Stingray Case Lawyers: "Everyone Knows Cell Phones Generate Location Data" (techdirt.com) 171
An anonymous reader writes with news that the Maryland Attorney General is arguing that anyone who has ever used a smartphone knows it's tracking them, so no warrant is needed for stingrays. Techdirt says: "Up in Baltimore, where law enforcement Stingray device use hit critical mass faster and more furiously than anywhere else in the country (to date...) with the exposure of 4,300 deployments in seven years, the government is still arguing there's no reason to bring search warrants into this. The state's Attorney General apparently would like the Baltimore PD's use of pen register orders to remain standard operating procedure. According to a brief filed in a criminal case relying on the warrantless deployment of an IMSI catcher (in this case a Hailstorm), the state believes there's no reason for police to seek a warrant because everyone "knows" cell phones generate data when they're turned on or in use.
The brief reads in part: 'The whereabouts of a cellular telephone are not "withdrawn from public view" until it is turned off, or its SIM card removed. Anyone who has ever used a smartphone is aware that the phone broadcasts its position on the map, leading to, for example, search results and advertising tailored for the user's location, or to a "ride-sharing" car appearing at one's address. And certainly anyone who has ever used any sort of cellular telephone knows that it must be in contact with an outside cell tower to function.'"
The brief reads in part: 'The whereabouts of a cellular telephone are not "withdrawn from public view" until it is turned off, or its SIM card removed. Anyone who has ever used a smartphone is aware that the phone broadcasts its position on the map, leading to, for example, search results and advertising tailored for the user's location, or to a "ride-sharing" car appearing at one's address. And certainly anyone who has ever used any sort of cellular telephone knows that it must be in contact with an outside cell tower to function.'"
Everyone "knows", the new legal standard (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Dude, it's Baltimore. That's all the probable cause you need.
Re: (Score:1)
Dude, it's Baltimore. That's all the probable cause you need.
Dude, it's the US of A. That's all the probable cause you need.
I wonder why the US government doesn't just imprison all its citizens. No more crime on the streets, no more terrorist attacks. No more car accidents. No more deaths. Mission accomplished as Bush would say.
Re: (Score:1)
They're working on it. They are making it a lot harder for terrorists to get in [terrorists being anyone outside of America] and making it harder for terrorists to get out [terrorists being anyone inside of America].
Politicians are the wardens, law enforcement and the military are the guards, the wealthy are the visitors.
Re: (Score:2)
Nah, on the latter you're thinking of Windows 95 ;)
Re:Everyone "knows", the new legal standard (Score:4, Interesting)
Everyone knows when you are talking over phone your voice is transported over a public network and as such, no warrant should be needed for a third party to record your voice and conversation and use it as he wishes.
Maryland Attorney General is an idiot, a dangerous one.
Re:Everyone "knows", the new legal standard (Score:5, Insightful)
So if you happen do be in a restaurant and overhear someone explaining how their company is 'going public' tomorrow, and they have orders lined up from a specific investor at double the initial pricing, it's not merely permissible for you to take advantage of that overheard conversation, but to act on the information and contact that investor, offer them a slightly better deal, taking your profit. Not knowing that this individual was talking to their broker, who then, after you left to find a private place and make your move, telling them that was improper and could not be done...
And this is ok, because it's a public place. For the sake of argument, let's pretend the situation I described is reasonable and pass on the legalities...
The FCC has issued rules specifying that overheard or intercepted communications cannot be divulged or used to advantage (Section 705, for instance) for some time.
While recording conversations in public places is generally held to be permissible, doing so with conversations that are reasonably believed to be private by the participants is illegal under (Wiretap Act, 18 U.S.C. 2511 specifically). From an article online:
"In response to the public outcry about the government’s covert recording of the activities of political activist groups in the 1960s, Congress enacted the Wiretap Act as part of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968. (18 U.S.C. 2510.)"
Apparently we need to revisit this act. Not that our government is secretly recording the activities of groups or individuals suspected of some acts, specified or not, but that the government is recording everything it can, indiscriminately.
No, they should not be allowed to do so.
Re: (Score:1)
While recording conversations in public places is generally held to be permissible, doing so with conversations that are reasonably believed to be private by the participants is illegal under (Wiretap Act, 18 U.S.C. 2511 specifically).
Perhaps all of this (Snowden revelations, etc.) happening now before public's eyes is a part of removing the "reasonably believed to be private by the participants" premise? When we are informed that we should have zero expectation of privacy, then warrantless eavesdropping becomes fully legal? Maybe we should prologue all our communications with: "I firmly believe that we are not listened to by any third party."?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Interesting thought. By this logic is it possible that Snowden's "leaks" were actually part of the plan?
