Slashdot Mirror


In Baltimore and Elsewhere, Police Use Stingrays For Petty Crimes

USA Today reports on the widespread use of stingray technology by police to track down even petty criminals and witnesses, as well as their equally widespread reluctance to disclose that use. The article focuses mostly on the city of Baltimore; by cross-checking court records against a surveillance log from the city’s Advanced Technical Team, the USA Today reporters were able to determine at least several hundred cases in which phony ("simulated") cell phone towers were used to snoop traffic. In court, though, and even in the information that the police department provides to the city's prosecutors, the use of these devices is rarely disclosed, thanks to a non-disclosure agreement with the FBI and probably a general reluctance to make public how much the department is using them, especially without bothering to obtain search warrants. From the article: In at least one case, police and prosecutors appear to have gone further to hide the use of a stingray. After Kerron Andrews was charged with attempted murder last year, Baltimore's State's Attorney's Office said it had no information about whether a phone tracker had been used in the case, according to court filings. In May, prosecutors reversed course and said the police had used one to locate him. "It seems clear that misrepresentations and omissions pertaining to the government's use of stingrays are intentional," Andrews' attorney, Assistant Public Defender Deborah Levi, charged in a court filing.

Judge Kendra Ausby ruled last week that the police should not have used a stingray to track Andrews without a search warrant, and she said prosecutors could not use any of the evidence found at the time of his arrest.

213 comments

  1. The Wire by inflamed · · Score: 2

    Reminds me of a Baltimore TV show. Now, what was it called?

    1. Re:The Wire by preaction · · Score: 2

      Except those wiretaps were lawfully obtained with a search warrant approved by a judge.

    2. Re:The Wire by inflamed · · Score: 3, Informative

      Except those wiretaps were lawfully obtained with a search warrant approved by a judge.

      Better watch more closely - or watch the whole thing :-)

    3. Re:The Wire by mi · · Score: 1

      Except those wiretaps were lawfully obtained with a search warrant approved by a judge.

      Except, according to TFA, we aren't talking about wiretaps here — the contents of the phone calls is not accessed by the police. Only the locations of the devices and the fact of the calls.

      IANAL, but warrant is, probably, not necessary in such cases — long ago it was established, that although police need a warrant to open a letter, they can study the envelopes to their hearts' content.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    4. Re:The Wire by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Shiit. Ain't no fishrays trackin' me. Ima track to them. Let 'em know... Omar comin'.

    5. Re:The Wire by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pen registers also need a warrant.

    6. Re:The Wire by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      Hey, I know that one!

      HOT L BALTIMORE!

      So what do I win?

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    7. Re:The Wire by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 3, Funny

      " I think"

      Boy, you are just throwing that word around with wild abandon, now, aren't you?

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    8. Re: The Wire by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Huh? Thankfully that is not how it works, Police cannot throw a net randomly and see what they catch. When Otis argued "A man's house is his castle; and whilst he is quiet, he is as well guarded as a prince in his castle." He was saying what I do in my world is of no concern to you as long as I do not mess up and make it public. I can smoke a bong in my living room because the current law may be out of whack with reality and life can continue on underground until that shit straightens out as is slowly happening. If we could just kick the door down on anyone then people would not have the opportunity to make their own decisions on what is right. In Otis' time this had more to do with illegal smuggling because capalists felt it was in their own right to make their gains with strategic dealing supplying the demand better than their competitors without the King upsetting that advantage by collecting their gains but the concept extends to all aspects of life.

    9. Re:The Wire by Opportunist · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You don't do anything illegal? Including in the privacy of your home? Oh, that's swell.

      You sure? I mean, especially considering all the out of whack laws concerning who may have sex with whom an how? But maybe you're chaste, or live in a country with more sanity when it comes to laws.

      But are you sure it stays that way? Laws change, you know, and what you like doing today may well be illegal tomorrow. Like running around naked at home? Hope that none of the thinkofthechildren crowd fears that one of the little ones could see your naked tits (you know, tits sure ain't for little kids!) and demands that people have to be dressed all the time. Or do you smoke? In the current craze, don't expect it to stay legal. Will we believe you when you tell us you quit when it gets illegal? Smoking is such a hard to drop habit, ya know...

      Ever been driving in front of a police car? How does it feel? No, you didn't do anything wrong, did you? But ... was it comfortable? Did you feel relaxed?

      A crime should probably not be committed. But putting people under the stress of total surveillance, or only the feeling that it could be, will most certainly do more harm than good.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    10. Re:The Wire by davester666 · · Score: 1

      The evening news?

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    11. Re:The Wire by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ever been driving in front of a police car? How does it feel?

      Yes, and it felt fine. They didn't stop me, so I simply drove comfortably below the speed limit. A bit boring, but nothing to worry about. If you want to get rid of them, go even slower and they will pass.

    12. Re:The Wire by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      Ever been driving in front of a police car? How does it feel?

      Yes, and it felt fine. They didn't stop me, so I simply drove comfortably below the speed limit. A bit boring, but nothing to worry about. If you want to get rid of them, go even slower and they will pass.

      That's obstructing traffic, and a crime.

    13. Re:The Wire by GrumpySteen · · Score: 2

      Then you won't have a problem with the police installing a webcam in your bedroom and putting it online for the world to see, right? After all, someone might commit a crime in there and all that matters is that crimes shouldn't be committed.

    14. Re:The Wire by GrumpySteen · · Score: 1

      IANAL, but warrant is, probably, not necessary in such cases

      Judge Kendra Ausby ruled last week that the police should not have used a stingray to track Andrews without a search warrant

      It's right there in the summary. All you had to do was finish reading it before posting.

    15. Re:The Wire by msauve · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "In the end it all falls back to the fact that crimes shouldn't be committed."

      Yep, and police use of stingrays is a crime. They are transmitting on radio frequencies for which they are not licensed. Any evidence which is illegally collected is of course properly thrown out by a court. The end does not justify the means.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    16. Re:The Wire by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Driving below the speed limit show guilt, as normal people don't drive under the limit. It is probable cause in some places, as a large percentage of people driving under the limit are intoxicated.

    17. Re:The Wire by mi · · Score: 1

      the police should not have used a stingray to track Andrews without a search warrant

      "Should not have used" is not quite the "it was illegal to use", is not it? Has a different ring to it...

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    18. Re:The Wire by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      booya! As long as I am good, I have nothing to fear - Starving Ukrainian during Holdomor Holocaust.

    19. Re: The Wire by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With the exception that many states allow driving too slow, or perfectly the speed limit, given the current flow of traffic, reasonable cause.

      I know several police officers and most will, and legally can, pull you over for driving several miles per hour below the speed limit. Is it right? No. Do they do it? You bet your ass they do.

    20. Re: The Wire by bcdonadio · · Score: 1

      As a citizen of a violent city, with a high rate of car thefts with the driver inside, I definitely like the sight of a police car. What I don't like are traffic guards, for sure.

    21. Re:The Wire by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That depends upon where you live. In Maryland, unless otherwise posted, you have to drive 15 under to be obstructing. There are still a few signs on I83 in Baltimore city that indicate that the speed limit is 50mph and the minimum speed is 40mph.

      Go 5mph under, or even the speed limit in Maryland, and you will have the police blowing around you in marked vehicles, and nearly taking your doors with them in an unmarked/personal vehicle (typically with a black/blue/black striped Republic of C.O.P. "flag" sticker showing someplace)...

    22. Re:The Wire by hey! · · Score: 2

      In the end it all falls back to the fact that crimes shouldn't be committed.

      Well, there is one more eensy-teensy little thing about the government remaining within the limits set for it by the people.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    23. Re:The Wire by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1
      Depends on whether the person saying "Should not have used" is a sitting Judge or not.

      If it were said at a cocktail party, I imagine it would be different. If it were said from the Bench, not so much....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    24. Re: The Wire by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I see you live in Albuquerque.

    25. Re:The Wire by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 5, Informative

      Ever been driving in front of a police car? How does it feel?

      Yes, and it felt fine. They didn't stop me, so I simply drove comfortably below the speed limit. A bit boring, but nothing to worry about. If you want to get rid of them, go even slower and they will pass.

      I was once honest to gawd pulled over for going exactly the speed limit. It was in a neighborhood where most people speed through, so I guess the officer found someone obeying the speed limit mighty suspicious.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    26. Re:The Wire by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so I simply drove comfortably below the speed limit.

      If you're like some of the morons around here you probably did 2/3's of the speed limit. I laugh when I see this. People freak out and hit the brakes as soon as a police car appears. You can drive the speed limit you know. It's legal. You weren't doing anything wrong were you? Or were you?

    27. Re:The Wire by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Freamon and McNulty got fired. This one's not on them.

    28. Re:The Wire by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Depending on where you are, you are able to receive a speeding ticket for going the speed limit. Most provinces in Canada allow this so someone going 80 km/h on an icy country road (which typically will have an 80 km/h speed limit, intended to be obeyed during the summer) can be told they're going to spin off the road and die, perhaps killing someone along the way.

    29. Re:The Wire by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Depending on where you are, you are able to receive a speeding ticket for going the speed limit. Most provinces in Canada allow this so someone going 80 km/h on an icy country road (which typically will have an 80 km/h speed limit, intended to be obeyed during the summer) can be told they're going to spin off the road and die, perhaps killing someone along the way.

      Oh yes. Here in the States, it's called "Driving too fast for conditions". It's not handed out too often, usually during really bad winter storms where someone is bing an asshat, or in an accident where they obviously shouldn't have been on the roads at all.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    30. Re:The Wire by erapert · · Score: 2

      Oh yes. Here in the States, it's called "I'm giving you a ticket because I wanted to". It's not handed out too often, usually only when the cop thinks he can get away with it or if he feels that a citizen needs to be cut down to size.

