Bipartisan Bill Seeks Warrants For Police Use of 'Stingray' Cell Trackers (usatoday.com) 113
Tulsa_Time quotes a report from USA Today: A bipartisan group of House and Senate lawmakers introduced legislation Wednesday requiring police agencies to get a search warrant before they can deploy powerful cellphone surveillance technology known as "stingrays" that sweep up information about the movements of innocent Americans while tracking suspected criminals. "Owning a smartphone or fitness tracker shouldn't give the government a blank check to track your movements," said Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee who introduced the bill with Reps. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, and John Conyers, D-Mich. "Law enforcement should be able to use GPS data, but they need to get a warrant. This bill sets out clear rules to make sure our laws keep up with the times." The legislation introduced Wednesday, called the Geolocation Privacy and Surveillance (GPS) Act, would require a warrant for all domestic law enforcement agencies to track the location and movements of individual Americans through GPS technology without their knowledge. It also aims to combat high-tech stalking by creating criminal penalties for secretly using an electronic device to track someone's movements.
like this is going to matter. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:like this is going to matter. (Score:5, Insightful)
every LEO has a favorite judge on speed-dial and can get pretty much any warrant signed he/she wishes...
Warrants are recorded, and eventually become public. So that is still a big improvement over cops spying on citizens with no accountability. Warrants are also required to specify the persons that can be monitored, and the duration. They cannot be issued for broad surveillance or fishing expeditions.
Please contact your congressperson and senator and ask them to support this legislation.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, the old I'm bitter and cynical, so fuck it all.
Baby steps, my friend.
Re:like this is going to matter. (Score:5, Interesting)
Are you really that dense? This is just for show. The cops will keep on illegally using it to spy on people, without warrants. They don't have to use it in court, just to spy on people and help them set up the situation.
It's actually worse than that. It's a Trojan horse. Note the final paragraph: "It also aims to combat high-tech stalking by creating criminal penalties for secretly using an electronic device to track someone's movements." Yea, they claim a goal, but that won't be part of the bill, just a new criminal penalty they can use to bludgeon citizens with. I guarantee no law enforcement will ever be charged with that new "crime", but you'll see it pop up in all kinds of indictments of anyone else the feds want to go after. This would make it illegal to, for example, use FindMyiPhone to figure out where your stolen phone is. Illegal to track your kids using either their phone or your car's GPS. EVERY divorce will have lawyers using this to try to get indictments of spouses. If you try to prove your wife was cheating on you by showing how you followed their location, you've now confessed to a crime. I'm sure there are LOTS of scenarios I'm not thinking of right now, but you can be sure that prosecutors will come up with lots of novel ones.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
so long as it targets only everyone else
FTFY
Techie Republicans why (Score:2)
Techies, like everyday tech-minded people, need to completely and fully understand that Republicans are their enemies, by policy.
Almost completely down the line, any policy involving tech will have the Republicans pushing policies that are the worst.
Net Neutrality? It's the GOP who want to destroy it.
DRM of all kinds, always Republicans.
It goes on and on.
Why is it so important to grasp this fact? Why am I even posting this?
Because so many techies still support Republicans or 'Libertarians'...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Honestly very few politicians, regardless of what side they sit in, are on the side of tech. Democrats may be better on some issues, but by and large they're morons when it comes to Tech too.
What we really need is for everyone to write their critters to inform them about the issues that are important to them. We need a Neil deGrasse Tyson equivalent for tech, someone who can straddle the line between entertainment and education to keep the public informed and fight for what's sane.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Al Gore led the way in the funding initiative that created the Internet.
Politicians are only as attentive as the people who lobby them.
It boggles me how people seem to think their politicians are mind readers and need to magically understand their priorities. You do realize they aren't monitoring your Facebook feed or paying any attention to the retarded petitions you fill out? If you want your politicians to represent your priorities, call them. Complaining that they don't represent your interests when
Re: (Score:2)
Al Gore led the way in the funding initiative that created the Internet.
