US Gov't Will Reveal More About Its Secret Cellphone Tracking Devices 94
An anonymous reader writes: The U.S. Department of Justice has launched a major review of how law enforcement around the country uses cellphone tracking technology, and they will also begin sharing more information about how it works. So-called "Stingray" devices have been in the news a lot recently, as privacy activists try to piece together how they're used. Police and federal agencies have been notably resistant to sharing how they use this tool, even after we learned that they often don't bother with warrants and may have been drastically overusing it. Still, they're not going to reveal everything about the Stingrays: "Officials said they don't want to reveal so much that it gives criminals clues about how to defeat the devices. Law-enforcement officials also don't want to reveal information that would give new ammunition to defense lawyers in prosecutions where warrants weren't used, according to officials involved in the discussions."
Secrets (Score:5, Informative)
Re: Secrets (Score:5, Insightful)
No, he expects the devices used on American citizens to operate within the laws that govern both us and the government. As do I. As do many others. These devices and their users actively subvert the laws protecting our right to privacy as well as our right to fair trial. Their secret nature is exactly the objection as it does more harm to our freedom than terrorists ever have. Idiot.
Re: (Score:2)
Law-enforcement officials also don't want to reveal information that would give new ammunition to defense lawyers in prosecutions where warrants weren't used
It's called discovery! And it's required under the law. You can't hide evidence or its provenance from the defense!!!
Re: Secrets (Score:4)
It's called discovery! And it's required under the law. You can't hide evidence or its provenance from the defense!!!
In theory that is true.
In practice, many people cannot afford an extensive legal fight and settle quickly. Those who do actually go through the courts --- only about 3% in the federal system [wsj.com] --- often learn during discovery that the initial reports came by anonymous sources.
Anonymous sources are tricky. A single anonymous source is not considered reliable enough to issue a warrant, but is reliable enough to investigate. Two different anonymous sources can be enough to meet probable cause (People v. Coulombe (2001)).
So as has been documented several times, one government agency, such as the NSA, will observe some illegal behavior but they are not allowed to prosecute. If the information is traced back to them during discovery then the unlawful search or unusable information would be dropped, so they give an anonymous tip to local law enforcement, reporting all the details they are able. Local law enforcement gets the anonymous tip, investigates, finds exactly what the tip said was there, and arrests them all. When questioned about their sources, law enforcement can pull out the records of an anonymous tip, mention that the reporter refused to give their name and that is why they investigated.
It isn't always that the source itself is unlawful. There are many types of lawful recordings and intercepts but during the course of the investigation they hear about other items. Due to the scope of their work they may be legally forbidden from following those other leads.
The term is "parallel construction". Usually the local police either are unaware that the report came from another agency or unlawful search, or they suspect it did but keep their mouths shut. With a successful parallel construction there is no evidence to be uncovered during discovery. The person making the report is careful to leave no evidence connecting their report (which would taint the entire case) that the local officers could discover.
Several cases have been several [techdirt.com] cases [arstechnica.com] recently [arstechnica.com] where officers were caught attempting to use parallel construction (and failing at it) when data came from these devices.
Re: (Score:2)
I take it you have never heard of "Parallel construction" by which they do not disclose such things. They rationalize it as protecting sources and methods.
Re:Secrets (Score:5, Insightful)
I suppose you expect we should all be as eager as you to give up all but the pretense of privacy because the bogeyman makes you piss your pants with fear?
Re:Secrets (Score:5, Funny)
To be fair, the boogeyman is scary as shit, and I fully support the War on The Boogeyman. Every American deserves to be safe from what's under their bed and/or in their closet, and blankets can't protect you all the time.
Re: Secrets (Score:2, Funny)
Apparently our government disagrees regarding blankets keeping you safe. Their blanket surveilance IS their security blanket.
Re: (Score:2)
This is perhaps the best extension of a metaphor that I have seen in a while, well met. I am going to be stealing this one for future use.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Secrets (Score:1)
Dibs on Angelina Jolie's.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know. I kinda like the boogie, man.
