device was, they're only guessing, but the NDA points to a loan and not a purchase.

Let us strive to be correct in our outrage...

Agree 1000%.

Re:Abjectly false argument

[JoeMerchant]

Naw man, come here, sign this agreement.

First thing it says is that you will never tell anybody about the existence of this agreement, no way, no how, no foolin'.

Next we get to the good stuff where you and I do all kinds of illegal things, but, since we're bound by this agreement, we can never tell anybody about it, not even under oath in a court of law.

Ya see: airtight, uptight, and outta sight.

Strangely enough, I had a former employer ask me to sign my rights to sue them away under a "secrecy bound" agreement like that - it didn't explicitly say anything illegal, I think - actually, I don't know - I deferred signing it until I found adequate counsel, and so far the only counsel I have found to look at it can't stop laughing long enough to say anything coherent.

Re:Abjectly false argument

[JoeMerchant]

I always look for contracts that have illegal provisions and make sure I sign the document. Then I can get out of the contract without worry.

You enjoy making arguments in court? On the court's schedule?

Personally, I prefer to not wrestle with pigs, you both get muddy, but the pig enjoys it.

Re:Abjectly false argument

[Anonymous Coward]

What a useless comment. You're splitting hairs here. And contrary to common belief on slashdot, it is not a sign of intelligence, unless the one splitting hairs is still a child. The "other party" makes it clear enough the implied meaning is the writer of the contract would be party of the contract and would offer "the other party" to sign it. The context of the thread is the manufacturer asking for the inclusion of the NDA clause in the contract, thus both writing the clause and being party to the contract. The context of the GP is him telling people that knowingly sign contracts with illegal clauses they are commiting either fraud or conspiracy while failing to mention whether this applies to the party to the contract that wrote the contract. If we start splitting hairs like this, we may also notice that it is not explicitely stated that the contract would be signed on earth by humans but might be signed by aliens on a different planet where the justice system does not include conspiracy among its crimes.

Re:Abjectly false argument

[Anonymous Coward]

Imho, from the pov of a graduate of the Paralegal Institute.- As an educated restatement of my knowledge
of laws, and not legal advice to anyone- , no mutual agreement ( between adults w/ the mental capacity to
understand the legaly binding obligation to perform a contract ) can exist as legaly enforceable by the Courts
of any State IF it requires non disclosure to the Court for Judicial review. Please note the disclaimer.

Since it's universaly recognized as settled law that elements such as Coercion & resulting duress would
invalidate a contract...As would forming contracts to do anything illegal violating criminal/civil Statutes be
unenforceable by the Courts...As would any overreaching undue influence or fraudulent intent be regarded
as inconscionable and thus violate public policy. Notions to bypass Court authority, are an obvious pretense
(imo) to claim the private telecom contractor can legaly claim a national security exemption by U.S.Statute,
thus ostensibly giving them superior legal authority over the Court system. BULLSHIT. Any Statute the private
telecom contractor would cite to be justifiable legal authority would thus need to be challenged in U.S. Court
for a ruling on it's Constitutionality. Several Patriot Act provisions have been struck down already.There are
many more that eventualy will be once the facts are presented to Congress. My God, they don't even bother
to read the Statutes they vote on as they're 1000s of pages long. It's well known Congress understands the
FBI has it's own " secret interpretation " of the Patriot Act, similar nazi security laws as the FBI's illegaly set
themselves up to be their own de facto phony " Judiciary ". The notion cops don't have to be accountable is
as old as the hills. As eventualy was " we were only following orders " was in Nurembourg, Germany in 1947.

Since the infamous Patriot Act was passed, the FBI have used their undue influence to write provisions into
Federal Statutes to bypass any challenges by State Judicial review to cover up their Shadow Government
vigilanteeism by enforcing secrecy as a means of Obstructing Justice. ( Concealment IS an artifice of Fraud ).
The DOJ is a corrupt joke as their FBI is a R.I.C.O.. who's corrupted police forces in New York too. The FBI
have been attempting to usurp State authority for 105 yrs. whenever they haven't been wiping their butts with
State laws. The FBI presume they're above the laws because they like to act in secret, have for such a long
time as to be an underworld per se. The FBI has had local cops copying their conspiracy to violate the States'/
civil rights under the color of authority. The " Shadow Govt " is the FBI's monkeys lurking about in stealth mode.

The only real, honest Justice is Court Justice, not executive vigilanteism. Smells like the Flunkie Bureau of
Instigation has been unlawfuly active behind the scenes to violate the Florida anti UPL Statute by wrongfuly
advising local cops. ( all 50 States have an Unauthorized Practice of Law Statute prescribing criminal & civil
sanctions to correct such Official malfeasance. ) What those cops claimed is as counterfeit as seeing the
portrait of Groucho Marx on a $ 1 bill.

Re:Abjectly false argument

[MikeBabcock]

As soon as you try to convince the other person to sign it, you're working your way into conspiracy.

A contract not intended for another to sign is pretty much non-existent.

Re:Abjectly false argument

[AK Marc]

Yes, that's what I said. Is the threading in the new layout causing everyone to object to my posts without reading the one I'm replying to?

Re:Abjectly false argument

[Rich0]

I always look for contracts that have illegal provisions and make sure I sign the document. Then I can get out of the contract without worry.

You enjoy making arguments in court? On the court's schedule?

That's basically true of any contract/etc. Does your car come with a warranty? It is only as good as the manufacturer's word, or your willingness to sue them and waste 5 years in court. Justice in the US is for sale to those with the means to afford it.

Re:Abjectly false argument

[Anonymous Coward]

Wah wah.

Your system sucks. Choke on it.

Re:Abjectly false argument

[Anonymous Coward]

What does it matter who *owns* the device?
The police *used* the device ... they are responsible.

You seem to be deliberately obfuscating the issue.

Re:Abjectly false argument

[Obfuscant]

What does it matter who *owns* the device?

Because that's who has the license.

You seem to be deliberately obfuscating the issue.

The "issue" as brought up by msauve was that the police were acting illegally because they didn't have a license for the "intentional transmitters" and would have needed to go to federal court to get a warrant to cover this use. I'm dealing with that issue, which is why I quoted it when I replied originally. Hughes has a license for testing, and federal courts cannot issue licenses like they issue warrants. The straw being grasped at is insufficient to carry the day because it is based on flawed assumptions and understanding of the FCC regulations.

If you want to be outraged, do so where outrage is appropriate. Using the "stingray" to track a stolen phone isn't it. Sticking a foot in the door to keep the occupant from closing it is a much more relevant outrageable act.

Re:Abjectly false argument

[kwbauer]

Yes, that is the severability clause referred to in previous posts that almost all contracts have.

Re:Abjectly false argument

[kwbauer]

And those laws are written such that they apply as the default when no prenup is in force. There were issues about enforcing prenups way back for basically the reasons you state but "the laws" have changed to allow prenups to "override the default."

Re:Abjectly false argument

[pepty]

You enjoy making arguments in court? On the court's schedule?

Personally, I prefer to not wrestle with pigs, you both get muddy, but the pig enjoys it.

These days that would be arguments in binding arbitration. In front of the arbitrator more or less employed by the company.

Re:Abjectly false argument

[pepty]

The cops knew they were bound by the court order not the contract.

This is more about an absence of court orders (search warrants) than about court orders that were not followed. Once a court order forced them to they did disclose using the stingray. Before that they did refuse a request for information from a defense attorney, but not a court order.

Re:Abjectly false argument

[Anonymous Coward]

Confidentiality agreements do not supersede the law, court orders, the constitution, or anything else. Private contractual agreements always take a back seat to binding Law and Court Orders.

I find it interesting to how it appears to be a reasonably major consensus regarding this in this thread. All the threads about Snowden are full of people claiming that an NDA is above the law.
I wonder if there really are that many shills on slashdot or if all of the accounts are made by cold fjord.

Re:Abjectly false argument

[Anonymous Coward]

IANAL or in the USA
In the normal case of company + lawyers vs an individual in contracts (or at least the contracts individuals tend to be concerned with) I would very much doubt the company & its lawyers would go around claiming the contract was obviously flawed as it would implicate them as well (them being lawyers and the individual not).

Re:Abjectly false argument

[Anonymous Coward]

What does it matter who *owns* the device?

Because that's who has the license.

It depends on who was operating it not who owned it (IANAL or in the USA)

Re:Abjectly false argument

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course if it is abjectly false he will have used the correct wording. Its not necessarily partisan, thats your own partisan view of it :)

Re:Abjectly false argument

[dcw3]

Gotta love internet lawyers. Keep your day job.