WTF Did I miss your sarcasm tag?
You really believe the Al Gore/Internet BS?
He was only 20 when the ARPANET was beginning.
Highly doubtful he had anything to do with the creation of the internet.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So we both agree that Al Gore had nothing to do with the funding or research that created the internet.
Re: (Score:2)
"internet" != ARPANET. http://amsterdam.nettime.org/L... [nettime.org] indicates that Vint Cerf and Robert Kahn agree with Gore.
Re: (Score:2)
" If you want your politicians to represent your priorities, call them."
No. Vote them out. And their replacements, until they 'get the message'. Yes, this means voting for a candidate other than the one your preferred political party presents.
See what I did there?
Re: (Score:2)
Saying that Gore created the internet is like saying that venture capitalists and lobbyists create the things they support.
Dems and Reps are very different on POLICY (Score:2)
Policy is what actually matters. Policy is the laws we actually enact and how they are enforced.
Go down the line, every instance, Republicans' policy positions are the worse of the options for tech.
If Republicans changed their policies, that would change the situation.
It *does* matter, there is a difference between policies Democrats enact and policies Republicans enact. Especially in Science and Tech. Republicans and Democrats policies are very, very different.
Re:Techie Republicans why (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I think that as more 'digital natives' run for political office, this will improve. In the Senate at least, many of the members are older and have probably never sent an email in their lives. As those people die off and get replaced, people who are more comfortable with modern technology will fill the vacancies. I doubt Orrin Hatch, for example, knows how to operate anything more complicated than an IBM Selectric -- even then, he'd have some gal type up his documents and fetch his coffee for him, too.
A lack of understanding technology is hardly a valid excuse, given the age of the laws they are in charge of upholding and protecting.
There was nothing in the Constitution or Bill of Rights about an IBM Selectric, and any 80-year old dinosaur fully understands the words "warrantless mass surveillance" no matter what decade you say them in. If they don't, then they're not fit to serve.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
DMCA, CDA, CDA II (COPA), felony DRM: Clinton (Score:5, Informative)
DMCA: Clinton
CDA: Clinton
COPA: Clinton
DRM (criminalize breaking it): Clinton
IDIOT: globaljustin
Re: (Score:2)
With regard to net neutrality the more polite way to put it is. Net neutrality favours 99.99 percent of business, not just numbers but also revenue. Dropping net neutrality only favours 0.01 percent of business, so that 0.01% tried to sneak in by buying off politicians, however that moment seems to have past as net admins of those 99.99% of business have informed management what a dangerous move that would be.
Both the Republicans and the Democrats got gobbled up by the Corporate Party but both the Republic
Re: (Score:1)
Not one of those bills were authored by democrats.
DMCA & CDA: James Exon (D-NE) (Score:1)
Before posting some idea that came from your ass, look it up.
Re: (Score:2)
I tried to say the same thing.
It's really important that people be able to understand this concept.
Re: (Score:2)
Batshit irrelevant. NAFTA didn't start out as Democratic legislation, either - but Democrats own it, as it was a Democratic president who fought for it and brought enough party support to pass it.
Re: (Score:1)
Horseshit. Republicans didn't have the votes to override a Clinton veto. But it's not the first time this line of sophistry has been raised to defend the Clinton's right wing record - too bad you guys have to deal with NAFTA, which Clinton rammed through when Dems still had control of Congress in the 90's. Kinda like how Obama rammed Romneycare through Congress, followed by making the Bush Tax Cuts permanent.
Re: (Score:1)
Hey look, it's a cowardly, Islam-loving douchebag that waits 11 days and replies to a post [slashdot.org] right before the discussion is archived to get the last word.
the GOPs policies were WORSE (Score:2)
did any Republicans lead the charge against these?
NO
Republicans were falling over themselves to make the rules worse than what was enacted!
