Slashdot Mirror
Local Police in Canada Used 'Stingray' Surveillance Device Without a Warrant (vice.com)
Jordan Pearson, writing for Motherboard: For years, Canadian police have successfully kept their use of controversial and indiscriminate surveillance devices called IMSI catchers a secret. Today, for the first time, and thanks to a year-long effort by a coalition of civil rights organizations and Vancouver-based Pivot Legal Society, we know that at least one local police force in Canada has used an IMSI catcher, also referred to as a "Stingray": the Vancouver PD. According to the BC Civil Liberties Association, which posted a blog announcing the news on Monday, the Vancouver police used an IMSI catcher once, nearly a decade ago, and without a warrant. "We sent a letter asking the Vancouver police if they'd ever used one of the RCMP's IMSI catchers, and if they would again," said Micheal Vonn, policy director for the BCCLA. "The answer to both questions was yes." The police force claimed that the surveillance device was used under "exigent circumstances," Vonn said, meaning that there was an imminent threat that couldn't wait for a warrant to be dealt with. Despite this, or perhaps because of it, the Vancouver police maintained in May of this year that they possess no records relating to their use of IMSI catchers.
"they possess no records relating to their use of IMSI catchers"
Guilty conscience much?
> The Vancouver police maintained in May of this year that they possess no records relating to their use of IMSI catchers.
That just means they don't write it down, or that they dont keep the records, not that they don't use it.
Not having records actually sounds even worse, because it makes it sound like they are free to use it very informally, and/or don't want people to know how often they use it, so both strongly suggest they actually do use it very frequently.
Fugg da police
Communities should police themselves, every Civilian should be nosy and not mind their business if they see something unusual.
Why are these legal at all? They're interfering with the normal operation of cellular devices, which is generally illegal. Also, these abuses exist because we allow them to continue. Why not demand that our taxes stop going toward these abuses and starve the beast? If the people collectively said no and refused to cooperate, this would stop.
Their own fault for not having a Constitution like the glorious USA! USA! USA! US... sorry, got carried away there.
Canadian cops acting like USA cops? Tsk tsk tsk
Table-ized A.I.
What are you talking about? Everything in the article is clearly referring to Canadian entities with the one exception when they mention that the RCMP is the Canadian analogue to the FBI in the US.
I hope you die in a police action.
So requiring the police to follow the law is "weakening law enforcement"?
How does not wanting people to break the law make it weaker?
Please remember that hollywood movies have little or nothing to do with reality, especially when dealing with the action genre.
They are local police because they have local jurisdiction within their locale.
Local as in "municipal", not "near you."
"Police in Canada" can be mistaken for referring to the RCMP because they are the national police force (among other things).
and only BAR-members are eligible to practice legal law so what the fuck are you doing in the legal world? If you're not a BAR-member you have no business in the legal world what so ever! It's forbidden to practice legal law w/o a BAR-card! Stop breaking the fucking law!
Because there is a difference between local (city/district) police, provincial police, and RCMP (federal police) in Canada. You know how like in the states there'll be city/county police, state police, and FBI.
This is not a complicated concept.
Ice Cream has no bones.
In Canada there are local police departments (municipal or regional), provincial police forces (e.g Ontario Provincial Police or OPP) and the federal police force, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police or RCMP.
One of the stipulations is a EULA where you agree not to talk about its use or capabilities, even while under oath in a court of law, before it's shipped to you. So you basically agree to break the law before you receive one. That in itself should be a red flag to its legitimacy. The EULA uses scare tactics to make police departments believe it's so secret that it's a matter of national security which it is not. Actually by agreeing to the EULA, receiving, and using one, without a warrant is illegal, any evidence is supposed to be inadmissible in court of law. So why bother? Because police will use any means necessary in order to find out the truth, for their own curiosity, even if it means breaking the law and public trust to do so. Technology like this can and will be abused, one officer used it on his girlfriend whom he suspected of cheating. Stingrays for police departments are like a Nigerian scam, they'll gladly take your money, in the end you won't get the desired result. Moral of the story is to always get a warrant, keep records, use it legitimately, and responsibly, and the public won't have any problem with it. Using it surreptitiously without a warrant is just like doing anything else without a warrant.
Municipal police in Canada, Regional Police in Canada, Provincial Police in Canada...
It might have read
'Local Police in a Country used a device without a warrant and some groups are having emotions about it'.
Or,
Ontario Provincial Police in Canada have successfully deployed a controversial and indiscriminate surveillance device called an IMSI catcher also known as a 'Stingray' in their efforts to curb crime'
Be completely generic, or be specific. You see how that works?
~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
Because police are not just RCMP, which is federal. New Westminster has it's own police force, for example. But most police in Canada are actually RCMP.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Partially correct.
There is a police service everywhere. That police service may be provided by the city (e.g., Vancouver), the province (e.g., Ontario and the Ontario Provincial Police) or by the federal government (the RCMP).
Depending on where you are, who you go to depends on who provides police service. Outside of Vancouver, for example, most of the immediate neighbouring cities (in the area known as Metro Vancouver), you'd go to the RCMP, because that city contracts with the RCMP to provide local police services.
