Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Bipartisan Bill Seeks Warrants For Police Use of 'Stingray' Cell Trackers (usatoday.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the civil-liberties dept.

Tulsa_Time quotes a report from USA Today: A bipartisan group of House and Senate lawmakers introduced legislation Wednesday requiring police agencies to get a search warrant before they can deploy powerful cellphone surveillance technology known as "stingrays" that sweep up information about the movements of innocent Americans while tracking suspected criminals. "Owning a smartphone or fitness tracker shouldn't give the government a blank check to track your movements," said Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee who introduced the bill with Reps. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, and John Conyers, D-Mich. "Law enforcement should be able to use GPS data, but they need to get a warrant. This bill sets out clear rules to make sure our laws keep up with the times." The legislation introduced Wednesday, called the Geolocation Privacy and Surveillance (GPS) Act, would require a warrant for all domestic law enforcement agencies to track the location and movements of individual Americans through GPS technology without their knowledge. It also aims to combat high-tech stalking by creating criminal penalties for secretly using an electronic device to track someone's movements.

16 of 113 comments (clear)

  1. like this is going to matter. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    every LEO has a favorite judge on speed-dial and can get pretty much any warrant signed he/she wishes...

    1. Re:like this is going to matter. by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Insightful

      every LEO has a favorite judge on speed-dial and can get pretty much any warrant signed he/she wishes...

      Warrants are recorded, and eventually become public. So that is still a big improvement over cops spying on citizens with no accountability. Warrants are also required to specify the persons that can be monitored, and the duration. They cannot be issued for broad surveillance or fishing expeditions.

      Please contact your congressperson and senator and ask them to support this legislation.

    2. Re:like this is going to matter. by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Are you really that dense? This is just for show. The cops will keep on illegally using it to spy on people, without warrants. They don't have to use it in court, just to spy on people and help them set up the situation.

      It's actually worse than that. It's a Trojan horse. Note the final paragraph: "It also aims to combat high-tech stalking by creating criminal penalties for secretly using an electronic device to track someone's movements." Yea, they claim a goal, but that won't be part of the bill, just a new criminal penalty they can use to bludgeon citizens with. I guarantee no law enforcement will ever be charged with that new "crime", but you'll see it pop up in all kinds of indictments of anyone else the feds want to go after. This would make it illegal to, for example, use FindMyiPhone to figure out where your stolen phone is. Illegal to track your kids using either their phone or your car's GPS. EVERY divorce will have lawyers using this to try to get indictments of spouses. If you try to prove your wife was cheating on you by showing how you followed their location, you've now confessed to a crime. I'm sure there are LOTS of scenarios I'm not thinking of right now, but you can be sure that prosecutors will come up with lots of novel ones.

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
  2. Techie Republicans why by globaljustin · · Score: 2

    Techies, like everyday tech-minded people, need to completely and fully understand that Republicans are their enemies, by policy.

    Almost completely down the line, any policy involving tech will have the Republicans pushing policies that are the worst.

    Net Neutrality? It's the GOP who want to destroy it.

    DRM of all kinds, always Republicans.

    It goes on and on.

    Why is it so important to grasp this fact? Why am I even posting this?

    Because so many techies still support Republicans or 'Libertarians'...

    --
    Thank you Dave Raggett
    1. Re:Techie Republicans why by PhrostyMcByte · · Score: 2

      Honestly very few politicians, regardless of what side they sit in, are on the side of tech. Democrats may be better on some issues, but by and large they're morons when it comes to Tech too.

      What we really need is for everyone to write their critters to inform them about the issues that are important to them. We need a Neil deGrasse Tyson equivalent for tech, someone who can straddle the line between entertainment and education to keep the public informed and fight for what's sane.

    2. Re:Techie Republicans why by sydbarrett74 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think that as more 'digital natives' run for political office, this will improve. In the Senate at least, many of the members are older and have probably never sent an email in their lives. As those people die off and get replaced, people who are more comfortable with modern technology will fill the vacancies. I doubt Orrin Hatch, for example, knows how to operate anything more complicated than an IBM Selectric -- even then, he'd have some gal type up his documents and fetch his coffee for him, too.

      --
      'He who has to break a thing to find out what it is, has left the path of wisdom.' -- Gandalf to Saruman
    3. Re:Techie Republicans why by fustakrakich · · Score: 3, Informative

      Techies, like everyday tech-minded people, need to completely and fully understand that Republicans are their enemies, by policy.

      Either you are very young, or you have a very short memory. Why would think the democrats are any better?

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    4. Re:Techie Republicans why by mabu · · Score: 4, Informative

      And let's dispense with this "bipartisan bill" bullshit.

      This bill was authored by Democrats, and one republican helped sponsor it. That does not make it a "bipartisan effort" in any real sense of the word.

    5. Re:Techie Republicans why by mmell · · Score: 2
      Sorry, dude - you went off course.

      Politicians are a techie's natural enemy. Have you noticed that there only ever been a very few poor Presidents, Congressmen or Supreme Court justices? And none of them stayed that way once they assumed political office. So . . .

      DRM - Democrats

      Kill Net Neutrality - Republicans

      It all boils down to whose pocket a given politician is in at any given time.

