DOJ Often Used Cell Tower Impersonating Devices Without Explicit Warrants

[ElNono]

Via the EFF comes news that, during a case involving the use of a Stingray device, the DOJ revealed that it was standard practice to use the devices without explicitly requesting permission (https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/03/when-stingray-warrant-isnt-warrant) in warrants.

"When Rigmaiden filed a motion to suppress the Stingray evidence as a warrantless search in violation of the Fourth Amendment, the government responded that this order was a search warrant that authorized the government to use the Stingray. Together with the ACLU of Northern California and the ACLU, we filed an amicus brief in support of Rigmaiden, noting that this 'order' wasn't a search warrant because it was directed towards Verizon, made no mention of an IMSI catcher or Stingray and didn't authorize the government — rather than Verizon — to do anything. Plus to the extent it captured loads of information from other people not suspected of criminal activity it was a 'general warrant,' the precise evil the Fourth Amendment was designed to prevent. ... The emails make clear that U.S. Attorneys in the Northern California were using Stingrays but not informing magistrates of what exactly they were doing (http://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/us-v-rigmaiden-doj-emails-stingray-applications). And once the judges got wind of what was actually going on, they were none too pleased:"

[Wild Cobra]

OK, I'm confused.

Unless the information is encrypted, no warrant is needed for anything broadcast. Or have those laws changed?

Now if it's encrypted, where is your argument that public key is safe?

[ElNono]

OK, I'm confused.

Unless the information is encrypted, no warrant is needed for anything broadcast. Or have those laws changed?

Now if it's encrypted, where is your argument that public key is safe?

Sure there is. Telephone call interception require a trap and trace court order:
https://www.privacyrights.org/fs/fs9-wrtp.htm

Furthermore, warrants order the phone company to provide government with data, it doesn't grant the government any other rights.
In this case the warrant mandated Verizon to provide tap and tracing to the government on that account, but the government argues they can use a Stingray under the same warrant authority.

[ElNono]

Don't particularly remember explicitly surrendering my 4th amendment rights when signing up for a cellphone. Can you highlight that part of a contract with a telecom?

[TeyshaBlue]

Don't particularly remember explicitly surrendering my 4th amendment rights when signing up for a cellphone. Can you highlight that part of a contract with a telecom?

Can't help you, EN. I had my sense of reason surgically removed so I could sign with ATT.:depressed

[boutons_deux]

Don't particularly remember explicitly surrendering my 4th amendment rights when signing up for a cellphone. Can you highlight that part of a contract with a telecom?

You probably also gave up rights to participate in class action suits against <mega-Corporate-American person>, and agreed exclusively to kangaroo court arbitration.

JINO SCOTUS agrees, by greatly limiting "commonality" in class action suits.

[ElNono]

Can't help you, EN. I had my sense of reason surgically removed so I could sign with ATT.:depressed

I hear you.


You probably also gave up rights to participate in class action suits against <mega-Corporat-American person>, and agreed exclusively to kangaroo court arbitration.

JINO SCOTUS agrees, by greatly limiting "commonality" in class action suits.

So nothing on the 4th amendment department...

[boutons_deux]

I hear you.



So nothing on the 4th amendment department...

nope, I post what I want, not what you want. GFY, stalker

[TeyshaBlue]

Ooooo..EN is a stalker now.:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao

[Winehole23]

Hint at possible litigation over Fort Worth PD's acquisition of 'KingFish' fake-cell-tower device


On their March 5 agenda (http://www.fortworthgov.org/applications/OnlinePacketView/ViewDoc.aspx?docid=87), the Fort Worth City Council considered an item in closed, executive session described only as "Legal issues related to acquisition of KingFish software from Harris Corporation." Harris Corporation is the company that makes surveillance devices with the trade name "Stingray" (see here (http://gritsforbreakfast.blogspot.com/2013/03/bypassing-telecoms-stingrays-allow.html) and here (http://gritsforbreakfast.blogspot.com/2013/03/feds-say-stingray-use-is-very-common.html)) of which the KingFish system is one model in that line (http://publicintelligence.net/harris-corporation-amberjack-stingray-stingray-ii-kingfish-wireless-surveillance-products-price-list/). These are fake cell towers that trick nearby phones into sending their signal through a police surveillance system instead of the nearest, privately operated network. The Obama Administration claims their use should not require a probable cause warrant (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/little-known-surveillance-tool-raises-concerns-by-judges-privacy-activists/2013/03/27/8b60e906-9712-11e2-97cd-3d8c1afe4f0f_story.html?hpid=z3). Privacy advocates and some courts have so far disagreed. This is yet another situation where technology has leaped far ahead of the legal framework that theoretically constrains it.