Re: Everyone "knows", the new legal standard (Score:2)
It would be an unconstitutional act, if so.
Re:Everyone "knows", the new legal standard (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Let 'em look. I've got nothing to hide.
You really think so?
Just because what you are doing isn't illegal, doesn't mean there isn't someone who doesn't like what you are doing. And if that person is in (or knows someone who is in) a position of power, he can cause you a lot of grief.
Re: (Score:2)
And the likelihood of that happening is like 1:1,000,000,000. Let's get real. This is more useful for catching terrorists.
Let 'em look. I have nothing to hide.
Says the Anonymous Coward, what are you hiding?
Re: (Score:2)
You are a dumbshit. Or stupid. Or whatever.
It is not legal for the mailman to store the metadata on the outside of your letter.
It is not legal to intercept the routing (e.g., to: address) of an email that bounces through servers -- even though accessing it is necessary to deliver the email.
There's this concept called "necessary for the rendition of service" and it applies both to metadata as well as the content of communication. For example, the Wiretap Act makes it felony to intercept data (contents of com
Re: (Score:1)
You called them a dumbshit and then went on to say that it's not legal for them to store the meta data on the outside of your letter.
The USPS takes a photograph of every single letter and package sent and then stores that data for 30 days, unless there's a call to save it for longer. They then freely provide this information to the police, without a warrant. It's considered public information.
I suppose you'll be wanting a citation:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08... [nytimes.com]
What would you call yourself? What should yo
Re: (Score:2)
I would say that is illegal. If you can find that you can surely find the accounting of what a "postal cover" is and the requirements for it.
Your argument is akin to someone saying that the NSA's illegal data collection makes it public.
Re: (Score:2)
And guess what - thanks to modern technology, you now can have a government creep follow you to every corner and record what you are shouting.
This is not only about a few private conversations but about the hollowing out of the democratic principle of separation of power.
Re: Everyone "knows", the new legal standard (Score:2)
Only way to avoid getting positioned is to remove the battery. Don't trust flight mode or sim removal, especially not sim removal.
Re: (Score:3)
Only way to avoid getting positioned is to remove the battery. Don't trust flight mode or sim removal, especially not sim removal.
Actually, if you're out committing a crime, you should leave your phone on - at home. That way, you have plausible deniability. Even better if you can have a confederate send a couple of texts from your phone during that time. It's practically an alibi.
Re: Everyone "knows", the new legal standard (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
They left off not only the "D" but the name.
Brian E. Frosh (born October 8, 1946) is an American politician from Maryland and a member of the Democratic Party.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_E._Frosh
Re:Everyone "knows", the new legal standard (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Plus, the stingray system doesn't work within the GSM / phone standards, they break and degrade the system. They are not normal passive players in the phone system, they are rogue operators. They transmit false signals to elicit data.
Re: (Score:2)
Let private citizens look through the data and have the same harmless view of police and politicians cell phone data. I'm sure there would be a big market for data about the location of every cell phone that spent more than 5 minutes in close proximity to a police station, how recently that occurred and how frequently it happens. It would be a great way to find undercover officers, speed traps, and c
He's being smart (Score:1)
Under existing Fourth Amendment law, you are sharing the location information with the cell company and therefore have no legitimate expectation of privacy in it.
Under *Existing* law. There is a reason why SCOTUS is pushing back a little against Orwellian surveillance, and eventually stingray cases will get to them. Hopefully the case will be brought to them because of a good defense attorney *rather than* because it is the case of choice for the Department of Justice.
Re: (Score:1)
1. That is accurate. See Smith v. Maryland (U.S. 1979)
2. The quote is about location data, not warrantless wiretapping. Big difference. Location data is more analogous to a pen register device under Smith v. Maryland.
"Everyone knows" THAT WARRANTS ARE REQUIRED! (Score:5, Insightful)
Even if cellphones are technically trackable, what "everyone knows" is that the government is legally required to refrain from using that information without a warrant. You know, the whole "rule of law" and all that? Any government official who has problem with that concept should be removed from office.
Re: "Everyone knows" THAT WARRANTS ARE REQUIRED! (Score:1)
Re: "Everyone knows" THAT WARRANTS ARE REQUIRED! (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
A local community's police force (well, back in Maine which is my home - I'm just not there at the moment) was going to get an armored personnel carrier for their tiny police department, care of Uncle Sam. The locals found out about it, before it happened, and went ape shit and pretty much told them to go pound sand. The local police department did not get their toy.
