Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: To the Gov.: New Hampshire Passes Bill to Prohibit Warrantless Stingray Spying

  1. #1

    Default To the Gov.: New Hampshire Passes Bill to Prohibit Warrantless Stingray Spying

    To the Governor: New Hampshire Passes Bill to Prohibit Warrantless Stingray Spying
    http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com...ingray-spying/
    CONCORD, N.H. (June 2, 2017)

    Yesterday, the New Hampshire House gave final approval to a bill that would ban the use of “stingrays” to track the location of phones and sweep up electronic communications without a warrant in most situations. The proposed law would not only protect privacy in New Hampshire, but would also hinder one aspect of the federal surveillance state.

    A bipartisan coalition of representatives introduced House Bill 474 (HB474) on Jan. 5. The legislation would help block the use of cell site simulators, known as “stingrays.” These devices essentially spoof cell phone towers, tricking any device within range into connecting to the stingray instead of the tower, allowing law enforcement to sweep up communications content, as well as locate and track the person in possession of a specific phone or other electronic device.

    HB474 prohibits warrantless use of stingrays both for location tracking and gathering data or information from a phone. The law would allow warrantless use of a stingray if acting under a judicially-recognized exception to the warrant requirement.

    The bill also includes provisions requiring police to limit collection of data or metadata to the person named in the warrant and to immediately permanently delete any information gathered on anyone not so-named. Police would also have to delete any data or meta-data relating to the person named in the court order within 30 days if there is no longer reason to believe the information is evidence of a crime.

    On May 18, the Senate passed HB474 with a technical amendment on a voice vote. The House previously approved the measure in March. On Thursday, the House concurred with the Senate amendment, sending the bill to Gov. Chris Sununu’s desk for his consideration.
    WHAT’S NEXT

    Gov. Sununu will have five days (excluding Sunday) from the date HB474 is transmitted to his office to sign or veto the bill. If he fails to act, it will become law without his signature. I you live in New Hampshire, call the governor at (603) 271-2121 and urge him to sign HB474.
    Lifetime member of more than 1 national gun organization and the New Hampshire Liberty Alliance. Part of Young Americans for Liberty and Campaign for Liberty. Free State Project participant and multi-year Free Talk Live AMPlifier.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2

    Default

    And this was signed as well, correct?

  4. #3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    And this was signed as well, correct?
    It hasn't reached his desk yet. House leadership, Senate leadership, and the SOS have to sign off on it first. I don't know if he will sign it, but hope so
    Lifetime member of more than 1 national gun organization and the New Hampshire Liberty Alliance. Part of Young Americans for Liberty and Campaign for Liberty. Free State Project participant and multi-year Free Talk Live AMPlifier.

  5. #4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Keith and stuff View Post
    It hasn't reached his desk yet. House leadership, Senate leadership, and the SOS have to sign off on it first. I don't know if he will sign it, but hope so
    Will be keeping an eye on this, thanks again for the updates.

    Been helping a buddy and his family look into making the move to NH from ME.

    Like me, government surveillance is one of his pet peeves, so this being passed would be another feather in NH's cap.

  6. #5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    Will be keeping an eye on this, thanks again for the updates.

    Been helping a buddy and his family look into making the move to NH from ME.

    Like me, government surveillance is one of his pet peeves, so this being passed would be another feather in NH's cap.
    I was partly wrong about this. Sorry. The bill did reach his desk. He didn't sign it. In NH, if a bill isn't signed or vetoed, it becomes law anyway. So that's what happened here.

    HB474 prohibits warrantless use of stingrays both for location tracking and gathering data or information from a phone. The law does allow warrantless use of a stingray under a judicially-recognized exception to the warrant requirement.

    The bill also includes provisions requiring police to limit collection of data or metadata to the person named in the warrant, and to immediately, permanently delete any information gathered on anyone not so-named. Police will also have to delete any data or meta-data relating to the person named in the court order within 30 days if there is no longer reason to believe the information is evidence of a crime.