What might the Fort Worth City Council be discussing behind closed doors? The only clue comes from boilerplate language on the agenda covering several distinct items which declares that the council will "Seek the advice of its attorneys concerning the following pending or contemplated litigation or other matters that are exempt from public disclosure under Article X, Section 9 of the Texas State Bar Rules, as authorized by Section 551.071 of the Texas Government Code." Does that mean there is litigation pending or contemplated related to the acquisition of the Fort Worth PD's KingFish system, or a settlement offer under Government Code 551.071? If so I'd be interested to know more detail about who is suing who over what! Lately some other jurisdictions have gotten into hot water (http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security-technology-and-liberty/doj-emails-show-feds-were-less-explicit-judges-cell) for failing to disclose to judges that they were using Stingray/KingFish-type technology when they'd only received orders (http://www.laweekly.com/2013-01-24/news/stingray-LAPD-spying-21-terrorism-tool-against-citizens/) approving traditional pen register/trap and trace devices. Has Fort Worth found itself in a similar situation? ¿Quien sabe?http://gritsforbreakfast.blogspot.com/2013/04/hint-at-possible-litigation-over-fort.html?spref=fb

[Winehole23]

Florida officials cite non-disclosure agreements as a basis for secrecy:
For some time now, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has been on a quest to better understand the use and legality of “stingrays." (http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/03/new-e-mails-reveal-feds-not-forthright-about-fake-cell-tower-devices/) These devices, which are also known as international mobile subscriber identity (IMSI) catchers, or fake cell towers, can be used to track phones or, in some cases, intercept calls and text messages.


The “Stingray” itself is a trademarked product manufactured by a Florida-based company, the Harris Corporation. (It has since come to be used as a generic term, like Xerox or Kleenex.) Harris is notoriously secretive about the capabilities of its devices and generally won’t talk to the press about their capabilities or deployment.

Earlier in March, the ACLU filed a motion for public access request (https://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security-technology-and-liberty/police-hide-use-cell-phone-tracker-courts-because), requesting documents and information related to stingray use by nearly 30 Florida police and sheriff's departments.


Among the responses published for the first time on Tuesday was the curious reply from the city of Sunrise, Florida, a town of about 88,000 people, just northwest of Miami.


Through its lawyers, Sunrise officially denied the request (https://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/sunrise-fl-response-aclu-refusing-confirm-or-deny-existence-responsive), noting that the city would neither confirm nor deny “whether any records responsive to the Request exist and, if any responsive records do exist, cannot and will not public disclose those records.” (In a footnote, the lawyers also cited this Ars story (http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/09/meet-the-machines-that-steal-your-phones-data/) from September 2013 detailing stingrays and other related surveillance devices.) The ACLU published (https://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/aclu-letter-sunrise-fl-march-25-2014) its response to the city's denial on Tuesday.


As the ACLU points out in a Tuesday blog post (https://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security-technology-and-liberty/local-police-florida-acting-theyre-cia-theyre-not), the city of Sunrise has already published an invoice from Harris (http://dms.sunrisefl.gov/public/AttachmentViewer.ashx?AttachmentID=10781&ItemID=3408) on its own website dated March 13, 2013, showing that the city paid over $65,000 for a stingray. That document clearly states, in all-caps on each page, that “disclosure of this document and the information it contains are strictly prohibited by Federal Law.”

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/03/cities-reluctant-to-reveal-whether-theyre-using-fake-cell-tower-devices/

[Winehole23]

Utah strikes back: http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/opinion/57677465-82/bill-utah-requires-data.html.csp

[boutons_deux]

VICTORY: Judge Releases Information about Police Use of Stingray Cell Phone Trackers (https://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security-technology-and-liberty/victory-judge-releases-information-about-police-use)

A Florida judge has sided with the ACLU to order release of information about police use of “stingrays,” which are invasive surveillance devices that send out powerful signals to trick cell phones into transmitting their locations and identifying information.

The Tallahassee judge’s pro-transparency decision stands in contrast to extreme secrecy surrounding stingray records in another Florida court, which is at the center of an emergency motion filed by the ACLU today (https://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security-technology-and-liberty/us-marshals-seize-local-cops-cell-phone-tracking-files).