      Fixed that for you.

    31. Re:The Wire by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Oh yes. Here in the States, it's called "I'm giving you a ticket because I wanted to". It's not handed out too often, usually only when the cop thinks he can get away with it or if he feels that a citizen needs to be cut down to size.

      Fixed that for you.

      And somehow your jeramiad doesn't have a fucking thing to do with the conversation about Driving too fast for conditions.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    32. Re:The Wire by Mr.CRC · · Score: 1

      Driving the speed limit should be probable cause for stopping someone, since they are most likely a drug dealer transporting drugs. Driving the speed limit should result in all of your cash being forfeited even if they don't find any drugs, since it must be drug money.

    33. Re:The Wire by Whorhay · · Score: 1

      My wife was once pulled over by an officer because she didn't pull off on the shoulder of a narrow country road to let him pass, when he wasn't running lights or siren. Which is funny to me because when I was pursuing a career in law enforcement we were taught that you had to run lights if you wanted special treatment from other people, and even then it wasn't a legal right of way. If you got into an accident while running lights and siren, because you broke some traffic law, like running a stop sign, you were still at fault.

    34. Re:The Wire by pebear · · Score: 1

      I got pulled over for doing the speed limit and the cop was trying to claim I was one mile over. I was like you are right behind me. I was actually going under the limit. Then he was like where you coming from. I said work and the name of the insurance company I worked at. And he was like you mind if I search your truck? I told him to go fuck himself and that yes I minded. He said he could keep me there until he got a dog. I said am I being detained, and he said no and I put the truck in first gear and left him on the side of the road. One time I was driving up the main drag in the town I was living in and the cop pulled right out and started to follow me. After about 2 miles I pulled over into a parking lot and he pulled behind me and put his flashers on. He came up to my car at the time and I said to him, "What the Fuck Do You Want?" He was don't talk to me that way, I was like I don't like pigs following me around for no reason and then when I pull into a public parking lot you turn your fucking lights on? And he was trying to say I looked suspicious. I said let me cal my cousin the police chief and ask him if he thinks I'm suspicious looking..... He took off with his tail tucked. Point is, I hate being around cops, even my own little brother is a cop and I never want to be around him. I will cross the street and walk on the other side of the road just to stay away from them. I don't want them in my business and I don't want to be in theirs.

      --
      Paul E. Bahre
    35. Re:The Wire by jp10558 · · Score: 1

      I don't know if what you say is true, nor how the law is actually written, but it seems to me a working justice system would never allow "following the law(s)" to count as probable cause. Theoretically it makes the concept of probable cause oxymoronic - ideally everyone would follow the law(s), so if following the law(s) is probable cause, you basically have probable cause against everyone. In which case it's the same as a legal system that doesn't have any requirement for probable cause to investigate.

      --
      Opera, Proxomitron-Grypen,GPG 0x0A1C6EE3
    36. Re:The Wire by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's funny. Presumably he wanted to pass her because he was in a hurry, yet he took the time to pull her over.

      My guess is he had a citation quota to fill.

    37. Re:The Wire by JustSomeProgrammer · · Score: 1

      I was once pulled over for having an expired driver's license for a state that I was not a resident of. I wasn't speeding. I didn't have a broken taillight. They had no other reason to pull me over and were mighty confused when I showed I had a license for the state that I was a resident of. I've also had a cop car completely circle my car and then drive on. It's really nerve wracking when that happens because you suddenly think you broke a law even when you know you didn't. If you give cops full surveillance with no limit. They will look for and find a crime even if you believe you are completely innocent because they are massively incentivized to screw you over. They have no incentive however to protect you. Investigating a crime is a pain.

    38. Re:The Wire by Agripa · · Score: 1

      Yes, and it felt fine. They didn't stop me, so I simply drove comfortably below the speed limit. A bit boring, but nothing to worry about. If you want to get rid of them, go even slower and they will pass.

      I was once honest to gawd pulled over for going exactly the speed limit. It was in a neighborhood where most people speed through, so I guess the officer found someone obeying the speed limit mighty suspicious.

      A compiled list of reasons allowing reasonable suspicion to pull someone over in Texas included traveling slower than the speed limit, traveling at the speed limit, and traveling faster than the speed limit.

  2. Time to hold the government accountable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    When violating the Supreme Law of the Land means that none of the law-breakers involved get punished, it's clear that something has to be changed. Whether it takes an amendment or not, what needs to happen is that if you're so gung ho certain that you've got the right guy that you feel like you don't need to obey the law, well then go right ahead. That guy goes down for murder and you go down for violating the Constitution. Oh, you didn't have any guy so you went on a fishing expidition and you infringed the rights of 100 Americans looking for someone breaking the law? That's 100 counts.

    1. Re:Time to hold the government accountable by gfxguy · · Score: 0

      They aren't violating the supreme law of the land. I read TFA, and it looks there are two problems: 1) they may have violated STATE law (not constitutional) that requires that the use of electronic surveillance be disclosed, and 2) that overuse of this technology may render it ineffective.

      In the latter case, we can assume most criminals are morons - it may come down to only being able to use the technology for petty crime in the future - so be it. In the former, there's no reason for prosecutors to not disclose that information if they actually have it. Again, read the article - they are saying sometimes the methods used to capture the criminal are not always pushed up the chain to the prosecutors. That's a problem, but it's not some heinous problem that people are making it out to be. I'm a stickler for the rules, and I think they should follow them, but I also don't like it when even petty criminals get away.

      I WANT them to catch petty criminals. Idiot anarchists don't have to press charges when someone smashes the windshield of their car, or has their property "tagged" with graffiti, or their cellphone stolen. I don't care. When someone violates my rights, though, I want them caught and punished, even if it's just stealing the loose change out of my car's change holder.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    2. Re:Time to hold the government accountable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      IOW "I don't care if someone else's rights are violated as long as mine aren't". TFP.

    3. Re:Time to hold the government accountable by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      "In the latter case, we can assume most criminals are morons"

      We can? Really? Why can we assume that? Do you have an actual argument supporting that claim or are you a criminal ... er, I mean, moron?

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    4. Re:Time to hold the government accountable by WaffleMonster · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Again, read the article - they are saying sometimes the methods used to capture the criminal are not always pushed up the chain to the prosecutors. That's a problem, but it's not some heinous problem that people are making it out to be.

      Intentionally withholding and or conspiring to withhold information to wit the defense is entitled *IS* absolutely heinous. Intentionally providing false information in the form of "parallel construction" is also absolutely heinous.

      They aren't violating the supreme law of the land.

      How do you know? Are you a lawyer? Courts have ruled both ways on 4th amendment violations. The arguments used to justify this is that people don't have any expectation of their location privacy.. because...drumroll ... telcos get the information... I would very much like to know in what context can "no expectation of privacy" even be falsified in the 21st century.

      When someone violates my rights, though, I want them caught and punished, even if it's just stealing the loose change out of my car's change holder.

      Any thoughts about the rights of the (quoting TFA) "many of those arrested" who were never prosecuted to not be molested by police fishing expeditions?

      --
      "Finally, we will access, disclose and preserve personal data, including your content (such as the content of your emails, other private communications or files in private folders), when we have a good faith belief that doing so is necessary."

    5. Re:Time to hold the government accountable by CaptQuark · · Score: 5, Informative

      but using a stingray isn't a violation of anyone's rights, so good for them.

      Wrong. It is illegal to use a Stingray to capture information without a warrant.

      Judge Kendra Ausby ruled last week that the police should not have used a stingray to track Andrews without a search warrant, and she said prosecutors could not use any of the evidence found at the time of his arrest.

      In this case the POLICE are the ones violating your rights by employing Stingrays without a warrant and the judges are telling them so. Just because you don't consider it a breach of your privacy doesn't mean the rest of us have to agree with you and give up our rights.

      --

    6. Re:Time to hold the government accountable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, we can definitely assume that!
      It doesn't apply to all. There are some smart criminals, and some really smart. Statistically, these smart ones drown in a sea of dopeheads who steal/rob to afford the next fix. Most crime is money for dope. Then there is figths and rape done by drunks - not so smart those either.

      Ever so occationally there is a smart one who become mafia boss or a spy - or just get really rich from a single perfect crime.

    7. Re:Time to hold the government accountable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Wrong, but I don't expect an AC to actually post something worthwhile anyway. I absolutely want the police to employ whatever technology they have to in order to catch and prosecute the people WHO VIOLATE MY RIGHTS. I don't advocate them violating anyone else's rights to do it, but using a stingray isn't a violation of anyone's rights, so good for them.

      Hello Mr or Ms Uninformed Asshole. You may be willing to give up your rights easily, but some of us want to keep them.

      Read this: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/electronic_surveillance
      It explains your Fourth amendment rights as related to surveillance in the US.

      I'll dumb it down for you...

      What it says is.... Hey Mr or Ms Government Employee, Police Person, FBI Agent, NSA Agent: you cannot spy on me without a reason sanctioned by a Judge. Usually said sanction comes in the form of a search warrant. Most reasonable people think listening to your phone calls or recording who calls you or whom you call is spying.

    8. Re:Time to hold the government accountable by Rainbow+Nerds · · Score: 2

      When a stingray is deployed, it doesn't just cause the suspect's phone to connect to the bogus tower. It affects all of the phones in the area, which can inform the police of people other than the suspect who are present in the same area and to obtain the locations of those phones, too. There's no guarantee that the police don't look at that data or retain it.

      Let's say hypothetically that use of a stingray to find a suspect falls doesn't require a warrant. There's probably reasonable suspicion or probable cause. I don't agree with this, but let's assume it. What about the stingray recording information about people in the area who aren't suspects? There's no reasonable suspicion, so do the police have the right to collect that data about those people, too? What happens to that data? Can it be used against you? Using a stingray allows for the rights of non-suspects to be violated by police.

