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."

31 of 94 comments (clear)

  1. Secrets by __aabppq7737 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Secret precedents defined in secret courts covering secret laws on secret programs uncovering more secrets... Something's phishy here...

    1. Re: Secrets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:Secrets by TheCarp · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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"
    3. Re:Secrets by geekmux · · Score: 2

      Secret precedents defined in secret courts covering secret laws on secret programs uncovering more secrets... Something's phishy here...

      Would it make you feel better if you used the word proprietary here instead?

      A few thousand companies don't seem to mind...after all, how do you think they keep their secrets...

    4. Re:Secrets by thaylin · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.
    5. Re:Secrets by meta-monkey · · Score: 5, Funny

      To be fair, the boogeyman is scary as shit, and I fully support the War on The Boogeyman. Every American deserves to be safe from what's under their bed and/or in their closet, and blankets can't protect you all the time.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    6. Re: Secrets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Apparently our government disagrees regarding blankets keeping you safe. Their blanket surveilance IS their security blanket.

    7. Re:Secrets by ATMAvatar · · Score: 2

      Clearly, the only solution to keep us safe from the ever-looming Boogeyman threat is to place a camera in every bedroom.

      --
      "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
    8. Re: Secrets by geekmux · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    9. Re: Secrets by Frobnicator · · Score: 3

      It's called discovery! And it's required under the law. You can't hide evidence or its provenance from the defense!!!

      In theory that is true.

      In practice, many people cannot afford an extensive legal fight and settle quickly. Those who do actually go through the courts --- only about 3% in the federal system --- often learn during discovery that the initial reports came by anonymous sources.

      Anonymous sources are tricky. A single anonymous source is not considered reliable enough to issue a warrant, but is reliable enough to investigate. Two different anonymous sources can be enough to meet probable cause (People v. Coulombe (2001)).

      So as has been documented several times, one government agency, such as the NSA, will observe some illegal behavior but they are not allowed to prosecute. If the information is traced back to them during discovery then the unlawful search or unusable information would be dropped, so they give an anonymous tip to local law enforcement, reporting all the details they are able. Local law enforcement gets the anonymous tip, investigates, finds exactly what the tip said was there, and arrests them all. When questioned about their sources, law enforcement can pull out the records of an anonymous tip, mention that the reporter refused to give their name and that is why they investigated.

      It isn't always that the source itself is unlawful. There are many types of lawful recordings and intercepts but during the course of the investigation they hear about other items. Due to the scope of their work they may be legally forbidden from following those other leads.

      The term is "parallel construction". Usually the local police either are unaware that the report came from another agency or unlawful search, or they suspect it did but keep their mouths shut. With a successful parallel construction there is no evidence to be uncovered during discovery. The person making the report is careful to leave no evidence connecting their report (which would taint the entire case) that the local officers could discover.

      Several cases have been several cases recently where officers were caught attempting to use parallel construction (and failing at it) when data came from these devices.

      --
      //TODO: Think of witty sig statement
    10. Re: Secrets by geekmux · · Score: 2

      > Harris forces it's gov customers to sign an NDA that essentially says they're not customers of Harris.

      I take extreme issue with your use of the word "Force".

      A person "Forced" to do something cannot be considered responsible for his actions, so if they are being "forced" that is a pretty serious accusation. Unless you have evidence of some manner of blackmail or threat, then I don't see how it can be applied.

      They always had the option of backing out and not buying the equipment. Nobody was forced, they were accomplices.

      Citizens were forced in front of a judge to spend thousands of dollars to defend themselves against accusations and information gathered illegally, and you're worried about my verbiage?

      Speaking of serious accusations, perhaps you should take a step back here and not focus on the petty bullshit. I agree, there's a lot of force being used here, but a fucking thesaurus isn't the damn answer to government abuse.

  2. [redactd] by syn3rg · · Score: 4, Funny

    [redacted] post

    --
    The contents of this message have been doubly encrypted by ROT13
  3. wtf by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "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!!!

    1. Re:wtf by abelenky17 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Totally.

      Does the prosecution not have a legal duty to turn over potentially excuplatory evidence??

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E...

      "In many countries, including the United States, police and prosecutors are required to disclose to the defendant exculpatory evidence they possess before the defendant enters a plea (guilty or not guilty)."

    2. Re:wtf by Woeful+Countenance · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "... don't want to reveal information that would give new ammunition to defense lawyers ..."

      Should be "... don't want to reveal information that would allow citizens to exercise their civil rights."

