Cops Deploy StingRay Anti-Terror Tech Against $50 Chicken-Wing Thief (theregister.co.uk)

An anonymous reader shares a report on The Register: Police in Maryland, U.S., used controversial cellphone-tracking technology intended only for the most serious crimes to track down a man who stole $50 of chicken wings. Police in Annapolis -- an hour's drive from the heart of government in Washington DC -- used a StingRay cell tower simulator in an effort to find the location of a man who had earlier robbed a Pizza Boli employee of 15 chicken wings and three sandwiches. Total worth: $56.77. In that case, according to the police log, a court order was sought and received but in many other cases across the United States, the technology is being used with minimal oversight, despite the fact it is only supposed to be used in the most serious cases such as terrorism.Annapolis police never found the thief.

Comments

True Crime

[BradleyUffner]

The real crime here is that 3 sandwiches and 15 wings costs $56.77.

Re:True Crime

[Anonymous Coward]

The critical point (left out of the story) is that the culprit robbed the deliveryman at gunpoint. When you stick a gun in someone's face, the value of what you steal doesn't make your crime less serious.

Re:True Crime

[haruchai]

It's America. Robbing or being robbed at gunpoint is guaranteed by the Constitution.

Re:True Crime

[tk77]

I don't see where in the original story it mentions anything about a gun in the chicken wing case. The source of the story talks about a number of cases where Stingray was used, one of them being a 77-year old woman whose cell phone and other items were stolen at gun point. The part where it talks about the chicken wing theft doesn't say anything about a gun being involved. Unless I missed that part.

Re:True Crime

[Calydor]

If you can't cite a single reputable source for the chicken wings and sandwiches being stolen at gunpoint (or with a knife or any other potentially lethal weapon) then we have no way of determining whether you are talking out of your ass or not. The fact that you are posting anonymously then points in the direction of not wanting to tarnish an otherwise proper reputation, and that only lends credence to assuming you are full of it.

TL,DR: Citation needed.

Re:True Crime

[haruchai]

"less likely to point a gun at a 'helpless' victim if said person had a better than even chance of being armed themselves"
In most cases they'd have the drop on you so armed or not, you'd still have a better than even chance of taking a bullet without being able to retaliate.
Unless you're walking around without your gun at the ready and safety off, you're better served by body armor.

If it's available, it will be used..

[QuietLagoon]

... it is only supposed to be used in the most serious cases such as terrorism....

A law enforcement official once told me that he will use any and all tools that are available to him, regardless of their intended usage.

.
So stories like this no longer surprise me.

Re:If it's available, it will be used..

[TheGratefulNet]

no one is watching the watchers and this is the result of that.

power, unchecked, gets us this.

but keep giving the cops more destructo-toys and spy gadgets. I'm sure there is another boogeyman we should all be afraid of.

look, kids today at least know the reality. when I grew up, we were taught to respect and trust the cops. now, kids know better. so, at least the truth gets out there. sadly, though, it is not helping change the way things are done.

Re:If it's available, it will be used..

[OzPeter]

no one is watching the watchers and this is the result of that.

power, unchecked, gets us this.

I know this is slashdot .. but did you miss the part in TFS where the cop GOT THE COURT ORDER FIRST????????

Re:If it's available, it will be used..

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the point is that the court order shouldn't have been given... since this is an 'national security' level tool... and we're talking about a pizza shop.

Re:If it's available, it will be used..

[whoever57]

I know this is slashdot .. but did you miss the part in TFS where the cop GOT THE COURT ORDER FIRST????????

Did you miss the part where Stingray devices involve massive privacy breaches on the general population, so using one for a trivial robbery is massive overreach.

Yes, I know they got a court order, but it would be a safe bet that the police obfuscated the actual nature of the Stingray device, because that's what they do.

Re:If it's available, it will be used..

[DroolTwist]

You mean the court orders that are never denied? He could probably submit one to find out where his daughter goes on a date and get it approved. It really wouldn't surprise me if the courts these are submitted to are nothing more than an automated system that auto-approves everything.

Re:If it's available, it will be used..

[Lumpy]

Which is why you never EVER trust a cop.

They are not there to protect you, understand that.