      A reasonable expectation of privacy is also a factor here. Courts have ruled that information voluntarily disclosed to a third party doesn't have an expectation of privacy. An example is dialing a phone number gives that information to the phone company voluntarily. The Supreme Court ruled in 1979 in Smith v. Maryland that there is no expectation of privacy in this case. Arguably, when your phone connects to a cell phone tower, you're giving your approximate location to the phone company, indicating you're within range of the tower. Unlike dialing a phone number, connecting to a particular tower isn't something users control. However, there's always the ability to opt out by turning on airplane mode or turning off the phone. That said, phones use the minimum power needed to connect to towers. A phone operating under normal conditions isn't particularly useful for triangulating its signal. There's no way to be certain how much power the phone is using to transmit, and therefore no way to establish the distance from the tower to the phone. A stingray addresses this by forcing phones to increase their transmit power so it's possible to establish their distance and triangulate the signal. This isn't something that's voluntarily being disclosed, so there ought to be a reasonable expectation of privacy. In this instance, the information isn't voluntarily being disclosed to a third party. Rather, the police are taking action to force phones to effectively disclose information they otherwise wouldn't. It's quite possibly an important distinction here.

      Do you like the idea that the police can force your phone to divulge information that can be used to locate you precisely when you have a reasonable expectation of privacy? Do you like the idea that it's not clear what happens to the data from the phones of people who aren't suspects? Do you like the idea that this could potentially be used against you?

      --
      M-I-Z
      kU still sucks!
    9. Re:Time to hold the government accountable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jesus, "In other words" is three words. Just type them. Don't make me go googling some dumb acronym to understand what you typed.

    10. Re:Time to hold the government accountable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are they breaking federal law (FCC) by using such technology, now judge illegal?

    11. Re:Time to hold the government accountable by gfxguy · · Score: 1

      Police need a warrant except when in hot pursuit - if I just report my car stolen and the phone is in the glove compartment, the criminal has no reasonable expectation of privacy. If someone smashes the window of my car, and I see who it is and call the police, then they shouldn't need a warrant.

      Lastly, for the millionth time, the stingray is NOT listening to people's calls, it's ONLY tracking their location.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    12. Re:Time to hold the government accountable by silas_moeckel · · Score: 1

      Seems you're wrong the actual stingray device can do GSM Active Key Extraction which allows them encrypt the communications. So yes the devices can be used to listen to people's calls.

      If it's your phone you can consent to it no warrant needed.

      In any event the state has no business hiding the fact these were used and how. It's one thing to protect a witnesses entirely another to intentionally deceive in discovery. To protect a witness requires the judge to agree it's needed the police/prosecutors should never be making that decision.

      --
      No sir I dont like it.
    13. Re:Time to hold the government accountable by gfxguy · · Score: 0

      Do you like the idea that the police can force your phone to divulge information that can be used to locate you precisely when you have a reasonable expectation of privacy? Do you like the idea that it's not clear what happens to the data from the phones of people who aren't suspects? Do you like the idea that this could potentially be used against you?

      They don't force your phone to do anything. I get that people don't like the idea that they can be tracked, but I don't have any kind of expectation that my location isn't being tracked anyway - the phone companies already know where I am, and they've already helped the police track people on numerous occasions. I don't like the idea that they don't divulge the information gathered (although the state law had been broken, it wasn't on all the cases). Lastly, if I was some master criminal, I'd be an idiot to carry around a cellphone. If I committed some crime (i.e. violated someone else's rights, I'd have no reasonable expectation that the police would hold back any tool they could use to find me.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    14. Re:Time to hold the government accountable by gfxguy · · Score: 1

      Seems you're wrong the actual stingray device can do GSM Active Key Extraction which allows them encrypt the communications. So yes the devices can be used to listen to people's calls.

      If so, TFA didn't mention it - or wasn't concerned about it, at least, TFA was solely concerned about tracking.

      If it's your phone you can consent to it no warrant needed.

      In any event the state has no business hiding the fact these were used and how. It's one thing to protect a witnesses entirely another to intentionally deceive in discovery. To protect a witness requires the judge to agree it's needed the police/prosecutors should never be making that decision.

      I agree that if they violated the state law they were wrong, and I see little reason why they would do that, but I don't see it as the heinous violation of rights (the tracking part) that everyone else seems to think it is. I think you have to a moron to "expect" that your location can't be tracked when you're using (including just having it on and with you) a cellphone.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    15. Re:Time to hold the government accountable by silas_moeckel · · Score: 1

      TFA does not mention it because the cops are actively trying to hide what this kit does and when they use it. They are getting called out on the location data. The bigger issue is a cop can arbitrarily listen in/track whatever with no oversight. Getting the same data from towers can also be done in realtime but leaves a paperwork trail.

      The 4th circuit which covers Baltimore says it requires a warrant in United States v. Graham. Even the 11th which disagrees still requires the lower burden of a court order. Neither allow for cops to gather this sort of thing on a whim like they are now. So with little doubt the cops inside the 4th circuit are violating the at least the spirit of the ruling.

      --
      No sir I dont like it.
    16. Re:Time to hold the government accountable by silas_moeckel · · Score: 1

      Sorry to reply to myself, it's not a question of tracking we all know with a warrant current and historical data can be gotten. The issue this is warrantless gathering that can include violating multiple federal laws that they are getting away with since they are the cops. Pretty much if I can not do it legally they should not be able to without a court order or a specific law allowing it.

      --
      No sir I dont like it.
    17. Re:Time to hold the government accountable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I committed some crime (i.e. violated someone else's rights, I'd have no reasonable expectation that the police would hold back any tool they could use to find me.

      The problem is that they're apparently not holding back on any tools in *determining* if you committed some crime.

    18. Re: Time to hold the government accountable by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      A phone operating under normal conditions isn't particularly useful for triangulating its signal.

      Actually, TDMA networks (which GSM is) with extremely small time slices (which GSM definitely is), are so timing-sensitive that all stations (read: phones) are constantly adjusting their transmit timing to compensate for distance. If the phone in your hand can calculate round-trip time to do that, the tower it connects to can certainly do so to calculate distance. After all, we know how fast the signal moves.

      Sure, it's not triangulation, which requires three points (it's all on the name), but it provides a radius along (not within) which you are located. Actually, an arc of either 120 or 60 degrees, depending on whether the tower uses 3 or 6 semi-directional elements. If your signal reaches a 2nd tower, that's all the information they need; you are located where the two arcs intersect. A third point (for triangulation) is only necessary when distance information is not available.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    19. Re: Time to hold the government accountable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Me me me me me. That's all I'm hearing. Fuck everyone else, me me me me. It is illegal you numbskull. Please turn in your ID that you obviously borrowed. You are a disease to the public.

    20. Re:Time to hold the government accountable by zedaroca · · Score: 1

      Wrong, but I don't expect an AC to...

      You claimed that people should have different expectations on others arguments based on who they are. That makes no sense in general and even less sense in the internet. After you repeated what you said before, with caps on the part the AC had pointed.

      using a stingray isn't a violation of anyone's rights

      It is such a violation of people's rights that a judge just decided that evidence found on an attempt to murder case should not be used because it was obtained through that violation. IANAL, be she is a Judge.

    21. Re:Time to hold the government accountable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You should be thanking him. Now that you've Googled a common acronym, you'll recognize it next time and you're smarter for it.

    22. Re:Time to hold the government accountable by cwsumner · · Score: 1

      You should be thanking him. Now that you've Googled a common acronym, you'll recognize it next time and you're smarter for it.

      Acronyms are for people using pencil and paper. There is no reason to use them on a computer. 8-)

  3. petty crimes..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    small crimes committed against actual people are called "petty".

    the entire reason free people form governments is to protect eachothers lives, liberties, and properties. the only legit purpose of law and enforcement is to handle actual crimes against actual people. and these are now "petty".

    meanwhile, crimes against the state are major felonies.

    so you are complaining, essentially saying that crime against the state is worthy of high-end investigation and high-dollar enforcement, while crimes against actual people (the whole reason for even having a government) in NBD and not worthy of such effort.

    oh, also. if X is bad, X is not worse because blacks or ferguson. nice race-based-liberal-pageview grabbing.

    1. Re:petty crimes..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Petty" has to do with *degree* of the offence and *appropriateness* of the response.

      Are you suggesting we send out a SWAT team in response every time someone shoplifts a candy bar? You seem to be headed in that direction.

  4. No surprise by penguinoid · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They have a tool and they're going to use it.

    --
    Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
    1. Re:No surprise by Scutter · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Until there are actual, real, PERSONAL consequences for the public officials who violate our civil rights under color of law, the abuses will NEVER EVER stop. "Forgetting" to get a warrant isn't an "oopsie". It's a violation of our 4th Amendment Rights. The founding document upon which our country was built is the highest law of the land. Breaking that covenant shouldn't be a slap on the wrist. It should be criminal charges at the very least.

      --

      "Tell me doctor, with all of your defenses, are there any provisions for an attack by killer bees?"
    2. Re:No surprise by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      It should be criminal charges at the very least.

      Ah, well, it should be a trivial matter to convince 100 million people or so to ignore the bling and propaganda and vote for politicians that will make it happen. I mean, I don't know any other way that doesn't violate free speech and other rights, do you?

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    3. Re:No surprise by preaction · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Searching for stolen property without knowing the person who stole the property shouldn't require a warrant.

      Wrong. The police do not get to violate civil liberties because some piece of property got stolen and they don't know whodunit. That's the entire point.

    4. Re:No surprise by Geoffrey.landis · · Score: 1

      Human rights are being trumpled

      "Trumpled"???

      That's the best typo I've seen this week.