    On May 18, the Senate passed HB474 with a technical amendment on a voice vote. The House previously approved the measure in March. After the House concurred with the Senate amendment, it went to Gov. Chris Sununu’s desk for his consideration. Since he did not act on the legislation, it became law without his signature on July 11. It will go into effect next year.
    IMPACT ON FEDERAL SURVEILLANCE PROGRAMS

    The federal government funds the vast majority of state and local stingray programs, attaching one important condition. The feds require agencies acquiring the technology to sign non-disclosure agreements. This throws a giant shroud over the program, even preventing judges, prosecutors and defense attorneys from getting information about the use of stingrays in court. The feds actually instruct prosecutors to withdraw evidence if judges or legislators press for information. As the Baltimore Sun reported in April 2015, a Baltimore detective refused to answer questions on the stand during a trial, citing a federal non-disclosure agreement.

    Defense attorney Joshua Insley asked Cabreja about the agreement.

    “Does this document instruct you to withhold evidence from the state’s attorney and Circuit Court, even upon court order to produce?” he asked.

    “Yes,” Cabreja said.

    As privacysos.org put it, “The FBI would rather police officers and prosecutors let ‘criminals’ go than face a possible scenario where a defendant brings a Fourth Amendment challenge to warrantless stingray spying.”

    The feds sell the technology in the name of “anti-terrorism” efforts. With non-disclosure agreements in place, most police departments refuse to release any information on the use of stingrays. But information obtained from the Tacoma Police Department revealed that it uses the technology primarily for routine criminal investigations.

    Some privacy advocates argue that stingray use can never happen within the parameters of the Fourth Amendment because the technology necessarily connects to every electronic device within range, not just the one held by the target. And the information collected by these devices undoubtedly ends up in federal data bases.

    The feds can share and tap into vast amounts of information gathered at the state and local level through a system known as the “information sharing environment” or ISE. In other words, stingrays create the potential for the federal government to track the movement of millions of Americans with no warrant, no probable cause, and without the people even knowing it.

    According to its website, the ISE “provides analysts, operators, and investigators with information needed to enhance national security. These analysts, operators, and investigators…have mission needs to collaborate and share information with each other and with private sector partners and our foreign allies.” In other words, ISE serves as a conduit for the sharing of information gathered without a warrant.

    The federal government encourages and funds stingrays at the state and local level across the U.S., thereby undoubtedly gaining access to a massive data pool on Americans without having to expend the resources to collect the information itself. By placing restrictions on stingray use, state and local governments limit the data available that the feds can access.

    In a nutshell, without state and local cooperation, the feds have a much more difficult time gathering information. Passage of HB474 represents a major blow to the surveillance state and a win for privacy.
    http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com...ingray-spying/
    Lifetime member of more than 1 national gun organization and the New Hampshire Liberty Alliance. Part of Young Americans for Liberty and Campaign for Liberty. Free State Project participant and multi-year Free Talk Live AMPlifier.

  7. #6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Keith and stuff View Post
    To the Governor: New Hampshire Passes Bill to Prohibit Warrantless Stingray Spying
    http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com...ingray-spying/
    CONCORD, N.H. (June 2, 2017)

    What a load of $#@!. This is window dressing.

    Put it this way: how, pray tell, is this going to stop feds or whomever from using the devices to collect data? Bear in mind it matters no whit whether the "evidence" is admissible in a court because Theye no longer need courts and procedure and due process in order to apprehend and treat those whom they wish silenced or otherwise processed.

    None of the activities in question are about justice or safety: they are purely about power and nothing else. Therefore, it matters no whit whether there is a state law banning the use so long as those making such use remain untouchable. Yeah, can you picture the state of NH putting their own cops behind bars? Not on your life. How about tossing FBI or NSA... perhaps even CIA into state prison cells for violating the law?

    Not.

    Going.

    To.

    Happen.

    Therefore, window dressing.

