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. 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 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.

  2. 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.

    1. Re: Fair trial with secret information? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Oh how quaint that you think the Canadian Charter is somehow stronger than the US Constitution. First off, the Charter grants rights while the Constitution enumerates rights that already inherently exist for people. Second, the Charter can be changed by a simple majority in Parliament at a whim and the rulings of the supreme Court overruled by the "Notwithstanding clause" and "Limitations Clause"...

      Here are the facts about Canada and your supposed "rights":

      There is no first amendment right - not to assemble (Riot Act), not to freedom of speech (why the idiot handing out anti-gay pamphlets in Regina was forced to pay $15k for offending five gay families).

      There is no second amendment right - not even to defend yourself in your home.

      There is no third amendment right - the government could pass a law to quarter infantry and it is perfectly constitutional.

      There is no fourth amendment or sixth amendment right as this article shows.

      Your executive branch is a figurehead and symbolic. Your Senate is unelected and a rubber stamp. I can keep going on and on about Canada but your attempt to even compare the two systems of government is simply not going to work for anyone willing to look past the "nice Canadian" trope.

  3. 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
  4. Re:StingRay II System Kit with AmberJack-W by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    A StingRay II System Kit with AmberJack-W, you say?

    It would be unfortunate if people started mentioning that without considering how it might hurt the cops' feelings.

    In that case they'd probably be heartbroken to learn that the complete manual set, schematic diagrams, and parts layout drawings and part # list has been up at various locations on the dark web for many months, along with several other models/makes of IMSI-catchers used by various governments and LEAs worldwide.

    One very scary aspect of nearly all commercial IMSI-catchers is that they can 'impersonate' any cellphone it's captured to cellphone towers. They can cause the cell-provider's logs to show 'that phone' connected from wherever they like and transmitting whatever they wish, even CP.

    "When 'Parallel Construction' just doesn't get the job done because he's totally innocent nor violates enough laws and civil rights..."