Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

US Pushing Local Police To Keep Quiet On Cell-Phone Surveillance Technology

Posted by timothy on from the all-you-debaters-are-welcome dept.

schwit1 (797399) writes with this story from the Associated Press, as carried by Yahoo News: The Obama administration has been quietly advising local police not to disclose details about surveillance technology they are using to sweep up basic cellphone data from entire neighborhoods, The Associated Press has learned. Citing security reasons, the U.S. has intervened in routine state public records cases and criminal trials regarding use of the technology. This has resulted in police departments withholding materials or heavily censoring documents in rare instances when they disclose any about the purchase and use of such powerful surveillance equipment. Federal involvement in local open records proceedings is unusual. It comes at a time when President Barack Obama has said he welcomes a debate on government surveillance and called for more transparency about spying in the wake of disclosures about classified federal surveillance programs.

21 of 253 comments (clear)

  1. Oh my ... by MondoGordo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...and the police state gears up ...

    1. Re:Oh my ... by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 4, Insightful

      >> compared to Gitmo and the phoney wars we had because of George W Bush

      I hope you realize Gitmo is Obama's mess now. He's had six years now to clean it up - in fact ran on a platform to clean it up - and has done little there except release some pretty evil dudes back into the wild.

    2. Re:Oh my ... by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 4, Funny

      Trollin, trollin, trollin
      Keep those doggies trollin
      Rawhide!

    3. Re:Oh my ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      The sad truth about the travesty of Gitmo is that it was attempted to be closed but was blocked via procedural means. Only certain penitentiaries can accept prisoners from outside of US soil and in order to do so they must have authorization from the Governor of that region. Sadly all of the penitentiaries that were able to take the prisoners had Republican governors. All of them were asked in turn by the administration, and all of them said no.

      It is disturbing how so many actively chose to allow that human rights fiasco to continue just to make one man look bad. Not that you care, considering you think all those people that did not get a trial, that have no evidence against them are "pretty evil dudes".

    4. Re:Oh my ... by fustakrakich · · Score: 4, Interesting

      They are both idiots.

      Wrong! They are con men, who hit the jackpot. The voters are the only idiots here, and they are just as corrupt as those people they reelect. The corruption of the politician is a reflection.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    5. Re:Oh my ... by rahvin112 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Unfortunately for the democrats they are not as "United" as the republicans. They don't vote in lockstep with each other nor do they judge each other by some RINO like measure where it's a bad thing not to vote in lock step with what the party says regardless of their constituents. As a result even though the bill to close gitmo was brought up several times the bill never passed nor really ever had a chance to beat the 60 vote fillibuster threshold needed to advance in the Senate.

      Instead was was passed in it's stead was a requirement that he not close, it that he not spend a DIME studying closing, discussing closing or even thinking about closing it. This basically bared the president from doing any sort of research that would convince congress it could be done. This was the work of people like John McCain, rather ironically a former POW, working concert with the republican party and a handful of cooperative blue dog democrats.

      Anyone that can argue Obama didn't try to close Gitmo is a blind partisan liar. And anyone that argues Obama is responsible for that atrocity is a fucking idiot. The republican party has responsibility for that prison. Even today the Republican parties official platform includes support for perpetual detention at Gitmo. I'll never understand people that think it's a good idea to waste our soldiers time playing guard duty in what is pretty close to a paradise. It's a waste of money and valuable resources. Those people should have long ago been transferred to a special federal prison such as the recently closed super-max in Illinois that tried very hard to become the site. But people not unlike you insisted without reason that those guys remain in Cuba and the taxpayers to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to house them in the most expensive military base the US has.

    6. Re:Oh my ... by amiga3D · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If you think Gitmo is a paradise you're the idiot. It's not a hell hole but it's still a prison. You can blather on about the Republicans all you want but the people that dangle the Republican puppets by their strings dangle the Democratic puppets too. You partisan fools that still believe the smoke and mirror show that is the US political two party mafia system astound me. What little shred of doubt I had about it is gone after the last six years. Obama looks like Bush version 2.0

    7. Re:Oh my ... by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 4, Interesting

      If President Obama had wanted to close Gitmo, he would have shamed the Democrats in Congress into doing it.

      He doesn't care that Gitmo is open. If anything, he loves it being open, because it gives him another cudgel to bash the Republicans with. And people like you eat it up.

      Also, if the Republicans had this great lockstep mentality you mention, the term RINO wouldn't exist.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    8. Re:Oh my ... by vux984 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      These are non-US citizens (generally) & non-uniformed combatants.

      "non-uniformed combatants" is a made up thing; they are civilians. Criminals perhaps, but if Iran invades your home town and starts

      As such, they are afforded protection from neither the US Constitution

      Why not? Isn't there something in there about 'all people'? I don't recall it being limited to American citizens?

      I mean, granted we don't have authority to impose the constitution or justice system on foreign nationals in their own country -- but we did arrest them, and remove them from their country to territory we control. There's no reason they can't or shouldn't be extended to the rights of our justice system? Why shouldn't we? Would their trial be somehow unfair?