Re:If it's available, it will be used..

[Jason Levine]

Stories like this get me angry for more than just the standard "misuse of power" reasons. Years back, my identity was stolen (someone opened a credit card in my name and only a quirk of fate caused it to come to me instead of the thieves). The police investigating it seemed uninterested in following up any leads and confessed to me that they didn't want to pursue it because the trail would likely lead to another jurisdiction. The fact that they'd do the work and someone else would get the collar meant, to them, that it wasn't worth it doing the work at all. The thief was never caught and, as far as I know, could still be opening credit cards in other people's names to this day.

This isn't to say that something like Stingray should be used in cases of identity theft, but that police can go overboard - violating civil rights - trying to get a suspect in one instance (using Stingray to catch a chicken wing thief) and not do their basic job in other instances. There's got to be a middle ground where they do their job, are happy when they contribute to an arrest even if they don't MAKE the arrest, and don't violate people's civil rights in the process.

Re:If it's available, it will be used..

[LWATCDR]

It is but is more and more likely to happen. As people use cash less and less using a gun to rob people becomes a lot less profitable. When I was a kid people often robbed Supermarkets, Gas Stations, and Liquor stores. Those stores could have lots of cash on hand but even by the early 70s Supermarkets started to take checks which really cut down on robberies.
If someone mugged me on most days they would get under $5.

Re:If it's available, it will be used..

[sootman]

> Did you miss the part where Stingray devices involve massive privacy breaches
> on the general population, so using one for a trivial robbery is massive overreach.

Next time they'll just nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.*

* Unless they guy left the area.

Re:If it's available, it will be used..

[Archangel Michael]

We hold judges to such a high and undeserved "esteem" that we fail to realize that they are just like everyone else, flawed often critically. WE should not hold ANYONE it high esteem just because of their office, nor should we esteem a person less because of lack thereof. But we do, all of us.

This is part of the decline in our society, is that we place value not on a person, but only what they can do for us.

Re:If it's available, it will be used..

[TheGratefulNet]

it is said and believed by most kids these days:

"if you call a cop to come out and deal with a problem you are having, ONE of you will be taken back with him; and it may not be the one you think it should be"

or to that effect.

you have a noisy neighbor, you call the cops to get some peace and quiet. but maybe things go weird and the neighbor lied about you and the cop believes him. the cop is NOT going to go back without his 'man' and so one of you has to take the hit.

this is strong motivation to NOT call the cops, unless its life and death. even then!

I take this to heart, myself. do I want to risk an encounter with a guy who probably was too dumb to get into college and walks around thinking he's untouchable? or do I want to just live with the neighbor noise and at least keep my life, limb and bank account intact?

I have never called the cops. it would take quite a bit for me to ask those thugs to come to my house. and I know this is more and more common, and NOT just in poor neighborhoods, either!

Re:If it's available, it will be used..

[haruchai]

It's Checks & Balances all the way down

Re:If it's available, it will be used..

[Alain Williams]

Could someone do a Freedom of Information request on what the police put into court. Either the cop or the judge should lose his job./p?

Re:If it's available, it will be used..

[The Grim Reefer]

Actually you might want to read the story. 1. They actually got a court order. 2. It was an armed robbery. AKA at gunpoint. Does not seem so crazy evil anymore.

Yes it does. While I agree that armed robbers need to be apprehended and tried, this particular tool is not something that should be used like this. What about the rights of everyone else in the area who got their calls rerouted through this thing? Stingrays are meant to be used against terrorist threats. You know, things like dirty bombs and 9-11 type stuff. Not a crime that probably happens every 2 minutes somewhere in the US.

Re:If it's available, it will be used..

[Opportunist]

They do over here in Europe. They're subject to insanely tight peer review, and stepping out of line usually means that your career is pretty much over.

Then again, they're not appointed by politicians, so yes, there is still some sanity in at least one of our branches.

Re:If it's available, it will be used..

[Harlequin80]

While you may feel stitched up about their response I don't believe the reality is what you think it is. Identify theft is likely to cover multiple jurisdictions and hence fall under a larger organisation like the FBI. Your local police have neither the resources or the skills to track that type of crime, so they do what they are meant to, they document the offence and the details and it will get slurped by the FBI or whoever is looking after that type of case and it will be data matched and investigated by them.