Distrust of the RCMP (either due to excessive force, or budgetary issues) has lead to several cities considering starting their own police force (Richmond has had many discussions on that, they expect transition costs of around $200M and the cost of their own force over the RCMP was supposed to be $50M annually, but the benefits include better local representation. The vote lost).
That said, even municipal police forces may participate in unified policing programs - we have a program called IHIT (integrated homicide investigation team) that investigates homicides, and the team is made up of police from all the member forces - they share information with each other and so on to solve homicides that cross city boundaries. Delta police doesn't participate so they have to investigate homicides on their own, though they may request help from IHIT or IHIT may provide information if they believe a killer lives in Delta.
There are other programs like the Anti-Gang Task Force and such.
All BC police forces are monitored by the IIO who is a civilian task force that investigates police use of force - if any police officer brings out their weapon (even if it wasn't fired) it triggers an investigation by the IIO. And yes, if a weapon was fired, the circumstances of that are evaluated as well, including if it was justified.
(Yes, they're busy, probably around 100 cases a year or so, but then again, the total number of murders in a given year is usually well under 20, and total deaths is quite low (including car accidents and running over pedestrians, it typically averages under 100, in a population of 4 million people or so).
There are apps that locate the nearest cell phone tower. If the data from those apps could be aggregated, a new tower magically popping up should be easy to locate. Also, if drones used Stingrays, it should make them very easy to find.
Probably because they mean a local police department in Canada as opposed to a regional or national police force.
That is, the size of the police force in question is likely significant.
Given that lawyers quite often argue the most insane viewpoints, and in a disturbing number of cases get a court to accept them, the claim that only lawyers are "qualified" to interpret the law is pretty baseless. In fact there are many situations where you don't need a lawyer to deal with a court case, most people simply feel a need for one since the consequences for losing can be quite severe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twinkie_defense
http://www.cracked.com/article_22268_5-utterly-insane-legal-arguments-that-actually-worked.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Thompson_(activist)
It's Common Practice for Police in Canada to use various techniques without the "proper" authorization, and not use the evidence collected as part of the prosecution evidence. The RCMP are perhaps the worst offenders, but CSIS and larger local Police forces, plus the Provincial Police in Ontario and Quebec (there is a force in Newfoundland, but I don't recall them doing much in the way of "dirty tricks") get into the act as well.
By way of example, wiretaps in the 1960's and later, when wiretaps were illegal (were made legal in the early 80's, I believe). Sting operations where undercover officers commit crimes, from burning buildings (1970's, Quebec) to, how's this for timely, last week two "terrorists" were acquitted since the crime would not have happened without the RCMP orchestrating it). Sharing information in real time (that is, via the radio in the car) with the FBI since the 1970's, again when this was illegal (was made legal in the early 90's in both countries).
There is a Constitutional Protection against things that would "bring justice into disrepute" so a lot of the goings-on never get said out loud. Still, it's not a prohibition, so evidence obtained illegally does sometimes show up in testimony, but there is a reluctance to test the waters with the Constitution, as that could result in an acquittal, so it's relatively rare.
What annoys me is that they are also interfering with legitimate phone usage. Clearly they think they are above the law and that the ends justify the means; so what care would they have about making life crap for any phone users in the area. Are these stingrays any good at not crapping over our usage? Would they care? I would be very interested to see a detailed geo and time specific log put against dropped/crappy calls in the same areas at the same times.
Our phones are very low wattage devices pushing up against the limits of technology. Typically the companies that sell to police put out 15 year old crap, and thus their systems no doubt make a mess of 2016 technology.
So while the stingrays should be banned for not only the violation of our rights, but to also punish the stingray company for putting out, what is almost certainly an overpriced pile of crap where they have actively encouraged the police to go all Gestapo on us.
The Bacon Brothers were notorious in Vancouver. There was a shooting in Surrey (a suburb of Vancouver) where 7 innocent people were shot 'accidentally' because the gang hit was at the wrong house. The Bacon Brothers were part of a gang called the Scorpions, and they were supposed to be inside. Three men were charged with their deaths. Cell phone evidence tagged one of the Bacon brothers (drug dealers and gang members). Later one of the Bacon brothers and a full patch member of the local Hells Angels were shot (by the same who had shot the 7 innocent people). The 3 were picked up, some of the Bacon brothers have been shot, some are in prison. I suspect that the sting was in part due to the stingray (but that's just my guess).
Sincerely,
Anonymous Coward.
Local police in Canada
"Local" police from another freakin country.
Don't worry; Trump will annex Canada.
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
"They are local police because they have local jurisdiction within their locale."
Vancouver PD are municipal; like NYPD. RCMP are federal like the FBI.
During the 2010 Olympics in Vancouver? The blog contains no information on the _one_ use of the Stingray. What is the blog hiding? They had the info since the blog writes:
"The VPD provided some context for its previous use of a Stingray and on the basis of the information they gave us, we can vouch for their past use (and they say there’s only been one) being legitimate, appropriate and properly authorized."
So, the time the Vancouver Police Force did use it (kept secret by the blogger?), it was legitimate, appropriate, and properly authorized ... from which the blog seems to conclude that obviously it has been and is being used illegitimately, inappropriately, and unauthorized. What?
"Consensus" in science is _always_ a political construct.
And thus City Protective Services is born.