The ACLU learned several months ago about a case (https://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security-technology-and-liberty/police-hide-use-cell-phone-tracker-courts-because) where Tallahassee police used a stingray to track a phone to a suspect’s apartment without getting a warrant. Although the detective responsible for the tracking testified in court about using a stingray, in deference to the government’s demand for secrecy the court closed the hearing to the public and sealed the transcript.

The ACLU filed a motion (https://www.aclu.org/files/assets/140226%20ACLU%27s%20Motion%20for%20Public%20Access %20%28ECF%29%20FILED.pdf) asking the judge to unseal the transcript, citing the public’s First Amendment right of access to court proceedings.

In response, the government tried to justify continued secrecy by invoking (https://www.aclu.org/files/assets/140512_state_response_to_aclu_motion.pdf) the federal Homeland Security Act and other federal laws. As the ACLU explained to the court (https://www.aclu.org/files/assets/140527_aclu_reply.pdf), those laws have no bearing because this case involves state judicial records, and because the government has waived its ability to invoke broad secrecy arguments by already releasing significant information about its use of stingrays.

Late yesterday, the judge ordered unsealing of the entire transcript (https://www.aclu.org/files/assets/100823_transcription_of_suppression_hearing_comple te_0.pdf). The portion that the government had sought to keep secret is here (https://www.aclu.org/files/assets/100823_transcription_of_suppression_hearing_28unse aled_pages_11-2429.pdf). It confirms key information about the invasiveness of stingray technology, including that:



Stingrays “emulate a cellphone tower” and “force” cell phones to register their location and identifying information with the stingray instead of with real cell towers in the area.
Stingrays can track cell phones whenever the phones are turned on, not just when they are making or receiving calls.
Stingrays force cell phones in range to transmit information back “at full signal, consuming battery faster.” Is your phone losing battery power particularly quickly today? Maybe the cops are using a stingray nearby.
When in use, stingrays are “evaluating all the [cell phone] handsets in the area” in order to search for the suspect’s phone. That means that large numbers of innocent bystanders’ location and phone information is captured.
In this case, police used two versions of the stingray — one mounted on a police vehicle, and the other carried by hand. Police drove through the area using the vehicle-based device until they found the apartment complex in which the target phone was located, and then they walked around with the handheld device and stood “at every door and every window in that complex” until they figured out which apartment the phone was located in. In other words, police were lurking outside people’s windows and sending powerful electronic signals into their private homes in order to collect information from within.
The Tallahassee detective testifying in the hearing estimated that, between spring of 2007 and August of 2010, the Tallahassee Police had used stingrays approximately “200 or more times.”


The judge’s decision to release the transcript demonstrates that the government’s attempts to hide basic information about stingray surveillance from the public are unreasonable.

The decision is also a rejection of the federal government’s attempts to meddle in state public records matters (in this case, the FBI had asked the local prosecutor to keep the transcript secret, even though this was purely a local investigation).

When police engage in invasive tracking of our locations and communications, it is crucial that the public have access to accurate information so it can participate in an informed debate. The release of this transcript serves that goal.

https://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security-technology-and-liberty/victory-judge-releases-information-about-police-use

[Winehole23]

public officials in Repug states leading the way

[boutons_deux]

public officials in Repug states leading the way

one did, one didn't, don't know if the 2 FL judges were elected or appointed. you could look it up

[Winehole23]

so then, the allergy to praising Republicans apparently does not extend to refusing to acknowledge good things that happen in RED states, but pretty damn near.

[TeyshaBlue]

Consistency and hobgoblins......

[ElNono]

a step in the right direction... now the question is how we stop this...

[boutons_deux]

a step in the right direction... now the question is how we stop this...

the NatSec/police/surveillance state is an unstoppable monster.

NSA is harvesting Bs of photos from facebook, instagram, etc.

[boutons_deux]

Noam Chomsky: A Surveillance State Beyond Imagination Is Being Created in One of the World's Freest Countries

In the past several months, we have been provided with instructive lessons on the nature of state power and the forces that drive state policy. And on a closely related matter: the subtle, differentiated concept of transparency.

The source of the instruction, of course, is the trove of documents about the National Security Agency surveillance system released by the courageous fighter for freedom Edward J. Snowden, expertly summarized and analyzed by his collaborator Glenn Greenwald in his new book, "No Place to Hide."

The documents unveil a remarkable project to expose to state scrutiny vital information about every person who falls within the grasp of the colossus - in principle, every person linked to the modern electronic society.

Nothing so ambitious was imagined by the dystopian prophets of grim totalitarian worlds ahead.

