Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Calgary Police Cellphone Surveillance Device Must Remain Top Secret, Judge Rules (www.cbc.ca)

Posted by BeauHD on from the top-secret dept.

Freshly Exhumed writes from a report via CBC.ca: To protect police investigative techniques that may or may not have been used in a Calgary Police Service investigation, their controversial cellphone surveillance device will remain so secretive not even the make and model can be released to the public, according to a court ruling released Monday. The MDI (Mobile Device Identifier) technology -- colloquially called a StingRay after Harris Corporation's IMSI device, which mimics cell towers and intercepts data from nearby phones -- is controversial in part because in at least one Canadian case, prosecutors have taken watered down plea deals rather than disclose information related to the device.

6 of 89 comments (clear)

  1. "...plea deals rather than disclose.." by turkeydance · · Score: 3, Insightful

    that's where the lawyer makes it worth the fee.

  2. Should not be admissable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So if I'm in law enforcement in Canada, I could say I have a magic device that detects corruption, point fingers, and then people just have to deal with it?

    Meanwhile in the USA people are able to scrutinize breathalyzers and challenge their validity in court?

    I'd say wtf are you doing Canada?

    1. Re:Should not be admissable by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So if I'm in law enforcement in Canada, I could say I have a magic device that detects corruption, point fingers, and then people just have to deal with it?

      Probably not::

      The Royal Mounted Police in Canada decided against an order when they asked how it worked and McCormick replied: "It just works."

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    2. Re:Should not be admissable by i286NiNJA · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well we're able to do that here because the 6th amendment of the bill of rights, specifically the right to face and question your accuser in court. Canada has similar laws but I believe there is no mention of a right to face your accuser.

      The truly terrifying thing is that the bill of rights was somewhat controversial at the time that it was written because it's opponents felt that all the rights it bestowed should be common sense and by having them enumerated so specifically it may cause people to believe they have no other rights.

  3. Fair trial with secret information? by joe_frisch · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I don't see how someone can receive a fair trial if the the mechanism used to collect evidence is secret. The prosecution can only claim to have phone records, there is no way for the defense to question their accuracy, or whether the evidence could be spoofed.

    The only reason to keep the operation of stingrays secret is of there is some way to spoof them. In that case how can you be sure that there aren't already spoofing systems in the wild?

    As a Juror I would ignore any "secret" evidence.

  4. Re:Fair trial with secret information? Illegal by davecb · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The reason the cops are withdrawing charges is because they don't want to allow the defence to make them provide evidence that exposes the stingrays.

    Canadian law doesn't allow secret evidence. Even military secrets have to be entered into evidence, although that requires judges and lawyers with high levels of clearance.

    --
    davecb@spamcop.net