Slashdot Mirror
Stingray Case Lawyers: "Everyone Knows Cell Phones Generate Location Data" (techdirt.com)
An anonymous reader writes with news that the Maryland Attorney General is arguing that anyone who has ever used a smartphone knows it's tracking them, so no warrant is needed for stingrays. Techdirt says: "Up in Baltimore, where law enforcement Stingray device use hit critical mass faster and more furiously than anywhere else in the country (to date...) with the exposure of 4,300 deployments in seven years, the government is still arguing there's no reason to bring search warrants into this. The state's Attorney General apparently would like the Baltimore PD's use of pen register orders to remain standard operating procedure. According to a brief filed in a criminal case relying on the warrantless deployment of an IMSI catcher (in this case a Hailstorm), the state believes there's no reason for police to seek a warrant because everyone "knows" cell phones generate data when they're turned on or in use.
The brief reads in part: 'The whereabouts of a cellular telephone are not "withdrawn from public view" until it is turned off, or its SIM card removed. Anyone who has ever used a smartphone is aware that the phone broadcasts its position on the map, leading to, for example, search results and advertising tailored for the user's location, or to a "ride-sharing" car appearing at one's address. And certainly anyone who has ever used any sort of cellular telephone knows that it must be in contact with an outside cell tower to function.'"
The brief reads in part: 'The whereabouts of a cellular telephone are not "withdrawn from public view" until it is turned off, or its SIM card removed. Anyone who has ever used a smartphone is aware that the phone broadcasts its position on the map, leading to, for example, search results and advertising tailored for the user's location, or to a "ride-sharing" car appearing at one's address. And certainly anyone who has ever used any sort of cellular telephone knows that it must be in contact with an outside cell tower to function.'"
The mere fact that the data exists is not itself the point. It is completely reasonable to expect some degree of privacy in one's communications regardless of how easily they are intercepted (which everyone "knows"). Physical mail is easily intercepted and read too. Is this the new standard that will allow the police to randomly read an entire neighborhood's mail as well? What ever happened to "probable cause"? But then, I was born in the 20th century, so I guess I'm just old-fashioned.
He's missing the point. Everyone knows that the post office handles all your mail, but it's still not allowed to tell the police what you're receiving without a warrant. The existence of a record does not imply the availability of that record to law enforcement or the government.
"Go to CNN [for a] spell-checked, fact-checked summary" -- CmdrTaco
Post that shit online at 5 sec intervals.
Then why did they keep the Stingray surveillance secret? They should immediately release all the Stringray documents into the public domain! Even now they're fighting tooth and nail to conceal not just the details of the device, but the details on when it was used!
I also don't think people realize the depth of the surveillance problems with these smartphones, and I bet most people think dumb phones (without GPS) don't track location at all. They would be wrong, even a dumb-phone is location trackable. So his claim of full knowledge of everyone (and some sort of implicit agreement) is therefore false.
But Stingray also tracks ASSOCIATIONS, who you call and who calls you, even if you're not the target being followed, and possibly even the calls themselves and other data. We don't really know because Stringray is just one brand and we can't see the data on what these devices are capable of, we only know that modern calls have piss poor encryption courtesy of meddling.
i.e. it violates the freedom of association by imposing warrantless surveillance.
It's been used against journalists to locate their whistleblower sources and against protestors to block protests, so it does not have mass knowledge+consent.
By their own logic I should have just as easy of a time to be able to set up my own cell towers and siphon in all the location data that comes into it, and the government can't say boo about it. I should be able to know where everyone who connects to my personal cell tower is located at that moment, in an effort to stalk my girlfriend without her ever knowing about it. As noted in other threads already: They can't legally expect to be able to go through the mail of an entire neighborhood at the post office level, as such, they should not expect to be able to do essentially the same thing with setting up their own cell towers.
Removing the SIM doesn't change the IMEI.
Hailstorm tracks by IMEI; SIM data is incidental. Someone should demonstrate tracking him with his SIM removed. I expect he might be ... disturbed.
Everyone knows that the windows of the Stingray lawyers generate visual data. That's why it's OK to put surveillance drones at each of the windows of Stingray lawyers. Also, everyone knows that sound is just vibrations, which is why it is also OK to use a laser's reflection off the windows of the Stingray lawyers to record what they're saying. Everyone knows it's really easy to intercept mail and anyone who really wanted to could do it, which is why it is OK to read the Stingray lawyers mail.
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
So the /. readership is mostly comfortable with Shodan because, although the webcam owners aren't broadcasting, if you broadcast a signal into someone's home, you might get a signal in return.
However, if that person walks out of their home with a device that broadcasts all the time no matter where it is, the /. readership is uncomfortable with that signal being received.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Stingray!
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
Your suggested interval is too much work, BUT...
If someone were to figure out the MAC address of his cell phone's WiFi interface (assuming it isn't an Apple that scrambles MAC addresses), a volunteer-run network of consumer-grade routers scattered around the city could get a pretty good fix on his location. I'm using the term 'network' very loosely here, of course; it's a network in that they're affiliated, not in that they're functionally connected. It would be 100% legal and inexpensive to do.
www.wavefront-av.com
Why get upset? Everyone knows it's happening. Therefore you must expect it and tolerate it when the police do it.