Re:Abjectly false argument

[omnichad]

Only if there's a severability clause. Otherwise the entire contract is null and void. Granted, almost every contract has one.

Re:Abjectly false argument

[spectrumlogic]

Apt posting name...the issue has little to do with the thief's Reasonable Expectation of Privacy (REP)...it's more about the public's Reasonable Expectation of Integrity (REI). It may well also have something to do with the public's REP when they connect to the police run cell tower...and becoming the target of illegal intrusion as a side effect. The real side effect of the Snowden disclosures has been to inform the global public that fundamental communication rights have been secretly renegotiated by exercise of sovereign to municipal will...secretly sidelined by dark agenda and collusion in a ends justifies means rationale. This most fundamental boundary condition of liberty and civility in communication continues to be being actively challenged because the wheels of reform and reversal turn slowly. It is especially difficult not in only the hyper-legal sense...but as a logical exercise. What does our world look like if REP is not a fundamental and respected right? Does a reduction of logistical/technological difficulty have to automatically mean that any opportunity must be exploited? Has our competitive nature misdirected our social compass this far off course? There's a strong demographic argument that begins with the recognition that as our population/density/connectedness increases, respect for such boundaries become more important, rather than less...if peace/harmony/cooperation is the goal. And I would like to point out that action to the contrary implies goals of order which require a new level of conflict/turmoil/subjugation than we currently enjoy. REP may turn out to be the fundamental differentiator/indicator of our era as well as a dividing line between participants. It's difficult to have a productive dialogue with anyone who does not acknowledge the importance of REP and cannot understand the importance of voluntary compliance with the concept...invariably overstating some point of fact/view/fear/belief.

Re:Abjectly false argument

[strikethree]

On the issue of using the "controversial device" to track the criminal in this case, I'm not so ready to jump on the "police broke the law" bandwagon.

There are numerous other reasons I am against this without a warrant (and actually HIDING it from the judge) but what about all of the other cell phones in the area? Were their rights not violated?

Rather than getting all of those folks to sign a legal document saying it was okay for their phones to be intercepted as well, why not just get a legal warrant signed by an actual judge? Clearly, the police broke the law.

Re:Abjectly false argument

[Aighearach]

No, in the US the courts must prefer the survival of the contract. The illegal action would have to be not a detail, but the main purpose of the contract. You would need the clause to go the other way to cancel the contract if any part is not valid; except that that disclaimer itself would usually not be enforceable either.

Re:Abjectly false argument

[Anonymous Coward]

.... No matter how many cases like this we know about, the next time you are in a courtroom and it's your word against the police officer's, you will lose. Every time.

That is false, if you mean it to apply to all people, all the time. I have seen individuals prevail over police, based on relative credibility of what was said. The odds are stacked against it, for a number of reasons, but it does not always go this way. I contend that people just like to make this statement.

Now, if you literally mean "me" and "next time"... well, we don't know yet, do we? I can speculate about the future, too.

At least one person will smile, smirk, or chuckle at this post. It will not be rated highly, and will be easily forgotten in the river of history.

Re:Abjectly false argument

[MikeBabcock]

No, your statements may simply be phrased such that they do not clarify on which side of an argument you stand.

Re:Abjectly false argument

[AK Marc]

Ah, so my statement is correct, but the person reading it is trying to disagree with my opinion. I didn't give my opinion, I stated the factual definition of "conspiracy" as it applies here, with a topical example. I didn't realize I needed to state my opinion so that it could be properly ridiculed.

Sorry, I can't be compelled to testify

[grahamsaa]

Sorry Judge, I can't be compelled to testify against my accomplice -- we signed a non-disclosure agreement.

Re:Sorry, I can't be compelled to testify

[Kenja]

Kind of like marriage.

Re:Sorry, I can't be compelled to testify

[Jane Q. Public]

Hahahahahahahaha!

That's one of the funniest things I've read in a while.

Re:Sorry, I can't be compelled to testify

[Anonymous Coward]

Really? Because I thought it was just really stupid. But we might be thinking of different incidents (scandles really).

Re:Sorry, I can't be compelled to testify

[Jane Q. Public]

Come on, folks. An "overrated" mod for saying something was funny? Get a life.

Re:Sorry, I can't be compelled to testify

[hubie]

I missed the joke. There were testimonies and NDAs involved with that?

Re:Sorry, I can't be compelled to testify

[gargleblast]

Give the mod a break. There is no option that says "-1 giggling idiot".

Re:Sorry, I can't be compelled to testify

[Anonymous Coward]

This is obvious plagiarism of our business model.
You will hear from our lawyers.

Yours sincerely,
Cosa Nostra.

Re:Sorry, I can't be compelled to testify

[Jane Q. Public]

I don't owe Kool-Aid drinking Climate Nazis any breaks.

What about the law?

[Anonymous Coward]

Since when does an NDA supersede the law? That's laughable, especially for law enforcement.

Well corporations

[future assassin]

do write the laws so ....

Re:Well corporations

[operagost]

Yes, like how the Apollo Alliance wrote the stimulus bill.

Purgery? Contempt of court?

[Anonymous Coward]

Last I heard: an NDA does not expempt you from testimony under oath, or indeed any other law. Journalists would just resort to this with sources, mobsters with flunkies, etc. Indeed: If a civil contract could pre-empt court's rights, I could just sign a contract making me killing people required (and, of course, undiscloseable).

Re:Purgery? Contempt of court?

[sideslash]

What is "purgery"? Would that be illegal destruction of evidence, by purging it?

Re:Purgery? Contempt of court?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it might be the state where all the toilets in the courthouse are backing up from over use. Too many purges all at once can do that.

Re:Purgery? Contempt of court?

[K. S. Kyosuke]

I've heard that purgery is a federal fellatio in the US.

Re:Purgery? Contempt of court?

[Anonymous Coward]

What is "purgery"?

Baby don't hurt me.

WTF????

[gstoddart]

Police in Florida have offered a startling excuse for having used a controversial 'stingray' cell phone tracking gadget 200 times without ever telling a judge: the device's manufacturer made them sign a non-disclosure agreement that they say prevented them from telling the courts

I'm sorry, but what?

You broke the law because if you'd told the courts you'd be breaking an NDA with the company?

How the hell can a police force enter into a contract which expressly requires them to break the law?? What genius lawyer signed off on that one?

Oh, sorry your honor, we couldn't tell you we were violating the law because we signed a contract?

That's ridiculous.

Re:WTF????

[Anonymous Coward]

I think they call that "unconscionable" and so you could easily break the NDA in that case.

Re:WTF????

[sjames]

On one side, they had an NDA prevention any disclosures about the device or it's use. On the other, if they used it they were obligated to tell the courts about it.

The legal solution is simple and obvious: don't use the damned thing. It's the only way to obey the law and avoid breech of contract at the same time.

In a situation where you actually cannot obey the law and a contract at the same time, the contract term is null and void. No legal contract can require a violation of the law.

Re:WTF????

[Anonymous Coward]

Tracking down a rape suspect by finding the phone they stole is illegal?

Re:WTF????

[ganjadude]

of course not, but intercepting all other people in the areas communications is

Re:WTF????

[Aighearach]

More likely, they simply lied and made up an excuse where they look stupid, to protect themselves against looking criminal.

Most likely the NDA requires that they ask the court to seal documents, if it mentions the courts at all; most likely it was to prevent them from telling the media, or anybody else.

Re:WTF????

[Solandri]

You broke the law because if you'd told the courts you'd be breaking an NDA with the company?

They didn't break the law. TFS is written in a way that makes the reader presuppose the use of these devices is illegal without a warrant. From TFA:

The government has long asserted that it doesn't need to obtain a probable-cause warrant to use the devices because they don't collect the content of phone calls and text messages but rather operate like pen-registers and trap-and-traces, collecting the equivalent of header information.

They did not want to obtain a search warrant to enter the apartment âoebecause they did not want to reveal information [to a judge] about the technology they used to track the cell phone signal, the appellate judges note.

"[Wh]en police use invasive surveillance equipment to surreptitiously sweep up information about the locations and communications of large numbers of people, court oversight and public debate are essential,â the [ACLU] noted in its post.

So the current state of affairs is that there is no law (yet) concerning use of these devices, and some in the government are arguing that no law is needed. There being no law, law enforcement did not want to rock the boat by revealing the devices to the courts so that there might be a new law made (either through legislation or court precedent). The ACLU is arguing that there should be a law prohibiting their use without a warrant.

