NY Cops Used ‘Stingray’ Spy Tool 46 Times Without Warrant(wired.com)
wired.com
NY Cops Used ‘Stingray’ Spy Tool 46 Times Without Warrant
http://www.wired.com/2015/04/ny-cops-used-stingray-spy-tool-46-times-without-warrant/
25 comments
Sorry to be so flippant, but you know how to click links, right? http://www.nyclu.org/files/20150331-ComplaintInfoReports-000...
Most incidents read like, "ASSIST TOWN OF HAMBURG POLICE WITH CELL TRACKING REGARDING OUTBACK ROBBERY ON 09/26/2011, MCKINLEY PKWY, HAMBURG, NY"
Some others are even more vague: "ASSISTING NYS POLICE, HOMOCIDE[sic]"
These give the impression that the use is targeted and for a limited time, but of course one can never be sure. I'd like to know:
* For how long was the device used in each incident?
* How was it deployed?
* How many other cellular devices were picked up?
* What happened to the irrelevant data collected?
These give the impression that the use is targeted and for a limited time, but of course one can never be sure. I'd like to know:
* For how long was the device used in each incident?
* How was it deployed?
* How many other cellular devices were picked up?
* What happened to the irrelevant data collected?
As a couple commenters on a related Ars article[1] point out, it seems weird that police would drop cases rather than reveal stingray details if it were just a matter of scooping up voice, text, and location data using a fake transmitter. Those things are pretty obvious, so why all the secrecy?
[1] http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/04/fbi-would-rather-...
[1] http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/04/fbi-would-rather-...
Spidey is an Android-based stingray (IMSI
catcher) detector that uses machine learning
to detect the presence of stingray devices
which can be used to eavesdrop on cellular
communication.
Also see http://codesign.mit.edu/category/macluguardian-project/
46 times in 51 months ... 1 time (at the end of the data collection period) with slightly less than a warrant. Not much 'judicial review' here.
It seems to me a Stingray is designed specifically to get around the need for a court order. OTW they would just subpoena the records of a cell carrier to get the information on a target they suspect.
The most insane part of all of this: there is already a way to get this data. All the police need to do is show probable cause. Which, for any reasonable application, is straightforward.
I don't know if they are lazy, authoritarian, or both.
I don't know if they are lazy, authoritarian, or both.
Isn't the whole idea to use it without having to get a warrant?
Well, that's their idea, but that's also not legal.
This isn't state wide data, just one county in NY, with a population under 1MM. When you start to extrapolate the data it starts to get a little interesting...
Seems we have an amount of falsifying documents, lying to judges, illegal surveillance, and more potentially illegal activity going on. I'm sure we'll here about the upcoming investigation into these acts by the justice department any day now. I mean, there has to be court cases of some sort to be able to get a court to determine the legality of such activity, right?
Except that the department of justice is involved and they do their best to avoid such court cases that could determine legality of these activities.
Except that the department of justice is involved and they do their best to avoid such court cases that could determine legality of these activities.
So the lesson learned here is that the police should not keep any records at all. The fact that this particular department ended up recording use could in some sense be considered an error. Law enforcement has been doing secret surveillance since before ever. The Stingray stuff is just an attempt to continue doing what they have always done in the face of encryption.
It's probably time for society to have a discussion about this issue. Law enforcement can not protect us from ourselves if they don't know what we are doing. The War on Drugs pretty much mandates the use of secret surveillance for example. It's like asking a friend to help with your diet but at the same time forbidding them from looking in the cupboards or the fridge. If we don't like law enforcement snooping in our affairs then we should stop asking them to do so.
It's probably time for society to have a discussion about this issue. Law enforcement can not protect us from ourselves if they don't know what we are doing. The War on Drugs pretty much mandates the use of secret surveillance for example. It's like asking a friend to help with your diet but at the same time forbidding them from looking in the cupboards or the fridge. If we don't like law enforcement snooping in our affairs then we should stop asking them to do so.
The police broke the law. Whatever equivocations you want to offer in their defense, they broke the law.
That's sort of my point. If we want the police to stop breaking the law we should come out and tell them that. I really doubt that law enforcement likes being forced to break the very laws they are supposed to uphold. The police are our employees. We are being bad employers by asking them to do things that are impossible. Like most employees, they will do whatever it takes to do their job.
It sounds like there should be a way to limit your cell phone to "trusted" towers. Is this possible?
'secret' police
"46 times" could well mean "Set up 46 separate devices throughout the county and collected all calls for four years", or perhaps "Left one device running for 46 contiguous months in the center of town", with the way these people work.