How Militarized Cops Are Zapping Rights With Stingray (alternet.org)

"Police nationwide are secretly exploiting intrusive technologies with the feds' complicity," argues a new article on Alternet -- calling out Stingray, which mimics a cellphone tower to identify every cellphone nearby. "It gathers information not only about a specific suspect, but any bystanders in the area as well... Some Stingrays are capable of collecting not only cell phone ID numbers but also numbers those phones have dialed and even phone conversations." The ACLU says requests for more information have been meeting heavy resistance from police departments since 2011, with many departments citing nondisclosure agreements with Stingray's manufacturer and with the FBI, and "often, the police get a judge's sign-off for surveillance without even bothering to mention that they will be using a Stingray...claiming that they simply can't violate those FBI nondisclosure agreements.

"More often than not, police use Stingrays without bothering to get a warrant, instead seeking a court order on a more permissive legal standard. This is part of the charm of a new technology for the authorities: nothing is settled on how to use it." Stingray is more than a 1960s TV series with puppets. Several state judges estimate there have been hundreds of instances where police have used the Stingray tool without a warrant or telling a judge.

Slashdot reader Presto Vivace writes:
This is why it matters who wins the mayor and city council races. Localities do not have to accept this technology.

Comments

A simple solution to part of the problem

[jenningsthecat]

FTS: "often, the police get a judge's sign-off for surveillance without even bothering to mention that they will be using a Stingray...claiming that they simply can't violate those FBI nondisclosure agreements"

So judges should just get into the habit of asking specific questions about Stingray, and anything similarly illegal, EVERY TIME law enforcement asks for a warrant. Force the cops to make a choice between lying to a judge and violating an NDA with the FBI. It would be entertaining to be a fly on the wall and watch the FBI get thrown under the bus a few (dozen) times in front of a variety of judges.

Re: A simple solution to part of the problem

[Anonymous Coward]

What do you call people working for government who very obviously display criminal behavior in their everyday jobs, like the FBI? Not criminals, because they won't get arrested. What then? Is there a better word that still retains the contempt society should hold for these people?

Re:A simple solution to part of the problem

[alcmena]

This. I'm a relatively well off white male, and I have encountered exactly this happening. Twice...

The first time, I was riding in my car with friends. Had we been drinking? Absolutely. But the driver didn't. He was a heart surgeon at OSU Hospital who was on call. He offered to drive the group because of the fact that he could not possibly drink anything. This was back in 2002. Why is that important? Oh, I don't know. Maybe because a few people crashed some planes in a some buildings, and the entire US turned against anyone who wasn't white. See, my friend, who was a well known heart surgeon, happened to look middle eastern. He was sober. Hadn't drank so much as a drop of alcohol... and he was forced to pull over to a parking lot.

In said parking lot, we were surrounded by 6 police cars and 3 paddy wagons. I was in the back seat, behind a window tinted so you couldn't see me. I had 5 other friends with me. An asian, the middle eastern who drove, an african american, and two other white friends. Every... single... minority was put in handcuffs in the backs of the cop cars. Not one of the whites were. I was mildly drunk, which means I was stupid enough to have no fear of what was happening. I yelled at the cops because of how they treated my friends. I scolded them for how my minority friends were treated differently than we were. I was given "fantastic" answers like, "would you like us to handcuff you too?!?!" to which I "smartly" replied, "yes, and lets explain to the courts why."

It turns out an asshole neighbor of mine saw a bunch of minorities getting into a car (my car!!!!), and reported it being stolen. Having nothing better to do, the entire Columbus, OH police department responded to the theft of a 1984 Chevy Suburban that had more rust than metal. They pulled my friends out, at gunpoint, by their necks and handcuffed them in the back of police cars.

Had things gone slightly different, I might be attending a friend's funeral. It frightens me both in how close I was to having a friend murdered by the police, and looking back and seeing how easily they would have justified it. Only because my friends did not assert their rights are they alive, and ironically, only because as a white male who did assert my rights were they freed.

There are bad people out there. There are great cops out there. The problem is, the police unions are so "pro cop" that any / all attempts to remove the bad cops from the force is null and void. They will protect a "bad cop" at the expense of 1,000,000 "good citizens" and won't think twice about it. I did file a report about what happened to my friends and I, and received a response that the police pulling my friends out at gunpoint was 100% justified because random citizen X reported my car as being stolen.

That was the first time... The second time... was even more "unfortunate". I'll simply say, I understand why poor people do not trust the police. I'm fairly well off, and have personally seen the abuses they are willing to do. The only difference is that I'm well off enough to be able to retaliate via the courts, and my friends often are not.