TFS is written as if the ACLU stance is the current state of affairs, and law enforcement sought to work around it. In fact it's the other way around. Use of these devices is currently legal, and law enforcement sought to keep it that way by not revealing them to the courts so that no ruling on their use would be made. The ACLU is trying to argue for a law requiring a warrant to use these devices.

Re:WTF????

[Atrox666]

I guess when they said that they would tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth they committed perjury since they intended to not disclose to the court.

Re:WTF????

[mrchaotica]

Yes, if you don't have a warrant. And the police in this case indeed did not have one, since to get one they'd have to tell the judge about the device.

Re:WTF????

[xevioso]

Why is it that posts which actually shed some light on what is actually happening in the situation are always at the bottom of a thread? This appears to be the sad state of affairs on /. Seriously, even if I disagree with someone, I always just scroll to the bottom of a thread to get something even remotely insightful about something.

Re:WTF????

[Jaysyn]

Using illegally gathered location data (for the stolen phone as well as the other $LARGENUMBER people in the area) & then failing to get a warrant to enter the premises after being refused entrance by the suspect's girlfriend is where they fucked up. All evidence past that point is not admissible. Fruit of a poison tree & all that.

Because the police & DA couldn't follow the simple rules that they are supposed to, a thief & rapist is going to walk. We should be livid & LEOs should be getting fired because of this.

Re:WTF????

[Agent0013]

So the current state of affairs is that there is no law (yet) concerning use of these devices, and some in the government are arguing that no law is needed. There being no law, law enforcement did not want to rock the boat by revealing the devices to the courts so that there might be a new law made (either through legislation or court precedent). The ACLU is arguing that there should be a law prohibiting their use without a warrant. .

That is like saying if I invent a new beam energy weapon that can cook your eyeballs into a goo and fry your brain until you die, it isn't illegal to use it as there is no law against using newly invented beam weapons to fry people. That is just plain absurd! It's illegal to tap people's phones without a warrant. Just because you are using a new piece of tech to do it does not make it legal!

Re:WTF????

[anagama]

Actually there is a law. The highest law. The 4th Amendment forbids general searches, which is the only thing this device enables.

Secondly, they want to apply the third party doctrine, specifically, if you share info with a phone company they can just hoover it up. But none of the people whose cell phones were affected made an agreement to share information with the cops directly -- the cops in this situation are not a third party, they're "the man" in the middle.

Re:WTF????

[techno-vampire]

IANAL, but I don't think so. Perjury is lying under oath, not taking the oath while intending to violate it. Probably, what happened is that the prosecutor was very careful not to ask any questions that would force the cops to mention the device, and the defense can only cross-examine a witness about things that were brought up during the direct examination.

Re:WTF????

[CauseBy]

I totally agree with you. It's baffling. Why not just resort to the excuse they usually use, which is usually accepted by the courts: "Because we don't give a flying fuck about the law, that's why"?

Re:WTF????

[vux984]

It takes time for someone to actually read the article.

  The first responses are usually based on the headline (if we're lucky), the next few made it through at least part of the summary. Some if may be insightful, some not...

But its not until someone's actually read the article that any thing salient to the content of the article can get posted.

Re: WTF????

[Anonymous Coward]

Fired? They should be put in jail. They completely and intentionally undermined the American justice system.

Re:WTF????

[slew]

That is like saying if I invent a new beam energy weapon that can cook your eyeballs into a goo and fry your brain until you die, it isn't illegal to use it as there is no law against using newly invented beam weapons to fry people. That is just plain absurd! It's illegal to tap people's phones without a warrant. Just because you are using a new piece of tech to do it does not make it legal!

No, this is like saying if you invent a new beam energy weapon that can cook your eyeballs into a goo and fry your brain until you die, it isn't yet illegal to use it to do thing that don't break current laws. Since killing people is currently against the law, you couldn't do that. Threatening people with bodily harm is also against the law.

However, using it in a pulse mode to reshape your cornea to improve vision is probably okay unless they pass a law against it even though it *could* cook your eyeballs and fry your brain until you die if it wasn't pulsed for a short enough duration.

Re:WTF????

[jxander]

They didn't break the law.

No, what they broke is called the Constitution.

Just because each individual precinct doesn't have "illegal search and seizure" laws on the books, it's not suddenly OK to ignore the 4th amendment.

Re:WTF????

[Anonymous Coward]

Wouldn't it be closer to: I invent a beam weapon that can fry your eyeball and melt your brain, I lease it to you having first had you sign a contract saying that you won't tell anyone where or how you got it. then YOU melt someone's eye with it. Since the beam weapon is not regulated by anyone, and you signed a contract I am home free, right?

Re:WTF????

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man!

Re:WTF????

[Agent0013]

No, this is like saying if you invent a new beam energy weapon that can cook your eyeballs into a goo and fry your brain until you die, it isn't yet illegal to use it to do thing that don't break current laws.

But the police are doing something illegal, that's the whole point.

Re:WTF????

[slew]

No, you melted someone's eyes, you are not home free. Regardless if you tell the police how you melted that person's eye, you are in the wrong because you did melt their eyes.

Someone (like the court or the defendant) might assume that you might have used a beam weapon to melt eyes, but maybe you didn't (maybe you used a discount laser eye surgical machine that you got from ebay). A court might attempt to compel you to say what you used to melt that person's eye, and maybe you signed a NDA saying that you couldn't tell anyone if you used their equipment on a specific job. The question is do you have additionally responsibilities to disclose NDA information about the use of equipment, not that you are home free.

The argument is that someone else might have their eyes melted and there might be a community interest in outing this seller of beam weapons so it can be regulated to prevent injuries to others, but that is a question for a court to decide independently, not something that depends on the outcome of this specific case.

Re:WTF????

[slew]

But the police are doing something illegal, that's the whole point.

The police claim how they are using the equipment is legal. If they are in fact correct, people might want to change the law, if they are not correct, they are breaking the law. I don't believe this has been established yet from the legal system's point of view (although that doesn't prevent pendants from jumping the gun).

Re:WTF????

[Obfuscant]

That is like saying if I invent a new beam energy weapon that can cook your eyeballs into a goo and fry your brain until you die, it isn't illegal to use it as there is no law against using newly invented beam weapons to fry people.

But there is such a law. It's called "murder". Or at least "manslaughter".

It's illegal to tap people's phones without a warrant.

They didn't tap anyone's phone. They allowed the phone to register with a fake cell system thus revealing the IMEI and proving it was the one belonging to the victim. They then moved the fake cell system to different places allowing a triangulation on the location of the phone.

At no time were they "tapping" anything. There were no conversations being listened to, and not even any "metadata" about who was calling what numbers.

They weren't even tracking a person. They were tracking a stolen phone. Had the person who stole it tossed it into the back of a pickup truck on the highway, the police would have tracked the phone where it went without any information about the driver or the thief.

This is no different than a bait car or bike where the cops have installed a radio tracking device so if the suspect gets away with the object they can track it down. Yes, there are devices they can attach to, e.g., a bike, that will emit a signal that they can track. That's not illegal, it's not unethical, and it certainly doesn't violate the fourth amendment.

Re: WTF????

[Agent0013]

So then, would it be legal for me to put up a fake cell site? I think not. if it illegal for me to do it, then it is illegal for the cops to do it, unless they get a warrant! plus, you can tell that the fucking pigs themselves know it illegal with how much they try to lie about what they do and keep it a secret. isn't it them who keep saying "if your not doing anything wrong, then you have nothing to hide."

Re: WTF????

[Obfuscant]

So then, would it be legal for me to put up a fake cell site?

If it was FCC licensed, I expect so. I expect the company that sells the mini-cells I linked to probably manages the licensing aspects. One of the questions on their contact form is "do you have a license?". That makes using the mini-cell legal. You could buy one.

I think not. if it illegal for me to do it, then it is illegal for the cops to do it, unless they get a warrant!

You are patently wrong. It is illegal for you because you have no FCC license for those frequencies. It is not illegal for the cops because they are acting under Hughes' FCC license. (And if you think a deep-pockets company like Hughes doesn't have a license to test the radios they manufacture, you're very wrong.)

As I've already pointed out, courts cannot issue FCC licenses because they don't have the authority. A warrant cannot provide what the courts have no authority to issue. A warrant can deal with searches, but the search came after the tracking and involved a different set of laws.

Re:WTF????

[Anonymous Coward]

most likely it was to prevent them from telling the media, or anybody else

+5

Re:WTF????

[kwbauer]

"illegally gathered location data"? My understanding is that the rightful owner gave the police permission to track the phone to obtain its whereabouts. "Possession is nine-tenths..." sounds good and all, but that other 10% can be a real bitch when it really counts.

