Slashdot Mirror
No, Turning On Your Phone Is Not Consenting To Being Tracked By Police (theintercept.com)
An anonymous reader writes: The Maryland Court of Special Appeals on Wednesday upheld a historic decision by a state trial court that the warrantless use of cell-site simulators, or Stingrays, violates the Fourth Amendment. The trial had suppressed evidence obtained by the warrantless use of a Stingray -- the first time any court in the nation had done so. Last April, a Baltimore police detective testified that the department has used Stingrays 4,300 times since 2007, usually without notifying judges or defendants. Stingrays mimic cellphone towers, tricking nearby phones into connecting and revealing users' locations. Stingrays sweep up data on every phone nearby -- collecting information on dozens or potentially hundreds of people. The ruling has the potential to set a strong precedent about warrantless location tracking.
They've been watching The Wire a tad too much.
Unless they are morons, the state will only appeal if they think this is a good test case for them. So this is unlikely to set particularly meaningful precedent.
...remaining alive is deemed to give consent for any branch of government to do what the hell it likes....
More like broadcasting my position does not give carte blanche for the police to do what amounts to a warrantless wiretap of everyone in the vicinity. IMO
Just like having a landline attached to the phone company's network doesn't grant them permission. That wire is up there on the pole, where pretty much anyone who's willing to climb up there can get to it. Just because it's easy to do doesn't make it okay. As the court has ruled on many occasions.
All those "It's the Constitution Dummy" Republicans seem to be missing in action for anything that's not about gun control or confirming court nominations.
I live near a city whose police department is currently operating under a DoJ consent decree (Seatle). At this point, the DoJ is operating under the assumption that a cop turning on his cell phone is consent to being tracked by the FBI.
Have gnu, will travel.
IMSI-catchers, like the infamous Harris Stingray, operate in two different modes, passive and active.
In passive mode it just listens to the cellular frequencies and records the IMSI of any device in range. This is similar to WiFi war driving and listening passively for SSIDs. While there are some preventative measures you can take, at some point you just have to broadcast the ID in the clear for things to work. Not a lot can be done to securely protect against this.
However, in active mode the IMSI-catcher spoofs credentials and claims to be a valid cell tower, tricking the cell phone to actually connect to it. This allows everything from text messages, to DTMF tones to the contents of a voice call to be captured.
Here is where there is room for end-user security improvements. One step would be to whitelist the known towers in your area, refusing to let your phone connect to any tower not on your list -- such as claimed NEW towers.
Net stumbler applications like Wigle include lists of cellular networks in their scans and databases. A crowd-sourced or crowd-validated list of known, real towers could serve as an initial load or verification.
The trick is getting your phone to connect only to the whitelisted towers. I believe that function lies in the baseband processor and access to that is normally locked down tight.
This could be a nice addition to something like Silent Circle's Blackphone.
If nothing else, it should be possible to have your phone alert you when it connects to a non-whitelisted cell tower. After all, Android has the ability to display what tower you're connected to. Apps like Network Signal Info Pro certainly give enough details.
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
Court rules that broadcasting your position is not broadcasting your position. Remember, judges are people who couldn't make a living as lawyers.
Court rules that broadcasting your position to your phone company is not equivalent to broadcasting your position to the police.
The police should not be legally allowed to operate Stingrays, since everything they collect from a Stringray is also available through a subpoena to the phone company, with more controls to ensure that they are only monitoring those who they are legally allowed to monitor.
One could argue that using any public service or utility could give consent to some authoritarian add-on. Instead of letting the police continuously nibble at our rights, we need some solid laws that block any further attempts. If they gather data without a warrant then they have broken laws with mandatory minimum sentencing.
>That's a lot of founding father grave spinning.
See, Trump can use them to excavate the footing for his wall. He's a problem solver.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Turing on your phone is consent.... Who thought up that silly idea?
Everyone knows the consent is given by choosing to live in a "safe" country.
Not sure where you got that, but it was Maryland's Court of Special Appeals; Maryland's second highest court. Its decision is binding on the entire state.
The government can ask for an en banc hearing from the Court of Special Appeals or appeal to Maryland's highest court, The Court of Appeals.
The original opinion was written by a trial judge and the first sentence of TFA states, "The Maryland Court of Special Appeals on Wednesday upheld a historic decision by a state trial court that the warrantless use of cell-site simulators, or Stingrays, violates the Fourth Amendment."
The opinion has not yet been filed but here's the order.
So...all they need to do is get a female sheep to make a declaration an that is law? Is this some form of Parliamentary Procedure I am unfamiliar with? Are you, perchance, from Scotland?
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
Equipment sharing, build costs, government standards, ability to track, ability to get text, voice prints, gps.
Every generation was designed, built and sold globally on the expectation that law enforcement and the mil would need total live access or be able to recreate movement maps from standard logs.
The only need was to keep out random people with consumer or more advanced methods from getting to actual voice conversations.
Such thinking would go back to the late 1970's, early 1980's as very early standards got set. No interesting person was going to get a free one time pad and number station to move around the world with. So a lot of standards got set so the mil and govs could get access to almost all the surrounding "billing", "meta", "location" "company" logs. Voice prints was the other emerging fun aspect. Now mil tech is in the reach of local city, parish, state, county law enforcement budgets with historically few or no local or federal court oversight.
The other aspect would be a more easy transfer between any brands tower as a user moves. Less complexity, less math needed to be done, more gov/mil support.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
It's hard enough to get a judge to rule that the cops need to follow the law. It's practically impossible to punish the police for violating the law and willfully disobeying a judge's decision.
There is absolutely no oversight on law enforcement. They routinely break the law and are routinely found to be on the wrong side of the law by the courts. What happens then is some cops shrug and go back to doing what they're doing because there are no consequences for lawless cop behavior.
When cops start getting fired (and losing their pensions and benefits) and/or being thrown in jail for their criminal offenses, things might start to change.
One already exists.
If you're a moron with no legal background why post like you're a lawyer?
Why don't you explain in what way my statement is incorrect? Of course you can't. You just want to hitch your wagon to the general ignorance, it's a lot easier.
lucm, indeed.