Re:Secrets (Score:5, Insightful)
Wait you failed to understand what he was talking about and you called him the idiot? It is fairly basic, all laws should be easy to understand and presented to all citizens. If you do not know what a law is how can you know if you are breaking a law or not?
Re: (Score:2)
Well if you are actually a congressman the answer is simple....you write all laws that apply to you and people like you such that the law itself specifically requires your understanding of it in order to break it. Most laws that apply specifically to lawmakers almost always contain words like "knowingly".
If you are not a lawmaker or one of their clients who pays for the law to be made....then its irrelevant, nobody gives a shit about you.
Re: Secrets (Score:2)
awww, a big government baby won't be able to keep playing fast and loose with breaking the law and using toys they can't handle responsibly!
qq!
Re: (Score:3)
Secret precedents defined in secret courts covering secret laws on secret programs uncovering more secrets... Something's phishy here...
Would it make you feel better if you used the word proprietary here instead?
A few thousand companies don't seem to mind...after all, how do you think they keep their secrets...
Re: Secrets (Score:4, Insightful)
What does that have to do with our government's use of blanket surveilance of its citizens in violation of privacy and fair trial laws? You're either trolling or you have the mentality of a twelve year old.
Yes, because every product our government buys from a corporation they own the source code and fully understand how it works from a technical perspective, which of course is to also suggest they are allowed to.
Harris forces it's gov customers to sign an NDA that essentially says they're not customers of Harris. There's a hell of a way to sell your product. I'm guessing Barbara Streisand is in charge of marketing.
Tell you what, how about we just wait for them to replace the statement "don't want to reveal" to "proprietary and confidential". I'm sure that will satisfy the masses as a legitimized business excuse justified by capitalism.
Re: (Score:2)
> Harris forces it's gov customers to sign an NDA that essentially says they're not customers of Harris.
I take extreme issue with your use of the word "Force".
A person "Forced" to do something cannot be considered responsible for his actions, so if they are being "forced" that is a pretty serious accusation. Unless you have evidence of some manner of blackmail or threat, then I don't see how it can be applied.
They always had the option of backing out and not buying the equipment. Nobody was forced, they
Re: (Score:3)
> Harris forces it's gov customers to sign an NDA that essentially says they're not customers of Harris.
I take extreme issue with your use of the word "Force".
A person "Forced" to do something cannot be considered responsible for his actions, so if they are being "forced" that is a pretty serious accusation. Unless you have evidence of some manner of blackmail or threat, then I don't see how it can be applied.
They always had the option of backing out and not buying the equipment. Nobody was forced, they were accomplices.
Citizens were forced in front of a judge to spend thousands of dollars to defend themselves against accusations and information gathered illegally, and you're worried about my verbiage?
Speaking of serious accusations, perhaps you should take a step back here and not focus on the petty bullshit. I agree, there's a lot of force being used here, but a fucking thesaurus isn't the damn answer to government abuse.
Re: (Score:1)
Noting is "phishy" here. This is the new norm.
Get used to it.
Along with the "phisting" part of getting stuck with the check on paying for all this bullshit right? Effectively being forced to fund crime. I think I understand exactly how that would be attractive to 'chicks with dicks' that would storm the 'wood pile' "An NSA officer also was injured, though officials did not say how." http://www.washingtonpost.com/... [washingtonpost.com] .
[redactd] (Score:4, Funny)
wtf (Score:5, Insightful)
"also don't want to reveal information that would give new ammunition to defense lawyers in prosecutions where warrants weren't used" then they should have gotten an arrest warrant to begin with!!!
Re:wtf (Score:5, Insightful)
Totally.
Does the prosecution not have a legal duty to turn over potentially excuplatory evidence??
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E... [wikipedia.org]
"In many countries, including the United States, police and prosecutors are required to disclose to the defendant exculpatory evidence they possess before the defendant enters a plea (guilty or not guilty)."
