Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Before Using StingRays, Police Must Sign NDA With FBI

Posted by samzenpus on from the the-first-rule-of-tracking-club dept.

v3rgEz writes Advanced cell phone tracking devices known as StingRays allow police nationwide to home in on suspects and to log individuals present at a given location. But before acquiring a StingRay, state and local police must sign a nondisclosure agreement with the FBI, according to documents released via a MuckRock FOIA request. As Shawn Musgrave reports, it's an unusual setup arrangement for two public agencies to swear each other to secrecy, but such maneuvers are becoming more common.

11 of 124 comments (clear)

  1. Isn't mutual secrecy just implied? by swb · · Score: 5, Informative

    Of course we won't arrest you for drunk driving or domestic assault Mr. FBI, just like you won't arrest us for violating civil rights or using this highfalutin' cell phone spy gizmo.

  2. More common, and possibly unconstitutional... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Because if they don't get a warrant, and don't tell the judge how they acquired the evidence, it's still OK, right?

    1. Re:More common, and possibly unconstitutional... by mythosaz · · Score: 5, Informative

      Nah, now that we've listened in on your phone calls, we'll begin our process of Parallel Construction.

      Thanks for making the calls though :)

    2. Re: More common, and possibly unconstitutional... by TheCarp · · Score: 4, Interesting

      No, that would imply republicans when the reality is, this is really a bipartisan screwing. The Democrats typically move in lockstep with the republicans when it comes to their shared belief that us peons don't even deserve the truth about what they are doing, never mind any rights to redress of actual grievance.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    3. Re:More common, and possibly unconstitutional... by NormalVisual · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Never happen. A previous poster alluded to parallel construction - what will happen is the suspect's calls will be listened to, then another agency will be given a time, location, and a car to look for. The suspect's car will get pulled over for failure to use a turn signal or some such, at which time a dog will be brought in, "alert" on the car, and the suspect will be arrested. These guys *know* that Stingray-gathered evidence won't hold up since the device itself can't be examined, and that operating them is contrary to FCC regulations to begin with. They can't allow any information gathered from them to be introduced into court, so parallel construction neatly solves all of their problems.

      --
      Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
    4. Re:More common, and possibly unconstitutional... by BringsApples · · Score: 3, Insightful

      In reality, it's not so different from what would be captured via a wiretap. All this does is circumvents the need for a warrant.

      Not really. This is a silly device that will capture smart phone location and what it's doing. So if you and your drug cartel buddies want to have a secret meeting, you'll have to leave your cell at the house. Or maybe pay someone to carry your phone for you while you go to the meeting. Or maybe you could just turn your phone off when you don't want to be tracked.

      On the other hand, if you want to kidnap a person, you'll need to get rid of their cell, fast. Maybe toss it in someone's backyard/shed that you don't like. Also, just wait till one of these things hits the streets, and it's used against law enforcement agents.

      Anyone that wants a single go-to for criminal activity, or fighting crime, will have to eventually admit that they're doing it wrong, as anything that requires the use of one weapon, can easily be defeated with a few smaller actions, or inaction.

      --
      Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.
  3. read it wrong by excelsior_gr · · Score: 3, Funny

    I read the title as "sign DNA" rather than "sign NDA". I got excited thinking about a deal signed in blood...

  4. -1 Paywall by Luthair · · Score: 3, Informative

    NT

  5. Re:What if they break the NDA? by Charliemopps · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Who goes to jail? Everyone who signed the NDA?

    Edward Snowden. He's also responsible for all future acts of Terrorism, wars, and the color Beige.

  6. Re:United States of Amerika by Mashiki · · Score: 3, Informative

    If the only thing you can get out of that is "godwin" you need to update yourself on the topic. That is, fascism always marches towards disarming a population in order to further it's own agenda. A disarmed population is a cowed population.

    --
    Om, nomnomnom...
  7. Re:United States of Amerika by Mashiki · · Score: 3, Informative

    I can only hope. From your fingers to God's eyes.

    Oh noes...guns. So we've got guns in Canada, and guess what? We don't have the murder problem, what you have in the US in a culture problem. Or rather a culture problem with sections of your society, should I just point out the obvious? Well what the hell I've got karma to burn. If you remove black gun related crime guess where the US would sit in terms of gun violence? Not much higher than most countries in Europe. You can bury your heads in the sand, scream "zomg racist" all you want and the longer you continue to do so, the longer the problem remains unresolved. It's the same in Canada with drinking and driving, and aggravated assault. The vast majority of these cases resolve around two groups: Jamaicans and Natives. With Jamaicans it's mainly around the drug trade, especially hard drugs and Natives it's DUI, and violent altercations while intoxicated. That's why they're the two most represented minority clases in our prisons.

    I'm sure someone will trot out the "but countries that have banned guns..." yes indeed, they have pretty much eliminated gun violence. Of course criminals moved onto knives, bats, and other things. Which is why in a place like the UK if you're under 18 you can't buy a knife easily, and why assault with a weapon is the most commonly laid charge with "blunt force, or lacerations" being the primary indicator in cases of death or AS.

    I'm sure someone with an agenda will start modding this into oblivion, and I say "disprove it." The stats are out there, you can see them yourself on wikipedia and can order them under FOIA/Open Access in various countries. You don't like it? Tough, it's reality. You want it changed, fix the problem.

    --
    Om, nomnomnom...