The local college had, for some reason, M16s issued - but no training. They had 7 of them issued, one broke, and was sent back. Again, the town
Missing the point? (Score:5, Interesting)
He's missing the point. Everyone knows that the post office handles all your mail, but it's still not allowed to tell the police what you're receiving without a warrant. The existence of a record does not imply the availability of that record to law enforcement or the government.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
He's missing the point.
No, he's making a legal argument. Your ability to come up with a persuasive metaphor does not mean your metaphor will be legally useful--you also have to understand the law as it applies to the facts.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually it can, and does tell them everything.
U.S. Postal Service Logging All Mail for Law Enforcement
Re: (Score:2)
Actually it can, and does tell them everything.
U.S. Postal Service Logging All Mail for Law Enforcement [nytimes.com]
Somebody should track the Maryland AG's location (Score:1)
Re:Somebody should track the Maryland AG's locatio (Score:5, Informative)
Your suggested interval is too much work, BUT...
If someone were to figure out the MAC address of his cell phone's WiFi interface (assuming it isn't an Apple that scrambles MAC addresses), a volunteer-run network of consumer-grade routers scattered around the city could get a pretty good fix on his location. I'm using the term 'network' very loosely here, of course; it's a network in that they're affiliated, not in that they're functionally connected. It would be 100% legal and inexpensive to do.
Re: Somebody should track the Maryland AG's locati (Score:2)
So why the secrecy (Score:3, Interesting)
Then why did they keep the Stingray surveillance secret? They should immediately release all the Stringray documents into the public domain! Even now they're fighting tooth and nail to conceal not just the details of the device, but the details on when it was used!
I also don't think people realize the depth of the surveillance problems with these smartphones, and I bet most people think dumb phones (without GPS) don't track location at all. They would be wrong, even a dumb-phone is location trackable. So his claim of full knowledge of everyone (and some sort of implicit agreement) is therefore false.
But Stingray also tracks ASSOCIATIONS, who you call and who calls you, even if you're not the target being followed, and possibly even the calls themselves and other data. We don't really know because Stringray is just one brand and we can't see the data on what these devices are capable of, we only know that modern calls have piss poor encryption courtesy of meddling.
i.e. it violates the freedom of association by imposing warrantless surveillance.
It's been used against journalists to locate their whistleblower sources and against protestors to block protests, so it does not have mass knowledge+consent.
Re:So why the secrecy (Score:4, Insightful)
Then why did they keep the Stingray surveillance secret? They should immediately release all the Stringray documents into the public domain!
Everybody knows that the information that they collect cell phone data is a secret.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A device only needs to be in range of a tower for it to ring. Towers typically cover a few square miles. GPS location data can be accurate down to a few meters. If you don't understand the difference, you should probably not be allowed outdoors by yourself.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
You should have taken the prior poster's advice because your ignorance is really showing here. It doesn't matter whether you're in the city or the country, cell towers don't allow the same positional accuracy as GPS. They're not even remotely close. Sure, the phone company knows what tower you're associated with, but that tower covers several city BLOCKS at the very least. Given that thousands of other cell phones are likely in that same urban radius, it makes locating you via cell tower kind of ridicul
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure how you think this works, but the phone company doesn't know only the one tower you are currently connected to. Your phone regularly senses the signal strengths to all towers in range, and sends the list of strengths to its current tower. This allows the system to decide when to tell the phone to transfer to another tower. In the city, the microcells (and smaller) [wikipedia.org] are also really tiny. Until about 2000, the phone companies were still thinking (or at least claiming publicly) this data alone
Re: (Score:2)
And if several towers can see your phone the location can be triangulated with reasonable accuracy as the towers have synchronised clocks.
GPS is not required to locate a phone most of the time.
Re: (Score:2)
But at no point do I expect my phone calls or credit transactions to be swept up in broad LEO activities unless I'm on a warrant or watch list.
Re: (Score:3)
it violates the freedom of association by imposing warrantless surveillance.
I am pretty strong strict constructionist who is also willing to read in some implicit rights where I feel they are necessary to exercise the other explicit rights. The 9th amendment exists to support that interpretive action.
