US Marshals Seize Police Stingray Records To Keep Them From the ACLU

An anonymous reader writes 'A routine request in Florida for public records regarding the use of a surveillance tool known as stingray took an extraordinary turn recently when federal authorities seized the documents before police could release them. "This is consistent with what we've seen around the country with federal agencies trying to meddle with public requests for stingray information," Wessler said, noting that federal authorities have in other cases invoked the Homeland Security Act to prevent the release of such records. "The feds are working very hard to block any release of this information to the public." ... "We've seen our fair share of federal government attempts to keep records about stingrays secret, but we've never seen an actual physical raid on state records in order to conceal them from public view," the ACLU wrote in a blog post today.'

Comments

Ha!

[Anonymous Coward]

Just another example of the "open administration"!

Re:Ha!

[jc42]

Just another example of the "open administration"!

All Your Doors are Open to US.

Re:Ha!

[Anonymous Coward]

In America only the government have a right to be forgotten.

Re:Ha!

[fufufang]

I think the difference between Bush and Obama is that Bush wasn't hypocritical. Bush didn't tell everyone that he was going to make his government more open, whereas Obama did.

P.S. I would upvote you if I had mod points.

Re:Ha!

[dryeo]

People have been demanding open government so politicians now need to promise openness and transparency to get voted in. Once voted in they realize they really don't want to be open after all and lately seem to go in the opposite direction totally, namely it's the people who are expected and forced to be open and transparent while we get record secretive governments.
Both my Provincial and Federal governments, right wingers both, have done the same and I expect it'll continue no matter who is in power.

Re:Ha!

[TheGratefulNet]

nothing to do with obama.

everything to do with entrenched TLA's who refuse to be called on their illegal and immoral behavior.

would happen with any modern US president.

obama is not helping but I don't blame him. he's just a high level pawn, afterall. he is not the one we have to worry about. he goes in a few years. the TLA's stay and continue their raid on america.

mark my words: if we end up with a republican in office next time, NOTHING WILL IMPROVE. and if we get a D in office, again, NOTHING WILL IMPROVE.

please stop blaming the wrong levels. its not the symbolic figurehead we have to worry about. its the ones we don't see that really screw us over.

sorry to say this guys, but nothing will improve until the revolution comes. this generation or next one or the one after that, but we can't fix ourselves with the system we have in place now.

Re:Ha!

[Richy_T]

If you like your secret unlawful government spy program, you can keep it.

(I'm getting so much mileage out of that)

Re:Ha!

[rtb61]

In this case, I'll bet, there would also be a bit of "Just how badly did those morons abuse the system" in this and the Feds are worried how bad it will make the look. So get it first, check how badly it was abused and then try to figure out what to do next, besides going crap, crap, crap, crap what did those idiots think they were doing, don't they know the system keeps records. The more the system was abused the more likely it will be shut down all together. Now was it abused? Oh yeah, otherwise they wouldn't bother gathering those records because otherwise those records would prove how the system works properly.

Re:Ha!

[GodfatherofSoul]

We don't need a revolution. Things are the way they are because the American people don't give a shit. Polls prove it. The public accepts the "if you're not doing anything wrong then what do you have to hide?" mentality. These are the same people who broadcast their daily irrelevant activities on Facebook. You think they really care about the government *maybe* reading what any yahoo could find following their twitter account?

As soon as any politician starts hearing people screaming into his answering machine all day or yelling at him every time he's in public, and they start thinking they might not get reelected, that's when change happens.

Re:Ha!

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you miss the bit where R and D are the same?
Did you forget incumbency rates are astronomically high?
Money is the problem, that's where the decisions are made, not your silly votes.

Re:Ha!

[pablo_max]

I was going to mod you up, but I can see others have taken care of that for me.

I say more or less what you have just written to people all the time and I would encourage others to do the same. Just look at all the nonsense which is posted on FB for example. I try to explain to these people that it makes no difference at all who is elected. They are all the same person. It is only a question of which industry group is pulling the strings.
The USA and NOT a democracy. It has be proven scientifically. Look to the recent paper published by Princeton. http://www.princeton.edu/~mgil...

Look to history people. It is a very rare thing indeed for an entrenched ruling class to be tossed out without blood in the street. The worst part is, the ones fighting you back are your brothers and neighbors who the ruling class have tricked into dieing to keep them in power, even though it is clearly not in their long term interest.

I have no idea what the real solution is, but I hope someone smarter than me can come up with something.

Re:Ha!

[gnasher719]

We don't need a revolution.

Not really. There's a judge who wants to see these papers. US marshals took the papers, claiming they own them. That's of course totally irrelevant - judges see papers that are _owned_ by someone all the time. So all the judge needs to do is sent out some cops with a warrant to get the papers. If they can't get them because some other cops refuse to hand them over, arrest the other cops. If they refuse to let themselves be arrested, arrest them for resisting arrest. If that doesn't work, send out more cops. That's the same as if you wanted to search the home of well-armed drug dealers: You just sent enough cops to search the home.

Re:Ha!

[judoguy]

The "symbolic figurehead" does have the power to either keep bad law from being enacted or at least forcing the Congress to get together enough to override a veto. He/she *could* be force for good, even if not all powerful. Forcing a corrupt Congress to be more open on what they're doing could help. For example, forcing corrupt Republicans to have to vote for some crappy Democrat bill they secretly support (but publically oppose for political purposes) would shine at least a little light on the bastards.

Re:Ha!

[david_thornley]

What do you mean nothing to do with Obama? He's limited in the amount of culture change he can accomplish in the TLAs, but he most certainly has the authority to order and countermand specific actions. He's in control of the highest-level jobs, and can remove the people running the TLAs and government departments if he really wants to.

Obama's police state?

[Anonymous Coward]

Orwell was just 30 years late on his predictions...

Re:Obama's police state?

[causality]

Orwell was just 30 years late on his predictions...

What I wonder every time I see this: do the law enforcement officers involved ever think something like, "wow, by doing this I become one of the jack-booted thugs working hard to bring tyranny and corruption to this nation!" Are they complete myrmidons? Are they "true believers" who really managed to convince themselves this is all for some kind of nebulous greater good? Are they simply sociopaths with no conscience? Are they somehow brave enough to take on an armed criminal yet too cowardly to refuse bullshit orders?

What exactly goes through their minds? That's what I wonder.

Re:Obama's police state?

[Anonymous Coward]

> What exactly goes through their minds?
"I'm just doing my job." Just like you they have families too that need to be fed.

Whether it's being a jack booted thug violating laws in order to spy on everyone or escorting prisoners to the gas^H^H^Hshower chamber and then disposing of the bodies in an oven, these people are merely doing their job and getting paid for it.

Why ask beyond that?

Re:Obama's police state?

[amxcoder]

They are union workers, making good union pay, with an awesome retirement package, and are granted power and authority over everyone else, including the ability to be armed at all times. My guess is they don't want to give that up, for any price. I would re-write your last sentence, and say most are "have the 'adrenalin junky' need (and life insurance) to take on an armed criminal and too enticed by their job benefits to refuse orders and loose it."

Re:Obama's police state?

[lgw]

I'm waiting for the police to begin wearing actual jackboots again!

In a sense they are though. In the 40s, the boots cavalry officers wore were seen as how elite troops dressed, so police who would never ride a horse wore jackboots and black uniforms and the rest of it to look as intimidating as possible. Now we have militarized police in the US with armored cars, assault rifles, body armor, and sure enough black uniforms on raids. Sigh.

Re:Obama's police state?

[BoberFett]

It's us vs them. They're the good guys, and everybody out there is a bad guy.

Why let red tape get in the way of taking down the bad guy?

Re:Obama's police state?

[khasim]

Are they "true believers" who really managed to convince themselves this is all for some kind of nebulous greater good?

Pretty much.

There's a degree of self-serving included. They work for the government so any attempt to reveal what they do and how they do it is an attack on them.

And if you're attacking them, that makes you the "bad guy". And they have to stop the "bad guys".

Re:Obama's police state?

[Sentrion]

I imagine the following stream of un-consciousness:

  "Crap! That's not what I signed up for! But if it stops terrorists then I guess it's OK. Times aren't what they used to be. Things change. Somebody smarter than me probably has this all figured out to make sure we don't fall into tyranny. Oh, it's time for my 'No Hesitation' target practice. Last week was armed pregnant women. I hope we get armed children this time. Those are my favorite - probably because they are so disturbing. Good times."

Re:Obama's police state?

[causality]

Why ask beyond that?

Because the police state apparatus could not function if these people remembered their humanity.

Re:Obama's police state?

[Atzanteol]

They still do - particularly motorcycle cops.

Re:Obama's police state?

[GIL_Dude]

They are probably more Pollyannas than Myrmidons. Either way, not good. Hopefully something will break this seeming juggernaut of government action suppressing information that people should have available to them.

Re:Obama's police state?

[Anonymous Coward]

You ask a complex question. Much too complex for much of what passes for insight on /. these days, but I'll try to chime in.