      --
      http://www.geoffreylandis.com
    5. Re:No surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ha ha, sure is. Now if only your space fantasies became real you could head to Mars and start Humanity 2.0!!! Oh wait, you can't.

    6. Re:No surprise by marka63 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      What civil liberties are being broken when they search for a piece of stolen property? That property could be in a bin, ditch etc. Now to enter a premise they need reasonable suspicion that the property is in that premise. Triangulation of a signal from stolen property gives that suspicion at which time they need to get a warrant. The act of searching for a stolen device electronically itself shouldn't require a warrant.

      This really is no different than seeing a stolen car in the driveway of a premise. The phone / car is visible to the world.

      If you drive around in a stolen car you can expect to be pulled over. If you are carrying a stolen phone and it is turned on you can expect to be located. This doesn't require technology that is unknown to the general public. Triangulation of signals has been done for the last century. The precision of that triangulation has improved all that tine.

      Putting a phone in a pocket does not hide it. Turning it off and putting it in a pocket hides it.

    7. Re:No surprise by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      A behavior I've seen among police I've known is profiling and persecuting. Mark a bad apple, then bust'em on whatever you can. Preventative enforcement - very efficient, completely unfair, and difficult to prove as illegal.

    8. Re:No surprise by gfxguy · · Score: 0

      Well, that's a nice rant you had going there and all, but there were no constitutional rights violated in this story, so it kind of went to waste.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    9. Re:No surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I really do not care how blind idiots in this country feel when I say this but this country is really no better then China or the Old Soviet Union when it comes to being communists. And that is an oxymoron since there is no REAL definition of what the hell communism is, other then another propaganda tool used by the US to claim their bullshit about being "the freest country".

      Everyone that has commented knows this is all about controlling citizens to prevent any upheaval of the failed political/government system. The whole terrorism propaganda is just that, if these groups or "cells" wanted to do random attacks against the US the NSA and all the other known and unknown US agencies would be powerless to prevent or even stop it. You need look no further then american born folks going out and shooting up military bases, and various other buildings, streets, ect.

      And I promise you Uncle Sam and the pig enforcement agencies will use it as an excuse to only further their chock hold on citizens. This goes beyond just government entities, monopolistic corporations and industry also want things to stay the status-quo, they do not want to see the same rebel upheavals your are seeing in other countries, our politicians are only in it to CASH out, they are smug and arrogant hand puppets for everyone else that can buy them off, as well as government agencies.

    10. Re:No surprise by techno-vampire · · Score: 1

      You may very well not know just what communism is, but those of us who stayed awake during our Social Studies or Civics classes (depending on where and when you went to school) know what it is in theory and what it always turns into sooner or later in practice.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    11. Re:No surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Would you be okay with the police ransacking every inch of your house, vehicles, and body every time they were looking for something but don't have the slightest clue as to who took it?

    12. Re:No surprise by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 3, Funny

      ""Trumpled"???"

      Well, our rights haven't been Trumpled yet,and I'll see how he does in the primaries before worrying that it might happen in 2016.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    13. Re: No surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Failed system? I'd say it's quite succesful: it has put in place a surveillance and prevention mechanism against any wannabe revolutionary with none the wiser - especially computer nerds who thought they were so smart. :)

    14. Re:No surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There was this thing about well organized militia somewhere. It was supposed to work in case all other means of disciplining of the public officials would fail. How does that work for you then?

    15. Re:No surprise by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      The act of searching for a stolen device electronically itself shouldn't require a warrant.

      Wrong. It should, and per federal law, it does. That's been covered elsewhere in this thread, so I won't rehash it. Read the thread. Federal law disagrees with you.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    16. Re:No surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > You may very well not know just what communism is, but those of us who stayed awake during our Social Studies or Civics classes [...]

      And you swallowed every drop of propaganda fed to you back then? Without any gulp of Kool-Aid to go with it?

      Good, good citizen.

    17. Re: No surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Do you know what unrestrained capitalism always turns into? Hint: you get a society with a very few ultra wealthy people and large masses of poor people who have to be controlled by an oppressive state lest they upset the status quo and overthrow the rich or the government.

      In other words, capitalism and communism turn into the same authoritarian things. The US is just full of ultra-nationalist people who somehow thing we're different while ignoring hard evidence that we're not. How the cognitive dissonance doesn't make their brains explode is beyond me.

      Please note too that capitalism and communism are economic systems despite that everyone in the US incorrectly uses them as a proxy term for governmental systems. I just didn't want to make anyone's brain hurt trying to explain how that works. Besides, a system of private ownership does describe the government of the US fairly well anyway.

    18. Re:No surprise by wbr1 · · Score: 1
      Okay... a car stereo got stolen in your neighborhood. do you want the police busting into your home (and everyone elses) to look for it. We are not talking about a friendly knock and ask.. we are talking kick in doors and rifle through everything.

      That is what you propose here. I really try to not engage in ad hominem, but either you are a troll or an idiot.

      --
      Silence is a state of mime.
    19. Re:No surprise by james_gnz · · Score: 1

      This really is no different than seeing a stolen car in the driveway of a premise. The phone / car is visible to the world.

      I don't think that analogy's quite right--although admittedly I'm no expert and I could have this completely wrong...

      My understanding is that the Stringray masquerades as a cellphone tower to obtain information from phones using a man-in-the-middle attack. Communication between phones and cellphone towers is generally encrypted, providing some defence against passive surveillance. Authentication of cellphone towers is fairly lax though, and an active surveillance device announcing itself as a cellphone tower can readily convince phones (and legitimate towers) within range to trust it.

      Arguably the information is still not private if phones are willing to give it out to all and sundry who ask. For what it's worth, though, I think a better analogy might be that the police are going around calling out "I'm a cellphone tower. Who's there?", to which nearby phones dutifully respond with a chorus of "I am, and my number is..." (if that counts as an analogy).

    20. Re:No surprise by marka63 · · Score: 1

      Federal law says not to add a pen register. It doesn't say you can't triangulate a signal from a stolen device.

    21. Re:No surprise by tburkhol · · Score: 1

      What civil liberties are being broken when they search for a piece of stolen property? That property could be in a bin, ditch etc.[...]

      This really is no different than seeing a stolen car in the driveway of a premise.

      It's quite different from seeing a stolen car in a driveway. It's even different that using a license plate camera to record the location of every car. Car license plates are in the open. They're required to be publicly displayed and visible to anyone without any special equipment.

      Stingray inserts itself between every cell phone and the contracted service provider. That communication is not in the open. You need special equipment to 'see' it, and service providers make a big deal about your communications being encrypted and private.

      If you want to make a physical analogy for massive large scale electronic surveillance, this is more like disguising cops as store clerks so they can read your credit card number, just in case you're using a stolen card.

    22. Re:No surprise by marka63 · · Score: 1

      Triangulating the location of a stolen phone is not "ransacking every inch of your house".

      If you know stolen property is in a house then searching that house, with a warrant, is reasonable even if you don't know who stole it.

    23. Re:No surprise by spacepimp · · Score: 1

      Searching for stolen property without knowing the person who stole the property shouldn't require a warrant.

      I'm not certain you thought this one out to the consequences.

    24. Re: No surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Prevention mechanism. Oh oh oh. You mean the one where there's always a facade in place, a fall guy, a storefront who's sole reason for being is to protect AT ALL COST, the ones really pulling the strings, so that no matter what, nothing changes and the bad guys ALWAYS get away?
      In this country, equality is a buzzword that rings very hollow.

    25. Re:No surprise by Dragonslicer · · Score: 1

      The act of searching for a stolen device electronically itself shouldn't require a warrant.

      In which case they could easily get consent from the owner of the device to intercept its communications.

    26. Re:No surprise by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Federal law says not to add a pen register. It doesn't say you can't triangulate a signal from a stolen device.

      But they are in fact using a device which fulfills the function of a pen register, and that is its primary function, in order to do this -- when they don't have to, they can just ask the cellphone company. But in order to do that they have to get a warrant, ostensibly -- although we have many confirmed reports of them being able to get positioning information without one. I'm not objecting to them conducting the search. I'm against them doing it without a warrant. If the search is justified, then there should be no trouble getting one, right?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    27. Re:No surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about the rights of the other cell phone users to not have their privacy violated?

    28. Re: No surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It should if searching for that stolen property violates anyone's rights. Even if it violates one persons rights, it should be illegal.

    29. Re:No surprise by marka63 · · Score: 1

      Does the car stereo say to the world "I am here"? Phones talk to the world. They are not passive devices.

      If the music is up too loud do the police / council rangers come and knock on the door saying turn the music down. You can broadcast in the EM spectrum or in the audio spectrum. With the right equipment you can
      hear both.

      Perhaps you should look at what I am saying rather than your preconceptions of what is being said.

    30. Re: No surprise by marka63 · · Score: 1

      Given this is with a phone that is transmitting to the world saying "I am here", you are taking my statement out of context.

      Last I looked most equipment doesn't broadcast to the world saying "I am here" to within a couple of feet
      which is what I'm lead to believe is the resolution of the triangulation. Phones and the right triangulation equipment gets that resolution.

      Military grade GPS gets that sort of resolution.

  5. What's really shocking about this by whoever57 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What's really shocking is that the police invested any effort in tracking down a mobile phone thief. The victim must have been someone with influence.

    --
    The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    1. Re:What's really shocking about this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

      Yes. The victim was white.

    2. Re:What's really shocking about this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More likely someone of influence's daughter who had invested a lot of time into covering her phone with stickers, glitter, sparkles and charms and all the selfies of her and her BFFs -- they would know no peace until their precious snowflakes "entire life" was recovered.

    3. Re:What's really shocking about this by almechist · · Score: 4, Informative

      What's really shocking is that the police invested any effort in tracking down a mobile phone thief. The victim must have been someone with influence.