Re:WTF????

[kwbauer]

Uh, the perp didn't own the phone and they supposedly had the permission of the rightful owner so it wasn't really tapping the phone.

Re:WTF????

[PlusFiveTroll]

But the police didn't use the 'Phind my Fon' app. They used a fucking microcell that intercepted signals from everybodys cellphone in the area. If this where only about intercepting signals from that one particular phone there would be no issue here.

Re:WTF????

[PlusFiveTroll]

No, the police never claimed if what they were doing was illegal or legal. THEY DIDN'T TELL THE COURT ABOUT IT IN THE FIRST PLACE.

What's even worse, until this case the lawyers didn't find out how the case got to that point.

This is as bad or worse then the parallel construction we hear about the FBI/NSA doing. You cannot defend against what you do not know exists.

Re:WTF????

[PlusFiveTroll]

It's just as likely that many cases that this technology was used in where never brought to court but settled in a plea agreement so discovery never occurred.

Re:WTF????

[slew]

No, the police never claimed if what they were doing was illegal or legal. THEY DIDN'T TELL THE COURT ABOUT IT IN THE FIRST PLACE.

This is an example of how the government generally claims this is legal...

The government has long asserted that it doesn’t need to obtain a probable-cause warrant to use the devices because they don’t collect the content of phone calls and text messages but rather operate like pen-registers and trap-and-traces, collecting the equivalent of header information.

A US Supreme court decision effectively decided that absent a change in statute, pen-registers/trap-and-traces do *not* constitute a search or even a reasonable expectation of privacy (as opposed to wire-taps which listen in on the actual communication). This assertion has been used in the past and continues to be the basis of arguments that it is not unconstitutional. As to the legality, that is up to congress, but to date, it isn't illegal, because there are no laws against what they are doing.

Re:WTF????

[Anonymous Coward]

Worse than ridiculous. This gaff will now release a known sexual predator back onto the streets on a "technicality".

good going guys.

Plus, they won't be able to have a re-trial because of double-jeopardy. So now they have to wait until he strikes again, and hope they can find him through legal means.

Re:WTF????

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not sure I agree with that. As I understand it the stingray doesn't allow you to look through the device's contents. It merely allows you to locate the device. In my mind it's equivalent to cross referencing a license plate to find out who the car is registered to. It doesn't allow the police to break down the door and search the residence it just tells them where the residence is. They can already triangulate a cell phone from the provider and I don't think they need a warrent to do that.

Re:WTF????

[strikethree]

So the current state of affairs is that there is no law (yet) concerning use of these devices, and some in the government are arguing that no law is needed.

It seems someone here does not understand how America is supposed to work. We all know how it does work so let's leave THAT argument for another time.

Long story short, governments (Federal, State, County, City) are not allowed to do anything that they are not explicitly authorized to do. It is the citizens that do not need explicit authorization for the things that they do.

This police department is wrong and should have had a judge issue a warrant. It is this "cowboy" shit thinking that brings us closer and closer to a perfect police state.

Surprisingly lazy

[schneidafunk]

This is exactly a case where I am OK with tracking down the criminal through the cell phone. The warrant would absolutely have been granted if they bothered to ask for it.

FTA:
According to the appellate court judges, after a young woman reported on September 13, 2008 that she had been raped and that her purse, containing a cell phone, had been stolen, police tracked the location of her phone about 24 hours later to the apartment of Thomas’ girlfriend.

“The investigators settled on a specific apartment ‘shortly after midnight’ or ‘approximately 1:00 to 2:00 a.m.’ on September 14, 2008,” the court wrote. “For the next few hours, six or seven police officers milled around outside the apartment, but made no effort to obtain a search warrant.”

Re:Surprisingly lazy

[gstoddart]

This is exactly a case where I am OK with tracking down the criminal through the cell phone. The warrant would absolutely have been granted if they bothered to ask for it.

Except that they didn't get a warrant, subsequently used the device in a bunch of other cases (again, without warrants) is mind boggling.

An NDA with a vendor is not a free pass to violate the law, and if the police are stupid enough to believe they can do anything they want because they signed an NDA, they're horribly mistaken.

A vendor of such things cannot compel you to violate the law. And they should have known this -- surely somewhere they have legal counsel who can say "well, that doesn't mean you can do this any time you like".

This is either stupidity and incompetence, or deciding you now have a loophole to do an end run around the law whenever you choose.

That's like telling your mom that when you bought your brother's bicycle for $0.10 her right to punish you was covered by an NDA. It simply doesn't work that way. She will still punish you, and the courts need to really do the same here.

Re:Surprisingly lazy

[DMiax]

Agreed. These assholes might have screwed up the case for the prosecutor and the end result might be that a rapist walks away free, all because they did not feel like doing their homework. They should face criminal charges.

Re:Surprisingly lazy

[number17]

In this case, couldn't the police have asked the owner of the phone (the victim) for permission to track the device, negating the need for a warrant?

Re:Surprisingly lazy

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not sure they would have needed a warrant in this case. presumably the woman granted permission to track her lost phone. The fact that it happened to be in the hands of a thief and rapist is inconsequential.

It's just like my house, I can let the police in, if I so desire. If there happens to be a thief hiding in my closet, they don't all the sudden need a warrant because I invited them in.

Now, all the OTHER times they used it without warrants were likely illegal, but THS ONE they should be okay on.

Re:Surprisingly lazy

[TheCarp]

I am inclined to agree. However, by the same token, the alleged rape is over. Getting warrant is always going to be preferable to not getting one according to the courts. Getting a warrant will always result in a tighter case than not getting one..... the default action in ALL cases where there is no immediate emergency and thus a reason to do otherwise, should be to get the damned warrant!

It seems ridiculous to me that they would ever avoid getting a warrant, even if they don't technically need one.... get it anyway!

Every time they decide not to, they are risking the entire case they are trying to make.

Re:Surprisingly lazy

[msauve]

They would have needed court approval to even operate the device, since it transmits on frequencies they're not licensed to use. And, I suspect that would have to be federal court authorization, since RF is under federal jurisdiction.

Re:Surprisingly lazy

[sjames]

That's the real problem here. A warrant would have been a slam dunk in this case since presumably the rightful owner of the cellphone was happy to have it tracked.

The simple fact is that more and more police believe themselves to BE the law and no longer care to put up with silly things like judges, courts, the public, or the Constitution.

It's sad that they let their baggage damage what would otherwise been a clear cut prosecution. If they can't find a way to lose that baggage, they can't be an effective police force. If that's the case, I see no reason for them to continue at all.

Re:Surprisingly lazy

[memojuez]

If you RTFA, you will see that the Police forced their way into the apartment after the suspect's girlfriend would not let them in with-out a warrant. the police did not get a search warrant to enter the residence to ... “because they did not want to reveal information [to a judge] about the technology they used to track the cell phone signal,” the appellate judges note.

Also from TFA: Authorities opted not to get a warrant either for the use of the Stingray or the search of the apartment, simply because they didn’t want to tell the judge what they were using to locate the suspect...

This is a two-fold disregard of the constitution.

Re:Surprisingly lazy

[Agent0013]

What about all the other people who have phones in the area that connect to this Stingray device. That would be an invasion of privacy and without a warrant to allow them to use it to track down the one criminal the police have become a large highly armed criminal organization. I guess we can all sign NDA's that give us the right to shoot any and all cops we see on sight. That makes it legal, right!

Re:Surprisingly lazy

[Jaysyn]

Even if it was a targeted search for a single phone (which it wasn't, stingrays slurp up all cell phone connections in a given area), they would have still had to to get a warrant to enter the premises. If LEOs don't have a warrant, they can only enter with a resident's permission or if they suspect a crime is in commission. Not several hours after the fact.

Re:Surprisingly lazy

[Jaysyn]

Stingrays *do not track single phones*.

They slurp up all the cell phone connections in a rather large area. It's like tapping every phone in a neighborhood to find one suspected grow operation.

Every single connection that a Stingray made would have to have a warrant attached to it. See Commonwealth v. Augustine.

And they have apparently been doing this for a while. I have a feeling TPD is going to be responsible for allowing a lot of criminals in the Tallahassee area to have their charges / convictions thrown out.

Re:Surprisingly lazy

[greenreaper]

This is where you take your mother to court for abuse and file a petition of emancipation. Good luck weaselling out of contract terms then.

Re:Surprisingly lazy

[jabuzz]

The phone is stolen and has been reported as stolen to the police. I would say at this point it is far from clear that the police need any sort of warrant to track the phone as the owner of the phone has given the police explicit permission to track it and hopefully recover it.

