PDA

View Full Version : FBI says search warrants not needed to use “stingrays” in public places




aGameOfThrones
01-06-2015, 04:30 AM
Tim Parkinson
The Federal Bureau of Investigation is taking the position that court warrants are not required when deploying cell-site simulators in public places. Nicknamed "stingrays," the devices are decoy cell towers that capture locations and identities of mobile phone users and can intercept calls and texts.

The FBI made its position known during private briefings with staff members of Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa). In response, the two lawmakers wrote Attorney General Eric Holder and Homeland Security chief Jeh Johnson, maintaining they were "concerned about whether the FBI and other law enforcement agencies have adequately considered the privacy interests" of Americans.

According to the letter, which was released last week:

For example, we understand that the FBI’s new policy requires FBI agents to obtain a search warrant whenever a cell-site simulator is used as part of a FBI investigation or operation, unless one of several exceptions apply, including (among others): (1) cases that pose an imminent danger to public safety, (2) cases that involve a fugitive, or (3) cases in which the technology is used in public places or other locations at which the FBI deems there is no reasonable expectation of privacy.

The letter was prompted in part by a Wall Street Journal report in November that said the Justice Department was deploying small airplanes equipped with cell-site simulators that enabled "investigators to scoop data from tens of thousands of cellphones in a single flight, collecting their identifying information and general location."

The bureau's position on Americans' privacy isn't surprising. The Obama Administration has repeatedly maintained that the public has no privacy in public places. It began making that argument as early as 2010, when it told a federal appeals court that the authorities should be allowed to affix GPS devices on vehicles and track a suspect's every move without court authorization. The Supreme Court, however, eventually ruled that warrants are required. What's more, the administration has argued that placing a webcam with pan-and-zoom capabilities on a utility pole to spy on a suspect at his or her residence was no different from a police officer's observation from the public right-of-way. A federal judge last month disagreed with the government's position, tossing evidence gathered by the webcam that was operated from afar.


http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/01/fbi-says-search-warrants-not-needed-to-use-stringrays-in-public-places/

Weston White
01-06-2015, 05:22 AM
What? A cell-phone tower does not know if you are calling from within a dwelling or private structure or not. That is dumb as a box of rocks in the street!

If someone is talking to another with nobody else knowingly around--as opposed to say talking to one another in a crowded lobby or at a luncheon--those individuals are under an expectation of privacy.

ETA:

And if they are going to continue using such technologies on individuals and who are under no official surveillance or warrant, then that device needs to broadcast messages or phone alerts to them that their present conversation is being listened in on and recorded by whatever-agency, and can be used against them in the future for prosecution or investigation.

morfeeis
01-06-2015, 10:37 AM
The idea that a tax paid for organization says that listening in to your private phone calls, text, and other private cell phone information is not a violation of ones privacy and that it is not covered under the 4th amendment is a clear sign that they no longer work for the people. the heads of any department that allows or endorses such actions should be thrown in jail as well as anyone who was "just following orders" in using such devices. But when the department designed to bring about justice is itself corrupt there isn't much hope for a bloodless revolution.

morfeeis
01-06-2015, 10:46 AM
Another thought; if it is ok for them to swipe information without consent because it is in public than what is the difference between this and those devices that clone ATM machines and steal user information? if the stingrays are legal then so should any device that captures information in public.

Anti Federalist
01-06-2015, 11:06 AM
Of course they say that.

And SCROTUS will back them up.

And more freedom dies.

Just another day in AmeriKa.

Move along now...

ZENemy
01-06-2015, 11:09 AM
its coo, I got an easy fix, VOTE HARDER!

Jebhilaryrandushpaulfuckingmorons 2016

libertarianMoney
01-06-2015, 04:25 PM
Aww shucks.

On the positive side: They could be wasting millions of taxpayer dollars pretending to shuffle warrants between judges and them while getting every request approved. Sure, we're getting screwed as usual but at least they're doing it more efficiently than usual. ;D

On top of that, why should only the NSA get to do whatever it wants?

Wow... To save more money, maybe they could get rid of the whole "constitution" charade. It's not like anyone follows it anyway.

A Son of Liberty
01-06-2015, 05:13 PM
But when the department designed to bring about justice is itself corrupt there isn't much hope for a bloodless revolution.

Don't think of it as "corrupt", Morpheus. It's merely achieving full actualization.

muh_roads
01-06-2015, 05:19 PM
Ummm, the reach of the stingray penetrates thru the walls of non-public places.

Try again, fascist fucks.

Occam's Banana
01-06-2015, 10:45 PM
But when the department designed to bring about justice is itself corrupt there isn't much hope for a bloodless revolution.

Don't think of it as "corrupt", Morpheus. It's merely achieving full actualization.

Indeed. It's just the State "being all that it can be" ...

presence
01-06-2015, 11:01 PM
I have one of these on my desk.

http://ztoe.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/matrix_phone.jpg

I don't own a cell phone. Why would you broadcast your personal business?

Slave Mentality
01-06-2015, 11:21 PM
It is to protect our freedoms and shit.

asurfaholic
01-07-2015, 08:34 AM
this is mind boggling. There is no legal expert who would agree. It would be like someone filming up the dress of someone standing in a public place, then claiming the same thing. There is in fact a expectation of privacy to people who are in public. For example, their undergarments or personal phone calls. Intercepting all phone text and data usage is much like peeking under the skirt of an unsuspecting victim.

presence
01-07-2015, 09:42 AM
Intercepting all phone text and data usage is much like peeking under the skirt of an unsuspecting victim.

Or does the "victim" need to consider the path less traveled rather than the mirrored sidewalk.

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Admin/BkFill/Default_image_group/2012/10/17/1350467807405/Example-of-handwriting-wi-008.jpg

asurfaholic
01-07-2015, 10:48 AM
Ok so assume non mirrored floors.