It is of no slight import that the project is being executed in one of the freest countries in the world, and in radical violation of the U.S. Constitution's Bill of Rights, which protects citizens from "unreasonable searches and seizures," and guarantees the privacy of their "persons, houses, papers and effects."

Much as government lawyers may try, there is no way to reconcile these principles with the assault on the population revealed in the Snowden documents.

It is also well to remember that defense of the fundamental right to privacy helped to spark the American Revolution. In the 18th century, the tyrant was the British government, which claimed the right to intrude freely into the homes and personal lives of American colonists. Today it is American citizens' own government that abrogates to itself this authority.

Britain retains the stance that drove the colonists to rebellion, though on a more restricted scale, as power has shifted in world affairs. The British government has called on the NSA "to analyse and retain any British citizens' mobile phone and fax numbers, emails and IP addresses, swept up by its dragnet," The Guardian reports, working from documents provided by Snowden.

British citizens (like other international customers) will also doubtless be pleased to learn that the NSA routinely receives or intercepts routers, servers and other computer network devices exported from the United States so that it can implant surveillance tools, as Greenwald reports in his book.

As the colossus fulfills its visions, in principle every keystroke might be sent to President Obama's huge and expanding databases in Utah.

In other ways too, the constitutional lawyer in the White House seems determined to demolish the foundations of our civil liberties. The principle of the presumption of innocence, which dates back to Magna Carta 800 years ago, has long been dismissed to oblivion.

Recently The New York Times reported the "anguish" of a federal judge who had to decide whether to allow the force-feeding of a Syrian prisoner who is on a hunger strike to protest his imprisonment.

No "anguish" was expressed over the fact that he has been held without trial for 12 years in Guantanamo, one of many victims of the leader of the Free World, who claims the right to hold prisoners without charges and to subject them to torture.

These exposures lead us to inquire into state policy more generally and the factors that drive it. The received standard version is that the primary goal of policy is security and defense against enemies.

The doctrine at once suggests a few questions: security for whom, and defense against which enemies? The answers are highlighted dramatically by the Snowden revelations.

Policy must assure the security of state authority and concentrations of domestic power, defending them from a frightening enemy: the domestic population, which can become a great danger if not controlled.

It has long been understood that information about the enemy makes a critical contribution to controlling it. In that regard, Obama has a series of distinguished predecessors, though his contributions have reached unprecedented levels, as we have learned from the work of Snowden, Greenwald and a few others.

To defend state power and private economic power from the domestic enemy, those two entities must be concealed - while in sharp contrast, the enemy must be fully exposed to state authority.

The principle was lucidly explained by the policy intellectual Samuel P. Huntington, who instructed us that "Power remains strong when it remains in the dark; exposed to the sunlight it begins to evaporate."

Huntington added a crucial illustration. In his words, "you may have to sell [intervention or other military action] in such a way as to create the misimpression that it is the Soviet Union that you are fighting. That is what the United States has been doing ever since the Truman Doctrine" at the outset of the Cold War.

Huntington's insight into state power and policy was both accurate and prescient. As he wrote these words in 1981, the Reagan administration was launching its war on terror - which quickly became a murderous and brutal terrorist war, primarily in Central America, but extending well beyond to southern Africa, Asia and the Middle East.

From that day forward, in order to carry out violence and subversion abroad, or repression and violation of fundamental rights at home, state power has regularly sought to create the misimpression that it is terrorists that we are fighting, though there are other options: drug lords, mad mullahs seeking nuclear weapons, and other ogres said to be seeking to attack and destroy us.

Throughout, the basic principle remains: Power must not be exposed to the sunlight. Edward Snowden has become the most wanted criminal in the world for failing to comprehend this essential maxim.

In brief, there must be complete transparency for the population, but none for the powers that must defend themselves from this fearsome internal enemy.

http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/noam-chomsky-surveillance-state-beyond-imagination-being-created-one-freest

[Winehole23]

As the Associated Press reported this week (http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2014/06/12/insert-most-transparent-administration-in-history-comment-here/), the Obama administration has been telling local cops to keep information on Stingrays secret from members of the news media, even when it seems like local public records laws would mandate their disclosure. The AP noted:


Federal involvement in local open records proceedings is unusual. It comes at a time when President Barack Obama has said he welcomes a debate on government surveillance and called for more transparency about spying in the wake of disclosures about classified federal surveillance programs.


Some of the government's tactics to hide Stingray from journalists and the public have been downright disturbing. After the ACLU had filed a records request for information on Stingrays, the local police force initially told them (http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2014/7/surveillance-lawenforcementnsastringray3.html) that, yes, they had the documents and to come on down to the station to look at them. But just before an ACLU rep was due to arrive, US Marshals seized the records and hid them away at another location, in what Wessler describes (http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2014/7/surveillance-lawenforcementnsastringray3.html) as "a blatant violation of state open-records laws".


