Slashdot Mirror
FBI Says Search Warrants Not Needed To Use "Stingrays" In Public Places
schwit1 writes The Federal Bureau of Investigation is taking the position that court warrants are not required when deploying cell-site simulators in public places. Nicknamed "stingrays," the devices are decoy cell towers that capture locations and identities of mobile phone users and can intercept calls and texts. The FBI made its position known during private briefings with staff members of Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa). In response, the two lawmakers wrote Attorney General Eric Holder and Homeland Security chief Jeh Johnson, maintaining they were "concerned about whether the FBI and other law enforcement agencies have adequately considered the privacy interests" of Americans. According to the letter, which was released last week: "For example, we understand that the FBI's new policy requires FBI agents to obtain a search warrant whenever a cell-site simulator is used as part of a FBI investigation or operation, unless one of several exceptions apply, including (among others): (1) cases that pose an imminent danger to public safety, (2) cases that involve a fugitive, or (3) cases in which the technology is used in public places or other locations at which the FBI deems there is no reasonable expectation of privacy."
The FBI doesnt get to make that decision, A Judge or congress will
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
So if they tap a wire at the curb, it's a public place, and no warant is required?
So I guess it's OK for me to set up and run a Stingray-type device on private property near FBI/DoJ/DHS/TLA buildings and facilities and/or their individual personnels' home residences then, right?
Be careful what you wish for FBI/DoJ, you just may get it.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
Because when you are in a public place you have no right to the expectation of privacy
Cellphone signals do not stop conveniently at the walls of your dwelling. How do you propose they sort out which signals are only coming from a public location? (Hint: they cannot)
Whether a communication goes over a physical wire or via the airwaves should have zero legal bearing regarding whether a warrant is needed. The police still need a warrant to tap my phone calls from work. Why should wireless be subject to different rules merely because it isn't tied to a specific physical location?
If you are walking and talking down the sidewalk in town other people are able to hear your side of the conversation.
And the police are welcome to listen in to what I say out loud in public. That doesn't mean they are automatically granted the right to hear both sides of the conversation. For that they need a warrant. The party on the other end of the conversation has rights too.
You will not find any federal government agencies with licenses with the FCC. Contrary to what most people think, the FCC does not control spectrum allocation in the U.S., the National Telecommunications and information administration (NTIA) does. All federal government agencies , including the FCC, is allocated the spectrum they manage by NTIA.
Nazi is literally shorthand for "National Socialism," or "Nationalsozialismus" in German.
In the English language of the late 18th century, the 4th amendment to the US Constitution is an explicit right to privacy:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
In the era, "effects" meant "possessions". Indeed, that meaning is sometimes still used, for example "personal effects".
Also, in that era, "papers" was the common term for documents, because documents were "stored" on paper, which, in turn, was often stored in filing boxes or cabinets. The fact that documents are now more often stored and sent electronically should not diminish or block them from 4th amendment protections.
As for bulk data collection, back then, they had a very limited - compared to now - concept of that. They did not (nor could they reasonably have) foreseen anything remotely like the what is possible now. But the 4th amendment is still applicable even though the wording is outdated.
(I will also mention the 9th amendment: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.)
Human nature being what it is, people, including law enforcement, will, when it suits the purpose at hand, choose to narrow or widen their interpretation of the constitution (and other laws). Thus, lawyers will continue to endlessly argue over the meaning of each word, letter, punctuation mark, etc, of the constitution (and other laws).
Don't try to out wierd me, three-eyes. I get stranger things than you, free with my breakfast cereal. --Zaphod Beeblebr