Slashdot Mirror
When It Comes To Spy Gear, Many Police Ignore Public Records Laws
v3rgEz writes What should take precedence: State public records laws, or contractual agreements between local police, the FBI, and the privately owned Harris Corporation? That's the question being played out across the country, as agencies are strongly divided on releasing much information, if any, on how they're using Stingray technology to collect and monitor phone metadata without judicial oversight.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
"I say we take off, nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."
Laws are for the little people.
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
They don't want us to be able to keep anything at all secret. And they want to keep all their stuff secret. These incentives are natural enough, since knowledge is power.
Appeals to fairness or reason will have no impact whatsoever. Actual political force is the only way to make them do what they should.
How does it feel? A lot of people love it. Particularly bootlicking authoritarians who stick up for the police no matter what. You see illogical, ignorant arguments like "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear!", "The police have hard jobs, so you must forgive them!", "They should've complied, and then the police wouldn't have used excessive force against them! It's all their fault that the police chose to use an unnecessary amount of force!", "Safety is more important than everyone's freedoms or the constitution, so even if these sweeping powers lead to abuses, I'm all for it as long as they keep us safe.", "A grand majority of police are good guys! Ignore all the so-called 'good cops' who don't take steps to stop the bad ones, and even participate in unconstitutional and unethical activities."
The excuses are truly endless.
there, fixed that for you, timothy.
It's not unreasonable to expect the police to respect the law.
When It Comes [anything], [most] Police Ignore Public [] Laws.
There, I fixed that for you. Welcome to the land of the free, equal justice under the law and all that meaningless jazz.
People will always be human. I've got a few friends who are cops myself and they've told me stories of busting people for looking at them cross, and letting off complete dipshits who almost caused horrible accidents. I suppose if laws were just, Apple wouldn't even exist today after all the underhanded things Jobs did for his career and company..... so chew on that the next time you want lawbringers to follow the book to the exact letter.
This is real life - not Law & Order. The prosecutor can do little if he alienates the police and feds. To that end his ambition will ALWAYS trump the law or his oath.
I work at a government agency and this is standard procedure for any request that potentially might embarrass the agency, or even be difficult to turn up. If you ignore a request somebody has to have the resources to sue you in order to force you to produce the requested documents, and even then there's no real penalty. Why not ignore by default?
Try the US Constitution...
So,to my fellow Americans, how does living in a police state feel?
We won't know until the Cubs win the World Series.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
The linked to article, written by the organization that's trying to get the records, is more fair than the Slashdot summary. If you read the actual article, you'll see that it's not a case of policy "ignoring public records laws". In a lot of the cases, the states are claiming that Stingray documents fall under the exceptions IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS LAWS. That's not "ignoring the law." If the requesting party appeals, they still have to convince a judge that that's the correct interpretation of the law. In the states where the documents don't potentially fall under such an exception, they still have a *contract* with the federal government that requires them to allow the federal government to exhaust their own legal options before releasing the data. The Contract Clause "No state shall .... pass any ... Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts" combined with the Supremacy Clause (which basically says that the constitution and federal laws made in accordance with it are the law of the land, "anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.") give the federal government a very good chance of preventing disclosure by taking the case to a federal court. The rule of law doesn't mean that the government doesn't have any powers or that all legal disputes are settled the way YOU want them to. Everything about this situation is a perfect example of the rule of law working exactly as it should. There's a disagreement, conflicting contracts and laws, and legal ambiguity, so the parties will have to GO TO COURT to sort it all out.
Society and technology have changed drastically over a couple hundred years. It's not cut and dry, as much as you want to believe it is. Also, some loss of freedom is considered acceptable. Obviously, this wasn't lost on the founding fathers either.
The question comes down to where to draw the line. How should the laws be written/interpreted when taking into account modern society? I'd be one of these "bootlickers" because my opinion doesn't match up to yours (in principal, not in this particular case. Fuck stingrays and all the BS involved). You and others like you have the right to defend your freedoms as you see they should be implemented, just as much as those "bootlickers" have the right to defend their side.
police support the creation and advancement of police states. Also in other news, water is wet.
Nothing to see here folks.
The issue is not with the police, which more often than not support doing away with any pesky human rights and oversight which make it "harder" for them to do their jobs, but with the cowardly sheeple who empower them by happily give up their freedom every time some they hear someone say boo.