    3. Re:wtf by swb · · Score: 3, Insightful

      1) Cops gather evidence via unconstitutional means.
      2) Consulting attorney tells them what evidence is needed to get a conviction via constitutional means
      3) Cops use unconstitutional evidence as a roadmap to gather constitutional evidence
      4) Cops present case with just constitutionally gathered evidence to prosecutor, don't share unconstitutional evidence with prosecutor
      5) Prosecutor in the clear, has no knowledge of unconstitutionally gathered evidence and nothing to share with defense regarding unconstitutional evidence gathering

      I believe the general term is parallel construction.

  4. Withholding evidence? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "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?

    1. Re:Withholding evidence? by thaylin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It would not exonerate their clients, but it may get them off because the law broke the law to get them down. It will not remove mean they did not commit the crime, just that 2 wrongs dont make a right.

      --
      When you cant win, ad hominem.
    2. Re: Withholding evidence? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Since this (getting off on a technicality) is a valid tactic for many officials caught (sometimes literally) with their pants down, why shouldn't it work for everybody? Improperly gathered evidence is improperly gathered evidence.

    3. Re:Withholding evidence? by dcollins117 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It would not exonerate their clients, but it may get them off because the law broke the law to get them down.

      If law officers are breaking the law, then what is the difference between them and criminals?

  5. In other words ... by gstoddart · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "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."

    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.
    1. Re:In other words ... by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 4, Insightful

      >> 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

      I didn't get this either - shouldn't this normally be part of the discovery process?
      (Remember that scene in My Cousin Vinny where Vinny discovers...er...discovery?)

    2. Re:In other words ... by gstoddart · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Basically law enforcement doesn't want to have to abide by the law. They want to be able to use any tool they can find, without oversight, and they don't want it challenged in courts.

      Basically they want a blank check to do anything they want.

      They want to be able to say "your honor, he's guilty because we say he's guilty, and pay no attention to the evidence we're hiding about how we arrived at this conclusion".

      Needing warrants and adhering to the law has apparently become too inconvenient. Because the police are either corrupt, lazy, or incompetent.

      But, we already knew that.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    3. Re:In other words ... by geekmux · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "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."

      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...

      Uh, you forgot about the methods in which they tell you to fuck the hell off...which would include you standing there with your attorney shelling out a few thousand dollars to defend what should have been thrown out in the first place.

      Do NOT underestimate the design of the current system and it's ability to line the pockets of someone, no matter how illegitimate the charge.

      In my opinion, THIS is the larger crime here, as the cost to defend ones self starts to easily escape what the average person can afford.

      In the end, this essentially means that the establishment doesn't need to defend any action, legal or otherwise.

      And they fucking know it.

  6. Parallel construction? No, just hide the evidence! by pla · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?

  7. I think we all know "how it works" by ugen · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  8. Time for indictments by Loki_1929 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "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."
  9. perhaps a refreshing perspective can help by nimbius · · Score: 4, Funny

    As a member of the law enforcement community I believe i can shed light on exactly what stingray is, and why we use it. American citizens are awful, vile creatures and you dont truly understand what theyre capable of until youve dealt with their "freedoms." In the US we routinely deal with conditions where Americans have the horrible ability to speak out against their government without fear of any reprisal. Police are routinely restrained in their duty. Criminal americans (which is all of them really) will even stage massive protests against totally accidental deaths of horrible criminals. Law Enforcement is just here to protect and serve, and we do it with tazer tickles and freedom massages from our fun time riot batons.

    The stingray helps us learn what horrors the evil american has in store for us, so that we can dial in the proper caliber on our learning pistols and protect all that is good and wholesome about starbucks and jesus. We have to use super secret courts because evil americans sometimes demand to know all our plans to protect freedom (which they hate.)

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
  10. Re:Parallel construction? No, just hide the eviden by pla · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  11. What this should mean to us... by Lab+Rat+Jason · · Score: 2

    What I'm hearing when I read this, is that cell phone technology has some kind of weakness so severe, that just a whiff of the exploit will set experts on the obvious path to uncovering it... thus to leak any information at all will provide security researchers with everything they need to figure it out and fix it. Once that is done, the value of stingray devices will be moot. Or in other words... c'mon security researchers, you're so damn close the government can taste it!

    --
    Which has more power: the hammer, or the anvil?
  12. Illegal in Washington State under our Constitution by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 2

    Period.

    Same thing goes for GPS tracking.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --