FBI Says Search Warrants Not Needed To Use "Stingrays" In Public Places

Posted by samzenpus on Tuesday January 6, 2015 @05:28AM from the all-the-better-to-hear-you-with dept.

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."

1 of 303 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Expectations of privacy by sjbe · 2015-01-06 06:00 · Score: 5, Informative

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.