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.
> 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.
My respect for the police is at zero. No wonder they are getting shot left and right when they behave like idiots.
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.
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.
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.
The problem is that the WRONG ones are getting shot. Very few law enforcement officers actually abuse their authority; punishing people at random virtually guarantees you're punishing the wrong guy. Furthermore, cops are now crossing the blue line and ratting out their more abusive brethren, so the system is actually beginning to work the way it is supposed to work. By rights, those who condoned warrantless data gathering will be punished, preferably by a swift end to their career.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Stay oat-a my hoase or you'll be sore-y!"
So close, but you missed using hoser, eh, and Timmy's. Come on eh!
Stay oat-a my hoase ya hoser or you'll be sore-y, eh?! Let's go to Timmy's eh?!
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.
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).
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.
Even with a warrant, I'm not convinced they can be used legally while refusing to testify about them. The oath is to tell THE WHOLE TRUTH, not a convenient subset of it that doesn't violate the EULA.
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.
Even with a warrant, I'm not convinced they can be used legally while refusing to testify about them. The oath is to tell THE WHOLE TRUTH, not a convenient subset of it that doesn't violate the EULA.
Illegally Obtained Evidence CAN be used in Canadian courts. Now, it's a fine line that the police are reluctant to cross, but it is not an automatic inadmissibility nor an automatic acquittal in Canadian Law, although both are a possibility. Usually the Prosecution will try to convict on legally obtained evidence only, but each case is different.
Broadly speaking if the culprits have an advanced secrecy code or process, then the illegally obtained evidence might be allowed (think Organized Crime, Gang activity, etc) as it could be seen as the only reasonable method to obtain evidence of Criminal Activity. In that case the courts will probably allow it.
Note as well that the Crown can appeal a sentence in Canada, so you are not out of the woods until the highest court refuses to hear the case, or rules in the defendant's favour. So there is opportunity to test the waters, so to speak, and introduce the dirty evidence in re-trial if the prosecution feels it would swing the verdict their way after an acquittal in the lower courts.
There is also a great deal of police procedure that RELIES on Canadians thinking that what happens in a US-based TV show also describes what happens in Canada. Police use this routinely to gather evidence that can be used in court with no hesitation whatsoever. For example there is no right to have a lawyer present during questioning in Canada, so anything a suspect says, thinking it can't be used, well
MOST law enforcement officers abuse their positions in various ways. Your view is highly inaccurate.
...Steve
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.
With the new standards and todays units, less of that older network change is needed or change or drop is detected on entry to an area under total voice, data collection.
Upgrades can even be pushed down into a users network to alter that device or carry back to another more secure computer later.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
In the U.S. anyway, some judges have been bending over backwards to allow evidence that really shouldn't be allowed. Even still, the defendant has a right to question any evidence gathering technique used including Stingray. If they won't discuss it, they may be forced to drop the charges. However, especially at the federal level, they may try to pull a fast one with parallel construction where they use the illegal evidence to give them a plausible means to claim they found it legally. It's clearly not legal to tell a fictional account in court but they seem to be getting away with it.
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.
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.