Go down the line, the Republican's policy was always much more draconian and foolish than what Democrats were proposing.
Just because a Democrat was president doesn't mean the Democrats weren't trying to force the policy to be better. It doesn't change either party's position on policy.
Look at the
Re: (Score:2)
Who killed the TPP?
Re: (Score:2)
Judging by the amount of political news and commentary on a daily basis here you're massively mistaken.
As a nerd that's very much into politics, political discussions and debates and has been having them on this very site for several years, I'm going to throw you own words back at you and kindly ask you to just fuck off. You are not the arbiter of what nerds are and are not into.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Techies, like everyday tech-minded people, need to completely and fully understand that Republicans are their enemies, by policy.
Either you are very young, or you have a very short memory. Why would think the democrats are any better? [washingtonpost.com]
Re: (Score:1)
The exception does not prove the rule.
In the most general of senses, the Democratic party is much more responsive to the will of the electorate. The Republicans, on the other hand, tend to get in office and declare they have a mandate and no longer listen to what the people want.
Re: (Score:1)
No, it is not the exception. It is systematic. Democrats did indeed impose many anti-tech rules. The is no reason to stand up for them.
Democratic party is much more responsive to the will of the electorate.
I think you're in the wrong forum. I don't know where you come up with such nonsense.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it is not the exception. It is systematic. Democrats did indeed impose many anti-tech rules. The is no reason to stand up for them.
Other than being a partisan HACK, that is...
Only when people look out for what is best for them despite party lines, and get out of this "us vs. them" mindset, will progress ever be made -- i.e., never. In fact, that's what is being counted on.
Re: (Score:2)
So when the DMCA legislation was pending and the will of the people was against it becoming law, which party's President signed it?
It was the Democratic President Clinton who signed it.
Where do the Democrats get a bunch of their funding?? Hollywood.
Who currently heads the MPAA?
Christopher J. Dodd (D) Conn
Which party's President was pushing the TPP?
Which party's President killed the TPP?
Whatever Hollywood wants the Democrats give them.
I'm not saying the Republicans are angels, just pointing out that both par
Re: (Score:2)
Laughable. Having a Public Option on health insurance was the most popular policy in recent memory - more popular than Lilly Ledbetter, supported by Republican voters when explained what it would actually do as opposed to the death panel crap - while telecom immunity was overwhelmingly opposed by leftists, liberals and other conservatives.
Democrats killed the former while supporting the latter.
Re:Techie Republicans why (Score:5, Informative)
And let's dispense with this "bipartisan bill" bullshit.
This bill was authored by Democrats, and one republican helped sponsor it. That does not make it a "bipartisan effort" in any real sense of the word.
Re: (Score:2)
Not even close. Any more dumb questions?
Re: (Score:2)
Except he's not. Look, this isn't hard: Mike Bloomberg is a registered Republican. Mike Bloomberg supports abortion rights and gun control. Is it therefore fair to say that gun control and abortion are bipartisan issues? Of course not.
So, I say again, any more dumb questions, or are we done here?
I see that you can learn new things (Score:1)
Mabu, I see that you are writing. Using proper English, even, capitalizing most of the proper names you use.
I assume you didn't come out of the womb writing Slashdot posts, you learned how to write. That proves to me that you are capable of learning new things. You can probably make a guess about something, then when you find out differently, you've learned. Your first guess was incorrect, you learn something, cool. You're smarter afterwards.
Multiple people have pointed out to you that your first guess was
Re: (Score:1)
Oh Mabu... Silly, silly Mabu.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/... [congress.gov]
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
June 14, 2011
Mr. Chaffetz (for himself and Mr. Goodlatte) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Select Committee on Intelligence (Permanent Select), for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned
The Senate bill, S.1212, was introduced in the Senate by Sen. Wyden a day later.
Here's a couple of snippets from each bill. Guess which one belongs to which bill.