I worked in law enforcement for several years. I was not with the federal government, but my state agency did quite a few joint operations with various federal agencies including FBI, DHS, ICE, EPA, and others. I've sat through the briefings and been part of the planning as well as the execution of many warrants. Here's my take on it -

Federal agents are a different breed. They are largely self-selected into the ranks and definitely fall into the category of "true believer". Their personal mandate varies, though it sometimes falls in line with the agency mandate (i.e., EPA is definitely about the environment and collects staff with a very dogmatic mindset). One thing holds true - by and large, federal agents have a personality of a soldier in the field. They follow orders without question and largely without independent thought. If it's not in the procedure manual or passed on a memo, it does not exist. These are the people that will, without fail, always walk only on the sidewalk in designated spots. The exceptions to this rule generally do not make a career in federal law enforcement service. You will see them get in and get out as soon as the resume is adequately seasoned.

So, if you want to know how this stuff happens, here's the break down. From on-high, some agency director or even the President sets out a mandate. Nothing too specific, but just a pet project or vision. It then filters down to the chiefs and assistant chiefs who begin to craft policy. Eventually, it winds its way through the machinations of the organization until it hits some SAC or ASAC's desk and then they issue a memo to their staff about the marching orders. From there, you get special agents who execute the orders. This can often be initiated because of a lead or other process, but it often happens with a phone call from some other agency that could use the assistance of a friendly. From there, the forms get filed, cases opened, and things escalate. Before you know it, it's on slashdot and people are asking WTF?

In the end, the lower ranks execute the orders to try and be good soldiers and get the next promotion, raise, and favorable posting. The middle managers take a bow, but remain safe behind their desk. The senior managers build plausible deniability. No one ever really gets in trouble, because after all is said and done, what US Attorney or AUSA is going to go balls to the wall probing one of their own agencies?

 

Re:Obama's police state?

[Darinbob]

You mean the president's police state. Nothing here is specific to one particular president, or even to a particular political party. Any president in power be the nominal head of the federal law enforcement agencies, and those agencies will be doing what ever they like anyway while sweet talking the president into accepting it. The only way this would change is if the president or AG disapprove of such measures, recognize that they have lost control of their agencies, and take active and firm steps to reel in the agencies and force them to comply with the law. This would most likely require taking away all ability for a lawyer working for the executive branch or agency to create a legal opinion that essentially acts as an excuse to avoid the law; any reinterpretation of the law must come from outside the executive branch.

Re:Obama's police state?

[Grishnakh]

Jackboots probably don't make much sense to wear if you're not riding a horse or a motorcycle, and probably make it harder to walk. Infantry troops don't wear them after all.

Re:Obama's police state?

[ah.clem]

Because the police state apparatus could not function if these people remembered their humanity.

I have known several police officers in my lifetime - almost to a person, they had the attitude that the world was made up of two kinds of folks - them and the "perps" - and we're all the perps. To paraphrase Bryant in "Blade Runner", "You now the score, pal; if you're not cop, you're 'little people'".

An interesting aside from an ex-LEO in the town I live in; according to him, they figure it's about 7 years from rookie to bad cap. Not sure if that is true all over, but it seems reasonable; they're average HS grad/CJ AAs to start out with, and they see the worst of humanity on daily basis - pretty easy to lump everyone together after a while, I bet.

Re:Obama's police state?

[lgw]

What does sense have to do with it. But since it's not how elite soldiers dress today, I doubt the cops will be either (well, except motorcycle cops, but they actually have an excuse).

Re:Obama's police state?

[gweihir]

Read Bob Altemeyers "The Authoritarians" http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~a...

These people literally do not understand the immeasurable damage they do. At the same time, they think whatever they do is good for society. It is a special, unfortunately widespread, mental disability and one that pushes people into law enforcement, law and government work.

Re:Obama's police state?

[Darinbob]

What goes through their mind is their training; official and unofficial. Their job in most law enforcement agencies is to catch bad guys, and that is the only focus. Issues such as preserving rights or avoiding mistakenly catching good guys is not included anywhere in their agenda. This is not a new thing, it's been around forever. Law enforcement people have a goal to catch the bad guy with whatever it takes and after awhile this becomes instinctual. And that's the thinking of the _good_ law enforcement people, there's also a subset that feels it's alright to break the law in the pursuit of the bad guys.

Therefore It takes additional training effort to overcome the natural inclination to catch bad guys as the one and only priority.

In this particular case, it's easy to imagine someone thinking that they must not let the bad guys know that they're being spied upon and how, and not destroy any ongoing expensive investigations, so the first impulse is to prevent the release of those records or to censor them (and it's hard to censor when the docs are someone else's hands).

Also remember that in many of these agency's minds, the ACLU are not the good guys. The ACLU to them is the annoying group that manages to let the bad guys go free. They probably don't have any mental connection between "ACLU" and "the American people we are sworn to protect".

Re:Obama's police state?

[Grishnakh]

That's a military dress uniform, not a combat uniform. It was never meant to be used in battle, and doesn't make sense to. It's no different than modern dress uniforms in the US military, except that the Germans back then did have a pretty good sense of style you have to admit (thought I'm not so sure about the pants). Dress uniforms have no bearing on combat clothing.

Police uniforms aren't quite as utterly utilitarian as BDUs, but they do have to be utilitarian to a good degree because cops really do wear them while chasing down suspects. And the uniforms they wear during, for instance, riot deployments, are I believe not the same as what they might wear while doing speeding patrols.

Re:Obama's police state?

[amxcoder]

There is a difference between a normal union, and public employee union. Police are members of "Public employee Unions", which do not have anyone at the public's side of the table negotiating for the public. It's basically other government workers approving the government workers pay increases when the public employee union demands more pay. It is a 1 sided bargaining agreement, where no one that represents the taxpayers are there to negotiate on our behalf.

Re:Obama's police state?

[Krishnoid]

I'm waiting for the police to begin wearing actual jackboots again!

In a sense they are though.

At this point, I won't be surprised when they get out the nail polish remover and the Kragl.

Re:Obama's police state?

[msauve]

" they figure it's about 7 years from rookie to bad cap"

Power corrupts...

Re:Obama's police state?

[rogoshen1]

you know, you're an idiot troll and you pollute just about every single thread on slashdot.. but I'll bite.
spend much time in shelters? see many panhandlers? citation please.

How are the evil republicans singling out minorities and starving them for work/jobs/housing exactly?

Re:Obama's police state?

[gweihir]

That as well. They tend to feel not welcome there.

Re:Obama's police state?

[Opportunist]

Just like it is to lump them all in with the bad cops. And if I get you right, it's not even wrong to do so. Provided they've been in the force for 7 years or longer.

Re:Obama's police state?

[Opportunist]

Considering that the legend says "Dienstuniform der Allgemeinen SS", which means "Duty uniform of the common SS", I'd guess that this WAS actually the service uniform, not the dress uniform.

And unless my history knowledge serves me wrong, that was actually the "ordinary" uniform of the SS.

Re:Obama's police state?

[Opportunist]

Because it's still illegal to shoot cops on sight?

Re:Obama's police state?

[Sir Holo]

What I wonder every time I see this: do the law enforcement officers involved ever think something like, "wow, by doing this I become one of the jack-booted thugs working hard to bring tyranny and corruption to this nation!" Are they complete myrmidons?

Anyone with an IQ above 105-110 is barred from becoming a police officer.

Examples abound, in the US and elsewhere, so I'll let you find examples of this long-known fact.

Re:Obama's police state?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just another "just following orders" excuse. As usual, it's utterly invalid.

It might not work as an excuse, but it can still be the honest reason.

Re:Obama's police state?

[Anonymous Coward]

Each and every single cop is a 'bad cop' when they refuse to apply the law to their peers.

The LAPD shot at a truck full of old women because "it matched the description of Dorner's truck" (except that it didn't, and don't they have these things called license plates?). What happened there? Cops watched other cops fire on a vehicle with no indication of the occupants posing an imminent threat to anyone. What was the aftermath? It certainly wasn't placing cops in jail and removing their special cop status which makes them above the law. How many times do incidents like this occur in the United States? Probably so many that it would make you sick.

Each and every single cop will never protect you or your family, ever, under any circumstances. Each and every single cop is out to harass you, detain you, steal from you, beat you or shoot you. The only interaction you can ever, EVER have with a cop winds up with you on the losing end. Even if you are in a coma and can pose no danger whatsoever, a cop will get away with shooting you due to 'officer safety'.

Yes, it really, REALLY has gotten this bad with police misbehavior.

Re:Obama's police state?

[youngone]

Designed and made by Hugo Boss.

Re:Obama's police state?

[causality]

What I wonder every time I see this: do the law enforcement officers involved ever think something like, "wow, by doing this I become one of the jack-booted thugs working hard to bring tyranny and corruption to this nation!" Are they complete myrmidons?

Anyone with an IQ above 105-110 is barred from becoming a police officer. Examples abound, in the US and elsewhere, so I'll let you find examples of this long-known fact.

I've met more than one person with a high IQ who possessed neither the emotional maturity to perform any sort of introspection nor the courage of character to think for themselves and question everything that someone else taught them to believe. People like this are shrewd and highly effective at getting what they want but have all the same unwise, shallow, and childish tendencies/priorities so common in the rest of the population.