Re: (Score:1)
Exculpatory evidence means evidence the defendant maybe didn't do it. It doesn't mean evidence that Slashdot would be mad about the legal methods the police used to find the evidence that the defendant really did do it.
Re:wtf (Score:4, Insightful)
1) Cops gather evidence via unconstitutional means.
2) Consulting attorney tells them what evidence is needed to get a conviction via constitutional means
3) Cops use unconstitutional evidence as a roadmap to gather constitutional evidence
4) Cops present case with just constitutionally gathered evidence to prosecutor, don't share unconstitutional evidence with prosecutor
5) Prosecutor in the clear, has no knowledge of unconstitutionally gathered evidence and nothing to share with defense regarding unconstitutional evidence gathering
I believe the general term is parallel construction.
Re: (Score:2)
Totally.
Does the prosecution not have a legal duty to turn over potentially excuplatory evidence??
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E... [wikipedia.org]
"In many countries, including the United States, police and prosecutors are required to disclose to the defendant exculpatory evidence they possess before the defendant enters a plea (guilty or not guilty)."
Yes, but there's no enforcement mechanism and no penalties - criminal or civil - for breaking this "law". It's a literal farce.
Imagine we had speed limits with no penalties. An officer pulls you over, says "you're going over the speed limit". You say "Yeah, so what?" His response: "you're not supposed to go over the speed limit. Other than that, have a nice day."
Re:wtf (Score:5, Insightful)
"... don't want to reveal information that would give new ammunition to defense lawyers ..."
Should be "... don't want to reveal information that would allow citizens to exercise their civil rights."
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah I see it more as "we don't want to admit criminal wrongdoing."
Withholding evidence? (Score:5, Insightful)
"that would give new ammunition to defense lawyers in prosecutions where warrants weren't used"
So they want to deny information to the defense attorneys that could exonerate their clients? Isn't that a little like a prosecutor withholding information regarding a witness that claims to have seen another person committing the crime? Call me crazy but isn't the justice system is supposed to be open and fair, not closed and selective?
Re:Withholding evidence? (Score:4, Insightful)
It would not exonerate their clients, but it may get them off because the law broke the law to get them down. It will not remove mean they did not commit the crime, just that 2 wrongs dont make a right.
Re: Withholding evidence? (Score:5, Insightful)
Since this (getting off on a technicality) is a valid tactic for many officials caught (sometimes literally) with their pants down, why shouldn't it work for everybody? Improperly gathered evidence is improperly gathered evidence.
Re: (Score:2)
I am not arguing that these people should or should not get off. I am arguing that it does not exonerate them of the crime. Getting off on a technicality, or because the officers broke the law to catch you, does not exonerate you, it just means you wont be punished for it.
Re: Withholding evidence? (Score:1)
Which is a good thing. Our society is way too focused on revenge, to the point I sometimes question the ability of a jury to be neutral, especially when we have the FBI making up things, Cops lying, and prosecutors who care more about perception of being tough on crime than if people are innocent or guilty.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree that cops should not be able to break the law to catch law breakers, except in the narrow circumstances such as speeding to catch speeders that society allows, and that illegal actions and the fruit that they gather should be thrown out. In fact I would also support prosecuting the cops that do this as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Exoneration occurs when a person who has been convicted of a crime is later proved to have been innocent of that crime. Attempts to exonerate convicts are particularly controversial in death penalty cases, especially where new evidence is put forth after the execution has taken place.
So no: they're not being found innocent, so they're not exonerated. They simply have the charges dropped for lack of legal evidence. If someone can be bothered to get evidence legally (if any still exists) then the charges could be brought against them again. If they had been found innocent then, even if someone found a mountain of undeniable evidence against them the next day, they could no longer be charged with the crime thanks to the Fifth Amendment's double jeopardy protection.
Re: (Score:2)
And this is why pedantry is at least occasionally useful and important.
