Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

US Gov't Will Reveal More About Its Secret Cellphone Tracking Devices

Posted by Soulskill on from the they-also-say-you-should-call-your-mom-more dept.

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."

9 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 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.
    3. 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. 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 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. 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.

  4. 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.