Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

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

Posted by samzenpus on 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."

9 of 303 comments (clear)

  1. Someone please aware me: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    How is this not, basically, wiretapping (for which a warrant would ordinarily be necessary)?

    1. Re:Someone please aware me: by MozeeToby · · Score: 5, Interesting

      There is a qualitative difference between any one conversation being overheard and every conversation being overheard. I may not have an expectation that something I say is private, but I do have an expectation that there isn't a database of everything I've ever said in public ever.

    2. Re:Someone please aware me: by stephanruby · · Score: 4, Interesting

      How is this not, basically, wiretapping (for which a warrant would ordinarily be necessary)?

      It's not wiretapping. The FBI says so. Apparently, the FBI is saying that any private citizen can just set up their own "stingrays" to intercept phone calls as long as they're in public places, and the FBI won't prosecute (at least, not with wiretapping laws). This makes sense.

      This makes as much sense as waterboarding without consent not being a crime.

    3. Re:Someone please aware me: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If the British had had a record of who every colonist had spoken to/knew and a remarkably little bit of mathematical theory, the leaders of the Revolution would've been hanged before they ever had the idea for it.

      And this isn't like the NSA's massive illegal "record everything forever into our own private Google" shit, that's nothing but a 300x300 or so matrix of [X knows Y, true or false] of well-known colonials - the Wired article even has it downloadable for people's portable analytical engines. In fact Wired's article was explicitly written to knock down the "Oh, it's just harmless metadata" lie.

  2. Where is the FCC? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Interfering with the orderly operation of vital infrastructure would be a crime if done by an ordinary person.

    Why can the the police get away with it, without any special permission.
     

  3. Re:Have they ever? by geekmux · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Has any law enforcement agency ever maintained that they need a warrant for anything?

    Well, traditionally not the ones that want to have any of that evidence actually be accepted in a courtroom.

    Unfortunately, old-fashioned traditions like due process are illegal now.

    They've been automatically classified as obstructing justice in the war against terror, hence the now-accepted norm of shoving Rights up your ass sideways.

  4. Out 'em: SnoopSnitch + Google maps by dbc · · Score: 5, Interesting

    A StingRay detector for some rooted Androids exists: http://www.tomsguide.com/us/an...

    So, I could see crowdsourcing StingRay mapping. Rooted Android + SnoopSnitch + IOIO board + interface application + Google maps + web site. If enough snoops were deployed, you could have a real time map of all StingRays in operation.

  5. Re:Criminals Don't Have Privacy Interests by serviscope_minor · · Score: 3, Interesting

    And well they might. The law is now so vast and complex that you're almost certainly a felon who hasn't been caught yet.

    --
    SJW n. One who posts facts.
  6. Re:The wrong debates. by tipo159 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I get into the "Life in a Police State" meme as much as the next guy, but if you think that this stuff started after 9/11 or any other recent event, I suggest that you study more history of this country.

    The FBI has been ignoring the 4th Amendment and using available technology to do so since the organization was created. Before that, the Feds would contract with detective agencies, like Pinkerton, that would often ignore the 4th Amendment (as well as others). Local law enforcement have been ignoring it and, when caught violating it, retroactively making up enough story (depending on how friendly the local judiciary is) to artificially demonstrate compliance for even longer.

    The person who wrote "the rot started in 1787" is correct. People with authority often (usually?) lose sight of what they are defending and need to be reminded of it. This can take the form of new laws or lawsuits or civil action or something else.

    But the real problem is that, on the whole, the people of this country only really care about the particular rights that they wish to exercise when they want to exercise them and otherwise don't give a damn (or, to be more polite about it, are too busy living their lives to be concerned).