      Yep. In at least one case mentioned in TFA the phone was taken from a police facility parking lot. You know that phone had to belong to a cop. From the article:

      In Baltimore, at least, it’s how the police tracked the man they suspected stole a phone from the back seat of a car parked outside the city’s central booking facility in 2009. Two days after the theft, an officer said in a court filing that detectives found Danell Freeman holding the phone in the doorway of an East Baltimore public housing complex. The court filing did not say how detectives knew to look for the phone there, but a police surveillance log indicates they used a stingray.

      I'm pretty sure I wouldn't get that level of service if my phone was taken.

    4. Re:What's really shocking about this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whites make up the majority of the population, so that comes as no surprise. What wouldn't be expected is if the majority of victims or criminals were not White.
      Most Whites do not get this kind of treatment. Usually the police just says "though luck" and does nothing.

    5. Re:What's really shocking about this by phantomfive · · Score: 3, Funny

      I'm pretty sure I wouldn't get that level of service if my phone was taken.

      You can feel reassured, if you told them that your phone was taken, they would write a report about it.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    6. Re:What's really shocking about this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm pretty sure I wouldn't get that level of service if my phone was taken.

      You can feel reassured, if you told them that your phone was taken, they would write a report about it.

      If you call entering your name and contact information into together with you description of the events into the computer system while you are speaking writing a report then yes, they would.

    7. Re:What's really shocking about this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, that's not even true anymore. In an effort to reduce crime statistics the precinct officers will discourage folks from trying to make a report because "insurance will cover it" and "wasn't it really your fault for using your phone without being cognizant of your surroundings?".

      Never mind insurance requires the report to pay out...

    8. Re:What's really shocking about this by ruir · · Score: 2

      You are wrong. What is really shocking is the newspaper publishing an uninformed turd they call news, not stating the truth when saying the devices are not able to listening on conversations and SMSes. Even I know they have been used for quite a while, and there have been scandals of police forces spying on ex-lovers with that, but no....the public in general is not supposed to know that. Shameful.

    9. Re:What's really shocking about this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've had piles of trash dumped on my land by neighbors, and his address was on multiple items in the trash, and the police still didn't even knock on his door.

    10. Re:What's really shocking about this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm pretty sure I wouldn't get that level of service if my phone was taken.

      You can feel reassured, if you told them that your phone was taken, they would write a report about it.

      I'm pretty sure I wouldn't get that level of service if my phone was taken.

      You can feel reassured, if you told them that your phone was taken, they would write a report about it.

      You can feel reassured, if you told them that your phone was taken, they would write a report about you

      FTFY

  6. Oh look by Tailhook · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Yet another 100% Democrat controlled hellhole setting new lows in abuse of power. Quick! Someone go interview the token Republican on the city council and get a damning quote so we have someone to blame.

    Never mind..... there isn't one.

    --
    Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
    1. Re:Oh look by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I don't really understand why this has been marked a flamebait. While I don't fully agree with the language, it's still a valid argument with an illustrative source (the fact that it really is 100% Democrat controlled). The one who holds the power should be the one to blame. Republicans may have started some surveillance trends, but the Democrats have done nothing to limit their use. In fact, they have expanded them like a wild fire.

      Captcha: "abortive" (what the f...)

  7. Public Fraud by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When the Patriot Act and related laws were put into place we were publicly assured they would only be used for discovering terrorism, and never for domestic crimes. That fraud needs to be prosecuted as not in the spirit of the law.

    JJ

    1. Re:Public Fraud by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't it. Govt can do any thing they want, for they're the good guys doing it for the good of the people.

      Its called Qualified Immunity.

  8. In my ideal world by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Stingray use needs to end. Now. You had your shot guys, you abused it, you lied about it, now you can't have it anymore.

    1. Re:In my ideal world by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Replying to my own post. This is a free country GOD DAMMIT!

    2. Re:In my ideal world by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      freedom has to be earned, one generation to the next. the current generation of lazy narcissistic plebeians will have their freedom plucked from them using trivial means, when the takers are using advance methodology. These fucking idiot children are way out of their league when it comes to protecting their freedom or the freedom of their own children. I do feel a little bad though, for those who get it. They are the rare voice, completely aware of this impending situation, and nobody will be listening.

      Sorry man i got apps to buy for me kiddys... on the fucking tombstone.

    3. Re: In my ideal world by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I configure my phone to only connect to known towers which I whitelist. It's quite interesting to see how often unofficial networks popup.

    4. Re:In my ideal world by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's crazy how someone can type something this stupid and still feel that they're smarter than an entire generation of people.

  9. People seem to be confused. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The "law" only applies to those without the power to create and enforce it. You can cite quotes from the Magic Parchment all you want, but it's not a spell scroll. The only rights you have are the ones you can personally defend--there aren't many left, if any. People have, in general, become to weak and complacent to do anything about it. We've come full circle back to bread and circuses.

  10. Steal a stingray by ArchieBunker · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Maybe we need to set up a bitcoin bounty for a stingray. I'd imagine reverse engineering it would reveal a wealth of information.

    --
    Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
    1. Re:Steal a stingray by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      build one yourself, out of old Calypso chipset phones, like c123, c115, c118 like everyone else does :P

    2. Re:Steal a stingray by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      You can buy the equipment needed to make your own on eBay. There is nothing mysterious about them, they are just base stations configured to tell phones to prefer them. It's a standard feature of cellular base station networking equipment.

      More interesting are projects like Android IMSI-Catcher Detector which can alert you when your phone connects to one of these fake base stations. It's kind of alarming to see how many are in use around London, for example. If you are going to raise some cash then give it to those guys.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    3. Re:Steal a stingray by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      thanks for the link

  11. America is an Oligarchy, and Not a Democracy by catchblue22 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    According to this study, America is an oligarchy. Here is a quote (as per the New Yorker):

    Americans do enjoy many features central to democratic governance, such as regular elections, freedom of speech and association, and a widespread (if still contested) franchise. But we believe that if policymaking is dominated by powerful business organizations and a small number of affluent Americans, then Americaâ(TM)s claims to being a democratic society are seriously threatened.

    When I hear about abuses of power, when I hear about the NSA spying on everyone, when I hear about militarization of police, when I hear about local police departments running roughshod over the Constitution as implied in the parent article, I start to think that something is deeply wrong in America. Then I remember that Americans still have the right to vote in those who rule them. And that is encouraging. But then I realize that most Americans have lost the ability to comprehend the systems of power that rule them. I remember that too many Americans vote based on shallow ignorant views, that they are persuaded by 30 second political TV commercials instead of actual rational argument, which is boring and long and tedious. And I remember that those 30 second TV commercials are expensive, and that politicians must go begging to those with large amounts of money in order to buy those 30 second commercials. And I remember that when politicians accept money from those very wealthy interests, that they become enslaved to them. And this makes me feel hopeless.

    Then I remember that if Americans stopped listening to shallow arguments given in 30 second TV commercials, if they started to demand rational argument instead of the shallow blather that has so far persuaded them, then they could take back power from the corrupt wealthy interests who have driven the country into the ground over the last three and a half decades. And that makes me a little bit hopeful.

    --
    This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when first he appears as a protector - Plato (423 to 327 BC)
    1. Re:America is an Oligarchy, and Not a Democracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree! I've read every volume of Marx and Engel's 'Das Kampf', and I think we should all rise up and FUCKING MURDER EVERYONE that has earned more than the minimum wage in America. Let's FUCKING KILL EM ALL. After all, we are all equal, even if in reality we aren't, so we should kill those who are more intelligent than us. Let's turn the USA into Haiti. Make everyone eat dirt cookies, and let's kill everyone that knows how to use anything more advanced than a hammer and sickle. Go communism!

      It certainly worked well for China and Russia. How many hundreds of millions of countrymen ended up dying under communist rule again? We have over 300 million Americans...how many should we kill in order to be more like those nations? 200 million? 250 million? ROFLMAO

    2. Re:America is an Oligarchy, and Not a Democracy by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      >if Americans stopped listening to shallow arguments given in 30 second TV commercials, if they started to demand rational argument instead of the shallow blather that has so far persuaded them, then they could...

      doesn't matter, won't happen.

    3. Re:America is an Oligarchy, and Not a Democracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Speeches are rarely delivered from a podium, and even if they were we wouldn't have the time to hear them. Once the cable channels step in, and the content providers, and the data pipes and infrastructure, you're looking at a lot of people investing in getting the politics from that podium onto your TV/Monitor. Every single one of those players in that pipeline will take bribes to make sure you hear the sponsored political message, and only the sponsored political message. Sponsors = money.

      When the "playbox" is built by a corporation it's pay-to-play. They decide how much you pay, and they decide what they play, and they play what pays.

    4. Re:America is an Oligarchy, and Not a Democracy by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      According to this study [cambridge.org], America is an oligarchy

      That paper costs $30. Could you please summarize the evidence supporting their major ideas?

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    5. Re:America is an Oligarchy, and Not a Democracy by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      I agree! I've read every volume of Marx and Engel's 'Das Kampf'...

      And we'd almost be inclined to believe you if you could at least get the TITLE right. TFP. HAND.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    6. Re: America is an Oligarchy, and Not a Democracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, I only read the first few words and lost interest.

    7. Re:America is an Oligarchy, and Not a Democracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What a surprise! The guy who thinks that anything other than unquestioned rule by the rich is the same as communism is stupid enough to actually type "ROFLMAO". Who would have thought that an idea like that would be necessarily linked with low intelligence?

    8. Re: America is an Oligarchy, and Not a Democracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Voting? Are you stupid or WHAT?

    9. Re:America is an Oligarchy, and Not a Democracy by metrix007 · · Score: 1

      If someone did, how could you trust it without seeing the paper yourself?