(2) WARRANT.â"A governmental entity may intercept geolocation information or require the disclosure by a provider of a covered service of geolocation information only pursuant to a warrant issued using the procedures described in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (or, in the case of a State court, issued using State warrant procedures) by a court of competent jurisdiction, or as otherwise provided in this chapter or the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.).
(2) WARRANT.â"A governmental entity may intercept geolocation information or require the disclosure by a provider of covered services of geolocation information only pursuant to a warrant issued using the procedures described in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (or, in the case of a State court, issued using State warrant procedures) by a court of competent jurisdiction, or as otherwise provided in this chapter or the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.).
And you stupidly thought that this bill was written just this year.
Re:Techie Republicans why (Score:4, Insightful)
Regardless of it being bipartisan or not, it is a bill that is long overdue.
If Law Enforcement is allowed to have such toys as these, then some oversight will be necessary to ensure they don't abuse them. Based on how judges are tossing out evidence when LE lies about using them ( at the behest of the FBI and their NDA ), one would think that they would welcome the rule. They'll complain about how much harder the job is, red tape, etc. but. . . .
Evidence tends to stick better when you follow the proper ( and legal ) procedures in procuring it.
Re: (Score:2)
And let's dispense with this "bipartisan bill" bullshit.
This bill was authored by Democrats, and one republican helped sponsor it. That does not make it a "bipartisan effort" in any real sense of the word.
Just so you know, you're actually wrong...though I wouldn't think that'll stop you from your nonsensical crusade.
(Credit an AC who's not being upvoted for whatever reason):
https://www.congress.gov/bill/... [congress.gov]
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
June 14, 2011
Mr. Chaffetz (for himself and Mr. Goodlatte) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Select Committee on Intelligence (Permanent Select), for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned
The Senate bill, S.1212, was introduced in the Senate by Sen. Wyden a day later -- basically a carbon copy of the House bill. Also:
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/... [gpo.gov]
HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM, AND HOMELAND SECURITY OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION ON H.R. 2168 ...
"Mr. Sensenbrenner. Thank you very much, and I want to thank
all of the witnesses for making their statements within the
time limit, that is not what usually happens around here. The
Chair will defer asking questions and will begin by recognizing
the author of this bill, the gentleman from Utah, Mr. Chaffetz.'
Re: (Score:2)
Techies, like everyday tech-minded people, need to completely and fully understand that Republicans are their enemies, by policy.
Not in all cases, TPP is dead because of a Republican.
Almost completely down the line, any policy involving tech will have the Republicans pushing policies that are the worst.
I saw a number of policies from the Obama administration that were against the electorate and our will.
Net Neutrality? It's the GOP who want to destroy it.
So far the new FCC chief, Ajit Pai, hasn't surprised me in his actions so far, complete opposite of Wheeler. Maybe he is going to surprise everyone but I doubt it.
DRM of all kinds, always Republicans.
Who signed the DMCA?
Clinton, a Democrat, and he did so against what the electorate wanted.
Christopher J. Dodd (D) Conn is the head of the MPAA.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Bi today (Score:1, Offtopic)
Is it 1792? (Score:3)
This bill sets out clear rules to make sure our laws keep up with the times.
Glad to hear we're implementing that new-fangled 4th amendment I keep hearing about.
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/... [eff.org]
"New Senate Bill Would Require Warrants for Federal Aerial Surveillance"
https://theintercept.com/2015/... [theintercept.com]
Lots of data is been sorted
".. fake cell phone tower devices that can pull a suspect’s cell phone data and thereby determine
Re:Is it 1792? (Score:5, Insightful)
Glad to hear we're implementing that new-fangled 4th amendment I keep hearing about.
If only. It isn't possible to use a Stingray constitutionally, period. Here's the 4th Amendment, in its entirety:
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
A Stingray sucks up data for hundreds, thousands, even tens of thousands of people if run in a metro area, and there is no warrant for that. A warrant must "particularly [describe] the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized" and every court in the land has ruled time and time again that "I want to seize something from 100 people" is not in any way "particular" enough, let alone "I want to seize something from 10,000 people".