But I'm really not surprised that the police departments find intellectual ability undesirable. I would assume that obedience is their favorite trait, followed by the belief that what is legal is always exactly the same thing as what is right.

Re:Obama's police state?

[lgw]

The SS cared not for logic, rationality, nor utility. It was all about the murder, and the nifty uniforms.

Re:Obama's police state?

[Curunir_wolf]

Read Bob Altemeyers "The Authoritarians" http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~a...

These people literally do not understand the immeasurable damage they do. At the same time, they think whatever they do is good for society. It is a special, unfortunately widespread, mental disability and one that pushes people into law enforcement, law and government work.

What a bunch of hyper-partisan clap-trap. All on one web page. I've never seen so many Democratic party talking points crammed into one paragraph as they have managed on that web site.

Sorry, but the issue is not attributable to one side of the 2-party duopoly coin, and, no, you can't blame Bush for 5 years of continuing down the same ruinous, tyrannical past. Republicans do not have an exclusive on authoritarianism, any more than Democrats have an exclusive on crony capitalism. If you're writing essays praising TARP and the 2009 Stimulus in one breath, and complaining about income inequality in the next, you obviously have a lot to learn about what the real issues are. Replacing all the Republicans with Democrats is not going to fix a single one of them.

Re:Obama's police state?

[Jane Q. Public]

"I'm just doing my job." Just like you they have families too that need to be fed.

NO. Absolutely not. Won't fly.

The entire world rejected the "I was just doing my job" and "I was just taking orders" excuses during the Nuremberg trials.

There comes a point at which anyone who can lay claim to being human has to either say "No, I won't do that", or accept personal responsibility for their actions by NOT saying it.

Period.

Re:Obama's police state?

[NoKaOi]

Are they somehow brave enough to take on an armed criminal yet too cowardly to refuse bullshit orders?

Absolutely. The probably of something bad happening to them when they take on an armed criminal is actually quite low, and if something bad does happen to them they will be hailed as a hero. When refusing an order to violate the constitution, however, they will not be hailed as a hero and their decision will not be respected by their peers. Their superiors will likely find a way to get them fired and possibly lose their pension to set an example, regardless of whether or not they would be able to prove their orders were illegal.

What exactly goes through their minds?

Usually something like, "I know better than the law and constitution. The laws are just red tape written to protect criminals. If we think somebody is guilty, then they absolutely are, judges and juries are just more red tape and technicalities. If I don't like something somebody is doing, then this badge and job title give me the authority to do as I please to them."

Re:Obama's police state?

[Jane Q. Public]

There is a difference between a normal union, and public employee union.

You got that right. Well said.

Re:Obama's police state?

[Rigel47]

What I wonder every time I see this: do the law enforcement officers involved ever think something like, "wow, by doing this I become one of the jack-booted thugs working hard to bring tyranny and corruption to this nation!"

Um, no.. the little American flag on their Gestapo storm trooper outfit tells them they're the good guys. Why else would it be there??

Re:Obama's police state?

[Xyrus]

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

There have been more than a few stories that go this route. Some character starts with with the best intentions. They want to make things better. They finally win some small amount of power and try to change things for the better. But there's another obstacle blocking the way. Now there are two paths to take. One will get them to their goal quicker but requires some sort of morally gray compromise (maybe not much of one, but it's there). The other is a long arduous process which may end up in failure since their enemies aren't exactly moral. The character chooses the more expedient path and things seem to go well until they hit another obstacle where another choice is made. The process repeats again and again, with their choices going from morally gray to black. By the end of the story, the enemies are defeated but now the hero has become the very thing it was fighting against.

In their mind, we simply don't understand that they are doing this "for our protection". It's a sacrifice for the greater good. Anyone who opposes that is obviously an enemy, and since they have the power they can go ahead and do whatever they deem "necessary" whether we "understand" or not.

Re:Obama's police state?

[rogoshen1]

Nah, if you read the guys posts, he has a very unique and singular (formulaic) style.

"Blah blah republicans hate $group, trying to $verb them. If you look at $bad_thing, it's entirely caused by republicans. They want to enslave us all. That is their way. They want all $group and all who aren't white republicans to die."

I do see your point, it is possible there are multiple people who were tragically born with an asshole instead of a mouth, but somewhat less likely.

Re:Obama's police state?

[Shakrai]

including the ability to be armed at all times

That's not that special in the United States of America. A citizen with the appropriate licenses (or no license at all in certain States) can be armed in virtually every location of consequence, save the secured portion of the airport and the local courthouse.

Re:Obama's police state?

[dryeo]

" they figure it's about 7 years from rookie to bad cap"

Power corrupts...

And attracts the corruptible.

Re:Obama's police state?

[TheGratefulNet]

follow orders, don't break rules (well, sort of) and Do The Boring(tm) stuff that intellectuals would get sick of, quickly.

that's what the police depts want. just enough IQ to avoid spilling coffee on themselves, but that's really about it. they are generally dullards who are anti-intellectual and are self-satisifed being as such.

pretty telling about what makes an ideal cop, in today's america. no 'thinkers' need apply. they would only question the bullshit laws. the depts don't want any of that rebel shit.

Re:Obama's police state?

[amxcoder]

That is somewhat true for the most part, unfortunately this is not the case in California, where I'm from. Most places here (with the exception of a few counties) only give out CCW permits to active/retired police, and the well politically connected (ie: judges, district attorneys, and other 'elites'). They don't let your average citizen obtain a CCW at all, for any reason. And a couple years ago, they outright banned open carry as well (which was already neutered to be unloaded open carry). Leaving the majority of the population of the state without any way to legally be armed in any location except ones own home.

Re:Obama's police state?

[bane2571]

Jack booted thugs don't think they are Jack Booted thugs, They're having too much fun wearing cool looking boots.

One of the first mistakes people make is to assume everyone has the same moral code as them and they are then confused when people act against that code. The Jack booted thugs of the world are operating on a completely different level than you and I.

Re:Obama's police state?

[Jane Q. Public]

It's probably more accurate to say that the war generation and Germany have, but I think you underestimate humanity's ability to repeat the mistakes of the past.

Not have, but did.

In any case, you know the old saying: "Those who don't remember their history are doomed to repeat it."

Given the U.S. government and its actions in recent years, I'd say that there are a hell of a lot of young people today who flunked history.

Re:Obama's police state?

[jmv]

The entire world rejected the "I was just doing my job" and "I was just taking orders" excuses during the Nuremberg trials.

You should read about the Milgram experiment.

Re:Obama's police state?

[Jane Q. Public]

I learned about in in Psych over 20 years ago.

But it's really not that relevant. We're talking here about things people know they're doing, and even why they're doing it.

Nobody is saying it's never an excuse. But there are some pretty clear lines.

Re:Obama's police state?

[pablo_max]

I don't think it is any of those things.

I think it is much more basic than that.
What do police do all day long? They drive around watching people and waiting for you to make a mistake. To break a rule. Then they pounce. Sometimes with the force of a 1000 suns.
I believe this has the effect of creating a "us vs them" mentality both with the police and the general population. Once the police are able to view the general population as their enemy / prey, it is second nature to do things against their interest.

It is just like with politics. People are part of a political "team" and they need to beat the other team. It doesn't matter that it is actually against your self interest because there is no need to think about it. There is only the need to win.

Re:Obama's police state?

[rolfwind]

See the Milgram study and Stanford Prison experiment.

As long as people in charge say it's okay, most subordinates will perceive things as okay.

Re:Obama's police state?

[Pubstar]

There was a change to this law recently. You can now get a concealed carry permit by stating it's your second amendment right.

Re:Obama's police state?

[Askmum]

You could ask the same for every TSA employee searching another airline passenger.

It's just "Stanford prison experiment"-syndrome.

Re:Obama's police state?

[Splab]

Can you elaborate other than claiming to be all knowing?

As far as I can tell, the test where specifically using people, who knew they were inflicting harm onto someone else - to the point of making it look like the learner had suffered a heart attack, and they knew why.

Re:Obama's police state?

[jafiwam]

Just another "just following orders" excuse. As usual, it's utterly invalid.

There is not a more arrogant, self serving megalomaniac equal to that of a cop.

They do it, because they have the "authorahtah!" to do it.

It's the same thing that makes actors and sports stars think they have a more valid opinion on world events because... well they are who they are.

For a cop, it's "I can make you do X or I can destroy your life (or both!)" that gets to their heads

Re:Obama's police state?

[ThatsNotPudding]

Are they simply sociopaths with no conscience?

Ding-ding-ding. They're just a slightly refined form of the classical high school bully turned small town cop.

Re:Obama's police state?

[Zero__Kelvin]

"You ask a complex question. Much too complex for much of what passes for insight on /. these days, but I'll try to chime in.

Before you decided to put down the majority of Slashdotters, it would behoove you to log in, before you chime in. It shows one has at least a basic level of competence that you apparently lack. Thanks.

Re: Obama's police state?

[guruevi]

So who convicted US soldiers or politicians for their participation in US concentration camps? That's right - nobody. History is written by it's victors, the nazi leaders were going to be convicted and hanged by a kangaroo court regardless because they were on the losing end. Had they succeeded and captured Britain and the US, FDR and Churchill would've been convicted and hanged by a kangaroo court as well.

