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

Correct phrasing.

[Anonymous Coward]

nothing is settled on how to use it

This isn't a problem with new technology. This is a problem with powertripping fuckheads.

The Fourth Amendment, in very simple and explicit language, settled the use of Stingray long before it was even imagined.

Re:Correct phrasing.

[sexconker]

The Constitution explicitly applies to things that didn't exist at the time of its writing, and the language was expressly crafted to include future changes in society, technology, etc.

Re:Correct phrasing.

[Feyshtey]

When opinion trumps the Constitution then the Constitution is no longer being upheld and protected by the government servants sworn to do precisely that.

The Constitution was deliberately crafted to limit what the government may do to the people without due process. Your argument here, is that because those in government who have power think its ok to weild that power against the people, then it is inherently ok for those with power to weild it against the people. That is precisely the thing that the Constitution was built to protect against, and anyone unwilling to see that or to do the mental gymnastics necessary to dismiss it is intellectually lazy, intellectually dishonest or morally corrupt.

The opinions of any individual bureaucrat isnt even relevant. What is relevant is the opinion of the judges in the courts. These days I dont have a hell of a lot of faith in them either, since so many are activist judges. However, they do get it right on occasion, and more than a couple have found Stingray to be a violation of the Fourth Amendment. (http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/crime/bs-md-ci-stingray-court-decision-20160331-story.html)

parallel evidence

[ebonum]

Hard to see what the problem. The police gather information illegally with a stingray. Then they know who/what/where to look for. Then they create a secondary story to explain how they made the bust. In the drive through a McDonald's noticed suspect leave motel and get in his car. Suspect stumbled and appeared to be inebriated. When suspect was pulled over, suspect seemed nervous which justified the search which lead to the happy fortuitous discovery of drugs...
No cops where jailed during the crime, so all good.

Re:parallel evidence

[Agripa]

Law enforcement is very careful not to record the number of drug searches which turn up nothing just like they are very careful not to record the number of false drug dog indications. If they did that, it would reveal the magnitude of their deceit.

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]

In general, the practice in america is to throw the accused in jail for a few months until they confess, citing high (99.9+%) conviction rates and the fact that the judge WILL throw the book at anyone who dares to take a case to a trial in the first place, in order to set an example. By the time a new inmate has sampled the delights of sleeping on a concrete floor with three square feet of personal space, and sharing a toilet with twelve other men for a month or two, most of them will admit to almost anything if it means they get time served.

Particularly in california, the legal system is very predatory.

Re:A simple solution to part of the problem

[AK Marc]

Torture was invented in the inquisition to extract confessions. The truth was never required. The same holds true today. The torture isn't explicit damage, but threat of it. Confess or you'll be raped every day for the rest of your life. That's explicit torture.

Re:A simple solution to part of the problem

[khchung]

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.

Remind me again, why would any judge want to make cops' life difficult?

If a judge signed a warrant which subsequently led to the illegal use of Stingray, would there be any penalty for the judge? The answer is most likely no, and therein lies the root of the problem.

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

[JRV31]

The cops simply make up a fake chain of evidence.

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.

Re:airplane mode

[pete6677]

Why not just keep your phone in a Faraday Cage at all times?

Re:Geoffrey Stone speaks!

[Quzak]

Great idea! Lets keep people from thinking for themselves and trying to understand and thus provide public discourse to an issue that is getting way out of hand. We wouldnt want the sheep to get all uppity and using their critical thinking skills. Consume, work, sleep. Eat shit and die.

The Police State

[surfdaddy]

The Police State is progressing successfully, all while we continue to ensure that the masses believe they are free and have a full bill of rights that is followed legally.

If you build it, they will come

[Required Snark]

If the Feds gave local police military helicopters with Hellfire missiles they would routinely be used on jaywalkers and drivers who didn't use turn signals. If it was nukes they would be used on speeders. One of the perks of being a cop is the right to use unjustifiable force any time you can get away with it.

Civil Contracts vs. The Constitution

[Maxwell'sSilverLART]

...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.

So their position, then, is that they've contracted away our constitutional rights? Is that the long and the short of it?

Re:Civil Contracts vs. The Constitution

[Anonymous Coward]

Yea, it is pretty much the same as the contract between the five eyes.

The CIA is not supposed to spy on US-nationals in the U.S.A, so they let MI5 spy inside the U.S.A. and share the information with the CIA. Not exactly in the spirit of the law, is it.

Moral of the story....

[Lumpy]

never Ever trust the police. They are no different than the Crips or Bloods except they are better financed.

Cases dropped

[Archfeld]

The 6th amendment right to confront your accuser has caused many cases brought about by so called stingray devices to be dropped for fear of violating the NDA's signed by the department utilizing the devices, FBI included. I'm not saying they aren't out there or that many departments aren't over-stepping their bounds but any decent lawyer will challenge the source of transcripts and many cases have magically faded away for the lack of evidence unless they are major cases that can invoke secret warrants or such as national security issues.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-po...

http://forums.theregister.co.u...

https://www.techdirt.com/artic...

Better Cannon meet improved Wall

[Pepebuho]

I believe this whole outcry is quite stupid. It has quite a "simple" technical solution.
1. Crowdsource the position and coordinates of "legal" cell tower antennas. It's not hard, they are visible . If it is possible to have "OpenStreetMap" I do not see why it cannot have a layer called "OpenCellSites". Just like Waze
2. Write an App, or include it in the firmware that keeps the cellphone from answering siren calls from any antenna not in the list.
Stingray is not a problem if you simply do not answer its call.

I know #2 maybe difficult if it is in the firmware inside radio module. If that is the case then I foresee an industry of open source radio modules with a "veto" signal that tells the cellphone when it is hearing a "better" antenna and asks for permission to change. It it does not receive permission, it is forbidden to switch.

Just My Idea.

Re:Your Govts Worldwide....

[Feyshtey]

The people who protect the police, empower the police, arm the police, militarize the police, set the policies of the police, and cede authority to federal police, are.

Re:airplane mode

[delt0r]

I just watch soo much porn, if they view my history they will go blind.