For examples, if I were a SCOTUS justice I would hold that the various travel restrictions like the no-fly list are unconstitutional because there is no due process around who is on the list. We have an explicit right to association and assembly in the first amendment. One must be
Re: (Score:3)
This seems like an arbitrary line to draw, especially as an example of why it is wrong to draw an arbitrary line counting privacy as part of the right. Surely requiring people have a driving license would breach your definition, how else could they reasonably reach a remote lo
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No rights permit just any action to satisfy. If you're driving, you may not hit pedestrians even if they're in the way and you're late to the assembly. Nor is the government required to assist you in getting to the assembly, just as it is not required to supply you with a podium to speak from, or a printing press. The government is forbidden from impeding your travel, provided you use legal modes of travel. You may not operate a motor vehicle on public roads without a license. You may not pilot a plan
Re: (Score:2)
I'm saying the comparison between driving a car and boarding a plane as a passenger as a fallacious one. You need a drivers license to drive, but you don't need a pilot's license to board a plane. Anymore than you need a license to board a bus or a train.
Re: (Score:2)
The only magic is never to let interesting people know how easy it is. They can always stop using a cell phone.
Then its back to shift work and teams of officials doing surveillance. In the 1940-70's it was still the only and best option with helicopters, radio, beacons, phone taps. Mil or gov teams to track a person anywhere g
Re: (Score:2)
The secrecy is how we know that the government has made a significant effort to try to determine its legality, and they determined it to be illegal. Whether or not they're correct that it's illegal: that's tricky, but they think it's illegal.
I wish there were some mechanism for bringing these suspected criminals to justice. I don't mean punishment; I mean trials. Prosecute one of them for violating FCC rules or for computer misuse/fraud in doing their MitM attacks, and make them show how they got a get-out
By their logic (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Everybody knows you're not allowed to set up your own cell towers.
And yet this is exactly what law enforcement is doing with a stingray. Setting up a "tower" wherever they damn well please.
Re: (Score:1)
Everybody knows you're not allowed to set up your own cell towers.
And yet this is exactly what law enforcement is doing with a stingray. Setting up a "tower" wherever they damn well please.
Yes, everyone knows that. You are not allowed to complain about things that everyone knows. That is the entire point.
Stop giving Goldmann Sachs ideasRe:By their logic (Score:3)
By their own logic I should have just as easy of a time to be able to set up my own cell towers and siphon in all the location data that comes into it, and the government can't say boo about it
Surely you jest. Even if you were serious, you probably don't have the resources to pull it off nor you may have any ideas of how to make money off this. But all it takes is someone to plant this idea in the head of some pointy haired boss in Goldman Sachs or JPMC. There are sitting on two trillion dollars of excess capital and don't know what to do with it. They might decide to do it. Atleast with the government you might get a chance to vote against it or legislate against it. But once Goldman does it, th
Belling the Cat (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Show me the law that says I am not allowed to locate the source of a radio broadcast or it is you that I am pissing on.
Removing the SIM doesn't change the IMEI. (Score:5, Insightful)
Removing the SIM doesn't change the IMEI.
Hailstorm tracks by IMEI; SIM data is incidental. Someone should demonstrate tracking him with his SIM removed. I expect he might be ... disturbed.
Re: (Score:2)
I expect he might be ... disturbed.
The word you're looking for is delighted, because you're arguing his case. Thanks to your testimony, it is clear that people know that there is no way to evade tracking, so using phones anyway is tacit approval of being tracked. Geeks think they're smart, but they're really just useful idiots.
No, I called into question the veracity of his statement. Rather than saying "Objection, your honor! Prosecution is testifying!", and getting a disregard instruction that can never actually be really disregarded.
Plus, you *can* turn some phones off. For example, doing a hard reset on an iPhone as if it were hung will turn it off (and require that you manually power it on again), unlike some phones which just keep the baseband on at all times. So for some phones: yes, you can stop the tracking. For othe
Re: (Score:2)
If the lawyer is wrong about his assertion of not being able to track with the SIM removed, he is likely wrong about his assertion that "everybody knows". If he can screw one thing up in a case which is, in theory, important to his client, then he's probably screwed up a bunch of stuff. One false piece of information, and his credibility is out the window. He can ask questions, but any information he himself offers -- such as the assertion that "everybody knows", or his client not needing a warrant -- is
Re: (Score:2)
I think law does not work the way you think it does.
I think juries do not work the way you think they do. We are not all stupid sheep, to be led to your chosen conclusion which benefits your idiot client.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not Hans Reiser. I'm also not writing an O.J. style "If I had done it" book...
Me thinking that most lawyers are assholes because most congressmen are assholes (else why would they write the legislation they write?), and most congressmen are lawyers...
The saving grace in the situation you mention, of course, is that *your* lawyer is *your* asshole. You want him to be better at it than the other guys asshole.
Re: (Score:2)
From tlambert's explanation it is clear that people not only expect to be tracked under the circumstances that the lawyer described (phone on, SIM inserted), but know they can also be tracked if the SIM has been removed, and they'll let you know on Slashdot if you get that detail wrong.