The proposed law is unconstitutional, attempting to provide legal cover for unconstitutional activities. The only constitutional warrant names an individual or individual device or a very small group thereof and is issued to the phone company. The government does not get to pretend to be the phone company, and Hoover up the data for thousands of people at a time.[1]
I would question whether or not the current Supreme Court would uphold the Constitution and strike down this law if it passes, but it won't come before this court. The legal gyrations to prevent a challenge of the Stingrays with standing will continue indefinitely. We know this because the same stonewalling is already happening with respect to NSA spying on the Internet. Add to that the length of time required to run through the appeals process and actually reach the Supreme Court, and I doubt either Kennedy or Ginsberg will still be alive if and when that case finally gets to the Court.
Unless we are exceedingly fortunate, and this unconstitutional bill becomes law and suckers some prosecuting attorney into letting a Stingray-based case that is being challenged go forward, we're probably in for a decades of unconstitutional activity.
Not that it will be the first time...
----
[1] No apologies for the pun. It was too appropriate.
Re: (Score:2)
Look, I'm really just trying to cling to anything remotely positive coming out of Washington. Thanks for ruining this one for me.
The pun I don't mind at all.
Re: (Score:2)
By your logic, it would be unconstitutional for the FBI to sort through mail and pull out the letters addressed to the subject of a search warrant, as the FBI would be seeing everyone's mail.
No, it's very different. It's only a violation if the govt OPENS the mail. The outside of the envelope is not considered private, as by writing it and putting it in the post box you are willingly offering that information to the government for sorting and delivery purposes. You are, however, NOT offering the contents, and thus a warrent is required to open your mail (through USPS). The stingray is doing the equivalent of opening every piece of mail that comes through the post office in any given area.
Re: (Score:2)
Not to mention those even newer rules which don't allow RF transmissions on cellular frequencies without a license.
IMHO, convictions should be tossed (Score:2)
/ kinda sucks to be a Harris stockholder at the moment
Re: (Score:2)
///// /. formatting sucks balls. Why should I have to do a break line when a CRLF would do?
Change your prefs so your default posting setting is "Plain Old Text" instead of "HTML Formatted." The prefs interface itself does suck balls, your changes may or may not save.
Re: (Score:2)
Does this mean ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Does this mean ... (Score:4, Interesting)
They already "need" a warrant to use the results in court, which is why the Justice Department has dropped multiple cases involving stingrays rather than see them go to trial. They're fully aware that the first judge who gets one of these cases will throw it out and set precedent that the stingrays can't be used.
What's the point? (Score:2)
What's the point of adding more laws when there's no enforcement? Especially when you're curtailing government power, when government agencies already shit all over the laws in place to restrain them without punishment?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes please (Score:2)
It also aims to combat high-tech stalking by creating criminal penalties for secretly using an electronic device to track someone's movements.
I look forward to app store vendors being carted off to jail en masse.
Re: (Score:2)
This bill has been introduced a number of previous times (earliest is 2011) and has always gotten stuck in committee. This just seems like a bill that gets some press for the politicians, but isn't really meant to actually be enacted
Then perhaps we need to start reporting on how much taxpayer money is wasted on bullshit do-nothing committee members.
No matter your political standing, it's shit like this that justifies the "drain the swamp" mentality.
One way to look (Score:2)
One way to look at it is the pure reading of the 4th amendment. There's no "there" there about "third party rules" and "All writs act" in it. So at least those "exceptions" should require a warrant, but they don't get one in many cases. (Think NSA letters)
There's also nothing about allowing LEO to follow your every move without a warrant. Yet in many cases they don't bother. (Think cell phone tracking, power meter watching, thermal imaging in addition to plain old gum shoe detective work.)