Lets imagine that I report a painting stolen from my house. Do the police need a warrant to make enquires about the possible location of my painting? Of course they don't and the suggestion that they do is idiotic. Now if they have been tracking the phone of the rapist that would be an entirely different matter.

The moral of this story should be that stealing a mobile phone is a dumb thing to do, and if that mobile is reported stolen and left on expect the police on your doorstep, especially if the theft was associated with a particularly violent crime such as rape or murder.

Re:Surprisingly lazy

[Anonymous Coward]

If you read my post, I said use of the stingray (in this case) SHOULD NOT require a warrant, because the owner of the phone consents to it being tracked. I mean, can you really imagine someone reporting a rape and stolen phone NOT consenting to it being tracked?

At that point they should have probably gone to a judge to say "We have identified the location of the phone, we want a warrant." THAT is where they made a mistake. It's only a single issue of not getting the warrant for entering the house.

Their "NDA defense" is just bizarre. I'm not exactly sure how that passed a giggle-test.

Re:Surprisingly lazy

[Aqualung812]

I AM THE LAW!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

I agree with your post, have no mod points, and have nothing else useful to add. :)

Re:Surprisingly lazy

[CrimsonAvenger]

Lets imagine that I report a painting stolen from my house. Do the police need a warrant to make enquires about the possible location of my painting?

No.

Do the police need a warrant to search a house/apartment if they're absolutely sure stolen property is inside?

Yes, absolutely.

Re:Surprisingly lazy

[kwbauer]

I agree they should have obtained a warrant to enter the apartment. They had plenty of probable cause for one but even you admitted that they didn't really need one when you wrote "or if they suspect a crime is in commission." Knowledge of the stolen phone being in the apartment is knowledge of an ongoing crime: possession of stolen property. That particular crime just goes on and on until the stolen property is no longer stolen.

Re:Surprisingly lazy

[Jaysyn]

I agree they should have obtained a warrant to enter the apartment. They had plenty of probable cause for one but even you admitted that they didn't really need one when you wrote "or if they suspect a crime is in commission." Knowledge of the stolen phone being in the apartment is knowledge of an ongoing crime: possession of stolen property. That particular crime just goes on and on until the stolen property is no longer stolen.

Sorry, you apparently don't understand how the chain of evidence, the 4th amendment or warrants work. How did they know that phone was in the apt? Fruit of a poison tree. This guy is going to walk because TPD hires morons.

Re:Surprisingly lazy

[omnichad]

The Stingray device makes no distinction between the "tracked" device and any other cell phone that finds its signal to be the strongest. Hundreds of phones could likely have been intercepted. I would have thought the virtual tower could refuse connection to all the rest, but apparently that's not the case.

Re:Surprisingly lazy

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm curious why the DA's office didn't ask how they found the guy, and then have a shit-fit when they found out it was from Stingray.

Re:Surprisingly lazy

[strikethree]

Do the police need a warrant to search a house/apartment if they're absolutely sure stolen property is inside?

Yes, absolutely.

Hm. "Absolutely sure" implies seeing it with their own eyes through a window or somesuch. In that case, they absolutely do NOT need a warrant.

If all evidence points towards that painting being inside the house but they have not seen it with their own eyes, then yes, they needs a warrant.

Well...

[Anonymous Coward]

Assuming the NDA can be held to apply in this case (which in fact it would not) -

Not being able to tell the court obviously precludes being able to ask them for authorization to use the device. This does NOT mean they can use it without authorization from a court, but in fact the exact opposite: the NDA would make it completely unusable, as they can't get that required authorization.

Just wow.

Re:Well...

[Immerman]

Yeah, I hope they nail them to the wall over this. Somehow though I doubt that will happen.

Re:Well...

[erikkemperman]

Yeah, I hope they nail them to the wall over this. Somehow though I doubt that will happen.

Well we can hope that was the contractually stipulated penalty for disclosure..

Thank God!

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank God we have the Constitution to prevent legal bondage like this!

Why just not give everyone the finger?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's faster.

Misspelling?

[Anonymous Coward]

Florida police: So this NSA tracking device, we can't tell anyone about it, right? For national security and all, I guess?
Manufacturer: Yyyyyeeeessssss? And the form you're signing is an N "S" A form, too. So, don't tell anyone. Especially not regular judges because we only answer to FITA...FICA? Eh, that secret court that we use instead of the normal courts.
Florida police: Sounds legit.

You are cops.

[Anonymous Coward]

You are cops, this bullshit does not apply to you.

Therefore, it is an excuse for your pathetic behavior.

QED.

Re:You are cops.

[hubie]

I don't think QED means what you think it does.

Interesting . . .

[Kimomaru]

So, I'm not a lawyer, but I guess the thinking applied here is that an NDA can be used to not comply with the law? So, by that reasoning, can anyone scribble an NDA on a napkin and get away with anything?

Re:Interesting . . .

[Immerman]

Only if you're in Law Enforcement, in which case the de-facto law seems to be: Do whatever you want, but be sure to have at least a flimsy excuse ready if you get caught. Otherwise we may have to sentence you to a few months paid vacation to think about what you've done.

Re:Interesting . . .

[Anonymous Coward]

beats me, but I'm on my way to register two new corps...

Corp B: for purposes of assuming all civil penalties sold as insurance policy with an NDA from my favored nation status partner, corp A.

Corp A: for purposes of selling surveillance services balancing on the razor's edge of the rule of law & justice.

Now after I enter an NDA with myself for a buck a year, I can finally get away with wiretapping my neighbors....

Maybe I better make it a thousand or ten thousand just so it looks legit....

Re:Interesting . . .

[gnasher719]

So, I'm not a lawyer, but I guess the thinking applied here is that an NDA can be used to not comply with the law? So, by that reasoning, can anyone scribble an NDA on a napkin and get away with anything?

If someone is stupid enough to get themselves into a situation where complying with the law would mean they breach an NDA, they have a choice which of two troubles they get into. Let's say a police photographer signs an NDA after receiving a prototype of an excellent new camera. If he then takes photos of a crime scene with that camera, well, he's in trouble.

Re:Interesting . . .

[Guest316]

Only if you're in Law Enforcement, in which case the de-facto law seems to be: Do whatever you want, but be sure to have at least a flimsy excuse ready if you get caught. Otherwise we may have to sentence you to a few months paid vacation to think about what you've done.

An unrelated but vivid example of exactly the point you make:
http://www.wsbtv.com/news/news...

In short, cop lets his K9 partner slowly roast to death in his car while he takes a little vacation. Oh wait, I mean "the dog somehow let herself into the SUV while he was away for the weekend." Totally not his fault, not even a stern finger-waggling was given.

I feel like I should be outraged at this wiretapping article, but I find I'm merely unsurprised.

NDA Law?

[CanHasDIY]

Since when does a contract, any contract, supersede the legal system?

Oh, right - they don't, and this bullshit excuse for illegal use of surveillance equipment is exactly the out this scumbag rapist needs to get acquitted.

Nice work, morons.

Re:NDA Law?

[CanHasDIY]

FWIW, the title to this comment should be "NDA > Law," but somebody forgot that comment subjects are governed by the same formatting rules as the comments themselves...

Not part of the case? Hmmm

[TheCarp]

âoeFor purposes of decision, however, we assume the police acted lawfully up to the point that they forcibly entered the apartment,â they wrote in their November opinion. âoeIt is not clear that there was ever a ruling on the legality of the cell phone tracking methods used below.â

So.... this particular question is excluded from this particular review, and that part of the investigation "we assume the police acted lawfully".

Am I correct in reading that this means; should the appeal fail; that another appeal claiming that the actions leading up to the search were not legal should be expected? Seems that such an assumption would mean there is another question which could potentially come into play in another review.

Seems like the police really screwed the pooch on this one. From a civil rights POV it is pretty clear they should toss the evidence and let this rapist go. Its sad when rapists get to go free on technicalities but, we can't forget,.....this is the Police's fault.

They risked letting a rapist go free so they could hide their techniques; and now....no only did they fail at hiding their techniques, but also failed to protect the community.

Re:Not part of the case? Hmmm

[Immerman]

Indeed. They say that bad cases make bad law, and I'd say this one qualifies in spades. Either a rapist escapes justice, or we get some really horrible precedent established with regards to government surveillance. Then again maybe not - most rapists don't conveniently get caught with their hand in the cookie jar, hopefully the rest of the evidence is convincing enough that the guy rots anyway, even if the arrest itself was blatantly illegal.