Re: (Score:1)
Doesn't everyone get off with their pants down?
Re:Withholding evidence? (Score:5, Insightful)
It would not exonerate their clients, but it may get them off because the law broke the law to get them down.
If law officers are breaking the law, then what is the difference between them and criminals?
Re: (Score:2)
The cops have better criminal connections. They also provide the cops their budgets.
Re: (Score:2)
The cops are the only gang you can't call the cops on.
In other words ... (Score:5, Insightful)
If we reveal the extent to which we're actually breaking the law, the lawyers might be able to argue that by bypassing the law the shit we've done is in admissible in court.
And, once again, the police have decided it's far more convenient if they can simply lie or conceal what they actually do, so they don't have to be under scrutiny.
Sorry, but no. Either you use this technology legally, with warrants as legally required .. or you fuck the hell off and don't use it.
This is no better than the National Police Perjury Program best known as parallel construction -- in which we encourage law enforcement to lie about how they did things to deny you a valid legal defense.
If this is what the police want, fuck 'em. When the police no longer believe the law applies to them, they've become a whole new problem.
Complaining that defense lawyers being able to challenge an illegal wire tap means law enforcement is either corrupt or incompetent.
Lying bastards.
Re:In other words ... (Score:5, Insightful)
>> Law-enforcement officials also don't want to reveal information that would give new ammunition to defense lawyers in prosecutions where warrants weren't used
I didn't get this either - shouldn't this normally be part of the discovery process?
(Remember that scene in My Cousin Vinny where Vinny discovers...er...discovery?)
Re:In other words ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Basically law enforcement doesn't want to have to abide by the law. They want to be able to use any tool they can find, without oversight, and they don't want it challenged in courts.
Basically they want a blank check to do anything they want.
They want to be able to say "your honor, he's guilty because we say he's guilty, and pay no attention to the evidence we're hiding about how we arrived at this conclusion".
Needing warrants and adhering to the law has apparently become too inconvenient. Because the police are either corrupt, lazy, or incompetent.
But, we already knew that.
Re: (Score:2)
Because the police are either corrupt, lazy, or incompetent.
Why not all three?
Re: (Score:1)
You can only pick 2 of 3 things. Always.
Corrupted and lazy; because they are very competent at not getting caught.
Re:In other words ... (Score:5, Insightful)
If we reveal the extent to which we're actually breaking the law, the lawyers might be able to argue that by bypassing the law the shit we've done is in admissible in court.
And, once again, the police have decided it's far more convenient if they can simply lie or conceal what they actually do, so they don't have to be under scrutiny.
Sorry, but no. Either you use this technology legally, with warrants as legally required .. or you fuck the hell off and don't use it...
Uh, you forgot about the methods in which they tell you to fuck the hell off...which would include you standing there with your attorney shelling out a few thousand dollars to defend what should have been thrown out in the first place.
Do NOT underestimate the design of the current system and it's ability to line the pockets of someone, no matter how illegitimate the charge.
In my opinion, THIS is the larger crime here, as the cost to defend ones self starts to easily escape what the average person can afford.
In the end, this essentially means that the establishment doesn't need to defend any action, legal or otherwise.
And they fucking know it.
Parallel construction? No, just hide the evidence! (Score:5, Insightful)
Un-fucking-believable - Or rather, sadly all too believable.
That one statement right there almost completely expresses everything wrong with modern American legal system.
Mr. Prosecutor, I would point out that if you would so willingly abandon the core principles of our legal system - The ideas of innocent until proven guilty and having the right to face your accuser in court - Why shouldn't we go back to vigilante mob justice and tar-and-feather your worthless ass for breach of public trust?
Re:Parallel construction? No, just hide the eviden (Score:5, Insightful)
"Your accuser" doesn't just mean the testimony and evidence against you - How and Why they collected evidence can matter more than that evidence itself.