Re:Obama's police state?

[Bob the Super Hamste]

Are they complete myrmidons? Are they "true believers" who really managed to convince themselves this is all for some kind of nebulous greater good? Are they simply sociopaths with no conscience?

Based off of the ones I know it seems like it is mix of all 3 for the cops I know. some are the power hungry assholes, some are loyal to the force above all else, but it seems that most I know are the true believers.

Re:Obama's police state?

[amxcoder]

That decision is still being held up in a messy court battle. The decision was made by the 9th circuit, but the state's attorney general (who didn't want anything to do with the case originally), stepped in and asked for it to get reviewed "en banc". The 9th circuit put a "hold" on the decision (meaning the county sheriffs can still deny everyone until this is settled), until a decision is made whether to review the decision again.

Basically, the "elite" didn't like the decision handed down, they threw a big fit, and asked the court to "re-think" their original decision, and by throwing a big enough temper tantrum, the courts put a hold on their original decision and have since dragged their feet in determining what to do next. The original decision was handed down in Feb, of this year, and here it is June, and it's still not in effect.

At this point, most sheriffs will still deny the CCW applications, due to the hold put on the decision until further notice. So your statement is not yet correct, as it's been over 4 months since the original decision and most people still can't get a permit, and the sheriffs are denying them like business as usual.

Re:Obama's police state?

[Grishnakh]

In that case, it appears the SS preferred form over function. I guess that's probably because the SS weren't regular military, nor were they police.

Re:Obama's police state?

[wjcofkc]

It's more like, "Wow! I'm a jack-booted thug! This is awesome!"

I know I am a little late getting in on this conversation, but I really do think a lot of them enjoy being Nazi bastards.

Re:Obama's police state?

[lgw]

What they were was the "jackbooted thugs" that created the term. They were police in the sense the FBI is, or more appropriately the way most dictators need a smaller elite military police force to keep the rest of the police and military in line.

Re:Obama's police state?

[gweihir]

This is actual science with experiments, statistics, control groups, etc. That you only see what you want to see and not what is there is a problem on your side.

Re:Obama's police state?

[judoguy]

Cannot be reminded of this enough. Should be required reading in school. Of course, no government school would require this.

"And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?... The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If...if...We didn't love freedom enough. And even more - we had no awareness of the real situation.... We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward." Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn

Re:Obama's police state?

[Curunir_wolf]

This is actual science with experiments, statistics, control groups, etc. That you only see what you want to see and not what is there is a problem on your side.

No, it's not "science". It's selective cherry-picking of data to fit a pre-conceived conclusion.

Re:Obama's police state?

[Jane Q. Public]

As far as I can tell, the test where specifically using people, who knew they were inflicting harm onto someone else - to the point of making it look like the learner had suffered a heart attack, and they knew why.

They knew they were in a Pych experiment. They did not know, though (because it was not the case) that their chosen career was to enforce the law fairly and equally. There is a bit of a difference.

And then there's THIS. And THIS.

In the latter case, the authors argue that the people involved are, in fact, making a moral judgment about what they are doing and consciously deciding to do it anyway. Which means they ARE acting on their own, though they might refuse to take responsibility for it later. Claiming "I was just taking orders," for example.

Re: Obama's police state?

[david_thornley]

US concentration camps were nothing like German concentration camps. They were a national disgrace, but not a war crime. (I assume you're referring to the camps for those of Japanese descent in WWII; I'm not aware of other candidates.)

The Nazi leaders were tried at Nuremburg. They had lawyers and the ability to conduct defenses. Three of the defendants were found not guilty on all counts. Doenitz's lawyer asked the US Admiral Nimitz what Nimitz considered the law on unrestricted submarine warfare was, and was not convicted on that count. IIRC, fewer than half of the defendants were sentenced to death. It may have been victors' justice, but the International Military Tribunal was far from being a kangaroo court.

And, for some time, some aspects of the history were written by the losers. Until about 1970, the history of Germany's Eastern Front was essentially written by a batch of German ex-generals who came up with a consistent story, blaming everything they could on Hitler.

Re:Obama's police state?

[david_thornley]

The military parts of the SS were not as tactically adept as the Army, for the most part, but tried to make up for it with fanaticism and usually better equipment. This has the effect of getting more SS soldiers than regular Army soldiers killed in comparable situations, of course. Form over function sounds about right.

(This refers to the German SS formations, not the foreign contingents under the SS, which were generally badly equipped, trained, and led.)

Re:Obama's police state?

[Grishnakh]

So, in keeping with the subject line, I wonder when we'll have our own SS? I guess we're pretty close to it with DHS and militarized police. Maybe the next President will be the one to take power as dictator, though I guess Obama still has time and doesn't seem opposed to trampling our rights.

Re:Obama's police state?

[amxcoder]

I'm a member of the AFSCME and quite honestly, it's not anywhere near as cushy as you seem to believe.

So in your opinion, retiring at age 55, with >95% of your yearly salary (for life), plus medical/dental benefits isn't cushy? I sure wish I could get a retirement pension like that, work in the private sector a while, and you'll find out you get jack squat except maybe some 401K matching (if you're lucky). Most retired LEO's in the area I live in retire making in the range of $100-150K /yr. FOREVER. That's also not including the SSI they'll draw when they're old enough on top of that.

Not only that, but because of the low retirement age, many of them get another job after retiring, sometimes with city/county courthouses, prisons, or private security firms, which means if they do this, they often will be making >$200K+ per year (combined) for a few extra years until they hit "real retirement age".

I'm not sure what you do, but are you sure you're not selling yourself your benefits package a little short? Maybe LEO's get a better deal than other public employee's, but that is what the original post was referring too.

Re: Obama's police state?

[uninformedLuddite]

US concentration camps were nothing like German concentration camps. They were a national disgrace, but not a war crime.

"Starting in April 1945, the United States Army and the French Army casually annihilated one million [German] men, most of them in American camps . . . Eisenhower's hatred, passed through the lens of a compliant military bureaucracy, produced the horror of death camps unequalled by anything in American history . . . an enormous war crime."

--Col. Ernest F. Fisher, PhD Lt.
101 st Airborne Division, Senior Historian, United States Army

Google search for Eisenhower's Death Camps

Re:Obama's police state?

[Rhyas]

Why does crap like this get modded up? Insightful? Seriously?! This is one of the most ugly prejudices that keeps popping up. Not all cops are ego maniacs, not all cops "do it for the control", etc. Open your goddamn eyes and look at the world through something other than your shit colored glasses.

Re:Obama's police state?

[Rhyas]

> What exactly goes through their minds?
"I'm just doing my job." Just like you they have families too that need to be fed.

Whether it's being a jack booted thug violating laws in order to spy on everyone or escorting prisoners to the gas^H^H^Hshower chamber and then disposing of the bodies in an oven, these people are merely doing their job and getting paid for it.

Why ask beyond that?

Slashdot talks the big talk but when it comes down to it, whistleblowing is HARD. Standing up for what's right it HARD. Fucking AC's talking the shit. People DO actually think of their families, their lives, their own personal well being. It's human nature. I'm not saying that people shouldn't stand up for what's right, I'm saying that it's a fucking hard thing to do. Snowden and the like gave up *everything* to do what's right.

I'm for one am glad I don't have to choose between my loving family and a cold solitary cell just to give everyone else some information about some menial spy program that lets the government snoop on me the same way corporations are. It would be a FUCKING HARD THING TO DO, and you all should take time to think about that seriously. Heap praise on those who have the courage to do the right thing, but don't pile on to those who don't. You're very likely in the camp that wouldn't stand up in that situation.

Reminds me of This comic.

Re:Obama's police state?

[gweihir]

If whenever you do not like scientific results you claim they are not scientific, the you find yourself in the company of evolution-deniers, climate-change denioers and a host of other religious and non-religious reality-deniers. Altemeyr describes experimental setup, statistical methods, numerical results, etc. quite clearly and soundly and makes sure never to mix results, interpretation and personal opinion. If the scientific methods used are sound (and they are, I am a scientist as well and can tell when somebody games results, absolutely no cherry-picking is going on), then the results are sound. Of course reality-deniers like you are unable to understand that. Interestingly, this is part of the results Altemeyer, but also others like Dunning and Kruger find.

Re:Obama's police state?

[Curunir_wolf]

and they are, I am a scientist as well and can tell when somebody games results, absolutely no cherry-picking is going on

LOL. Bullshit.

I'll leave aside the very clear differences of social science from real science that can produce deterministic results. It looks like science, but he basically cherry-picks specific people and calls them representatives of large groups, then proceeds to define a few behaviors of a large group based on a very tiny sample (sometimes, just 1) and their statements. It's propaganda, not science.

Certainly in science and especially in social science, you can't go around praising all the efforts of a single political party and blaming all their faults on the other party exclusively and call yourself unbiased. If you buy into his "science", all of our political problems would be solved overnight if the Democrats won all their elections and the Republicans were excised. That's bullshit. Corruption and tyranny is non-partisan, and I don't need surveys or social experiments to demonstrate that when his hero, Obama, has continued and expanded 90% of the tyrannical and statist policies that Bush started.

Re:Obama's police state?