I really wish we'd at see some cases of individual police officers convicted for blatant disregard of the constitution - not the police department, as is usually the case, with penalties being passed back to the tax payers, I want to see the individual officers responsible doing hard time. I can see granting a little leeway for conventional law - there's way too many of those for any person to keep track of what is and is not illegal, but the constitution is the supreme law of the land, short enough to read completely on your lunch break, and mostly written in clear and concise language. There's no fucking excuse for those whom we grant the sacred trust of enforcing the law to *ever* violate the Constitution.

Re:Not part of the case? Hmmm

[Arker]

"Am I correct in reading that this means; should the appeal fail; that another appeal claiming that the actions leading up to the search were not legal should be expected? Seems that such an assumption would mean there is another question which could potentially come into play in another review."

I do not think you are right, though I dont have all the data and could be wrong. But the implication I took was that the appeal neglected to challenge the initial location. Generally speaking, if you dont challenge that issue on your first appeal, you are not allowed to raise it later. YMMV, IANAL and I am not familiar with all the specifics of the case.

Re:Not part of the case? Hmmm

[sjames]

If only I had mod points!

It may be common to complain about the defense attorney getting someone off on a 'technicality' and such, but that's not really what is happening here.

First, civil rights are not at all a 'technicality'. Getting a warrant is far from a technicality.

Put simply, a rapist is going to be back on the streets because the police screwed the pooch, hard. Apparently, they've made it a habit. They should be ashamed of themselves.

Re:Not part of the case? Hmmm

[crunchygranola]

... but the constitution is the supreme law of the land, short enough to read completely on your lunch break, and mostly written in clear and concise language...

Didn't you get the memo? The Federalist Society's view (which virtually everyone on the U.S. right now takes to be Gospel) is that you cannot understand the Constitution this way. Instead you must consult the most obscure writings (published or not) by men who were alive at the time to infer what they, or their colleagues, or friends of their colleagues, may have been thinking when they were writing it. Of course, various conflicting views can be found in this way, but the policy preferences of the Federalist Society's founders (like Edwin Meese) provide a sure-fire guide to picking the true interpretation.

Re:Not part of the case? Hmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

"Its sad when rapists get to go free on technicalities ..."

10 or 20 years ago I saw the late Supreme Court Justice Bennan being interviewed on television. Something along this line came up, and he very passionately, with some anger said (paraphrasing), "The Constitution and The Bill of Rights are not technicalities."

Further in the discussion, it was clear that from his viewpoint as a Justice on the Court, that many police officers violated people's rights out of laziness and incompetence. If they, the police, were doing their jobs right, a large % of cases where evidence or testimony is excluded because the police didn't do it right, would be allowed.

But then, they are the police, we should bow down to them, shouldn't we?

Re:Not part of the case? Hmmm

[strikethree]

... most rapists don't conveniently get caught with their hand in the cookie jar ...

Worst. Euphemism. Ever.

Why bother with "parallel construction"

[Anonymous Coward]

We can just use our own equipment, and still don't need a warrant.
At what point do we declare that the "fruit of the poisoned tree" just results in the court case being thrown out?

Incredible Bullshit

[MarkvW]

The cops have two choices: (1) Breach the contract and pay damages; or (2) Violate the Constitution.

The choice is obvious and the excuse is absurd.

Re:Incredible Bullshit

[gstoddart]

Well, before anybody signed that, they should have understood that they couldn't legally enter into that contract, and that it sure as hell didn't give them permission to break the law.

Anybody who read that NDA and said "well, we can still use it, we just can't tell anybody" is a complete moron.

Which means either they didn't know and understand the law, or they deliberately decided to skirt around it.

Re:Incredible Bullshit

[Holi]

Screw that, it is an unenforceable clause in the contract as it requires a party to break the law.

Re:Incredible Bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

It's illegal for a contract to require you to break the law and I've never seen a contract that didn't say invalid portions are invalid. There was no breach of contract no matter what they did. It was violate the constitution or not violate the constitution and they decided to violate it.

Re:Incredible Bullshit

[the_fat_kid]

no, Breach the contract and DARE the manufacturer to sue you for damages.

so,....

[ganjadude]

when do these cops (who are supposed to uphold the law) going to be discharged for breaking the law?

The example

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know about all the cases but surely in the example given the police had the permission of the owner of the phone to track it...

Re:The example

[ganjadude]

you must not know how these devices work. They act as a cell tower collecting info from ALL phones in the area, the other people in the area did not give them permission to intercept their calls

Makes sense.

[Minwee]

"But your hohhhhh-norrrr... We PROMISED to break the law! We pinky swore and EVERYTHING. What are we supposed to DO?"

Judicial SYSTEM

[Anonymous Coward]

The police get their legal authority from the judge. They can't agree to withhold information from their boss, unless their boss tells them to. Yes, this does happen -- a group which gets letters from the public can be told to not pass on ideas, so outsiders can't claim that a company stole their idea.

Legality?

[jtara]

Are these devices even legal? What country?

I know know that FCC regulations in the U.S. are regularly flouted by the use of similar "range booster" devices that you can get at Fry's, etc. but they are illegally imported and sold.

I'd imagine there are exceptions for law enforcement, but I'd also imagine that the law enforcement agency has to at least do some sort of registration with the FCC.

I'm guessing that the manufacturer just doesn't want to get in trouble with the FCC...

Re:NDA Law?

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

"Text" is not text on Slashdot. You cannoy begin a sentence with an elipsis, which is useful in certain sarcasms.

Wouldnt this make the FL cops domestic terrorists?

[detain]

Commiting acts of espionage on american citizens on american soil combined with signing contracts to violate the constitution, puts them somewhere between the mafia, spies, or domestic terrorists. I hope the guy charged with sexual battery doesnt go free because of something like this, being able to find him by breaking the law doesnt make him less guilty, and it doesnt seem like the evidence against him was a result of breaking the law , only his capture. I hope he gets to stay in jail and those that had anything to do with that NDA go to jail with him.

Lousy argument

[Facekhan]

It would seem like the victim can consent to the location tracking of her stolen cell phone. No warrant necessary or certainly an easily obtained one.

Now if they tracked the perpetrators cell phone, that would require a warrant under SCOTUS rulings I've seen.

I don't think a civil NDA between the state and a government contractor has any power over a criminal case and it certainly does not override the 4th amendment.

Re:Lousy argument

[suutar]

The warrant question is not for the tracking, it's for entering the house without consent. They didn't want to get a warrant because they didn't want to tell a judge how they found the house. Now the evidence they gained by entering the house is tainted and excluded. The moral is they were frigging stupid to use equipment they couldn't tell a judge about.

Re:Lousy argument

[Jaime2]

It would seem like the victim can consent to the location tracking of her stolen cell phone. No warrant necessary or certainly an easily obtained one.

Which is why it is so ridiculous that they didn't get one. Illegal actions committed in secret by authorities continues until they eventually screw up. Unfortunately, the climate has changed so that there is almost no down side to getting caught. In the past, agencies treaded very lightly near the edge of what's legal because when you got caught, you were gone. Today, getting caught means very little.

I would love to see 200 convictions overturned and a big billboard put up with a group photo of fifty murderers and rapists with the caption "These people are all free because of the choices of {{insert name of responsible idiot here}}."

Re:Lousy argument

[Anonymous Coward]

Now if they tracked the perpetrators cell phone, that would require a warrant under SCOTUS rulings I've seen.

But it was his, after he'd stolen it!

Re:Lousy argument

[Jaysyn]

But what about the other people they "tracked" when they fired up the stingray? They need a warrant for each one, else it's an illegal search.

They just let a rapist ( $DEITY knows how many others in the future) get off scott-free.

Burner phone + Faraday cage = no tracking.

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't use the phone AT ALL unless you are on the move.
Best not to use it if you are in a car you can be associated with
via some database.

Before you go to your hiding spot, get rid of the phone or
put the phone inside a metal container which will prevent
the phone from sending or receiving signals. Do not
remove the phone from its metal container until you are
a significant distance away from your hiding spot.

Wow, let's try this!

[bradley13]

Situation 1: Private citizen is in front of a court; the judge says the defendent must produce certain documents. Defendent says "sorry, judge, I refuse; I signed a private contract promising that I would never reveal that information". Judge says: To jail with you for contempt of court. Do this 200 times, and spend a long time in jail.

Situation 2: Police want to do a search, the law says they need a warrant. The police say "sorry, judge, we signed this here NDA". Two hundred times they did this. Anyone believe the police are going to jail here?

Forcefully entering the apartment for a physical search, also without a warrant, is just added some whipped cream on top...