      Additionally, most countries where the detainees originate are not signatories to the Geneva Convention, and thus the protections further do not apply to them.

      It still applies to us stupid. Sure legally we aren't obligated by treaty but so what? Its the morally right thing to do, and there is certainly nothing in the treaty that PREVENTS us from extending them those protections? Why on earth would we desire NOT to extend them?

      You make it sound like we'd like to give them fair trials, and we'd like to extend them rights but we can't. That's bullshit.

    9. Re:Oh my ... by vux984 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "non-uniformed combatants" is a made up thing; they are civilians. Criminals perhaps, but if Iran invades your home town and starts

      sorry somehow missed finishing that sentence. ... and starts wrecking the place, and you resist, even with violence, and they capture you and take you into 'custody'. You are still a civilian. Even if they wanted to treat you as a soldier, that'd be fine too.

      But to invent a new classification for the express purpose of depriving people of the rights you would extend civilians and soldiers is BULLSHIT.

    10. Re:Oh my ... by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 4, Informative

      If President Obama had wanted to close Gitmo, he would have shamed the Democrats in Congress into doing it.

      Assuming what you say is true the Democrats NEVER had a filibuster proof 60 votes.

      Yes, they did. Not for a long time, but they had it and wasted it. How do you think Obamacare got passed? No Republican voted for it, and no Republican voted to end debate on it. The Democrats had 60 votes to force cloture once they bribed enough of their own party. The Republicans couldn't stop them.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
  2. "Obama has said he welcomes a debate " by bigpat · · Score: 5, Interesting

    EFF put together this great debate between Joe Biden 2006 and Barrack Obama 2013

    1. Re:"Obama has said he welcomes a debate " by sconeu · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Obama is a politician. By definition, when he opens his mouth, he's lying.*

      * DISCLAIMER: This also applies to Boehner, Pelosi, Cantor, Reid, McConnell and any other politician.

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    2. Re:"Obama has said he welcomes a debate " by amiga3D · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The problem is the people themselves. They all want something from the government and the people in power know this. They buy us with our own tax money and people just don't get it.

    3. Re:"Obama has said he welcomes a debate " by dryeo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That's last century. Now they buy the voters with borrowed money.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
  3. Stingrays by globaljustin · · Score: 4, Insightful

    this is about Stingrays... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...

    more importantly, sources and methods

    i think the Justice Dept. is trying to keep this tech out of the hands of the general public

    they can't, of course

    --
    Thank you Dave Raggett
    1. Re:Stingrays by jodycwilliams · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Perhaps as a secondary rationale. Primarily, they are trying to continue to circumvent privacy protections, warrant requirements, etc. and don't want people to know how they are doing such things so they can't put together a proper case against them.

  4. It all means nothing by fustakrakich · · Score: 4, Insightful

    98% of you will still vote democrat or republican, thinking this time things will change. You're right. Things will change... for the worse. And then you will STILL vote democrat or republican again. You have the government you asked for. And quit your bellyaching about lack of choice. I ain't listening. It's bullshit. You decide who is on the ballot.

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  5. Spidey: Stingray Detector App for Android by Bob9113 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Spidey is a stingray detector app developed by the ACLU and MIT. This page is a page to get notified when it goes live. The source code is on GitHub. It works by comparing the towers you can see at any given moment against what you've seen before and data from the OpenCellID Project.

    Who watches the watchers? I do.

    --
    Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
  6. Re:His true colors.... by RyoShin · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Oh, come now. Given our political climate, I'm sure any despot that the oligarchy put on the ballot (for either party) would be just as happy to allow or order such acts.

    It's not that you give President Obama too much blame, it's that you give him too much credit.

  7. Re:The Question To Ask... by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 4, Informative

    Are the Stingrays (which are useful as a law enforcement tool -- assuming proper warrants are obtained and appropriate restrictions adhered to) ...

    There are no proper warrants that can be acquired that can authorize the Constitutional use of a Stingray device, nor are there appropriate restrictions other than a total ban on their use. They are the very definition of blanket surveillance and can not be used in any other way. There is no way to utilize them in a warranty-compliant manner because they will always sweep up the details of everyone in the vicinity, and there is no warrant for that. They are impossible to target, therefore their use by law enforcement (or any private organization being using to whitewash their use by law enforcement) is unconstitutional and therefore illegal.

    That's black letter law, too, which is why it's being hidden. There is no sell-us-down-the-river Supreme Court decision that has ruled blanket surveillance legal, unlike, say, the assinine decision that is going to get the 11th Circuit overturned for claiming we have an expectation of privacy for our cell phone records (we do, but the Supreme Court has already ruled, in a massive fit of stupidity, that we don't because the phone company is some sort of magical "third party"). That hasn't happened (yet) with blanket surveillance, and it's hard to imagine even the Roberts court going that far around the bend.

    That said, I echo the question you and others posted. How could these devices possibly be so valuable that federal agents are conspiring with local law enforcement to hide their illegal use? I'm assuming they're just unwilling to give up their toys, any toy at all, like the petulant children they are.