With an armed hold up, you have someone who is willing to threaten someone with a weapon for a small return. The logical step is that that same person is also willing to harm someone for a small return. They are much more geographically restricted and pose a clear and present danger to the wider community. You also know that there will be no long term record trail, such as that created by identity fraud, so you have a very small window to successfully catch them.

So?

[110010001000]

So? They had a court order to do it and that is a felony. Of course the "outrageous" story left out a little bit: the guy robbed the employee using a handgun. Oh wait, that is a bit less outrageous. Anything for clicks though! Good job Slashdot.

Re:So?

[sed quid in infernos]

You've identified the two most important points. "Robbery" (when used correctly) indicates a violent crime involving force or threat of force. It is usually classified as a crime against the person, rather than a crime against property (like mere larceny or, in some cases, burglary). A robbery is, by definition, a violent felony. And, of course, the officer got a court order.

Re:So?

[Frank Burly]

Yeah, the value of the stuff stolen is beside the point: robbery is much worse than theft. I think the most likely scenario is that they employee was robbed of the chicken wings and his/her cell phone, and that police inferred that whoever had the cell was the robber (how else would they know the IMEI, phone number or the suspect?). I am OK with intercepting a signals from an stolen phone because there is no reasonable privacy expectation in something you stole.

Re:So?

[lgw]

They had a court order to do it and that is a felony.

So these obscenely privacy-violating devices that totally ignore the Constitution (100% of the intercepted traffic was innocent people, after all - wiretaps are supposed to be very specific), which were originally pitched as "for national security and terrorism" now have the bar lowered to "violent felony" (where no one was actually hurt). This year. The bar will be lower still 5 years from now. The government never gives up power.

Iron Law of Law Enforcement Agencies

[crunchygranola]

Any "tool" of surveillance or coercion provided to a law enforcement agency, on the pretext that it is necessary in extraordinary circumstances, will be soon employed in routine circumstances.

OK with this if it cuts both ways

[rbrander]

I'm OK with great transparency of the citizens to the police, if they get warrants. As long as there's great transparency of the police to the citizens, if we make polite requests to know exactly where they were and what they were saying every minute they were on the clock.

They should be bugged all the time and the data available for retroactive viewing. That's harsh - I'd hate it on my job - but policing is a very high calling and they carry deadly weapons in our name...and, oh, yeah, they have the power to surveill any of us on request now, because our lives are computer-mediated and they've reserved the right to access all those records that didn't use to even exist.

That's given them vastly expanded powers to do their job (for us! hooray! This wing-bandit was caught and his stupid gun taken away! Yay!) but power breeds trouble and it justifies an enhanced surveillance...of the police. Sorry guys.

"Thief" or "Robber"?

[mpoulton]

The summary says he was a "chicken wing thief", but the story says he "robbed" the employee. Theft and robbery are different, for good reason. Stealing property is nonviolent. Robbing someone of property (i.e. taking it from a person by force or threat of force) is a violent crime. When someone sticks gun in your face and demands that you hand over the goods, it doesn't make much difference if the goods are chicken wings or jewelry, does it? Without more information about what this guy actually did to forcibly acquire those chicken wings, it's not very reasonable to conclude that this should have been a low priority case and the cops went overboard. Was he armed? Did he really threaten force? Did he assault the guy? TFA does not answer the real questions.

because logic isn't about playing the odds

[Ionized]

logical arguments should be rigorous. slippery slope arguments are 'well often times X means Y, so in this case X means Y also'

it's pretty much the same reason why we frown on racial stereotypes or profiling, gender discrimination, or anything of that sort.

Actually a gunpoint robbery

[Nukenbar]

Yes, the proceeds of the robbery was only food, but this guy seem dangerous enough to use this technology under court order.

Armed Robbery

[ShooterNeo]

The crime was armed robbery, where the criminal pointed a loaded handgun at a human being and threatened to kill them if they did not give up their property. That's what makes this a serious crime - the threat of imminent death. It is completely legal to respond to an armed robbery by basically summarily gunning down the robber without warning.