Local Police in Canada Used 'Stingray' Surveillance Device Without a Warrant (vice.com) 52
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.
Re: Don't ask, don't tell (Score:4, Insightful)
My respect for the police is at zero. No wonder they are getting shot left and right when they behave like idiots.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: Don't ask, don't tell (Score:4)
MOST law enforcement officers abuse their positions in various ways. Your view is highly inaccurate.
Re: (Score:2)
What are you talking about? Everything in the article is clearly referring to Canadian entities with the one exception when they mention that the RCMP is the Canadian analogue to the FBI in the US.
Re: (Score:1)
They are local police because they have local jurisdiction within their locale.
Re: (Score:3)
Because there is a difference between local (city/district) police, provincial police, and RCMP (federal police) in Canada. You know how like in the states there'll be city/county police, state police, and FBI.
This is not a complicated concept.
Re: (Score:1)
In Canada there are local police departments (municipal or regional), provincial police forces (e.g Ontario Provincial Police or OPP) and the federal police force, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police or RCMP.
Re: (Score:1)
Municipal police in Canada, Regional Police in Canada, Provincial Police in Canada...
It might have read
'Local Police in a Country used a device without a warrant and some groups are having emotions about it'.
Or,
Ontario Provincial Police in Canada have successfully deployed a controversial and indiscriminate surveillance device called an IMSI catcher also known as a 'Stingray' in their efforts to curb crime'
Be completely generic, or be specific. You see how that works?
Re:Geography ftw (Score:4, Informative)
Partially correct.
There is a police service everywhere. That police service may be provided by the city (e.g., Vancouver), the province (e.g., Ontario and the Ontario Provincial Police) or by the federal government (the RCMP).
Depending on where you are, who you go to depends on who provides police service. Outside of Vancouver, for example, most of the immediate neighbouring cities (in the area known as Metro Vancouver), you'd go to the RCMP, because that city contracts with the RCMP to provide local police services.
Distrust of the RCMP (either due to excessive force, or budgetary issues) has lead to several cities considering starting their own police force (Richmond has had many discussions on that, they expect transition costs of around $200M and the cost of their own force over the RCMP was supposed to be $50M annually, but the benefits include better local representation. The vote lost).
That said, even municipal police forces may participate in unified policing programs - we have a program called IHIT (integrated homicide investigation team) that investigates homicides, and the team is made up of police from all the member forces - they share information with each other and so on to solve homicides that cross city boundaries. Delta police doesn't participate so they have to investigate homicides on their own, though they may request help from IHIT or IHIT may provide information if they believe a killer lives in Delta.
There are other programs like the Anti-Gang Task Force and such.
All BC police forces are monitored by the IIO who is a civilian task force that investigates police use of force - if any police officer brings out their weapon (even if it wasn't fired) it triggers an investigation by the IIO. And yes, if a weapon was fired, the circumstances of that are evaluated as well, including if it was justified.
(Yes, they're busy, probably around 100 cases a year or so, but then again, the total number of murders in a given year is usually well under 20, and total deaths is quite low (including car accidents and running over pedestrians, it typically averages under 100, in a population of 4 million people or so).
Re: (Score:1)
And thus City Protective Services [wikipedia.org] is born.
Re: (Score:1)
Because police are not just RCMP, which is federal. New Westminster has it's own police force, for example. But most police in Canada are actually RCMP.
Re: (Score:2)
Probably because they mean a local police department in Canada as opposed to a regional or national police force.
That is, the size of the police force in question is likely significant.
Re: (Score:3)
How does not wanting people to break the law make it weaker?
Please remember that hollywood movies have little or nothing to do with reality, especially when dealing with the action genre.
Re: (Score:2)
Local police in Canada
"Local" police from another freakin country.
Don't worry; Trump will annex Canada.
read what they actualyl said. (Score:5, Interesting)
> 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)
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
Re: (Score:2)
So close, but you missed using hoser, eh, and Timmy's. Come on eh!
Stay oat-a my hoase ya hoser or you'll be sore-y, eh?! Let's go to Timmy's eh?!
Starve the beast (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
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)
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
The shame (Score:1)
Canadian cops acting like USA cops? Tsk tsk tsk
Re: (Score:2)
You are supposed to be above that. (Damn stereotypes, even when they are good ones, they still cause problems...)
Re: (Score:2)
Even with a warrant, I'm not convinced they can be used legally while refusing to testify about them. The oath is to tell THE WHOLE TRUTH, not a convenient subset of it that doesn't violate the EULA.
Re: (Score:3)
Illegally Obtained Evidence CAN be used in Canadian courts. Now, it's a fine line that the police are reluctant to cross, but it is not an automatic inadmissibility nor an automatic acquittal in Canadian Law, although both are a possibility. Usuall
Re: (Score:2)
In the U.S. anyway, some judges have been bending over backwards to allow evidence that really shouldn't be allowed. Even still, the defendant has a right to question any evidence gathering technique used including Stingray. If they won't discuss it, they may be forced to drop the charges. However, especially at the federal level, they may try to pull a fast one with parallel construction where they use the illegal evidence to give them a plausible means to claim they found it legally. It's clearly not lega
Re: (Score:2)
Upgrades can even be pushed down into a users network to alter that device or carry back to another more secure computer later.
Common Practice in Canada ... (Score:3)
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)
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.
Blog vague on when, why ... and the problem (Score:2)
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