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.

[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.

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.

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.

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...