Yes terrorism is horrible, but lots of other risks in life are much more deadly, including gun culture, obesity and processed foods industry, poverty, insufficient vaccination and medical treatment, etc. And yet very little is done to address these other issues since steeples don't consider them as scary.
Strange that we were able to defeat the Nazi horrors without having to resort to creating our own police states, in which every citizen is monitored and they activity permanently archived.
The law is only applied to whoever the police don't like.
Society and technology have changed drastically over a couple hundred years. It's not cut and dry, as much as you want to believe it is.
It is cut and dry. "The land of the free and the home of the brave" would not surrender our fundamental liberties for safety.
The constitution does not change just because technology changes. It is general for a reason. If you want to change it, you must amend it. Our rights are not invalid just because of some technological innovations.
And what the hell are you talking about? Are you one of those police bootlickers that sticks up for the police no matter what? If not, why did you take issue with that specific post? "Nothing to hide, nothing to fear" and all the other common excuses are illogical nonsense. Trying to defend cops who abuse their powers and violate the constitution is something bootlicking authoritarians do. Do you take issue with that?
Also, some loss of freedom is considered acceptable.
That depends on how you define "freedom." Your statement is far too vague for me to agree or disagree with it.
just as much as those "bootlickers" have the right to defend their side.
Those bootlickers are trying to get government thugs to infringe upon our fundamental liberties and ignore the constitution. If they were merely speaking and doing nothing else, then fine, but they do not have the right to take away my rights in their quest for perfect safety.
You can easily heed both the manufacturer's conditions as well as the Constitution by not switching the damn illegal device on ever. It is not designed for lawful use, it is not suitable for lawful use, so if you have been as stupid to buy it, it stays off.
And the manufacturer can't complain. And neither can the citizens. The accountants might be annoyed at wasted money, but it turns out that most of these things are bought with money that is not accounted for, like money stolen via "civil forfeiture".
The police do not have to obey the law. The president does not have to obey the law. I do not have to obey the law either. Up Up with anarchy.
The citizens of the United States face many enemies who wish to do them irreparable harm. Most of them are in congress, the white house, the court system, and on the television.
Tell a jury that the Stingray turns on every phone in the area and lets the police listen to everyone.
The cops get to listen in on all the private conversations that happen in the home. That is why they do no t want to disclose what it can do.
Let Harris demonstrate the limitations. Security through Obscurity does not work.
Unless they jury wants everyone to listen in to all the conversations.
A contract which violates the law is not a contract.
The question is if hiding these tools violates the public records law.
The Boston police say no, because they are necessary to protect the public.
The requester likely thinks otherwise.
To sort it out, the decision needs to go through the administrative appeals process and then the courts.
The fundamental question may be if carrying a personal locator beacon (IE cell phone) removes an expectation of privacy.
Certainly, the secrecy of communications acts would make one expect it would not.
The pen register rulings, maybe yes.
If the cell phone is deemed necessary for daily life, then for sure not.
The technology may be (will likely be?) obsolete before this is sorted out.
It seems to me that getting and releasing this data requires a hack of the Harris Corporation.
... they are small potatoes, local targets whose impact is extermely limited in scope.
... at least pick a target that will do some good.
And that it would do a whole lot more social good than the "high school quarterback rapist of the week" that tends to be their high profile targets. While those scumbags are good targets, and certainly deserve to be brought to justice when there is some sort of cover-up or injustice involved, in the end
The Harris Corporation is a partner in the systematic stripping of rights of all citizens by it's so called protectors. THAT's data that needs to be free. Find it, steal it, release it into the world so that apps can be developed which can combat it. If you want to be a SJW
Reason why there is hope for the future generation #364:
"I wish my grass was emo so it could cut itself."
I take issue with fucking idiots that can't stand other people have differing opinions on where the lines should be drawn between security and freedom. Because YES, some compromises had to be drawn. They were drawn from the very beginning. Also, they have to be examined and determined how they fit in a modern technically advanced world. Believe it or not, cell phones(or whatever other advancement comes up) didn't exist when they were first written. It's all fine and dandy to believe things should be one way and want them to be that way. It's another to believe someone else is inferior because they have a fucking difference of opinion.