    This is feel-good $#@!-on-a-shingle legislation. To wit, behold the phony-balony, do-nothing bill:

    ************************************************** *********************************

    http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/bill...t=html&sy=2017

    CHAPTER 224HB 474-FN - FINAL VERSION
    8Mar2017... 0268h
    05/18/2017 1694s
    8Jun2017... 2156-EBA
    2017 SESSION
    17-0101
    08/03

    HOUSE BILL 474-FN

    AN ACT regulating the use of a cell site simulator device.
    SPONSORS: Rep. Kurk, Hills. 2; Rep. Murotake, Hills. 32; Rep. King, Hills. 33
    COMMITTEE: Criminal Justice and Public Safety
    -----------------------------------------------------------------

    AMENDED ANALYSIS

    This bill limits the use of cell site simulator devices for the purposes of locating and tracking the movements of communications devices.
    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

    Explanation: Matter added to current law appears in bold italics.
    Matter removed from current law appears [in brackets and struckthrough.]
    Matter which is either (a) all new or (b) repealed and reenacted appears in regular type.
    8Mar2017... 0268h
    05/18/2017 1694s
    8Jun2017... 2156-EBA 17-0101
    08/03

    STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIREIn the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand Seventeen

    AN ACT regulating the use of a cell site simulator device.
    Be it Enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court convened:

    224:1 New Section; Cell Site Simulator Devices. Amend RSA 570-A by inserting after section 2 the following new section:570-A:2-a Cell Site Simulator Devices.I. In this section:(a) "Cell site simulator device" means a device that transmits or receives radio waves for the purpose of conducting one or more of the following operations:(1) Identifying, locating, or tracking the movements of a communications device.(2) Intercepting, obtaining, accessing, or forwarding the communications, sorted data, or metadata of a communications device.(3) Affecting the hardware or software operations or functions of a communications device.(4) Forcing transmissions from or connections to a communications device.(5) Denying a communications device access to other communications devices, communications protocols, or services without informing affected users.(6) Spoofing or simulating a communications device, cell tower, cell site, or service including, but not limited to, an international mobile subscriber identity catcher or other invasive cell phone or telephone surveillance or eavesdropping device that mimics a cell phone tower and sends out signals to cause cell phones in the area to transmit their locations, identifying information, and communications content, or a passive interception device or digital analyzer that does not send signals to a communications device under surveillance.(b) A "cell site simulator device" shall not include any device used or installed by:(1) An electric utility solely to the extent such device is used by that utility to measure electrical usage or to operate the electric grid efficiently.(2) A telecommunications company, or its customers or vendors, solely to the extent such device is used by such entity or individual to operate its communications network efficiently.(c) "Communications device" means a device that is capable of creating, receiving, accessing, or storing electronic communications, including but not limited to cellular telephones.(d) "Metadata" means structured information that describes, explains, locates, or otherwise makes it easier to retrieve, use, or manage an information resource.II. No person shall use a cell site simulator device to locate or track the location of an individual's communications device without:(a) The individual's informed consent; or(b) A warrant issued by a judge authorizing the use of a cell site simulator device, that is based upon probable cause and that describes with particularity the person, place, or thing to be searched or seized; or(c) A judicially-recognized exception to the warrant requirement, for information to be collected by a cell site simulator device.III. A law enforcement agency authorized to use a cell site simulator device in accordance with paragraph II shall:(a) Permanently delete any information, data, or metadata collected from any party not specified in the applicable court order as soon as reasonably possible and not later than the end of the day on which it was obtained immediately following such collection, and shall not transmit, use, or retain such information or metadata for any purpose.(b) Delete any information, data, or metadata collected from the target specified in the court order within 30 days if there is no longer reason to believe that such information or metadata is evidence of a crime.IV. Any person who violates any provision of this section shall be guilty of a class A misdemeanor and, notwithstanding RSA 651:2, IV(a), may be fined up to $10,000.224:2 Effective Date. This act shall take effect January 1, 2018.Approved: Enacted in accordance with Article 44, Part II, of N.H. Constitution, without signature of the governor, July 11, 2017Effective Date: January 01, 2018 ********************************************* END BILL *********************************************

    A MISDEMEANOR? A lousy $10K fine? How is that going to deter anyone? Ten years in a state penitentiary might do the trick, but this bill is pure fluff. Anyone buying into this load of crap needs to go to Walmart and buy an IQ.
    Through lives and lives shalt thou pay, O' king.

    Pray for reset.







Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 04-27-2017, 01:35 AM
  2. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-13-2017, 01:06 PM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-09-2017, 04:59 PM
  4. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 03-13-2014, 09:13 PM
  5. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 04-22-2013, 12:52 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •