Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Canada Privacy

Local Police in Canada Used 'Stingray' Surveillance Device Without a Warrant (vice.com) 52

Posted by msmash from the big-brother-with-a-van dept.
Jordan Pearson, writing for Motherboard: For years, Canadian police have successfully kept their use of controversial and indiscriminate surveillance devices called IMSI catchers a secret. Today, for the first time, and thanks to a year-long effort by a coalition of civil rights organizations and Vancouver-based Pivot Legal Society, we know that at least one local police force in Canada has used an IMSI catcher, also referred to as a "Stingray": the Vancouver PD. According to the BC Civil Liberties Association, which posted a blog announcing the news on Monday, the Vancouver police used an IMSI catcher once, nearly a decade ago, and without a warrant. "We sent a letter asking the Vancouver police if they'd ever used one of the RCMP's IMSI catchers, and if they would again," said Micheal Vonn, policy director for the BCCLA. "The answer to both questions was yes." The police force claimed that the surveillance device was used under "exigent circumstances," Vonn said, meaning that there was an imminent threat that couldn't wait for a warrant to be dealt with. Despite this, or perhaps because of it, the Vancouver police maintained in May of this year that they possess no records relating to their use of IMSI catchers.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Local Police in Canada Used 'Stingray' Surveillance Device Without a Warrant More

Local Police in Canada Used 'Stingray' Surveillance Device Without a Warrant

Comments Filter:

  • read what they actualyl said. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by JustNiz ( 692889 ) on Tuesday August 09, 2016 @02:51PM (#52673545)

    > The Vancouver police maintained in May of this year that they possess no records relating to their use of IMSI catchers.

    That just means they don't write it down, or that they dont keep the records, not that they don't use it.

    Not having records actually sounds even worse, because it makes it sound like they are free to use it very informally, and/or don't want people to know how often they use it, so both strongly suggest they actually do use it very frequently.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      The way wiretapping works in most democratic countries is that you need an order from a judge to use a wiretapping a.k.a Stingray device. However, the device itself is not locked in the judge's basement and therein lies the problem. The device is at a warehouse in the police station 24/7, right next to the people trained to use it. All the "bad cops" need to do is fetch it from storage and deploy. No records, no judges, no trace unless you get caught. Hell, simply being in a hurry or being lazy may result i

  • Starve the beast (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Why are these legal at all? They're interfering with the normal operation of cellular devices, which is generally illegal. Also, these abuses exist because we allow them to continue. Why not demand that our taxes stop going toward these abuses and starve the beast? If the people collectively said no and refused to cooperate, this would stop.

    • Who's going the arrest the police?

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Because cops are above the law, the law only applies to common folk depending on a scale of $ from 0 to infinity

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AHuxley ( 892839 )
      Re Why are these legal at all?
      It worked in other parts of the world for contractors and the mil, spy agencies. Its now so cheap that more govs around the world can be sold the same tech on a police budget per case.
      Collect it all is now cheaper than working on a complex logging system per person.
      The other risk is that the information created by requesting a number or user be set for investigation at a court or telco level is sold or been watched for.
      With bulk collection, no outside group, court or tel

  • Canadian cops acting like USA cops? Tsk tsk tsk

  • Common Practice in Canada ... (Score:3)

    by gordguide ( 307383 ) on Tuesday August 09, 2016 @07:01PM (#52675019)
    It's Common Practice for Police in Canada to use various techniques without the "proper" authorization, and not use the evidence collected as part of the prosecution evidence. The RCMP are perhaps the worst offenders, but CSIS and larger local Police forces, plus the Provincial Police in Ontario and Quebec (there is a force in Newfoundland, but I don't recall them doing much in the way of "dirty tricks") get into the act as well.

    By way of example, wiretaps in the 1960's and later, when wiretaps were illegal (were made legal in the early 80's, I believe). Sting operations where undercover officers commit crimes, from burning buildings (1970's, Quebec) to, how's this for timely, last week two "terrorists" were acquitted since the crime would not have happened without the RCMP orchestrating it). Sharing information in real time (that is, via the radio in the car) with the FBI since the 1970's, again when this was illegal (was made legal in the early 90's in both countries).

    There is a Constitutional Protection against things that would "bring justice into disrepute" so a lot of the goings-on never get said out loud. Still, it's not a prohibition, so evidence obtained illegally does sometimes show up in testimony, but there is a reluctance to test the waters with the Constitution, as that could result in an acquittal, so it's relatively rare.

  • Interfering with my phone is almost as bad (Score:3)

    by EmperorOfCanada ( 1332175 ) on Tuesday August 09, 2016 @10:41PM (#52675829)
    What annoys me is that they are also interfering with legitimate phone usage. Clearly they think they are above the law and that the ends justify the means; so what care would they have about making life crap for any phone users in the area. Are these stingrays any good at not crapping over our usage? Would they care? I would be very interested to see a detailed geo and time specific log put against dropped/crappy calls in the same areas at the same times.

    Our phones are very low wattage devices pushing up against the limits of technology. Typically the companies that sell to police put out 15 year old crap, and thus their systems no doubt make a mess of 2016 technology.

    So while the stingrays should be banned for not only the violation of our rights, but to also punish the stingray company for putting out, what is almost certainly an overpriced pile of crap where they have actively encouraged the police to go all Gestapo on us.

  • During the 2010 Olympics in Vancouver? The blog contains no information on the _one_ use of the Stingray. What is the blog hiding? They had the info since the blog writes:

    "The VPD provided some context for its previous use of a Stingray and on the basis of the information they gave us, we can vouch for their past use (and they say there’s only been one) being legitimate, appropriate and properly authorized."

    So, the time the Vancouver Police Force did use it (kept secret by the blogger?), it was legiti

Slashdot Top Deals

Where there's a will, there's an Inheritance Tax.

Close