Re:Wow, let's try this!

[DaveV1.0]

That is a false comparison. In the second case the judge never tells the police to produce a document as in the first, thus there is no way for the police to be in contempt of court.

In situation 2, it is quite possible that 200 cases will now have evidence thrown out, appeals filed, etc.

FCC

[Anonymous Coward]

Since they were operating it illegally, I wonder what FCC would have to say if they were to receive a radio interference complaint (probably under category "Wireless Telephone/Interference to non-emergency devices/Cell Phone, GPS and Wi-Fi jammers").

Re:FCC

[Anonymous Coward]

There doesn't even have to be interference. The police were not licensed to operate this "cell site". A federal law suit against the police department would be very appropriate.

The correct answer

[Immerman]

You forgot the correct answer:
(3) Don't purchase hardware or services that you are contractually prohibited from using legally

Re:The correct answer

[almitydave]

There's another out:
(4) Use the device to identify the suspect, then use other court-friendly means to build your case.

From what I've read here, it sounds like the biggest mistake they made was entering the apartment without a warrant. Assuming use of the device was legal (and that's a big if), they're free to figure out where the cell phone is, and thus their prime suspect. If they don't want to admit to court that they use the device, at that point they need to use other means to prove their case against a significantly-narrowed list of suspects.

In this particular case, however, there may not have been any way to build their case without searching the premises. The 4th amendment allows for "reasonable" search & seizure without a warrant, but they won't be able to make a convincing case to a court without explaining what their reason was for searching that property. At this points the cops can't take this case any further without violating the Constitution or their NDA. They opted for the Constitution.

Re:The correct answer

[Immerman]

Another out, yes. But not another *legal* out.

Any time a cop has to rely on "other court-friendly means to build their case" that's a pretty clear indicator that the original means were believed to be illegal by the officers in question.

Re:The correct answer

[almitydave]

Another out, yes. But not another *legal* out.

Any time a cop has to rely on "other court-friendly means to build their case" that's a pretty clear indicator that the original means were believed to be illegal by the officers in question.

Well, the legal out is the implied 4a) identify the perpetrator, then drop the case. The assumption here is that the evidence of the location of the cell phone (acquired with the Stingray) was valid, legally obtained evidence that would be admissible in court, yet the physical cellphone in the apartment was evidence obtained by illegal search & seizure. The need to rely on "other court-friendly means" in this case would be due to their reluctance to reveal as evidence their court-friendly but secret weapon. I'm really stretching to give the cops as much credit as possible here, but there's no justification for their actions.

Question: There's evidence legally gathered by police, and evidence illegally gathered by police; and evidence admissible in court, and evidence inadmissible in court. Are these a 1:1 correspondence? I.e., is there such a thing as evidence legally gathered by police yet inadmissible in court?

Re:The correct answer

[Immerman]

An interesting question, though not one I'm qualified to answer. I suspect a lot of manipulated confessions walk the line at least.

Contract negotiations

[phorm]

Police: Hey, can you add something to the contract to prevent us from revealing use of your device, so that we have an excuse not to ask for a warrant. We'll pay an extra 10%
Vendor: Sure! Doesn't hurt us, and it's worth more money.

FCC License?

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder if the cops that operated the equipment had the proper license from the FCC.

As I recall, it is a felony to broadcast on certain frequencies if you do not have the proper FCC Ticket.

Let's lock them up,

Re:NDA Law?

[sjames]

That's what happens when people forget that the rules apply to everyone everywhere eh?

Somehow appropriate.

Re:NDA > Law?

[memojuez]

Fixed that for you?

Independent experts?

[godel_56]

I don't think the cops should be using these things at all.

What I think should happen is they get a warrant from a judge, then bring in an independent expert to do the trace, such as someone from the FCC or a security officer from the telco.

Much less chance of "fishing expeditions" and misuse by the cops.

The Real Culprits

[Tokolosh]

You can blame the cops, manufacturers, criminals all you want, but the root cause of these shenanigans is that the courts are allowing it to happen.

When we have arrived at the point where everyone shrugs their shoulders, and says "Slap on the wrist, at most", then we find ourselves in a sad situation.

The third branch of government is asleep at the wheel, or holding its ankles, depending on your choice of metaphor. But the cue from SCOTUS is, do what you want. They have abdicated their responsibility as a bulwark against the inevitable excesses of the executive and legislative branches.

Time for some real consequences for contempt of Constitution and sworn oath to uphold same.

Re:NDA Law?

[Anonymous Coward]

The idea is that even though one rapist might get off free, law enforcement personnel everywhere will obey the law much more carefully from now on!

I'd rather have one rapist avoid prison, than thousands of cops breaking the law on a daily basis!

Beta testing!

[jtara]

Ah, it appears Harris is doing beta testing, and handing these out to police departments to test. So, they don't want the cops blabbing to their competitors.

1. Does Harris have the proper permissions to do this in the wild like this?

2. It'd be an interesting question whether a civil contract like this can trump disclosure requirements. Seems to me there's no way the cops can make use of the results of testing. Maybe they can test, but if they act on it, they have to violate either the NDA or the law.

Re:NDA Law?

[Type44Q]

Nice work, morons.

If their goal was to obtain an iron-clad judgement against the alleged offender, they've presumably failed. However, I very much doubt that they give a shit about that. If their goal is something else entirely (which I strongly suspect it is), then there's hardly anything moronic about what they did. Unconstitutional and un-American, definitely... immoral and lacking integrity, certainly. But moronic? It's a bit moronic to make assumptions about their goals, IMHO..

Bad logic

[RichMan]

If they need a warrant for something, but they can't tell the judge because of an NDA then they can't do anything.
Because the NDA says they can't tell the judge does not mean they get to bypass the Judge, it means they can't get the warrant and they can't do the investigation.

It means saying to the manufacturer, "We would really like to use your device but we need to get the judges permission, either you modify the NDA or we can't use your device."

The cops are in the wrong here. The manufacturer is stupid but it is the cops that went along with it and violated the law.
The courts are at fault though for letting the cops get away with it.

Re:Bad logic

[zerocommazero]

The cops should have known better. Knowing the law is literally their job!

Would this work with bank accounts

[gurps_npc]

I am sorry your honor, the reason I did not inform you of my Caymen Island bank account is that when I signed up for it I had to sign a non-disclousure agreement preventing me from telling anyone, even the IRS that I had such an account.

The logical conclusion

[Jason Levine]

I wonder what the logical conclusion of this would be if it's allowed to stand?

Officer: "I'm sorry, but I can't confirm or deny that my fellow officers and I beat that civilian. Our contract with the dashboard camera company specifically disallows the use of the footage in cases such as this."

Businessman: "We can't confirm or deny the dumping of that toxic waste in the local playground due to an NDA with We Dump It 4 U, Inc."

Politician: "I can't confirm or deny going on an all expenses paid trip with Lobbyist X due to an NDA that we signed just before I left for vacation."

Average Citizen: "....." --- Nothing because everything will remain the same for us.

So if I'm reading this right

[gman003]

The company that wrote the NDA should get charged with conspiracy to commit perjury, right? Maybe that's not the exact legal term, but it definitely ought to be illegal to write a contract requiring one party to commit a crime.

Re:So if I'm reading this right

[zerocommazero]

No. The police should know the law. Unless I missed something, it's their fucking job! The point missed in the article is the amount of fabricated evidence used to make the pieces fall in place without admitting they used the technology. They totally omitted it yet were able get convictions so there must be something fishy going on. Overall, they should be fired for this. They are servants of justice and are also obligated to obey the just like everyone else.

Need a warrant to use a flashlight?

[tomhath]

If I'm hiding in a dark alley do the police need a court order to use a flashlight? How is this any different?

Re:Need a warrant to use a flashlight?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is this hypothetical dark alley your private residence?

Re:Need a warrant to use a flashlight?

[Anonymous Coward]

Using an analogy to represent a situation this specific is always going to be a bit sketchy, but it would be more akin to the police investigating a crime in a residential area, getting permission from the victim to search her premises for the suspect, and saying that they therefore have the right to search all the residences in the area without a warrant.

I know we should never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity, but I do have to wonder how you managed to come up with an analogy so completely inapplicable to the actual circumstances at hand.

Re:Need a warrant to use a flashlight?

[tomhath]

The cell phone is broadcasting it's position, all the police did was listen to that broadcast. Maybe a better analogy would be using a flashlight to look for a particular license plate when they have reason to believe a stolen car is parked in one of the driveways on a street. Do you have a problem with them looking at your car while it's parked in plain sight, albeit on your private property?

