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."

20 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 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.
    4. 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.
  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."

  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 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.

    2. 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. 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."
  8. 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.
  9. 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.