[gweihir]

You are kidding yourself completely and utterly. Social sciences can be done as a proper science and Altemeyr is doing it. Most social "scientists" are not. The reason may be that they would then stumble on uncomfortable truths, like Altemeyr has and that people like you have so much trouble dealing with.

But you are obviously not interested in facts, otherwise you would have looked, you know, at the actual research and criticized the approach and methods used. Your claim that he uses tiny samples is a direct lie on your side. Your claim that he is cherry-picking is another direct lie. I suspect you have not even looked and made that up to be able to stick with your own broken model of the world. You do not even seem to have read enough of it to find out that Altemeyr is not referring to political parties but to people attracted to certain areas of the spectrum. The science is sound. The problem you have with it is in your mind.

And yes, Altemeyr also gives his opinions on the subject, but only after cleanly deriving the scientific facts. These are pretty damning though. Just as the facts are for the issues of Evolution, Climate Change, etc.

Re:Obama's police state?

[BoberFett]

Ignore the buffoon you're arguing with. I thought the same as you as I perused the link. The bumbling idiot who wrote that claptrap blames everything that has happened under Obama on the other side, as if somehow Obama has no say in what happens in his administration. Partisan claptrap indeed.

Re:Obama's police state?

[Curunir_wolf]

But you are obviously not interested in facts, otherwise you would have looked, you know, at the actual research and criticized the approach and methods used. Your claim that he uses tiny samples is a direct lie on your side. Your claim that he is cherry-picking is another direct lie. I suspect you have not even looked and made that up to be able to stick with your own broken model of the world. You do not even seem to have read enough of it to find out that Altemeyr is not referring to political parties but to people attracted to certain areas of the spectrum. The science is sound. The problem you have with it is in your mind.

You're defending a bunch of political propaganda as science. It's not. He's welcome to his opinion, as are you, but claiming it's unbiased science is an insult to real scientists.

And yes, Altemeyr also gives his opinions on the subject, but only after cleanly deriving the scientific facts.

Incorrect. He starts with his hyperpartisan opinion and uses cherry-picked surveys and specific people to represent entire groups. His writing is full of hasty generalization and appeals to misleading authority

Here are some examples, directly from his writing:

Republicans in Congress voted massively against the bill, and Democrats took the heat for trying to stop a recession that the Republicans had largely caused by deregulating the banking system.

Oh, my, that is soooo SCIENCY! There are valid arguments for the causes of the crisis, with Democratic and Republican policies as culprits. What Altemeyr does here (as throughout his writing) is to present his opinion as fact. It's not.

The first of what became Tea Party protests occurred on February 10, 2009. It was produced by FreedomWorks, an organization led by influential Republicans such as former House Majority Leader Dick Armey, that specialized in creating “grass roots” protests. On February 9, a FreedomWorks official phoned Mary Rakovich in Ft. Myers, Florida, whom he had trained in organizing demonstrations http://www.verumserum.com/?p=4... . He wanted a protest the next night when Obama was in town holding a town hall on the stimulus bill. About ten people showed up on short notice to decry government waste and “Obamas socialism,” but it was a start. Rakovich was then interviewed on Fox.

Here he presents a cherry-picked event to depict his opinion of what started a very diverse movement. And it's not even accurate. There are many events that lead to various protests and groups that called themselves "tea party". Altemeyr uses this one to support his later fallacious appeal to misleading authority arguments. He ignores factual events like the Ron Paul tea party events, the Young Americans for Liberty tea party protests, and others - but instead selects a later event attended by only 10 people (smaller than the earlier events). This is at LEAST cherry-picking, or you could just all it a lie, because it's intentionally deceitful.

So if you're on board with this guy's OPINION, you can like it and think it's "science". If you're looking for some unbiased and useful social science commentary, look elsewhere. Because his writing is really just partisan propaganda.

Re:Obama's police state?

[gweihir]

Well, your argumentation is as devoid of actual substance as that of Evolution deniers, Climate Change Deniers and other reality deniers. Basically your claim that Altemeyr cannot be right because you think he cannot be right. That is not how science works.

Altemeyer uses sound experiments with sound numbers or participants for the scientific part of his work that delivers the insights and mechanisms. You are being dishonest (or possibly just stupid) by claiming that he does cherry-picking or too small samples in instances where he clearly gives his opinion on historical events. It does require some minimal reading comprehension and understanding of the scientific approach to separate fact-finding from opinion, but not a lot as the different parts are very clearly marked. That you claim he would mislabel his opinion as scientific exploration means you either do not have that reading comprehension or background in the scientific method, or you are just directly lying because you do not like his results. I strongly suspect the latter as all you quote very, very clearly is opinion and not science.

Incidentally, even if some of his experiments were flawed (and what you quote are not experiments), that would not invalidate the others. In order to disprove his findings, you actually need to invalidate each experiment he made. Commenting on his opinions as you do is completely irrelevant to the scientific validity of his experimental results. It is however a well established, dishonest and utterly repulsive smear-campaign tactics customary employed by those that do not understand how science works. Just look at others that deny the validity of scientific results. You will find your faulty "argumentation" technique employed there as well.

Re:Obama's police state?

[Curunir_wolf]

Well, your argumentation is as devoid of actual substance as that of Evolution deniers, Climate Change Deniers and other reality deniers.

That's funny, because it's got more substance than yours or Altemeyr's. So what does thae make you?

Basically your claim that Altemeyr cannot be right because you think he cannot be right.

No, my claim is that Altemeyr has created an extremely long argumentative essay with lots of references to back up his opinion. It's still not science. It's not even a balanced essay, because the only opinion it informs is his own. Just because there are facts included does not make it science. There are also facts to refute his opinion. If it was science, that would instantly disprove his theory. The very notion that (1) Different facts can be used to discredit his opinion, and (2) different conclusions can be drawn from the same set of facts, by definition rules out real "science" as a valid description of his writing.

The fact that you have your head so far up your ass that you can't even acknowledge that means you are anti-science, and nothing more than a useful idiot spreading propaganda and lies. You're hurting science as well as the Democratic party that all of this is intended to prop up.

If you want to discuss it more, I'd suggest you pop over to Daily Kos, where the other hyper-partisans will buy into your arguments. It's finished here.

You are fully retarded, and you're just calling names. I pointed out that all of his stuff is opinion, not fact, clearly documented it, and you're still out on trying to claim your worldview is objective.

Robot is a robot.

Re: Obama's police state?

[david_thornley]

Which didn't happen, best I can find out. There was a lot of mistreatment, and perhaps tens of thousands of Germans died, but not a million. A German who had been in one of those camps said it was bad, but not nearly as bad as some people have described.

Re:Obama's police state?

[gweihir]

So you still have nothing but your misconceptions. You either have not looked at Altemeyrs work or you are lying. Pathetic. There is no use communicating with you, you are not interested in understanding, but just in having your own unfounded opinions confirmed, no matter how much bending of the truth that takes. I wills top responding to you now, it is a waste of time.

Re: Obama's police state?

[uninformedLuddite]

You missed the part about the US sidestepping international law by classifying the Germans as DEP(disarmed enemy personnel) which was the WW2 equivalent of 'illegal combatants'(or whatever the Seppo's call it these days). Who is this German of whom you speak?

Re: Obama's police state?

[david_thornley]

I knew about the DEP status. The German was on a Usenet WWII group for a while, while we discussed this.

Get used to it.

[Chas]

These kinds of shenanigans are going to continue until the American public puts a stop to it.
Note, I said the public. Not the government.
The government, and it's various tentacles, simply don't WANT it to stop. Even if diverse individuals composing said tentacles do.
It is simply one more way of maintaining some form of leverage against an increasingly interconnected population that can make it's own decisions and plans without a bunch of stuffed shirts and their ridiculous budgets.
It will continue until they are physically restricted from doing these things.

Re:Get used to it.

[causality]

These kinds of shenanigans are going to continue until the American public puts a stop to it. Note, I said the public. Not the government.

The nation is full of people who cannot even control their own waistlines, let alone something with a will of its own like this.

I really hope people are waking up and deciding to stop being so passive and unwilling to take a little responsibility. I really do hope so. If that is happening, it's not the sort of thing that would get reported by the mainstream corporate media. After all, that might encourage it.

Re:Get used to it.

[gweihir]

I completely agree. However it will likely require another global totalitarian catastrophe first (WW3 was the last one and we narrowly avoided one during the cold war). I predict the death count accumulated in WW2 will look insignificant when the US (and the UK) have clawed their way back to being free countries. Freedom always has to be won with blood and unless people that are willing to pay more blood for it defend freedom, it always goes away again in a few generations.

Re:Get used to it.

[Krishnoid]

The government, and it's various tentacles, simply don't WANT it to stop. Even if diverse individuals composing said tentacles do.

Oooohhhh, now I understand what they mean when they say tentacle r--

Re:Get used to it.

[Chas]

These kinds of shenanigans are going to continue until the American public puts a stop to it. Note, I said the public. Not the government.

The nation is full of people who cannot even control their own waistlines, let alone something with a will of its own like this.

My point exactly.

I really hope people are waking up and deciding to stop being so passive and unwilling to take a little responsibility. I really do hope so. If that is happening, it's not the sort of thing that would get reported by the mainstream corporate media. After all, that might encourage it.

We can only hope.

Re:Get used to it.

[GodfatherofSoul]

Exactly. This stuff is the smart play if you're a politician. If you DON'T do it and something bad happens, the public will blame you for not doing enough. If people cared enough to complain, things would change...but they don't.

Re:Get used to it.

[dave420]

"Freedom always has to be won with blood" - apart from the bloodless revolutions...

Embarrassing info, or are the feds just idiots?

[Bill, Shooter of Bul]

There could be a number of reasons why they don't want the info public

1) It doesn't work that well, or there is an obvious defense against it they don't want public.

2) They've been abusing their power some how by collecting info on people not really suspects, and don't want to be hit up by every divorce lawyer in the country. ( not sure if that's really illegal).

3) They're idiotic power tripping jerks that think its an ultra secret thing that will cause all law enforcement to lose its effectiveness if more people know about it.

4) It contains evidence of alien life forms visits to our planet, and their preference for blackberry cell phones.

Re:Embarrassing info, or are the feds just idiots?

[Anonymous Psychopath]

There could be a number of reasons why they don't want the info public

1) It doesn't work that well, or there is an obvious defense against it they don't want public.

2) They've been abusing their power some how by collecting info on people not really suspects, and don't want to be hit up by every divorce lawyer in the country. ( not sure if that's really illegal).

3) They're idiotic power tripping jerks that think its an ultra secret thing that will cause all law enforcement to lose its effectiveness if more people know about it.

4) It contains evidence of alien life forms visits to our planet, and their preference for blackberry cell phones.

5) They've been using it to track some for-real bad guys, and the release of the documents would compromise an ongoing investigation or investigations.

I suspect it's a combination of mostly (2), some (5), and a sprinkling of (3).

Re:Embarrassing info, or are the feds just idiots?

[jonwil]

5) The device works great but if the bad guys get the info, it will tell the bad guys how to tell if they are being monitored/tracked/etc by it (so they can make sure they dont do anything incriminating in a way that it would be captured with these devices)

Re:Embarrassing info, or are the feds just idiots?

[Charliemopps]

The answer is, all of the above... and more.

Re:Embarrassing info, or are the feds just idiots?

[ewieling]

I suspect data related to ongoing investigtions would be excluded from an FIOA request and as such would not require censorship by the feds.

Re:Embarrassing info, or are the feds just idiots?

[RyoShin]

The tinfoil in me says that these "stingrays" don't exist at all; instead, whenever law enforcement gets info from their NSA buddies concerning cell phone use/location, these mysterious "stingray" devices are stated as the way the defendant was found. The documents the ALCU would have obtained probably showed the devices (if there are even any physical objects) to be 100% useless at best, leading to further digging, and the eventual revelation of unconstitutional searches that these "devices" lead to.

Re:Embarrassing info, or are the feds just idiots?

[TheGratefulNet]

the 'bad guys' have moles in key places in key companies.

the 'good guys' also have insiders in key places in key companies.

do you really think that the insider info is only available to the so-called good guys?

get real.

Re:Embarrassing info, or are the feds just idiots?

[the eric conspiracy]

Stingrays definitely exist. They were developed for the purpose of tracking cell phones in places like Afghanistan. They can even be mounted on UAVs.

It's a perfectly legit war theater SIGINT tool. Unfortunately Harris Corp has been marketing it to local law enforcement agencies who are trying to use it covertly to prevent 4th Amendment review issues.

Here's a price list:

http://publicintelligence.net/...

Re:Embarrassing info, or are the feds just idiots?

[GodfatherofSoul]

2.) This we know. I saw a story a while back that even NSA surveillance was being leaked to local law enforcement sometimes whenever they ran across illegal activities. I have no doubt that they're abusing this information.

Re:Embarrassing info, or are the feds just idiots?

[lagomorpha2]

Either that or the records will indicate that although they exist, a certain percentage of the time the stingray wasn't actually used and was just used as a way to search a home without a warrant.

Sort of like how even untrained drug dogs work.

"Ok we're going to have the dog sniff around your car/home because that doesn't count as a search, then if it alerts we have probable cause and can search you. Oh look it's alerting!"
"No it's not, it's licking its balls"
"Who is a judge and jury going to believe? Time to violate your rights!"

Hard copy?

[jc42]

Well, I'd just ask them to email the document. Then if some "federal agency" demand the documents, they can simply email them to that federal agency. Saves everyone time, and everyone's got what they want.

Actually, I'm surprised they didn't handle it this way from the start. That way the "private citizen" wouldn't even know that another department had "seized" their documents.

But maybe I've just been working on the Internet too long. I tend to be surprised when someone wants to deal with hard copy.

Re:Hard copy?

[amxcoder]

I wonder if the Feds went all out like they do to us civilians when they performed the raid. Did they perform a typical 'no knock' raid, at like 3AM, and knock the doors in and smash the windows, and toss 'Flash Bangs' in the room and enter the premises with a small military unit in order to perform the records seizure?

That is how it's done with normal folks now days, for small stuff even.

Re:Hard copy?

[causality]

Well, I'd just ask them to email the document. Then if some "federal agency" demand the documents, they can simply email them to that federal agency. Saves everyone time, and everyone's got what they want.

Actually, I'm surprised they didn't handle it this way from the start. That way the "private citizen" wouldn't even know that another department had "seized" their documents.

But maybe I've just been working on the Internet too long. I tend to be surprised when someone wants to deal with hard copy.

"Seized the records" probably means the same thing it means when individuals are raided for computer crimes: grab all hard copies, all hard drives, and all other electronic storage media believed to be holding said records.

Maybe the next Snowden works for one of these police departments.

Re:Hard copy?

[Lloyd_Bryant]

I wonder if the Feds went all out like they do to us civilians when they performed the raid. Did they perform a typical 'no knock' raid, at like 3AM, and knock the doors in and smash the windows, and toss 'Flash Bangs' in the room and enter the premises with a small military unit in order to perform the records seizure?

There was no "raid" - what they did was deputize the detective in charge of the records as a U.S. Marshal, and then instruct him to transfer the records in question to other U.S. Marshals.

Pretty questionable, legally (basically, they completely sidestepped state public records laws using this trick), but I'm not sure that "raid" is the correct word to describe the processes.

Re:Hard copy?

[causality]

There was no "raid" - what they did was deputize the detective in charge of the records as a U.S. Marshal, and then instruct him to transfer the records in question to other U.S. Marshals.

Does that place him on their payroll? And, what happens if he immediately responds to that by resigning?

Re:Hard copy?

[sandbagger]

I'm going to correct your language. They're civilians. It's a fundamental principle of policing going back to John Peel that the police are members of the public who happen to be in uniform. Why? Because without that politically neutral core to their mission, public consent is not likely to be forthcoming.

They're civilians.

Of course, someone above quoted Blade Runner.

Re:Hard copy?

[amxcoder]

I agree this may be a fundamental principle...

...however in practice in more recent times, police are a tier, or class, of people above citizens and below the political elite. Almost like a buffer between those who wield all the power, and those who don't like what the power brokers are doing. The police are there in the middle to make sure to quell the populace and keep them in check, when they don't fall in line with the decisions of the elite--and in turn they get special powers and protections beyond that of the average person.

This is just an observation of course, and not the way it's supposed to be, but more so what it has turned into.

Re:Hard copy?

[penguinoid]

There was no "raid" - what they did was deputize the detective in charge of the records as a U.S. Marshal, and then instruct him to transfer the records in question to other U.S. Marshals.

During the raid they took a hostage?!? I hope he doesn't succumb to Stockholm Syndrome.

Out of control

[BobSwi]

This business will get out of control. It will get out of control and we'll be lucky to live through it.

Re:Out of control

[bored_engineer]

That's from "The Hunt for Red October," isn't it?

BASTARDS!

[MightyMartian]

Well, I don't know about you, but I feel safer knowing the NSA is keeping those filthy terrorists, the ACLU, away from information of high importance to national security. Why we don't jail anyone who even reads the Constitution is beyond me.

Re:"the ACLU wrote in a blog post today."

[techno-vampire]

Just because it was posted on 06/05/2014 doesn't mean that that was when it was submitted. It may well have taken two days to get to the front page.

"Physically restricted"? Get real.

[Typical Slashdotter]

It will continue until they are physically restricted from doing these things.

Get real. Putting the Green or Libertarian parties in charge of the presidency and both houses of congress, with an overwhelming mandate to fix these issues, would be much, much easier and more successful than waging a successful war of violence on the federal government. "Grab your rifles and rise up" only works when you have the public at large passionately on your side. When that is the case in a modern republic, there are better tools available.

Preventing Stingray from working

[NynexNinja]

So, I've been thinking of how could we prevent such a rogue device from operating on the cellular network? The way it is done is pretty easy actually:
* First you have to create a database of longitude / latitude coordinates of where we find cell tower sites at 100% signal strength.
* Next we allow Android's baseband processor to issue handoffs to cell towers that are within range of the GeoIP coordinate database
* So when a Stingray device pretends to be a cell tower, and it is not within range of the geoIP coordinates database, it will be rejected

This could be easily implemented in Android... and you could also add notifications when a cell tower was rejected due to being too far away from the known cell tower real location.

