Slashdot Mirror
US Judge Throws Out Cell Phone 'Stingray' Evidence For The First Time (reuters.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Reuters: For the first time, a federal judge has suppressed evidence obtained without a warrant by U.S. law enforcement using a stingray, a surveillance device that can trick suspects' cell phones into revealing their locations. U.S. District Judge William Pauley in Manhattan on Tuesday ruled that defendant Raymond Lambis' rights were violated when the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration used such a device without a warrant to find his Washington Heights apartment. Stingrays, also known as "cell site simulators," mimic cell phone towers in order to force cell phones in the area to transmit "pings" back to the devices, enabling law enforcement to track a suspect's phone and pinpoint its location. The DEA had used a stingray to identify Lambis' apartment as the most likely location of a cell phone identified during a drug-trafficking probe. Pauley said doing so constituted an unreasonable search. The ruling marked the first time a federal judge had suppressed evidence obtained using a stingray, according to the American Civil Liberties Union, which like other privacy advocacy groups has criticized law enforcement's use of such devices. "Absent a search warrant, the government may not turn a citizen's cell phone into a tracking device," Pauley wrote. FBI Special Agent Daniel Alfin suggests in a report via Motherboard that decrypting encrypted data fundamentally alters it, therefore contaminating it as forensic evidence.
Bernard Seidler, Lambis' lawyer, noted that occurred a week after his client was charged. He said it was unclear if the drug case against Lambis would now be dismissed.
This "War on Drugs" has proven to be a failure. Just regulate it like alcohol. And instead of sending these folks to jail, send them to rehab - an evidence based rehab like the Western Europeans do.
Prosecutors like to say that some addicts need that "Come to Jesus" moment of getting arrested to get clean - and they have zero evidence to back that claim up. But the truth is that rehabilitation in the USA is a joke. It's not evidence based and when it fails, the program doesn't get blamed but the addict; when the opposite should be the case. I don't have to work for an antibiotic to work. It works or it doesn't. If someone has to "want" to change then you don't have an evidence based treatment but a placebo.
Poor Lindsey Lohan has been in and out of rehab and her character is blamed when in fact the rehab places she's gone to are pretty much garbage.
So, until we as a country grow up and stop this moralizing and hypocrisy about drug use, we are going to be pissing billions of dollars a year away on things that don't work.
Read the linked article. He is saying that if the government presents ONLY the decrypted data as evidence in court it is not forensically valid because it breaks the chain of evidence. They need to also show the originally captured encrypted data so that it can verified that the decrypted version actually correlates to what they got and was not somehow tampered with.
"decrypting encrypted data fundamentally alters it" What? If the decrypted data doesn't match the data that was encrypted, you failed to decrypt it properly. On a purely technical level I guess he's correct. Encrypted, the data is just a bunch of jazz and whirly bangs. Once decrypted it's actual data, so on a purely superficial level, with no understanding of encryption, I guess he's right. Damnit
This a typical /. summary that mistakes what was actually said to make it sound more interesting. The agent said decrypted data is different from what was taking by the warrant, and thus you are not turning using the actual information taken in the search (i.e. the encrypted data) but that it still is forensically sound; he never said that's "contaminating it as forensic evidence" just it may still be less forensically sound than the actual encrypted data. /. seems to imply somehow that makes the decrypted data not valid as evidence which clearly is BS.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
That is exactly what the judge ruled. The main reason this isn't happening all over the place is that people don't understand how the devices work, and the police/prosecutors are not exactly volunteering the information. There is a good article about it here. Basically, the police hide the fact that they used stingray devices to track suspects by either making up some other reason that they happened to find themselves at the suspect's location or hiding something very vague on page 200 of the report like, "used electronic surveillance," which most defense attorneys do not know to challenge. In rare situations where the evidence has been challenged, the prosecution just drops the case so that precedent isn't set.
It is far better to leave people, who are not harming others, alone.
The problem with this approach is we are, in general, too compassionate to walk by as someone writhes in agony from a cheetos-and-lard induced heart attack. We expect society to help them. So total disregard for one's health DOES have a cost to others. But it's tough to know where to draw the line
You just did. As a society, we show compassion. But interfering with property rights is not okay. Just as someone that owns a book has every right to burn it, each person owns their own body and has every right to destroy that, too, without interference. In fact, owning YOURSELF is the first step is recognizing any human rights at all. Sure, we go out of our way to warn people about what they are doing "Hey if you keep eating cheetos and sitting all the time you will die sooner" - but they still have the final say in the matter. So there's the line.
Also, be sure that you distinguish between "society" and "government", because they are not the same. There's a quote from, I think, Thomas Paine that spells it out pretty well... ah - here it is:
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
Your base assumption is false, the police do not have blanket powers to lie to you. There are very specific rules about how and when police can lie. They can not for example lie and tell you that they are your lawyer. Nor can they, If your lawyer is present and they make an offer, claim "we were lying when we offered you immunity in exchange for testimony".
They are also not allowed to disable your internet, knock on your door and say "I am from your ISP, here to fix your internet" unless they have a warrant.
That situation seems to me to be the most direct comparison of a sting ray. They are preventing your phone from interacting with the network and instead pretending to be that network.
That is radically different from passively listening.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com