Free Market. By default the private corporation (job creators) should be able to set the terms. The police work for the people. The laws are by the people. Corporations are people. See that? We get our jobs, our small government, and everyone's happy.
Now, let's get on with this witch . . .
Does anyone have a duck?
I mean, it's not absurd to raise it, but it's pretty absurd that's it's considered in any way debatable. I mean, if it was a question between the law, and a contract I made with an arbitrary third party which allowed me to kill people with impunity, which has more legal power? The law, of course. By the nature of contract law, you cannot make something which is otherwise illegal legal, just because you have a contract which allows you to do it.
In the same way, the government spying on people in unconstitutional, regardless of whatever BS contracts they might make with each other and/or third parties. Duh. That's not going to stop anyone in the government from ignoring the law or human rights, of course, but it's absurd that there's any question of the technical legality.
Go fuck yourself, you goddamn sniveling coward.
The freedoms enumerated by the Bill of Rights are absolute and not up for debate. You and the other authoritarian bootlickers can either accept them, or you can GTFO to North Korea where the government suits your preferences.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
because they are people and have more money and of course money is free speech protected by the 1st amendment and the more more free speech you can buy through our politicians the more protection you have.
I'm not the fucking twat that can't understand that shit is fucking different now than it was back then. That the whole fucking world and the way we interact in it is fucking different. So, kindly do yourself a favor and get over yourself. People have different fucking opinions. It's a fact of fucking life. The liberties you personally believe in and how you view they should be interpreted are not set in fucking stone. As a society it is up to us to decide if/when/what should change. It's not only up to you and your fucking narrow mindedness.
How dare those cops ignore our sacrosanct lawz??!!11
This may come as a surprise to you, but if a law the people don't want in the first place is unenforced, the people don't mind. OTOH, illegal / unconstitutional acts committed against the people by law enforcement are very much frowned upon by the populace at large.
To put it differently, if you're toking up in your back yard and I find a cop didn't bust you, I could care less. OTOH, if I find you're being illegally monitored I'm liable to take offense, as it could just as easily happen / be happening to me.
While you have a point, it looks much better on paper than in the real world.
Joe: I demand my freedom!
Agent001: Here, eat this.
Joe: What is it?
Agent001: bacon
Joe: HEY! It's paper printed with the Bill of R......
[Agent001 laughing hysterically as the cell door closes]
No, the world is not fucking different! The world has never been fucking different! All that happened was that a few assholes got lucky on 9/11 and then dumbasses like you shit themselves and then let Bush et al. turn the US into a goddamn fascist police state! Being a dumbass is one thing, but being a dumbass in a way that screws over everybody else is not acceptable.
YOU LET THE TERRORISTS WIN, YOU GODDAMN MORON!
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
No, the bootlickers do not have the right to defend their side. Their is no defense for their side. If the federal government is not authorized to do something than doing so is illegal. If some bootlicker thinks the government needs additional power then they need to AMED ThE FUCKING CONSTITUTION. Until they do they need to obey the damn law.
Wow..... you're a fucking moron. I mean, a really big fucking moron. How you do you actually function(or do you?) as a member of society? I'm pretty sure the founding fathers didn't have internet, cell phones, satellites, etc. So, yes. Shit is fucking different now. Pre-existing laws just have no way of taking into account modern technology. I keep having to repeat myself, but you and others don't seem to grasp it. How the laws are interpreted when it comes to modern technology isn't cut and dry. Your opinion, is your opinion. Other people's opinion, is there opinion. Those people have EVERY right to believe as they do, without assholes like you chewing them out. It isn't until you get a consensus on those opinions, that you have any standing on what should and should not be. So, take your sanctimonious attitude and shove it up your ass... You might also want to pull the stick out while you're at it. And for the record, I'm all for maintaining our supposed freedoms. I'm just tired of fucking pricks like you thinking your opinion is the only one that matters.
You can insult me all you like, and live in denial all you like. It doesn't change the fact that you're a sniveling, cowardly, traitorous, authoritarian bootlicker who is too goddamn stupid to realize that you can't preserve freedom by destroying it.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
So, somehow.. my standing up for other peoples right to have an opinion means I'm the traitorous coward? Obviously anything you say at this point is complete BS. Enjoy your hypocrisy.