    6. Re:Techie Republicans why by nehumanuscrede · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Regardless of it being bipartisan or not, it is a bill that is long overdue.

      If Law Enforcement is allowed to have such toys as these, then some oversight will be necessary to ensure they don't abuse them. Based on how judges are tossing out evidence when LE lies about using them ( at the behest of the FBI and their NDA ), one would think that they would welcome the rule. They'll complain about how much harder the job is, red tape, etc. but. . . .

      Evidence tends to stick better when you follow the proper ( and legal ) procedures in procuring it.

  3. Is it 1792? by Plus1Entropy · · Score: 2

    This bill sets out clear rules to make sure our laws keep up with the times.

    Glad to hear we're implementing that new-fangled 4th amendment I keep hearing about.

    --
    Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
    1. Re:Is it 1792? by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Glad to hear we're implementing that new-fangled 4th amendment I keep hearing about.

      If only. It isn't possible to use a Stingray constitutionally, period. Here's the 4th Amendment, in its entirety:

      Amendment IV

      The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

      A Stingray sucks up data for hundreds, thousands, even tens of thousands of people if run in a metro area, and there is no warrant for that. A warrant must "particularly [describe] the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized" and every court in the land has ruled time and time again that "I want to seize something from 100 people" is not in any way "particular" enough, let alone "I want to seize something from 10,000 people".

      The proposed law is unconstitutional, attempting to provide legal cover for unconstitutional activities. The only constitutional warrant names an individual or individual device or a very small group thereof and is issued to the phone company. The government does not get to pretend to be the phone company, and Hoover up the data for thousands of people at a time.[1]

      I would question whether or not the current Supreme Court would uphold the Constitution and strike down this law if it passes, but it won't come before this court. The legal gyrations to prevent a challenge of the Stingrays with standing will continue indefinitely. We know this because the same stonewalling is already happening with respect to NSA spying on the Internet. Add to that the length of time required to run through the appeals process and actually reach the Supreme Court, and I doubt either Kennedy or Ginsberg will still be alive if and when that case finally gets to the Court.

      Unless we are exceedingly fortunate, and this unconstitutional bill becomes law and suckers some prosecuting attorney into letting a Stingray-based case that is being challenged go forward, we're probably in for a decades of unconstitutional activity.

      Not that it will be the first time...

      ----
      [1] No apologies for the pun. It was too appropriate.

  4. DMCA, CDA, CDA II (COPA), felony DRM: Clinton by raymorris · · Score: 4, Informative

    DMCA: Clinton
    CDA: Clinton
    COPA: Clinton
    DRM (criminalize breaking it): Clinton
    IDIOT: globaljustin

  5. Does this mean ... by PPH · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ... that they can't use imsi catchers? Or that they'll need a warrant to make use of the data in court? Because if it's the latter, cops will just go on using them. And then do a little parallel construction to explain just how they managed to show up at the right time and place.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
    1. Re:Does this mean ... by Motherfucking+Shit · · Score: 3, Interesting

      They already "need" a warrant to use the results in court, which is why the Justice Department has dropped multiple cases involving stingrays rather than see them go to trial. They're fully aware that the first judge who gets one of these cases will throw it out and set precedent that the stingrays can't be used.

      --
      "BSD: Free as in speech. Linux: Free as in beer. Windows 10: Free as in herpes." --Man On Pink Corner in #52607549.
  6. Defective by Design? by ytene · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I appreciate that this comment is asking that we consider the technical equivalent of "Puuting the Genie Back in the Bottle", but it seems to me that the fundamental issue with the current Stingray technology happens to be the "bulk data capture" nature of the way that it operates...

    In one sense this is unavoidable - when you have a piece of technology that imitates a cellphone tower by giving the strongest local signal, it will sweep up multiple handsets each time it is activated.

    On the other hand, would it be possible for a judge to declare that the *operator interface* to the stingray device must by law force the operator to enter the particulars of a specific mobile phone handset, thereby preventing the stingray operator for conducting blanket surveillance?

    Quite obviously, I know nothing about the inner workings of stingray technology, but it is clear to me that the principle by which it operates is to deem that every cell phone user within range is guilty of a crime - since the technology indiscriminately targets them.

    If one motorist breaks the speed limit on a particular road at a particular time, a Law Enforcement Officer is not entitled to stop every vehicle on the road and take details of the driver and their passengers... similarly there should be limits on what that same officer can do when tracking a suspected criminal using stingray technology.

    As technologists we know that it would be possible to develop a stingray device that had to be pre-programmed with a cell phone ID before it could be activated. We know that it would also be possible to require that device to have a legally tamper-proof log, to require that to have a license to operate (it is a wireless device that surely needs FCC approval to be used) that there would be supervisory controls that could be enforce.

    Law enforcement are quick to claim that the rapid advancement of technology is such that they need extra powers in order to be able to keep pace with the criminals in society. Well, OK, but that should not be grounds for permitting those same officers to bend or break the law in the process. That places the Law Enforcement Agencies in the same category as criminals: as far as honest citizens are concerned that makes LEOs just as dangerous, or perhaps even more so, since they have the implied authority of the state backing them up...

    The Enforcement of the law must itself be legal, or it undermines any and all claims of authority it may have over the citizenry it was designed to protect.