Just think how much easier it would make police work if they could randomly barge into your house and search for criminal activity without a warrant... Or if they could "find" your DNA at a crime scene by bringing you there after-the-fact to "ask some questions" and you "just happen" to trip and bleed on the scene (but don't worry, an anonymous phonecall assured them you did it).
We have rules in place for a reason. We either always follow them, or they mean nothing.
Re: Parallel construction? No, just hide the evide (Score:1)
If there was a reasonable expectation of privacy, then yes, we do. Federal ones, in fact.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Which renders the 4th amendment meaningless because its normal enforcement mechanism is exclusion of evidence. If law enforcement does a search and/or seizure but does not introduce anything found in court, does the 4th amendment cover it or not? Apparently it does not.
While parallel construction may have been intended to protect national security, now it is used to avoid 4th amendment requirements.
I think we all know "how it works" (Score:4, Insightful)
There technology behind these intercepts is not particularly complex, so I don't think there is a significant need to explain "how it works". The fact that they are trying to "share" information that is already quite clear to all interested parties, suggests that this is a PR effort for the public, rather than an attempt to modify law enforcement practices in earnest.
Re: (Score:2)
In the words of a respected law enforcement official, "It's not what you know. It's what you can prove."
You might have a pretty good idea of how a Stingray works, but your opinion is inadmissible in court. Once you have some hard evidence on what the equipment does and documentation on how law enforcement uses its capabilities, it's all just hearsay.
Time for indictments (Score:5, Insightful)
"Law-enforcement officials also don't want to reveal information that would give new ammunition to defense lawyers in prosecutions where warrants weren't used, according to officials involved in the discussions."
Find those officials and indict them. Get them to roll on others involved, get them to roll, so on and so forth until you have everyone from prosecutors to judges to field agents to police officers to administrators to politicians; indict the lot of them for a criminal conspiracy to violate the civil rights of thousands - if not millions - of Americans. Indict the manufacturer too and open all of them to civil suits by everyone involved. In fact, just launch one on behalf of everyone affected.
Put a few thousand people in prison, bankrupt manufacturers, towns, cities, police departments, and individuals, and watch this kind of shit stop real quick. Such action would force everyone else to very careful examine how they treat the civil rights of both suspects and regular people who might get caught up in the dragnet. It would demonstrate real and lasting consequences for knowingly violating the legal rights of the people. It would bring us closer to a more just and perfect union.
Or we could just quietly sweep it under the rug and unwind the most untenable abuses while making some fairly innocuous details available to the public in the name of transparency. I'm sure that'll also work.
Re: (Score:1)
Before you start rolling stones, make sure the slope is steep.
For reporting tax avoidance we have:
http://www.irs.gov/uac/Whistleblower-Informant-Award
Other than getting blackballed, what benefit is there for people who want to report government agencies?
Re: (Score:2)
You forget the prosecutors that would indict them are knowing or at least complicit in this. Core issue is police and prosecutors should be adversarial but are not. Sire issue is police units have manged to carve out special exemptions protecting from these sort of indictments rather requiring an internal review.
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
What this should mean to us... (Score:3)
What I'm hearing when I read this, is that cell phone technology has some kind of weakness so severe, that just a whiff of the exploit will set experts on the obvious path to uncovering it... thus to leak any information at all will provide security researchers with everything they need to figure it out and fix it. Once that is done, the value of stingray devices will be moot. Or in other words... c'mon security researchers, you're so damn close the government can taste it!
Re: (Score:2)
> Once that is done, the value of stingray devices will be moot.
Indeed one can bet that the stingray technology is obsolete and the next surveillance gadgets are ready for use.
Re: (Score:2)
Na you just do like some states did and the radar gun is always right under law.
Re: Newsflash (Score:1)
Hey newsflash, since your house has a unique address number, isn't it a bit unrealistic to expect privacy?
Slippery slope my friend.
Illegal in Washington State under our Constitution (Score:2)
Period.
Same thing goes for GPS tracking.
Will defense also have access to the raw data? (Score:2)