Judge: Stingrays Are 'Simply Too Powerful' Without Adequate Oversight (arstechnica.com)

New submitter managerialslime sends news that an Illinois judge has issued new requirements the government must meet before it can use cell-site simulators, a.k.a. "stingrays," to monitor the communications of suspected criminals. While it's likely to set precedent for pushing back against government surveillance powers, the ruling is specific to the Northern District of Illinois for now. What is surprising is Judge Johnston’s order to compel government investigators to not only obtain a warrant (which he acknowledges they do in this case), but also to not use them when "an inordinate number of innocent third parties’ information will be collected," such as at a public sporting event. This first requirement runs counter to the FBI’s previous claim that it can warrantlessly use stingrays in public places, where no reasonable expectation of privacy is granted. Second, the judge requires that the government "immediately destroy" collateral data collection within 48 hours (and prove it to the court). Finally, Judge Johnston also notes: "Third, law enforcement officers are prohibited from using any data acquired beyond that necessary to determine the cell phone information of the target. A cell-site simulator is simply too powerful of a device to be used and the information captured by it too vast to allow its use without specific authorization from a fully informed court."

Comments

Great

[clonehappy]

So the three-letter-agencies and the local yokels will have to just continue using parallel construction. Isn't it amazing how many detailed and accurate "anonymous tips" the police receive?

Re:Great

[NormalVisual]

It's usually a little more subtle than that. Once the evidence is discovered via illegal means, the information is forwarded on to the local law enforcement folks, who then might tail the suspect until they do something *provably* illegal (tail light out, improper lane change, loitering, etc.). Once they have an excuse to detain the suspect, they can use dogs (also questionable, IMO) or whatever other *actual, documented* means (as opposed to "theoretical" means) to get the evidence that will then stand up to scrutiny in court. I imagine it often happens that the arresting officers themselves aren't even let in on the secret by their bosses. They're just told to look for a specific person or make/model of car with this license plate number, and find a reason to pull it over.

Your basic premise is sound though - it's still nothing more than a near-bulletproof means of gaining evidence illegally and keeping the true means by which it was discovered from the court. Lies of omission are still lies.

Next step?

[tgrigsby]

Perhaps carriers should be forced, by law, to encrypt their traffic such that the police would necessarily be forced to ask for the keys to decrypt the calls from a specific phone?