US Pushing Local Police To Keep Quiet On Cell-Phone Surveillance Technology 253
schwit1 (797399) writes with this story from the Associated Press, as carried by Yahoo News: The Obama administration has been quietly advising local police not to disclose details about surveillance technology they are using to sweep up basic cellphone data from entire neighborhoods, The Associated Press has learned. Citing security reasons, the U.S. has intervened in routine state public records cases and criminal trials regarding use of the technology. This has resulted in police departments withholding materials or heavily censoring documents in rare instances when they disclose any about the purchase and use of such powerful surveillance equipment. Federal involvement in local open records proceedings is unusual. It comes at a time when President Barack Obama has said he welcomes a debate on government surveillance and called for more transparency about spying in the wake of disclosures about classified federal surveillance programs.
Re:It all means nothing (Score:4, Informative)
Voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil.
If every single person who said they would vote third party if it wasn't throwing away their vote actually voted third party, we'd see some serious changes. Just accept that it doesn't matter one bit whether a democrat or a republican wins the election. The results will be the same. Once you accept this simple truth, you are free. Now you can vote for a third party candidate without that fear of letting "the other guy" win. Vote third party. Always. I don't care which third party. Just don't vote for the status quo.
Re:Very curious (Score:4, Informative)
Interestingly, a federal court just rules that the coppers need a warrant to get cellphone location data as it is assumed to be confidential and falls within the 4th amendment scope.
http://www.cnet.com/news/court... [cnet.com]
Re:Oh my ... (Score:4, Informative)
The sad truth about the travesty of Gitmo is that it was attempted to be closed but was blocked via procedural means. Only certain penitentiaries can accept prisoners from outside of US soil and in order to do so they must have authorization from the Governor of that region. Sadly all of the penitentiaries that were able to take the prisoners had Republican governors. All of them were asked in turn by the administration, and all of them said no.
It is disturbing how so many actively chose to allow that human rights fiasco to continue just to make one man look bad. Not that you care, considering you think all those people that did not get a trial, that have no evidence against them are "pretty evil dudes".
Re:Oh my ... (Score:5, Informative)
Assuming what you say is true the Democrats NEVER had a filibuster proof 60 votes.
Yes, they did. Not for a long time, but they had it and wasted it. How do you think Obamacare got passed? No Republican voted for it, and no Republican voted to end debate on it. The Democrats had 60 votes to force cloture once they bribed enough of their own party. The Republicans couldn't stop them.
Re:The Question To Ask... (Score:5, Informative)
Are the Stingrays (which are useful as a law enforcement tool -- assuming proper warrants are obtained and appropriate restrictions adhered to) ...
There are no proper warrants that can be acquired that can authorize the Constitutional use of a Stingray device, nor are there appropriate restrictions other than a total ban on their use. They are the very definition of blanket surveillance and can not be used in any other way. There is no way to utilize them in a warranty-compliant manner because they will always sweep up the details of everyone in the vicinity, and there is no warrant for that. They are impossible to target, therefore their use by law enforcement (or any private organization being using to whitewash their use by law enforcement) is unconstitutional and therefore illegal.
That's black letter law, too, which is why it's being hidden. There is no sell-us-down-the-river Supreme Court decision that has ruled blanket surveillance legal, unlike, say, the assinine decision that is going to get the 11th Circuit overturned for claiming we have an expectation of privacy for our cell phone records (we do, but the Supreme Court has already ruled, in a massive fit of stupidity, that we don't because the phone company is some sort of magical "third party"). That hasn't happened (yet) with blanket surveillance, and it's hard to imagine even the Roberts court going that far around the bend.
That said, I echo the question you and others posted. How could these devices possibly be so valuable that federal agents are conspiring with local law enforcement to hide their illegal use? I'm assuming they're just unwilling to give up their toys, any toy at all, like the petulant children they are.
Re:Oh my ... (Score:4, Informative)
I believe that the problem is that Al Franken wasn't sworn in until well after that session was well under way, Senator Ted Kennedy was missing for many votes due to his brain cancer, and Arlen Specter didn't switch sides until much much later. There were a few other Democratic Senators who were either out or "Blue Dog" and "DINOs" - the Democratic "Party" is actually more of a loose coalition. The Democrats had the seats, perhaps, but nothing more, for a total of 72 days [sandiegofreepress.org].
(Reprinted from the last time I did this comment.)
The problem in closing Gitmo is that there have NEVER been enough people in Congress who are willing to take the political hit of letting anyone leave; witness the fact that we captured Chinese Uyghurs back in 2002, determined they weren't terrorists in 2008, and FINALLY released the last of them in 2014. These were GUYS WE KNEW WERE INNOCENT FOR SIX YEARS and still hadn't let go.