      --
      If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
    10. Re:America is an Oligarchy, and Not a Democracy by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      I could at least evaluate whether the arguments make sense or not.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  12. So? by p51d007 · · Score: 1

    We willingly gave up our freedoms, the minute the cell phone came to be, even more so with the "smartphone". Who actually reads the EULA when they install anything? Granted, the police sniffing using stingray is just another notch in the link of losing privacy, but they use the "what do you have to hide" idea, that apparently works so well, because people are nothing more than sheep. The (in the usa) constitution isn't taught any more, because it is an old document written by a bunch of "evil rich white slaveholders that destroyed the native Americans" or some other BS. The TSA has people "thinking" that you are safer to fly on an airliner, if you are treated as a criminal, but depending on your religious group ties, you may not even be searched, and, can get a "go on through" fast track. The USA, at least, is a post constitutional country. Probably in the next 10-15 years, or less, we'll just have a good old riot to touch everything off, or if the stock market keeps going, another depression like 1929, that touches off a good old fashioned reset...called a world war.

  13. Think back a few decades by AHuxley · · Score: 1

    The cost of collecting it all is now down to a city, county, parishes, state.
    Why just sell to nations when 100's of cities can be made to pay for device upgrades that keep track with cell phone hardware.
    What was once used for one person over in a foreign country is now tracking all in very hidden domestic setting.
    The real risk is who else is buying another set of hardware in the same area to run counter surveillance, use by internal affairs or for years of federal tracking of interesting local state law enforcement cell phone use and movements..
    Anyone who can read about policing in Ireland in the 1980-90's, US and UK mil use in other nations in the media over the past decade can understand the ability to collect it all and sort later.
    The trick about collect it all, mapping, voice prints ie content 'upgrade' package for all communications and sorting seems to solved at price points any well/federally funded US city can afford.
    The magic seems to have been in fooling so many that cell systems are secure or that select phones where secure per every advancing hardware generation.
    The question about "how long they’ve been using it" can still be best found by an in person/written FOIA depending on the state/city to see how easy it is to hide the old $400,000+ costs/grants, upgrade costs and work back over years.
    At some point the federal/mil use stopped needing small aircraft or any local telco support. ie all aspects of the US telco network are open to mil/federal hardware, software needs. After that any city/state could buy in for $400,000+ with local hardware.

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    1. Re:Think back a few decades by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait until ARGUS goes online.

      Then weep.

    2. Re:Think back a few decades by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Thanks AC, The Autonomous Real-Time Ground Ubiquitous Surveillance Imaging System? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
      Public private partnerships for realtime access to all CCTV networks are been worked on in many city areas.
      The use of small or large manned aircraft has been seen at a state and federal level over the years but seems to be in the press too much now thanks to low level wireless search patterns over hours. Locals tend to notice that.
      New Senate Bill Would Require Warrants for Federal Aerial Surveillance (June 18 2015)
      https://firstlook.org/theinter...
      Drones, blimps, aerostats are sold as looking outwards or for internal mil testing but will soon be very common for domestic use.
      Moored balloons and other efforts over many years show the advancement for more downward looking platforms at a per state or for domestic use from the early 1980's on.
      Every powered cell phone in areas will be tracked 24/7 by default from above for the price of a few 10's millions with hidden ongoing reimbursable line items funding.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  14. If they're going to invade our privacy by phantomfive · · Score: 3, Interesting

    If they're going to invade our privacy so deeply, it would be nice if they'd actually do something.

    Right now, if you call the police, and tell them that someone broke into your house, they will respond and......write a report.
    "Are you going to go find him?"
    "No."
    "But you have the fingerprints!"
    "We'll put that in the report."
    ".........."

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    1. Re:If they're going to invade our privacy by Trepidity · · Score: 3, Informative

      Depends a lot on what kind of neighborhood you live in. Like airlines, police reserve their highest level of "customer service" for the wealthiest patrons.

    2. Re: If they're going to invade our privacy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which is exactly as it should be

    3. Re:If they're going to invade our privacy by advocate_one · · Score: 1

      in the UK, there's one police force who only turn up to even numbered houses when burglaries are reported... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new...

      --
      Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
    4. Re:If they're going to invade our privacy by phantomfive · · Score: 1
      That article says:

      Leicestershire police said the policy had "no noticeable impact on victim satisfaction,"

      Which means they were mainly doing poor work to begin with.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    5. Re:If they're going to invade our privacy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Next step: burglars only visit houses with odd numbers.
      Meanwhile, the homeowners escalate by requesting two house numbers per house from the municipality.

    6. Re:If they're going to invade our privacy by swb · · Score: 1

      I've been lucky that the last time I was the victim of a crime was in 1992. I got my car window smashed in a restaurant parking lot and my stereo stolen. The cops gave me a police report number for insurance and that was the end of it.

      But I've heard from two different people who live within a few blocks of me recently who had been burglary victims and the police dusted for prints in both cases, including one where the only break-in was the garage and the item stolen was a low-end bike.

      Our neighborhood is, for lack of a better term, middle middle class, so I don't think we're being treated like oligarchs. Plus, we live within the actual city limits (a city of about 400,000 people), so it further surprises me that they have the resources for a print kit when it was likely somebody got shot on the other side of town.

      Over the past year, though, minor burglaries have spiked somewhat so maybe there's some actually reasonable police management happening where they suspect a serial burglar. It's possible there is also some political pressure from our councillor as the neighborhood group is kind of vocal about the frequency of small burglaries. But that kind of seems like the right sort of feedback loop my 9th grade civics book would have predicted.

    7. Re:If they're going to invade our privacy by GuB-42 · · Score: 1

      The thief was caught. So they actually did something.
      In fact, the news broke after the police caught the thief and was asked how they did it. In other words, you can argue that it was a violation of privacy but you can't argue that it was ineffective.

    8. Re:If they're going to invade our privacy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Depends a lot on what kind of neighborhood you live in. Like airlines, police reserve their highest level of "customer service" for the wealthiest patrons.

      I don't think that's true. Now maybe they realize that the "wealthiest" also wield influence over those that can make an officer's job miserable, then, in way, you're probably right. Personally, I find that most officers (and their superiors) do not work hard on petty crime because "they're too busy solving the big crimes."

      I never liked Rudy Guiliani, but the one thing he got right was that when you enforce (prosecute???) the petty crimes you're sending a strong message to those that commit the big crimes. The problem is that when you do this most people will complain because they like running red lights.

    9. Re:If they're going to invade our privacy by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      My parents car got stolen from their driveway. The police found the car in a parking lot where traffickers stage cars for pickup and delivery to Mexico. They actually got prints off of the car and identified the suspect, a known car thief with priors. A warrant was not created for his arrest. My parents insisted on pressing charges, but the police would not do it. They also would not release the information of the car thief so that my parents could shop around for a government authority that was willing to do their job that our taxes pay for.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    10. Re:If they're going to invade our privacy by Trepidity · · Score: 1

      I noticed it most obviously when I lived in L.A., but what even counts as a "petty crime" seems to vary with the wealth of the area. If your middle-class house gets burglarized, that's a run-of-the-mill police report that doesn't get much investigation. But if a mansion in Beverly Hills is burglarized, now that's taken seriously.

    11. Re:If they're going to invade our privacy by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      The thief was caught. So they actually did something.

      The phone was stolen from the police station. You can conclude that the police are willing to do something when they lose their own phone.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  15. I been wondering by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is there anyway to detect whether a "Stingray" or similar device is in use within cellphone range?

    Is there something different about the way it connects or something? Maybe use an cellphone frequency direction finder and look for cellphone towers that move?

    Because you can buy bare cellphone modules and if you can detect whether a "Stingray" is in range, you can... well, I don't know what you can do, maybe tweet it or something, or post it to the local police Facebook page (I'm sure they'd love that).

    1. Re:I been wondering by sectokia · · Score: 1

      Yes look up IMSI catchers.

    2. Re:I been wondering by dbc · · Score: 1

      Totally doable. The last time this topic came up on SlashDot, I think the discussion included a pointer to an ap for rooted Androids (or at least some specific models) that could detect stingrays. So this could be easily crowdsourced... if enough people carried Stingray detectors, and automatically uploaded to a website the plotted them on a map, we could pretty much have a real-time map of stingrays in operation. The problem is more social than technical at this point.

    3. Re:I been wondering by Known+Nutter · · Score: 3, Informative

      And here is an insightful write-up on Stingrays (IMSI catchers). A good plain-terms read on how they function with a small dose of theory.

      http://communications.support/...

      --
      Beware of the Leopard.
    4. Re:I been wondering by gfxguy · · Score: 1

      And why would you do that? Don't you want the police to catch petty criminals? All the device does is allow them to locate a specific cellphone. They don't listen to your calls, or know who you're calling - it just listens for the phone trying to connect to cell towers and then they triangulate a position. It's nothing the cellphone companies can't already do (and have done at the behest of the police on serious crimes), although it might be more precise and faster and easier. And we're not talking about situations where a warrant is needed, since they're not violating anyone's right to privacy. Why does everybody here want to protect criminals from the police? WTF is wrong with the world?

      I mean, OK, I get it - the police have been under a microscope lately, but largely they do their jobs and protect citizens, and the ones that violate our rights need to be punished... but nothing in this article suggests that this technology is a violation of any rights at all.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    5. Re:I been wondering by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      "And why would you do that? Don't you want the police to catch petty criminals?"

      Oh, I quite agree! That is why I am an advocate for repealing the 4th amendment! I mean, why would anyone want that? Don't they want the police to catch petty criminals?

