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."
Remember, this is the USSA. Unless you are a millionaire or a big corporation, there's no limit to the abuses police can commit against you (and get away with it,of course).
So,to my fellow Americans, how does living in a police state feel?
Signed,
A European
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.
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.
All kinds of laws are being ignored by LEOs. Federal drug laws are ignored by LEOs in states with legalized marijuana. Immigration laws are ignored in sanctuary states and cities. Ordinarily there isn't much concern for all those laws when they're ignored. But let a cop fail to do the surveillance paperwork and all the sudden we're supposed to be apoplectic with outrage. How dare those cops ignore our sacrosanct lawz??!!11
Makes me laugh.
Not really.
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...
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.
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.
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."
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.
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.
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]