Slashdot Mirror


Secret Service Allowed To Use Warrantless Cellphone Tracking (myway.com)

mi writes: A mere belief in there being a threat against the President or any other protected person is now sufficient for the U.S. Secret Service to use cell-site simulators (commonly known as "stingrays"). In certain "exceptional circumstances," the stingrays can be used without a judge-signed warrant and even without probable cause. When asked whether this essentially granted a blanket exception for the Secret Service, Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Seth Stodder said the exemption would not be used in routine criminal probes, such as a counterfeiting investigation. I suppose, the personal verbal assurance of an executive-branch government employee should put all fears of the citizenry to rest.

10 of 104 comments (clear)

  1. 4th amendment by NoKaOi · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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; unless the government doesn't feel like it.

    FTFY

  2. Glad to see that it's only exceptional by Diddlbiker · · Score: 2

    Exceptional circumstances, like "Today's a day ending in a 'y'"

  3. not guaranteed, could be paralyzed like my friend by raymorris · · Score: 3, Informative

    > Can't be that bad, and it definitely will be brief.

    A friend of mine stuck a gun in his mouth. Splattered across the wall was the part of his brain that controls muscle function. Now he's a prisoner of paralysis.

    To anyone seriously thinking along these lines, that's a very permanent solution to a temporary problem. Remember in high school it was the end of the world when that girl or guy you liked went to the prom with someone else or whatever? Now, it doesn't seem to matter at all. Whatever today's problem is, whatever is the end of the world today, will seem almost as unimportant after a while.

  4. Re:So? by tompaulco · · Score: 3, Informative

    Google tracks cell phones without a warrant and they don't need a belief in anything to do it. When corporations track and commoditize you like an animal, what do you care about your privacy?

    The constitution doesn't limit what Google can do, it limits what the government can do. It would take new laws being written to say that Google can't do track you, which would be shortly followed by Google going out of business. On the other hand, this is big news that the SS can do this, because constitutionally, no they can't.

    --
    If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
  5. Re:Really? by gstoddart · · Score: 2

    Well, in case you're only just joking ... the governments have been ignoring the Constitution at an accelerating rate for quite some time.

    They're fully into "don't give a fuck" by now.

    All those people who have taken an oath to "defend and uphold the Constitution"? That means "except where inconvenient".

    Are you still laboring under the belief you live in a free and just society? You should get over that.

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  6. Voteobama? by mi · · Score: 5, Insightful

    In 2008, when this very site discussed John McCain's opinion on warrantless wiretapping, his views were sufficiently unpopular for TFA to be tagged voteobama...

    The first post requested a link on Obama's view on the subject — and got a +1 Interesting upvote. The reply — with a level-5 moderation — quoted a promise by the then junior Senator from Illinois thus:

    Obama: No warrantless wiretaps if you elect me

    All of you, fellow Slashdotters, who voted for the post-racial Nobel Peace Prize winner based on that (or similar) promise, should ask for your money back. Public self-flagellation is optional.

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    1. Re:Voteobama? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I like this new definition of meta-data. When I do SQL meta-data is the column definitions, when you do illegal wiretapping meta-data is everything in the table, all the data, except 1 column with the voice recording. Not sure why you believe they are just not looking at that 1 last column (the voice recording of the call) when they are looking at everything else.

      I guess you are more prone to believe proven liars, that even you admit lied, than I am.

  7. Re:And what if they said otherwise? by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 2

    There is no check up on this, just as there isn't for all that NSA stuff. A check box, "did you get a warrant?" with no alarms going off if you didn't, and no tracking of what you looked at in any case, is a recipe for corruption to spy on politic enemies.

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  8. Re:Well now by rastos1 · · Score: 2

    As if having one judge standby per state was not worth upholding the Constitution.

  9. Re:Well now by Holi · · Score: 2

    And the exceptional circumstance clause in the Constitution says what? I mean I have been back and forth through it and I just can't find that part that says they can disregard if they really really want to.

    --
    Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.