By their own logic I should have just as easy of a time to be able to set up my own cell towers and siphon in all the location data that comes into it, and the government can't say boo about it
Surely you jest. Even if you were serious, you probably don't have the resources to pull it off nor you may have any ideas of how to make money off this. But all it takes is someone to plant this idea in the head of some pointy haired boss in Goldman Sachs or JPMC. There are sitting on two trillion dollars of excess capital and don't know what to do with it. They might decide to do it. Atleast with the government you might get a chance to vote against it or legislate against it. But once Goldman does it, that is the end. There is nothing anyone, including Goldman can do about it.
So stop giving them ideas.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
Under existing Fourth Amendment law, you are sharing the location information with the cell company and therefore have no legitimate expectation of privacy in it.
Under *Existing* law. There is a reason why SCOTUS is pushing back a little against Orwellian surveillance, and eventually stingray cases will get to them. Hopefully the case will be brought to them because of a good defense attorney *rather than* because it is the case of choice for the Department of Justice.
Everyone also knows that those who built the phones intentionally made it so we cannot disable that little "feature" without rendering the device inoperable.
Since we have no means of disabling it, other protections must be in place to safeguard the data. Thus, just flashing a badge or a NSL isn't sufficient. ( nor lucrative government contract deals )
Target a specific device with a warrant and few will have any issues with it. ( other than the government )
Keep up the mass surveillance and this house of cards you've built is going to come crashing down on you once American products are blacklisted due to being untrustworthy.
Even if cellphones are technically trackable, what "everyone knows" is that the government is legally required to refrain from using that information without a warrant. You know, the whole "rule of law" and all that? Any government official who has problem with that concept should be removed from office.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
On his fat ass in his office. Done your welcome
OMG Ponies!!! with Glitter!!!! I miss Pink
Show me the law that says I am not allowed to locate the source of a radio broadcast or it is you that I am pissing on.
Hello, Maryland AG's Mother, and thank you for appearing in front of us today as an expert Mother. Your son has argued that everyone knows cell phones create, store, and broadcast location data all the time so no warrant is needed for tracking them. Did you know that your phone is reporting your location to the phone company 24 hours a day? Did you know your son wants to know where you go every hour of the day, and believes he has the right to do so without a warrant?
Sure everyone knows they generate location data.... but that location data is *NOT* automatically public information unless the public actually has a direct way to receive and analyze it. Obtaining it for another person typically requires the explicit cooperation of a third party. Therefore, it should require a warrant.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
"everyone who lives and breathes knows they're being tracked so it's legal. even if we keep it completely secret, hidden from the courts, and defendants so they can't defend themselves."
fucking retarded chomos. williambinney.com
If the continuing argument from the government is going to be "if we can technically do it then we should be able to legally do it"... then the solution is to make it so that you can't technically do it.
happy now?
That's apparently where this has to go.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
So also by that logic, we're also allowed to track all LEO, judges, DAs, and politicians by their phones... right?
Moron should be fired for knowing nothing about how the US constitution works, how warrants are supposed to work, etc.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
Someone should host a publically accessable website that geolocates law enforcement officers in those cities to test their convictions on this issue.
Let 'em look. I've got nothing to hide.
You really think so?
Just because what you are doing isn't illegal, doesn't mean there isn't someone who doesn't like what you are doing. And if that person is in (or knows someone who is in) a position of power, he can cause you a lot of grief.
Don't try to out wierd me, three-eyes. I get stranger things than you, free with my breakfast cereal. --Zaphod Beeblebr
How can this guy seriously make the argument that something should be legal simply because people knew it was happening (likely illegally) before hand. Taking this line of reasoning, it could be argued that being illegally searched without probable cause is now legal simply because people expect it to happen anyway (even if they don't agree or like it).
While he's at it, why not apply this argument to every clause in the Bill of Rights and have the whole constitution repealed! Law enforcement have been 'getting away' with all sorts of activities that fly in the face of just about every clause in there. If there was a clause that specifically forbad the use of the Constitution to wipe one's ass, you know it'd be covered in shit. Come to think of it, I wonder what was written under that brown stain at the bottom of the document.
And the likelihood of that happening is like 1:1,000,000,000. Let's get real. This is more useful for catching terrorists.
Let 'em look. I have nothing to hide.
Says the Anonymous Coward, what are you hiding?
Let's just turn over all the cell towers to law enforcement if they don't need warrants to intercept cell communications. At least then we'll know for certain that they are spying on us everywhere, all the time.
(Score: -1, Stupid)
Some local lady investigated why her phone acted funny and the guys listening in were accidentally talking out through her call. She was quoted as asking the other person she meant to be on a call with if they could also hear the male voices talking. Then the phone clicked a bit and the voices were off. The article said she got a phone that is pretty good at detecting and she can see her 4g connection turn to 2g and gets a warning that her phone can no longer switch towers. The device takes your phone over for a bit and people are listening in.
This is not a case of location data being revealed, it is all out spying on random people while trying to find the targeted person. The local PD said they don't own a stingray but borrow the FBI's when they want to use one. They claim that using them helped them catch a guy in a high profile murder case a year ago. The lady interviewed was upset that she keeps being tracked (as we all are being) while the police are looking for whomever it is they are after.
I am most concerned that phones are being turned on as hidden mics in your pocket wherever you happen to be. This is not something people consider normally happening at all.