Slashdot Mirror
US Gov't Will Reveal More About Its Secret Cellphone Tracking Devices
An anonymous reader writes: The U.S. Department of Justice has launched a major review of how law enforcement around the country uses cellphone tracking technology, and they will also begin sharing more information about how it works. So-called "Stingray" devices have been in the news a lot recently, as privacy activists try to piece together how they're used. Police and federal agencies have been notably resistant to sharing how they use this tool, even after we learned that they often don't bother with warrants and may have been drastically overusing it. Still, they're not going to reveal everything about the Stingrays: "Officials said they don't want to reveal so much that it gives criminals clues about how to defeat the devices. Law-enforcement officials also don't want to reveal information that would give new ammunition to defense lawyers in prosecutions where warrants weren't used, according to officials involved in the discussions."
"also don't want to reveal information that would give new ammunition to defense lawyers in prosecutions where warrants weren't used" then they should have gotten an arrest warrant to begin with!!!
"that would give new ammunition to defense lawyers in prosecutions where warrants weren't used"
So they want to deny information to the defense attorneys that could exonerate their clients? Isn't that a little like a prosecutor withholding information regarding a witness that claims to have seen another person committing the crime? Call me crazy but isn't the justice system is supposed to be open and fair, not closed and selective?
If we reveal the extent to which we're actually breaking the law, the lawyers might be able to argue that by bypassing the law the shit we've done is in admissible in court.
And, once again, the police have decided it's far more convenient if they can simply lie or conceal what they actually do, so they don't have to be under scrutiny.
Sorry, but no. Either you use this technology legally, with warrants as legally required .. or you fuck the hell off and don't use it.
This is no better than the National Police Perjury Program best known as parallel construction -- in which we encourage law enforcement to lie about how they did things to deny you a valid legal defense.
If this is what the police want, fuck 'em. When the police no longer believe the law applies to them, they've become a whole new problem.
Complaining that defense lawyers being able to challenge an illegal wire tap means law enforcement is either corrupt or incompetent.
Lying bastards.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Law-enforcement officials also don't want to reveal information that would give new ammunition to defense lawyers in prosecutions where warrants weren't used, according to officials involved in the discussions.
Un-fucking-believable - Or rather, sadly all too believable.
That one statement right there almost completely expresses everything wrong with modern American legal system.
Mr. Prosecutor, I would point out that if you would so willingly abandon the core principles of our legal system - The ideas of innocent until proven guilty and having the right to face your accuser in court - Why shouldn't we go back to vigilante mob justice and tar-and-feather your worthless ass for breach of public trust?
No, he expects the devices used on American citizens to operate within the laws that govern both us and the government. As do I. As do many others. These devices and their users actively subvert the laws protecting our right to privacy as well as our right to fair trial. Their secret nature is exactly the objection as it does more harm to our freedom than terrorists ever have. Idiot.
I suppose you expect we should all be as eager as you to give up all but the pretense of privacy because the bogeyman makes you piss your pants with fear?
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
There technology behind these intercepts is not particularly complex, so I don't think there is a significant need to explain "how it works". The fact that they are trying to "share" information that is already quite clear to all interested parties, suggests that this is a PR effort for the public, rather than an attempt to modify law enforcement practices in earnest.
Wait you failed to understand what he was talking about and you called him the idiot? It is fairly basic, all laws should be easy to understand and presented to all citizens. If you do not know what a law is how can you know if you are breaking a law or not?
When you cant win, ad hominem.
"Law-enforcement officials also don't want to reveal information that would give new ammunition to defense lawyers in prosecutions where warrants weren't used, according to officials involved in the discussions."
Find those officials and indict them. Get them to roll on others involved, get them to roll, so on and so forth until you have everyone from prosecutors to judges to field agents to police officers to administrators to politicians; indict the lot of them for a criminal conspiracy to violate the civil rights of thousands - if not millions - of Americans. Indict the manufacturer too and open all of them to civil suits by everyone involved. In fact, just launch one on behalf of everyone affected.
Put a few thousand people in prison, bankrupt manufacturers, towns, cities, police departments, and individuals, and watch this kind of shit stop real quick. Such action would force everyone else to very careful examine how they treat the civil rights of both suspects and regular people who might get caught up in the dragnet. It would demonstrate real and lasting consequences for knowingly violating the legal rights of the people. It would bring us closer to a more just and perfect union.
Or we could just quietly sweep it under the rug and unwind the most untenable abuses while making some fairly innocuous details available to the public in the name of transparency. I'm sure that'll also work.
-- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
The right to face your accusers in court is irrelevant here. They don't present Stingray-obtained evidence in court, just the old-fashioned stuff it led them to.
"Your accuser" doesn't just mean the testimony and evidence against you - How and Why they collected evidence can matter more than that evidence itself.
Just think how much easier it would make police work if they could randomly barge into your house and search for criminal activity without a warrant... Or if they could "find" your DNA at a crime scene by bringing you there after-the-fact to "ask some questions" and you "just happen" to trip and bleed on the scene (but don't worry, an anonymous phonecall assured them you did it).
We have rules in place for a reason. We either always follow them, or they mean nothing.
What does that have to do with our government's use of blanket surveilance of its citizens in violation of privacy and fair trial laws? You're either trolling or you have the mentality of a twelve year old.
Yes, because every product our government buys from a corporation they own the source code and fully understand how it works from a technical perspective, which of course is to also suggest they are allowed to.
Harris forces it's gov customers to sign an NDA that essentially says they're not customers of Harris. There's a hell of a way to sell your product. I'm guessing Barbara Streisand is in charge of marketing.
Tell you what, how about we just wait for them to replace the statement "don't want to reveal" to "proprietary and confidential". I'm sure that will satisfy the masses as a legitimized business excuse justified by capitalism.