Re: Preventing Stingray from working

[Anonymous Coward]

And then when there's a disaster and telcos have to put up temporary emergency towers android phones become unusable to make calls.

Re:Preventing Stingray from working

[dave562]

Does it need to be that complicated with the signal strength readings? I am not up to speed on cellular technology, but don't cell towers have the equivalent of a MAC address? Surely there has to be some sort of hardware identifier that is visible. We are talking about TCP/IP here....

If so, it would be easy enough to develop a database of legit addresses and do a look up against that list every time a hand-off occurs. The list could be easily paired down by county / state / zip code.

Re:Preventing Stingray from working

[Kernel Kurtz]

There are several projects based on mapping cell towers.

There are also projects looking to use network diagnostic info from the phone itself. Everything is still very alpha at this stage, but hopefully that will change.

The most well known is probably this one;

https://opensource.srlabs.de/p...

There is also a project on XDA that has attracted some attention;

http://forum.xda-developers.co...

Unfortunately I don't think it is as easy as the parent suggests.

Re: Preventing Stingray from working

[giorgist]

Even better, if enough people approve this as an acceptable tower then it is approved. Welcome to p2p authentication.

Re:Preventing Stingray from working

[drew_92123]

Signal strength is an unreliable measurement of how far you are from a transmitter in many circumstances, sometimes walking from one room to the next in a building cuts your signal strength in half...

Instead you might focus on the the delay between the phone and the tower to get your distance and compare that to a list of know tower locations and the phones current location using the built in gps receiver leaving a fudge factor of maybe two hundred feet.

But then you also have to take into account all the femtocells out there in poor reception areas as well as the cells they sometimes temporarily put in place for special events...

Re:Preventing Stingray from working

[Splab]

Also, the placement of towers are usually optimal for covering the area, so if a Stingray device is located somewhere, it would be the same place as the current tower...

Re:Preventing Stingray from working

[IamTheRealMike]

And how does the phone learn when a new tower goes online? That scheme isn't going to work.

Beating Stingray devices can be done, if we assume that telco's don't approve of Stingray devices. Given that Stingrays interfere with their services, given that they bypass their own power and authority, given that all people like power and authority, given that they can charge the government for processing legal requests and court orders, and given that they were forced to spend lots of money on doing interception the "proper" way by CALEA, this isn't totally unreasonable.

If you're willing to assume that, the best way to beat Stingray's is to disable GSM support in your phone's baseband somehow. In GSM, towers authenticate the handset but handsets do not authenticate the towers, because portable cell towers did not seem like a threat that could surface within the intended lifespan of the technology. UMTS (3G) fixed this problem and now handsets do cryptographic handshakes with the tower.

I am assuming that the reason US cops are fighting so hard to stop info about Stingray's coming out is that these are tools used by little tinpot forces that can't be bothered getting real warrants, not the NSA who prefer to just directly compromise the backhaul networks. Therefore most likely they do not have the keys needed to emulate the real cell towers. If it came out that forcing a phone to 3G+ only could stop them connecting to Stingray's, that's a setting that'd suddenly appear in all kinds of aftermarket firmwares and heck probably Android upstream itself, and then some of the people they're going after would simply tick the "ignore Stingrays" box.

Re: Preventing Stingray from working

[Zero__Kelvin]

"And then when there's a disaster "

You haven't been paying attention. There is already a disaster.

Re:Preventing Stingray from working

[Zero__Kelvin]

If only there was a way to spoof a MAC address!

Re:Preventing Stingray from working

[ShaunC]

I thought all of a phone's radio operations and cellular workings (e.g. choosing a tower) was handled by a separate "baseband" processor that the user-facing OS doesn't expose. Could something like this really be implemented via Android?

Re:"Physically restricted"? Get real.

[praxis]

Putting the Green or Libertarian parties in charge of the presidency and both houses of congress, with an overwhelming mandate to fix these issues, would be much, much easier and more successful than waging a successful war of violence on the federal government

How do you know what the Green or Libertarians will do when they have that kind of power?

Re:"Physically restricted"? Get real.

[Typical Slashdotter]

How do you know what the revolutionary army capable of defeating the US federal government will do when it seizes control? How is that any better? How is it not, in fact, far less predictable?

Fucking Bush!

[Lord Kano]

That Haliburton, Enron, Koch Industries lackey!

If only this country would have elected a constitutional scholar, like Barack Obama...

Oh wait...

LK

Re:Fucking Bush!

[TheGratefulNet]

power corrupts.

extreme power corrupts extremely.

obama was probably an OK guy, once. he seems like an OK bloke. but power of that level, and the office, it changes you and you are not the same person you once were. it was not an all-of-a-sudden thing, either; as you move up, you lose your soul bit by bit. it can't be helped and its been that way since man has walked the earth. its how we are, as a species.

we are seeing what humans are really like, when they get so much power and want to hoard it and control everyone around them. they convince themselves they are good guys and that they are fighting the good fight, but that much power is just NOT controllable by humans. we can't do it. we always fail. always. eventually, we always show that we can't handle that much power over our fellow people.

this is really an argument for smaller city-states. smaller companies. smaller groups of things. once things get big, they get too powerful and we fuck it up. by staying small, the power does not concentrate and so its more fair and we self-balance.

I wish we'd learn this and change our society style.... but I'm not expecting this to happen ;(

Re:Fucking Bush!

[JDAustin]

See...I never saw the guy as a OK dude. When he has both his opponents (2004 Senate, Blair Hull in primary, Jack Ryan in general) sealed divorce records unsealed...he showed he playes very dirty politics. You knew he was more slimy the most politicians...it's people bought the whole Hope and Change con.

Re:Fucking Bush!

[Anonymous Coward]

extreme power corrupts extremely.

So you need someone already familiar with power and proven not to price it over ethics. You won't find those among the super-rich able to do a "presidential campaign".

So where are you going to dig out another Eisenhower? One who would send the army to desegregate U.S. schools rather than bomb other people's schools into oblivion?

Re:Fucking Bush!

[Lord Kano]

We still have the jury box but it seems like the powers that be are trying to short circuit that option to force the latter.

LK

Re:Fucking Bush!

[TheGratefulNet]

we all wanted and needed hope and change.

there's no way to know if he was geniune when he started out. he clearly is not, right now; but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt that he may have really wanted to make a positive change.

I've never met a truly ethical CEO or high level executive. they all turn bad. so, its 'natural' that the most powerful office in the world will convert anyone into a bad apple.

its time we got rid of the concept of president. its outdated, it does not work and it causes nothing but trouble for us (all the arguing and personal BS that one side or the other slings).

'winner take all' is also a bad architecture.

in short, we have nothing but problems in our system. it once worked, 200 yrs ago, but clearly is in need of a reboot and reinstall.

Re:Fucking Bush!

[causality]

we all wanted and needed hope and change. there's no way to know if he was geniune when he started out.

Yes, there is. Apply a simple test: is he being promoted by one of the two major parties? If yes, then he is not genuine.

There has been no meaningful exception since Kennedy. The way that ended simply proved what could happen if the candidate double-crosses the monied interests (the real power) that got him into office.

Re:Fucking Bush!

[Lord Kano]

The only people who thought that Obama was an OK guy were the ones who were either so blinded by their hatred of Bush that anyone else looked better by comparison and those who weren't paying attention.

Obama has the worst of Bush's and Clinton's qualities without any of their redeeming ones.

He appears to be a genuinely loving husband and father but his public life is 100% that of an opportunistic politician.

LK

Re:Fucking Bush!

[Lord Kano]

The root of this problem began in October 1994.

CALEA was passed by a Democrat controlled congress and signed by a Democrat president.

By all means, the USA PATRIOT act pushed us further down this path and the Republicans own that.

My point in this is that it's idiotic to look at the loss of privacy and the ubiquitous surveillance of society by the government as either a Republican or Democrat problem. They're both doing it.

LK

Re:Fucking Bush!

[BoberFett]

And the Democrats are doing their best to blame everything that has happened January 2009 on Bush and the Republicans. Politics in this country is broken.

Re:Get used to it. We are not unique

[X-Ray Artist]

Government is a leaving, breathing thing. It subsists on liberties. The more liberties it consumes, the bigger it gets. The bigger it gets, the more liberties it needs. It has no sense of moderation and will consume liberties until there no more. Then it will die. Then, like the Phoenix, another will rise from the ashes and start the whole process again.

Cops aren't supreme court justices

[TiggertheMad]

A majority of people in society aren't deep philosophical thinkers. They want to do their 40 hours, and go have a beer and watch football. Police are a fair cross section of society, so most cops aren't going to stop and ask if what they are doing is a fundamental violation of a person's constitutional rights, unless it is a pretty sever deviation for normal behavior. (Ex: beheading perps caught in the act)

I don't think most cops think too much about it, they have plenty of more immediate problems to keep busy with.

Re:"Physically restricted"? Get real.

[praxis]

How do you know what the revolutionary army capable of defeating the US federal government will do when it seizes control? How is that any better? How is it not, in fact, far less predictable?

I never said it was better. There are more than those two options.