So basically, you are saying that because I know, and you've already used the term "aspi" (which is also not correct, BTW) to describe me, that therefore "everybody knows".
Because, you argue, I'm not representative of normal people, yet you are using me to be representative of "everybody": "because tlambert knows, therefore everybody knows".
So are you going to have your cake, or are you going to eat your cake?
I guarantee you, if I were sitting in a jury room deciding on your case, I am just as capable of ab
Re: (Score:2)
the cowardly trolls are strong in this one.
Instead of repeating a long post, I'll (try to) keep it short. They are arguing for the law to be *changed* because they have been *breaking* the law. In particular, a court order restricts scope and method, and LEO have been lying to the courts about both. This is the entire point of keeping stingray capabilities secret: they have been lying to the judiciary and, as a result, getting permission through less controlled means for something *less* than what they were
Everyone knows (Score:2)
Everyone knows that the windows of the Stingray lawyers generate visual data. That's why it's OK to put surveillance drones at each of the windows of Stingray lawyers. Also, everyone knows that sound is just vibrations, which is why it is also OK to use a laser's reflection off the windows of the Stingray lawyers to record what they're saying. Everyone knows it's really easy to intercept mail and anyone who really wanted to could do it, which is why it is OK to read the Stingray lawyers mail.
Double Standards (Score:1)
So the /. readership is mostly comfortable with Shodan because, although the webcam owners aren't broadcasting, if you broadcast a signal into someone's home, you might get a signal in return.
However, if that person walks out of their home with a device that broadcasts all the time no matter where it is, the /. readership is uncomfortable with that signal being received.
Stringraaay, Stingray *durdur lurdur lurdur* (Score:2)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Stingray!
Everyone knows cops shoot unarmed black men (Score:2, Insightful)
Why get upset? Everyone knows it's happening. Therefore you must expect it and tolerate it when the police do it.
No problem (Score:2)
Everyone also knows that those who built the phones intentionally made it so we cannot disable that little "feature" without rendering the device inoperable.
Since we have no means of disabling it, other protections must be in place to safeguard the data. Thus, just flashing a badge or a NSL isn't sufficient. ( nor lucrative government contract deals )
Target a specific device with a warrant and few will have any issues with it. ( other than the government )
Keep up the mass surveillance and this house of ca
Defense calls surprise expert witness for rebuttal (Score:4, Insightful)
Broadcasting is not the same as public (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sure everyone knows they generate location data.... but that location data is *NOT* automatically public information unless the public actually has a direct way to receive and analyze it. Obtaining it for another person typically requires the explicit cooperation of a third party. Therefore, it should require a warrant.
Furthermore, phones don't always broadcast location information. I usually keep the GPS chip off on my phone to save power. Sure, my location can be generally determined from tower and IP information - depending on how I'm connected - but I'm not broadcasting that information.
same argument as (Score:1)
"everyone who lives and breathes knows they're being tracked so it's legal. even if we keep it completely secret, hidden from the courts, and defendants so they can't defend themselves."
fucking retarded chomos. williambinney.com [williambinney.com]
Then you won't mind when we anonymize them (Score:2)
If the continuing argument from the government is going to be "if we can technically do it then we should be able to legally do it"... then the solution is to make it so that you can't technically do it.
happy now?
That's apparently where this has to go.
Someone has seen you naked (Score:2)
Moron should be fired for knowing nothing about how the US constitution works, how warrants are supposed to work, etc.
If that is their position fine (Score:2)
Circular reasoning (Score:2)
How can this guy seriously make the argument that something should be legal simply because people knew it was happening (likely illegally) before hand. Taking this line of reasoning, it could be argued that being illegally searched without probable cause is now legal simply because people expect it to happen anyway (even if they don't agree or like it).
While he's at it, why not apply this argument to every clause in the Bill of Rights and have the whole constitution repealed! Law enforcement have been 'gett
While they're at it... (Score:2)
Let's just turn over all the cell towers to law enforcement if they don't need warrants to intercept cell communications. At least then we'll know for certain that they are spying on us everywhere, all the time.
Omaha PD/FBI got an article in local rag (Score:1)
Some local lady investigated why her phone acted funny and the guys listening in were accidentally talking out through her call. She was quoted as asking the other person she meant to be on a call with if they could also hear the male voices talking. Then the phone clicked a bit and the voices were off. The article said she got a phone that is pretty good at detecting and she can see her 4g connection turn to 2g and gets a warning that her phone can no longer switch towers. The device takes your phone ov