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    6. Re:I been wondering by AHuxley · · Score: 2

      The very old systems? They had a drop to older phone network standards and users would just see it as part of their local rust belt cell networks.
      Such changes in networking conditions could be mapped.
      Phone Firewall Identifies Rogue Cell Towers Trying To Intercept Your Calls (09.03.14)
      http://www.wired.com/2014/09/c...
      Upgrades and updates ensure all tracking is now more seamless in any area less of the drop down to another generation of network service. Voice, mapping, rewind packages work "as" any domestic cell infrastructure for a low cost per city, state.
      The next gen is as sold as good as is used to track foreigners in their own nations and stay ahead of very low end diplomatic counter surveillance efforts.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    7. Re:I been wondering by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    8. Re:I been wondering by gfxguy · · Score: 1

      Who said anything about repealing the fourth amendment? What the hell is wrong with you? Not having your cellphone tracked is not a right, and if you don't like it then don't use a cellphone - the cellphone companies know where you are, it's just the nature of the beast.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    9. Re:I been wondering by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

      Cellphones clearly fall under the "effects" category, and they are obviously being searched and their "records" (location, ID, etc) are being seized by use of these devices. So clearly it requires a warrant, which the police are not getting. There is a good reason why the Constitution (at least the earlier parts) was written was written in such broad, simple terms. It was so that your average person could (hopefully) read and understand it, sadly after almost 200 years of "advancement" in education we appear to have lost basic reading comprehension.

    10. Re:I been wondering by Wyzard · · Score: 1

      All the device does is allow them to locate a specific cellphone.

      And we're not talking about situations where a warrant is needed, since they're not violating anyone's right to privacy.

      Many people feel that your location is private, as long as you're not in a public place.

      Also, it's not just the "target" phone: as I understand it, a stingray appears as a cell tower to all the phones near it. So it's catching people who aren't even suspected of a crime, and may lead to dropped calls when the phones try to switch to a stronger signal from a "tower" that isn't actually part of the phone system.

  16. Federal law (chap 206) says a court order is requi by raymorris · · Score: 4, Informative

    Under federal (U.S. Code â Title 18 â Part II â Chapter 206 â Â 3122 a), state and local law enforcement must get a court order before using a device which records which numbers are called.

    Using such a device (called a pen register) without a court order is punishable by one year in jail.

    So it's not necessarily unconstitutional, but it's absolutely illegal, by the plain text of chapter 206.

  17. and it IS a federal crime under chapter 206 by raymorris · · Score: 3, Interesting

    There is a very clear federal law making this a crime, so they absolutely could be charged, if a federal prosecutor chose to do so.

    U.S. Code , Title 18 , Part II , Chapter 206. Â 3122 a) says that state and local law enforcement must get a court order before using a device which records which numbers are called.

    Using such a device (called a pen register) without a court order is punishable by one year in jail.

    I don't know if any charges have ever been brought under that paragraph, but they very easily could be. The law is pretty clear.

    1. Re:and it IS a federal crime under chapter 206 by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Don't you have private prosecutions in the US? In most countries if the state fails to act then citizens can pay for their own prosecution instead.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    2. Re:and it IS a federal crime under chapter 206 by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      Don't you have private prosecutions in the US?

      In a word, "no".

      We can do a civil suit for this sort of thing, but that's expensive and allows only civil penalties, not criminal penalties.

      A side effect of being one of the oldest continuous governments extant, I think. (think about it: most current governments in the world are younger than the USA. A large minority, if not a majority, are 100 years old).

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    3. Re:and it IS a federal crime under chapter 206 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For corporations, yes ... in the form of being able to enforce their own copyright through letters of extortion or have the government act on their behalf (ICE seizing domains).

      For actual human citizens, no way.

      Only the corporate citizens can get what you describe.

      America really only gives a damn about the corporate citizens, and the private citizens wealthy enough to have significant influence on the corporate citizens.

      The humans? Well, nobody give a crap about them unless they're really wealthy.

      America is a pathetic joke of inequality and corporate power, they just haven't figured it out yet.

  18. Your study is bullshit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The US was never founded nor intended to be a Democracy with a capital D.

    With that in mind, the US is still chock full of regular ol' democracy. A poorly educated electorate does not preclude democracy.

    1. Re:Your study is bullshit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean MISINFORMED electorate, its not the education that's the limit here, they are flat out lied to. Secret laws and secret interpretations of laws are used so that law says one thing and the truth is another thing. Propaganda tells them lies.

      Canada is finding out now, that is you oppose an oil pipeline, you are being spied upon by a rogue government and Harper will flag you as a terrorist to have your civil rights removed.

      How far down the line is the US on this? Way Further!

    2. Re:Your study is bullshit. by gfxguy · · Score: 2

      Perhaps misinformed, but also poorly educated. What I was taught in public school about my constitutional rights was really just about next to nothing. But it goes well beyond either misinformed or ignorant - like the people in this thread who are willfully and without thought thinking that this issue has anything to do at all with constitutional rights. And, as it normally happens, 99% of the people getting all up in arms abut this probably didn't even read the article to find out what the problem actually is... if there even is a problem.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    3. Re:Your study is bullshit. by WaffleMonster · · Score: 1

      What I was taught in public school about my constitutional rights was really just about next to nothing.

      Despite this you were able to draw conclusions on the constitutionality of warrantless stingray use. Care to share the basis for your conclusion?

    4. Re:Your study is bullshit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gee, I dunno - learning after out of public school?

    5. Re:Your study is bullshit. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Gee, I dunno - learning after out of public school?

      When someone asks you to explain the basis for your decision and you respond "learning!" it's clear that you needed to spend more time in school learning how to speak to people, because you're not communicating.

      Let's hear the argument as to how this is not a violation of your right to be free from unwarranted searches.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    6. Re:Your study is bullshit. by gfxguy · · Score: 1

      Nobody searched anybody in this situation - they tracked a cellphone; they didn't listen in on the calls (no calls even need to have been made). The cellphone companies always had a pretty good rough estimate where you are anyway - all the stingray does is narrow down the focus. People don't like the idea of being able to be tracked, they don't want cameras with facial recognition on every corner - I get it, but they don't violate any constitutional rights.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    7. Re:Your study is bullshit. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      but they don't violate any constitutional rights.

      You keep saying that, but so far you've offered absolutely zero support for the idea that they don't violate any constitutional rights. If you want to be taken seriously, you're going to have to present an argument, not just keep repeating your unsupported assertion. That's how it works.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  19. Surely the LYING is more serious? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    They deceive the court (by withholding vital information or by flat out lying), in order to uphold an EULA! So EULA > LAW

    Surely that's the big crime here, those officers should not be accepting orders from the FBI to lie to a court. Its perjury or withholding evidence. Actual real crimes being committed.

    It's like the parallel construction thing, call it Parallel Construction and it sounds positive. But its fabrication of evidence, an officer goes into court and lies about the chain of evidence to a judge, telling the judge a *different* chain of evidence led to the arrest. The officer learns confidence in telling lies to a court, knowing he will be backed by his police force!

    And here we have the exact same principle, spying tech being used illegally to circumvent search warrants and due process and then lies being told in court to cover the illegal evidence trail.

  20. Encrypt everything! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Personal privacy trumps security, always!

  21. Denying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wouldn't it actually help us if the police are denying the use of stingrays?

    There are stingray detectors available and since the police are denying using some of them, it wouldn't be unlogical for the public to assume they are being used by criminal elements in our society. Under this assumption, it's only natural if we setup a website to track and post the location of these imsi catchers. I know there are some apps for android device that can detect imsi catchers.

  22. It's a capabilities war by WaffleMonster · · Score: 2

    I know technical solutions to political problems but cheap and trivial availability of technology is what's directly fueling these shortcuts.

    Running software on mobile handsets to detect and map the use of stingrays is hardly unreasonable or impractical. If enough people did it stingrays might become sufficiently risky and worthless such that police departments would find the time to ask a judge for warrant to get information from Telcos.

  23. RIP Steve Irwin by ChunderDownunder · · Score: 0

    Those stingrays can be fatal if you get too close.

    1. Re:RIP Steve Irwin by rmdingler · · Score: 1
      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

  24. It's illegal to block or disrupt wifi signals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There's your first clue.

    1. Re:It's illegal to block or disrupt wifi signals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the police does it, it is not illegal. Doh.

    2. Re:It's illegal to block or disrupt wifi signals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the police does it, it is not illegal. Doh.

      Sure it is. It's just not prosecuted.

  25. Why are they committing petty crimes at all?! by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

    In Baltimore and Elsewhere, Police Use Stingrays For Petty Crimes

    While it's nice to know they're equipped with the latest tech, they really shouldn't be committing petty crimes in the first place.

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    1. Re:Why are they committing petty crimes at all?! by rmdingler · · Score: 2
      It's certainly possible we'd be better off

      if the police remained exclusively involved

      in crimes that were petty.

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

  26. No expectation of privacy = no search by unassimilatible · · Score: 1

    violating the Supreme Law of the Land

    Well-settled con law: No expectation of privacy = no search = no Fourth Amendment rights implicated.

    How does a cellphone thief have a right to right to privacy on a cellphone he just stole? That's ludicrous on its face.

    --
    Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
  27. Re:Hey Stupid! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The US is not a republic, it's a plutocracy.

  28. Bring it on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Someone elses "petty crime" is your bad day.

    I am a repeated victim of burglaries and I'd love it if the Baltimore police would come to my town with their stingray and remove a couple of human shitstains from circulation for at least a little while.

    Really, I don't have a problem with this and would volunteer for the campaign of whatever head Sherrif was in charge.

  29. Re:Federal law (chap 206) says a court order is re by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Except YOUR device explicitly connects to their tower and tells them everything. They're not searching your phone... They're not even telling your phone to do that... your phone is already, by design, snooping on you!