Re:If I was the Judge..

[Anonymous Coward]

And this will end up in front of a judge, I'd be really, really, pissed.

I'd be throwing the book at everybody, the officers doing the seizing, their superiors for ordering it, everyone up the chain who even saw this happening. Anything and everything I think that applied I'd throw at them. Those documents were already subject to legal proceedings, I'd start with Obstruction and move up from there, finishing off with determining that their removal of these documents and irrational unwillingness to have them see the light of day in a court house demonstrates they prove criminal activity. After all, if you are the Department of Justice, but scared of your actions being examined in court something has gone very wrong.

If there really was a good reason to withhold them you file it with the Court and the Court orders them sealed, Law enforcement over stepping their authority and messing with Legal proceedings is something that would royally piss me off as a judge.

The NSA might get to hide behind National Security and their Classified Courts, but the DoJ just plain inst in that line of work, and that kind of 11th hour bullshit just doesn't fly.

A Mississippi Judge just did that. The local paper tried to get some records from a state agency and they first denied them, then after an order to produce was issued they had a federal prosecutor take them under cover of darkness to a different part of the state. Eventually a federal judge ordered their return to the state court, where the state judge fined several people for contempt of court and open records law violations. The state attorney general was in on it along with several federal officers and prosecutors, the attorney general even went so far as to say "think of how this will look on your permanent record after you are reversed." I say through the bums in JAIL for 30 days at the time for each individual charge of contempt of court, especially when under color of law.

Re:If I was the Judge..

[techno-vampire]

the attorney general even went so far as to say "think of how this will look on your permanent record after you are reversed."

I do hope that that attorney general got to spend some time in jail for that because threatening the judge like that is clearly contempt of court, and a simple slap on the wrist, or a small fine just isn't enough to make the point clear.

Re:because... terrorists

[Opportunist]

Does anyone still believe that shit? I mean, even INSIDE the building? Or has "terrorists" become the new Santa Claus? Where the kids pretend they believe in it because it makes the parents happy...

Re:"Physically restricted"? Get real.

[l0n3s0m3phr34k]

Looking at social media, and seeing who exactly is yelling "guns and revolution!" I would bet it would actually turn out to be WAY worse. Most everyone I see wanting "revolution" are conservative Christians who want their particular religion studied in public schools, evolution is "evil", pro-choice=murder, Obama is a Muslim/terrorist/socialist/fascist/Kenyan/alien/Satan, BENGHAZI!!!, warmongers, etc. If they got their way, the US would politically be more like Victorian England, with the Bush family as our new Monarchs.

Re:"Physically restricted"? Get real.

[Chas]

Yeah. No.

I'm a Realist.

There's a political monoculture in Washington. Everyone largely agrees about the big stuff. So they wrangle, endlessly, over the small stuff, inflating the appearance of importance in an attempt to differentiate themselves. In the end, the net difference is still zip.

There's also the fact that these agencies are USED to lying to and misleading anyone with authority over them. Heads will nod, and people will scurry around, appearing to "do something". In the end, nothing will actually change. Or the people giving the orders will have a "sudden change of heart".

Re:The US gov has turned rogue !

[CrimsonAvenger]

And yet, I'll bet you hate the ACLU with a purple passion.

No, I just despise them for deciding that "rights" are individual EXCEPT for the Second Amendment.....

An old neighbor said 5 = bad cop

[localroger]

He himself retired from the redacted state police after 12 years, some spent undercover. He said that for the most part the idealists who want to save the world get washed out by the corruption by 5 years and anyone who's stayed longer than that is getting more out of it than their salary.

Release to Public?

[PPH]

The feds are working very hard to block any release of this information to the public.

Now are the referring to some records in Florida related to one specific investigation? Or Stingray records in general? Because if its the general case, too late. That info. is out there.

Some unbelievably inept local law enforcement agencies are using this gear and if you know some of the people involved, there are no secrets left.

Re:If I was the Judge..

[sandbagger]

Source?

Re:The US gov has turned rogue !

[Anonymous Coward]

"rights" are individual

What does that mean?

EXCEPT for the Second Amendment.....

The ACLU protecting the Second Amendment would be a waste of their resources. Why? Oh, I don't know, ever hear of a little group called the NRA?

Heck, even if the ACLU opposed the Second Amendment, that is ok, even though I myself am a strong supporter of it. What would not be ok, would be the ACLU trying to circumvent the constitution to push their anti-Second Amendment agenda.

Please note that I know nothing about the ACLU's position regarding the Second Amendment.

Re:"Physically restricted"? Get real.

[TheGratefulNet]

I want a revolution.

I love what used to be my country, the old USA. I want the freedoms and privacy we once had, back.

I'm not a christian, I'm a total non-believer in any religion.

I'm not a gun nut, don't own guns, don't want to.

but I still see the need for a reboot of our government. it would be nice if it could be non-violent. however, my xtal ball says that won't happen since the bad guys in power are not going to give back power willingly.

Don't worry..

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure Obama will put a stop to it.

Right?

Militarization

[the eric conspiracy]

Really I view this sort of thing as just another aspect of militarization of law enforcement. This sort of thing is wartime SIGINT gear. It should require judicial oversight and warrants for use in civilian populations. The fact that it's use is treated like a state secret is a big fat warning that the law enforcement agencies are trying to protect something that they realize would create a serious public outcry if people realized it's capabilities.

Re:"Physically restricted"? Get real.

[MrBigInThePants]

Was that during the cold war/vietnam pray tell?

Or the bit in between with the war on drugs and desert storm.

What is this "old USA" you speak of?

I am failing to see what has changed except the technology...

I am actually being serious here...

BS excuse. Obama could fire them , order them to r

[raymorris]

That's a BS excuse. Obama could fire the people responsible for this, or just order them to release the records. There ARE jbts in the US government, and as head of the government, Obama is head of the jack booted thugs.

bloodless revolution (was Re:Get used to it.)

[WillAdams]

Imagine if there was a bloodless, non-violent revolution and the media chose not to broadcast it:

http://guardianlv.com/2013/12/...

Re:"Physically restricted"? Get real.

[Bob the Super Hamste]

Then you have the quiet crazies who are more likely to act instead of being internet tough guys. The morons who spout off don't worry me much since they are like most slashdotters in that they typically talk a big game on the internet but don't ever follow through. A perfect example is all the people who never bother contacting their various elected representatives to voice their opinion but piss and moan about what their representatives do.

Re:"Physically restricted"? Get real.

[pnutjam]

If your revolution is non-violent, it will be stomped into the mud and hijacked by the violent. Things will be worse for years and years. They might get as good as they are now in your children's lifetime. They will be impressed because they didn't know how good we have it.

Re:When ordered to obey an unlawful order

[Zero__Kelvin]

5 People mod this shit up!

Re:The US gov has turned rogue !

[judoguy]

Unfortunately, the ACLU takes the incomprehensible position that somehow the Bill of Rights has an amendment to protect the government's right to keep and bear arms while ALL the rest are for individuals. Bizarre.

Re:The US gov has turned rogue !

[tangent]

"rights" are individual

What does that mean?

Some people interpret the 2nd amendment to the US Constitution as protecting a right of the states or of "the miltia". This legal dodge is intended to let them say that the right does not belong to the citizenry individually, giving justification for gun bans. That legal theory was shot down six years ago in DC vs Heller, but that doesn't stop some from persisting in misinterpreting the amendment.

That is to say, if all of the rights protected by the US Constitution are individual rights, laws that deny free exercise of those rights are unconstitutional.

Re:The US gov has turned rogue !

[tangent]

That last paragraph isn't too clear. Allow me to clarify it.

If if all rights are individual rights, then any law that denies specific individuals the freedom to exercise that right is unconstitutional. You can't say, "This right belongs to these people over here, but not to you because you are not in this special class of people." There are no special classes, as far as the US Constitution is concerned.

Ah, What is Stingray?

[Douglas Goodall]

It is interesting to hear about the lengths people go to protect information about this thing, but what is it?

Re:"Physically restricted"? Get real.

[MrBigInThePants]

I believe I was using Socratic irony. :)

From my perspective "this" is nothing different to what has occurred over all of human history. This is not an American thing, this is a human thing.

The rich and powerful wanting to be more so and using death, destruction, threats and violence to achieve this. With every new age come new tools that are used to achieve the very same aims with even greater ferocity and/or efficiency and/or mass effect.

When has it ever been different?

Re:The US gov has turned rogue !

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow! Massive propaganda! Thanks for adding multiple doses of misinformation to our day.

Presumably by "historical interpretation" you refer to "making up a bunch of a stuff that fits your preconceived notions about the world".

Go read the Federalist papers #28, #29, and #46, each of which contradicts your statement.

While you are at it, there are a huge number of quotes regarding this issue from the other writings of the Founding Fathers, particularly Thomas Jefferson.

When are gun control people going to learn that lying repeatedly about this issue is not going to work?

Pendleton Act only outlaws requiring political con

[raymorris]

The Pendleton Act only says that civil service employees can't be required to make political contributions , and can't be fired FOR FAILURE TO MAKE POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS. The president can fire executive branch appointees for any other reason (except race, religion, age over 40).