Re:NDA Law?

[CanHasDIY]

That's what happens when people forget that the rules apply to everyone everywhere eh?

Somehow appropriate.

Hey, it's not my fault, I signed an NDA!

Re:NDA Law?

[almitydave]

...says you!

...really?

[mrchaotica]

...really?

Re:NDA Law?

[CanHasDIY]

They gathered evidence in an illegal manner. Thanks to their gathering of evidence in an illegal manner, any case they might have had against a known rapist is now gone. As they botched their case, now a known rapist gets to walk free, with impunity.

Seems the definition of moronic to me.

Cops like to lie.

[Lumpy]

And they are lying in this instance. No matter what is in the NDA, Law supersedes anything that a sleazeball lawyer writes. So either the cops are incredibly stupid, or they are corrupt as hell.

Sadly, I think it's a mixture of both.

Giving credit where credit is due...

[mschaffer]

One can assume ONE of the following is true about the police department:
1. They are completely ignorant of the laws and the Constitution that they have sworn to uphold
2. They conspired to withhold information from the courts.

Either way, I believe that credit should be given where credit is due.

Re:Giving credit where credit is due...

[the_fat_kid]

Ignorance might be the excuse they try but just signing the NDA is conspiracy.
and the last time I checked ignorance of the law is still not a valid excuse.
it sounds like racketeering on the part of the manufacturer.
and it SHOULD result in the release of what sounds like a sexual predator.
And isn't tricking every cell phone in range a DMCA violation?

Re:Giving credit where credit is due...

[omnichad]

And isn't tricking every cell phone in range a DMCA violation?

That would only apply if the device broke the encryption on communication with a nearby tower. It doesn't. It acts as a cell phone tower itself and the phone establishes encrypted communication directly with the virtual tower. There is no authentication to verify a legitimate tower.

Law Enforcement Depricated

[sycodon]

Seems to me that Law Enforcement Officers are increasingly the product of poor training and over zealous attitudes that can be summarized a "we are better than you and more important that you".

Beating a Schizophrenic homeless man to death.
Brutalizing a deaf man who can't respond to questions.
Shooting unarmed people because they "thought" they had a gun.
Simply saying and doing stupid things (you have no right to film, open carry, be "here" as opposed to 10 feet over "there".)
Erasing dash cam tapes of just turning off video devices.
Committing perjury.

They like obeying the law...

[FuzzNugget]

...whenever it's convenient.

I'm glad that Slashdot . . .

[bogidu]

readers see the obvious logical fallacy, I hope the legal system views it with the same degree of clarity.

Re:NDA Law?

[Anonymous Coward]

Contracts that are taken under the Federal Arbitration Act may preempt state law and some federal laws.

The incentives are against rights

[bussdriver]

For a minor crime like rape big fancy defense lawyers are not getting involved unless you are somebody important.

MOST cases are settled !! If suspects hardly ever go to trial because people settle, they only need to scare the shit out of the suspect to confess or make a plea bargain. If you are unlikely to go to trial and fight for your rights (and BE a defendant) then why should they care about violating your rights??

Seriously, with all this settling and success measured by simple conviction rates they can violate rights by the numbers and succeed. It is done all the time; this is just another area.

Re:The incentives are against rights

[Anonymous Coward]

For a minor crime like rape ...

Wow. Rape a "minor crime"? I thought it was a felony.

Re:The incentives are against rights

[PlusFiveTroll]

That's why many suggest the plea bargain should be abolished.

Re:The incentives are against rights

[bussdriver]

HA! I knew somebody would bite. "Tough on crime" politicians brag about how many minor laws they elevate into becoming felonies. Felony doesn't mean what it used to, every time you elevate something it weakens the meaning. Felony doesn't really make it major, the classification is legal and political not based upon actual severity.

We don't punish rape that harshly - if it was not a minor crime why do we treat it like one (other than the felony labeling games.) We punish hackers exposing crimes like rape more than the people they expose.

Nazi Orders - Nuremburg Trials vs Corporate NDA

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey dumb-shit cops, let us know how that worked for Hitler's troops.

Judge needs to throw out all the previous cases

[Anonymous Coward]

The Judge need to throw out all the previous cases where the gadget was used; then start disbarment proceedings against the DAs involved--conspiracy

They still need a court order ...

[Anonymous Coward]

That they don't have to provide probable cause is correct AND entirely besides the point ... a pen register without a court order is a misdemeanor so yeah they broke the law.

This is 100% fallacy

[bloggerhater]

Think back to the AT&T fiber tapping scandals a few years ago. They were able to stop the case at the Supreme Court because of NDAs with AT&T and claims that their trade secrets related to fiber networks were at stake.

Tracking with a Stingray?

[PPH]

I don't think so. Like the summary says: It tricks a cell phone into thinking that it is the closest tower. So, to set up an intercept, you already have to know where the subject is. And get in close. The Stingray (and other femtocell hacks) are used to intercept the content of calls and texts.

Cops not able to reveal their tracking capabilities? <cough>Bullshit</cough> Get a scanner, listen to the local police investigations unit tracking someone. They know where a cell phone is and aren't shy about babbling about pings off towers, data feeds from the telecom and the precision with which they can locate a subject. If a judge really didn't want to be lied to, they call the cops out on their crap. Judges are colluding with the cops to keep the Stingray's actual function out of the public record.

Twice wrong

[Pinky's Brain]

Even if they didn't need a warrant to use the device they were still breaking the law with the unwarranted search of the home (highest law of the land in fact). Also you do need a warrant for a pen register, government just doesn't have to prove probable cause. In conclusion, the rapist is going to walk because some members of the police decided to be stupid pigs.

This.

[Anonymous Coward]

My phone contract states that I understand that the provider may share information with law enforcement. It is my understanding that generally, law enforcement provides a warrant to the provider, requesting specific subsets of data that may or may not include my info. I have never signed such an agreement with the law enforcement agencies. If they are using their own device to intercept my transmissions, thereby playing man-in-the-middle, they are tapping my line. If they do this without a warrant, this is a violation. Further, if they then take this information and enter my home against my express objection and without warrant, this is again a violation.

Back the bus up

[Anonymous Coward]

From the article:
> authorities revealed that they had used the equipment at least 200 additional times since 2010 without disclosing this to courts and obtaining a warrant.

At least 200 times, Hmm, 2000 or 200,000 are numbers over 200. Just how many times was it used? The answer is that we just don't know from this article This story apparently is trying to set an number set

This is an example of how dis-information is used. In this case the authorities know that everyone will focus on the most interesting part of the message - in this case that there was an NDA and total ignore – BUT REMEMBER - that it has been used 200 times.

People, learn to look where they don't want you looking.

Re:what is the problem?

[hypergreatthing]

People are against people who break the law.
Breaking the law to capture a "bad guy" doesn't make it right.

and...

[Anonymous Coward]

200 uses equals 200 vacated verdicts due to prosecutorial misconduct.

How can cops enforce the law if they don't know it?

Re:and...

[Anonymous Coward]

Or is it 200,000 vacated verdicts?

Re:NDA Law?

[Anonymous Coward]

Since when does a contract, any contract, supersede the legal system?

When it's a marriage contract. Spouses can't be forced to tattle.

4th amendment

[strstr]

The other problem is that the 4th amendment requires probable cause and a warrant to do surveillance like this. So if they didn't follow the rules, then lied about how they obtained the evidence/knowledge, the cases brought or resulting in convictions have to he thrown out.

It is the rules..

Re:what is the problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

People are against people who break the law.
Breaking the law to capture a "bad guy" doesn't make it right.

Obviously you did not get the memo from the Oval Office.

Might Makes Right.

/

Re:Independent experts?

[ruir]

Are you naive or just trying to be funny? Human nature being what it is, it wouldnt make much of a difference.

American Criminal Liberties Union...

[Anonymous Coward]

So once again the American criminal liberties union, aka ACLU, is diving head first into a case involving an obviously guilty individual of heinous activity to protect "freedom" and "the innocents who would otherwise be harmed if this weren't challenged". Does the ACLU ever get involved in a case where the defendant is obviously innocent?

IANAL

[Anonymous Coward]

IANAL but can't the sexual assault victim give the police department permission to tap her phone so the PD can find the perp? Would that be legal?

Also, could the PD not claim it as reasonable suspicion that the perp still had the phone, and therefore claim it's not illegal wiretapping when they attempt to trace the phone?

Or am I missing something here?

And yes, hiding behind an NDA (enforceable or not) is kinda dumb.

Self-Fellatio

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd comment but my NDA prevents me from self-fellatio.