I can't see how pa
Re: (Score:1)
Problem is the punishment needs to fit their crime.
Right now, they do this, nothing happens. They're breaking laws over their knees, they're violating the constitution, and the worse they get is "oh, that's not nice, you shouldn't do that anymore".
Without harsh consequences, they'll just keep flaying our rights off us. Actual punishment; not some slap on the wrist or being forced to transfer to a different precinct.
At the very least everyone involved in running these operations needs to be shipped off to gi
Defective by Design? (Score:5, Interesting)
In one sense this is unavoidable - when you have a piece of technology that imitates a cellphone tower by giving the strongest local signal, it will sweep up multiple handsets each time it is activated.
On the other hand, would it be possible for a judge to declare that the *operator interface* to the stingray device must by law force the operator to enter the particulars of a specific mobile phone handset, thereby preventing the stingray operator for conducting blanket surveillance?
Quite obviously, I know nothing about the inner workings of stingray technology, but it is clear to me that the principle by which it operates is to deem that every cell phone user within range is guilty of a crime - since the technology indiscriminately targets them.
If one motorist breaks the speed limit on a particular road at a particular time, a Law Enforcement Officer is not entitled to stop every vehicle on the road and take details of the driver and their passengers... similarly there should be limits on what that same officer can do when tracking a suspected criminal using stingray technology.
As technologists we know that it would be possible to develop a stingray device that had to be pre-programmed with a cell phone ID before it could be activated. We know that it would also be possible to require that device to have a legally tamper-proof log, to require that to have a license to operate (it is a wireless device that surely needs FCC approval to be used) that there would be supervisory controls that could be enforce.
Law enforcement are quick to claim that the rapid advancement of technology is such that they need extra powers in order to be able to keep pace with the criminals in society. Well, OK, but that should not be grounds for permitting those same officers to bend or break the law in the process. That places the Law Enforcement Agencies in the same category as criminals: as far as honest citizens are concerned that makes LEOs just as dangerous, or perhaps even more so, since they have the implied authority of the state backing them up...
The Enforcement of the law must itself be legal, or it undermines any and all claims of authority it may have over the citizenry it was designed to protect.
Re: (Score:2)
...Quite obviously, I know nothing about the inner workings of stingray technology, but it is clear to me that the principle by which it operates is to deem that every cell phone user within range is guilty of a crime - since the technology indiscriminately targets them.
The way it operates is by design, and the electronic system itself is not responsible for defining guilt; our society does that.
...As technologists we know that it would be possible to develop a stingray device that had to be pre-programmed with a cell phone ID before it could be activated. We know that it would also be possible to require that device to have a legally tamper-proof log, to require that to have a license to operate (it is a wireless device that surely needs FCC approval to be used) that there would be supervisory controls that could be enforce.
As technologists and citizens who wish for our Rights to be upheld by all, we know all of this is possible. The problem is someone decided to design this device to circumvent a lot of those protections. Personally, I really don't feel this was an accidental design by any means. Someone designed ISMI catchers to operate in the way that they do, as simple filters to mandate the ca
creating criminal penalties (Score:1)
" would require a warrant for all domestic law enforcement agencies to track the location and movements of individual Americans through GPS technology without their knowledge. It also aims to combat high-tech stalking by creating criminal penalties for secretly using an electronic device to track someone.."
Goody. Make sure those penalties apply to the cops too, per person tracked without a warrant.
Criminal Penalties Not Aimed at Police (Score:1)
I just read this bill and it is shocking. Absolutely shocking. The bill focuses mainly on imposing criminal penalties on citizens for tracking another person without their knowledge.
If this is the same GPS Act that filed in congress the last time it was introduced, it also has so many exemptions for law enforcement that even the "requirement" for a warrant is easily circumvented:
"Makes specified exceptions for interceptions involving: (1) information acquired by a provider of a covered service (electronic c
Re: (Score:1)
we know where you are, and are coming to get you.