  30. Criminal acts ... by gstoddart · · Score: 1

    the use of these devices is rarely disclosed, thanks to a non-disclosure agreement with the FBI and probably a general reluctance to make public how much the department is using them, especially without bothering to obtain search warrants

    So when the police lie about how they obtained evidence, allow an NDA with a corporation to be used to deny due process, and use this shit without a warrant ... this stuff should be a criminal act.

    This should be the kind of thing which gets you stripped of your duties and thrown in prison with the rest of the crooks.

    This is perjury, actively undermining the way the legal system works, and likely violates several Constitutionally protected rights and probably defies years of legal precedent which says they're not allowed to do shit like this.

    This is why we can no longer trust the integrity of the police. Between the police who break the law during an arrest and lie about it until the video surfaces, and the high-level breaking of the law at the department and prosecutor level ... there's really no basis on which to trust them.

    If they're not going to give a damn what the law says, take steps to evade it, and lie to us about it ... then they should be subject to the force of law.

    This shit should be felony convictions. And the police who are bypassing the legal system should be left to rot in prison fending for themselves with all of the other criminals.

    The police have reached the point where institutionalized perjury seems to be the norm. Which means we have to assume they're all lying bastards.

    But letting them use secret stuff, lying about if they used it, and otherwise subverting the legal system? Sorry, that's pretty much criminal conspiracy, and they know damned well they'd get tossed out of court if they admitted it. But for some reason the police seem to think it's OK when they do it.

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  31. Re:Federal law (chap 206) says a court order is re by mi · · Score: 1

    So it's not necessarily unconstitutional, but it's absolutely illegal, by the plain text of chapter 206.

    In that case, I want ACLU to refund my donations. They aren't doing their job...

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  32. interesting point, but it transmits inquiries by raymorris · · Score: 3, Interesting

    That's an interesting point. There is a strong general presumption that anyone is allowed to RECIEVE anything transmitted over the airwaves. One good reason for that is that it's quite common to receive things on accident- a lot of night time "static" is in fact someone's communications.

    HOWEVER, wireless phones have a two-way handshake with the tower. After receiving from the phone, the Stingray sends back "this is tower HJFG-7484. What are your parameters ", or something like that. By connecting with your phone and falsely claiming to be a phone-company tower, the Stingray os actively performing as a pen register. In fact, the Stingray probably sends to the phone "I have a call for you " in order to cause it to reveal it's current location. It would then send a disconnect before the phone started ringing audibly. That's all active snooping.

    A different device would be one which only LISTENED to genuine communications between the phone and tower, decrypted the call metadata, and recorded it. Different laws would apply.

    1. Re:interesting point, but it transmits inquiries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      My question is why is the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act not being brought in to play ? This seems like a prime use for it's unauthorized access provisions.

  33. ruled unconstitutional, so someone good. EFF by raymorris · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The story does mention the court ruled the use of a Stingray without a warrant is unconstitutional, so someone is doing their job.

    Personally, I prefer to give money to the EFF rather than the ACLU since the ACLU advocates for racial discrimination, but everyone has their own opinions.

    I find it very offensive that the ACLU says my daughter has to be given extra points in order to compete, because black people like her are too stupid to do well by their own talents and effort. That's a particularly nasty type of racism, in my view. I also think they are wrong to say that I should be denied admission in favor of someone less qualified because I happen to havevpale skin. That part bothers me much less than their patronizing attitude toward my wife and daughter, though, their belief that my wife and daughter can't manage without special favors and protection from snotty white people.

  34. Murder is a petty crime? by tompaulco · · Score: 1

    So the one example the give us is a murder. Maybe that is petty crime in Baltimore. These days that seems likely. In other parts of the country, murder is frowned upon. The annoying thing is that, by ignoring all the rules, this murderer is likely to be let off with a technicality and be back on the streets, murdering with impunity.

    --
    If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    1. Re:Murder is a petty crime? by ShaunC · · Score: 1

      The one example the summary gives is murder because that was the most egregious attempt at covering up the Stingray's use. The examples of smaller crimes begin in the first sentence of the article.

      BALTIMORE - The crime itself was ordinary: Someone smashed the back window of a parked car one evening and ran off with a cellphone. What was unusual was how the police hunted the thief.

      There are a few more.

      Police in Tallahassee used their stingray to track a woman wanted for check forging [...] Tacoma, Wash., police used theirs to try to find a stolen city laptop [...] Other departments have acknowledged that they planned to use their stingrays for solving street crimes.

      And they're not just going after suspects; if you might have witnessed a robbery, your phone is apparently fair game, too!

      Usually they were searching for suspects, but occasionally, the records show they used the devices to track down witnesses. The most common use by far was solving robberies.

      --
      Thanks to the War on Drugs, it's easier to buy meth than it is to buy cold medicine!
  35. Re:Federal law (chap 206) says a court order is re by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Since they are Part 15 devices, and are intentional radiators (and likely emit harmful interference, since they hijack the connection to a legitimate tower by providing a stronger signal...), there could be some issues.

    These things are likely covered under Part 20 and Part 22 rules. Somehow I can't see them being classified as "mobile stations", as they aren't subscribers to the services they impersonate... so how are the things licensed without providing any location information?

    Maybe they are buried under so many NDAs because they are not compliant with FCC licensing requirements and are therefore fundamentally violate federal law?

  36. not at the federal level any more by raymorris · · Score: 1

    There are no longer private persecutions at the federal level. State laws vary, but most are restrictive. As is often the case, Texas is a bit of an outlier in that a citizen can contact the grand jury directly and seek an indictment.

    California, Louisiana, and Texas tend to have more differences in their laws than other states, with California always trying new things, Texas prioritizing individual rights vs less government, and Louisiana having French / Cajun traditions.

  37. Re:Federal law (chap 206) says a court order is re by spacepimp · · Score: 2

    The "Stingray" mimics a cell tower, and operates at a frequency which the police are not legally entitled to broadcast. They force a disconnect from your legal cell tower and take all traffic, and can read and write data and metadata from/to the phone. They are fully capable of intercepting your content communications as well. this isn't exactly an envelope, this is setting up fake mailboxes and catching all mail that goes through and injecting data/metadata/intercepting content into the mail as well. There is nothing legal about this without a warrant, and even with a warrant the claims of legality are spurious at best.

  38. Permission from the owner by edtice1559 · · Score: 1

    What doesn't make sense here is that, if an item is stolen, tracking it shouldn't require permission of the person who stole it or a court order; the rightful owner should be able to authorize it. In fact with all of the "find my phone" features out there, I'm not even sure why the expensive devices are needed. If my phone was stolen and police wanted to use the "find my phone" feature to retrieve it, I would hate to hate to see that evidence thrown out. Of course, it also should be easy to get the warrant. There is something here more than meets the eye and the article isn't enlightening.

    1. Re:Permission from the owner by Whorhay · · Score: 1

      I agree that tracking stolen property shouldn't be problematic. But because of the way that the Stingrays work they should get a warrant for pretty much any use. These devices don't just single out a specific cell phone, they intercept everything and from there the operator picks one in particular to locate. They are essentially violating the privacy of innumerable innocent bystanders every time they turn one of these devices on.

  39. Create an app to detect this by MooseTick · · Score: 1

    Since most people spend 95% of their time at either home, work, or some such place, you'd think there could be an app that lets you know you are connecting to a strange tower it doesn't know about. That app could even have a setting to disconnect if such an incident were to happen. Since these are so secretive, there is no way to know if nefarious types are using them for illegal purposes. This would seem to help keep phones secure from anyone legally or illegally using such a Stingray device.

  40. Re:ruled unconstitutional, so someone good. EFF by mi · · Score: 1

    USA Today — the newspaper — are doing their job. The legal organizations — governmental and NGOs alike — do not.

    their patronizing attitude toward my wife and daughter

    Your daughter has the great advantage over a sad number of other Black kids — a father... But let's no descend any further off-topic.

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  41. Re:Federal law (chap 206) says a court order is re by ShaunC · · Score: 1

    Except YOUR device explicitly connects to their tower and tells them everything.

    If I pick up a tapped or pen-registered landline phone and start dialing, my device is explicitly sending a series of tones that tells them everything, but they need a warrant to use that equipment. Why should it be any different just because we're discussing cellphones instead of landlines? "But, it's [new technology]!" does not obviate the need for a warrant.

    --
    Thanks to the War on Drugs, it's easier to buy meth than it is to buy cold medicine!
  42. True. If that's the criterion, I'm disadvantaged by raymorris · · Score: 1

    > Your daughter has the great advantage over a sad number of other Black kids â" a father

    True. A damn good one, at that. Of course, if having a father is the criterion, _I_ am the disadvantaged one. Yet I had to work two jobs to pay cash for a third-rate college after aceing most everything in high school. Hmm.

  43. Maybe not so funny by dcooper_db9 · · Score: 1

    North Carolina bill S634 goes into effect on December 1 of this year making it illegal to drive in the left lane at any speed under the speed limit unless passing another vehicle or making a left turn. If you're in the left lane and slow down to just below the speed limit that will be all the cause they need to pull you over.

    The intent is to get passive-aggressive drivers out of the left lane. In practice this is just going to give one more reason for cops to pull over anyone, any time, for any reason.

    --
    I do not block ads. I do block third party scripts.
  44. Get a warrant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The use in this case is perfectly acceptable to me. With a warrant.

    Without a warrant, the user should be jailed.

  45. Re:ruled unconstitutional, so someone good. EFF by cwsumner · · Score: 1

    ... That part bothers me much less than their patronizing attitude toward my wife and daughter, though, their belief that my wife and daughter can't manage without special favors and protection from snotty white people.

    Those attitudes came down from the southern slave owners, who were also democrats. It is the same attitude that horse owners have to the horses, and maybe it is appropriate for horses. But not for people!