The federal government has used various other tactics (http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2014/7/surveillance-lawenforcementnsastringray3.html) around the country to prevent disclosure of similar information.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/14/cops-tracking-calls-stingray-surveillance

[boutons_deux]

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/14/cops-tracking-calls-stingray-surveillance

nasty business.

Corporations and govt can hide from citizens, conduct their business in secret, while both rape citizens' reasonable expectation of privacy.

[Winehole23]

Don't particularly remember explicitly surrendering my 4th amendment rights when signing up for a cellphone. Can you highlight that part of a contract with a telecom?SCOTUS unanimously agrees, at least when you are arrested beforehand:


The Supreme Court ruled unanimously Wednesday (http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/page/politics/supreme-court-decision-on-cellphone-searches/1122/?hpid=z2)that police generally must obtain a warrant before searching the cellphone of someone they arrest, saying it was applying to modern technology the same privacy rights that date back to the nation’s birth.

Modern cellphones “hold for many Americans the privacies of life,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote, quoting an earlier Supreme Court decision.


“The fact that technology now allows an individual to carry such information in his hand does not make the information any less worthy of the protection for which the Founders fought.”


Roberts said that in most cases when police seize a cellphone from a suspect, the answer is simple: “Get a warrant.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/supreme-court-police-must-get-warrants-for-most-cellphone-searches/2014/06/25/e2ff1326-fc6b-11e3-8176-f2c941cf35f1_story.html

[boutons_deux]

the unanimity is very surprising, I expected at least assholes Scalia and Thomas would dissent, if not the extremeist SCOTUS5 voting for cellphone searches.

[Winehole23]

your confusion is understandable. the world ain't like you think.

[boutons_deux]

the unanimity is very surprising, I expected at least assholes Scalia and Thomas would dissent, if not the extremeist SCOTUS5 voting for cellphone searches.

whine hole is just another butt-hurt bitch-slapping victim of The Great Boutons

DOJ also told FL officials TO LIE about how fake cell nodes were used to sting.

[Winehole23]

Obama's in it up to his neck, no doubt

[TeyshaBlue]

Obama's in it up to his neck, no doubt

Indeed. Hope. Change. Transparency.

Not his fault tho. As a Dem, he simply cannot be responsible. This was unstoppable...nobody could've even slowed this down.
As a Repub...it is inevitable.....the natural extension of policy and intent.

The resulting hypocrisy flambe is delicious.

[boutons_deux]

Law Enforcement, DOJ Already Plotting How To Get Around Supreme Court's Warrant Requirement To Search Phones

Jim Pasco, executive director of the Fraternal Order of Police, the country's largest police union, imagined the police busting a drug deal with two suspects, one who gets cuffed and another who gets away.

The arresting officers “want to get into that phone and see if they can get the other guy,” he said in an interview. “Or gang situations. They communicate almost exclusively by phone. There's more at stake here than due process. It's public safety.”

Besides the delay, one problem is such a warrant might not be approved, said Bill Johnson, executive director of the National Association of Police Organizations, which counts about 240,000 rank-and-file police officers as members.

“You have to make that jump: I bet he's got a bunch of stuff on his phone. And that's not good enough,” he said. “The officers are really going to have to point to something specific that ties that phone or that suspect's use of phones to the commission of a crime.”

Meanwhile, at the DOJ, they're already plotting on ways to get around this ruling (http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/25/justice/supreme-court-cell-phones/) by seeing how far they can push the "exigent circumstances" exception:


Ellen Canale, a Justice Department spokeswoman, said the agency would work with law enforcement to ensure "full compliance" with the decision.

"We will make use of whatever technology is available to preserve evidence on cell phones while seeking a warrant, and we will assist our agents in determining when exigent circumstances or another applicable exception to the warrant requirement will permit them to search the phone immediately without a warrant," Canale said.

Notice how the focus is on figuring out more ways to search phones, not more ways to make sure they obey the law.

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140626/19130127696/law-enforcement-doj-already-plotting-how-to-get-around-supreme-courts-warrant-requirement-to-search-phones.shtml

An exigent circumstance, in the criminal procedure (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_procedure) law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law) of the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States), allows law enforcement, under certain circumstances, to enter a structure without asearch warrant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Search_warrant) or, if they have a "knock and announce (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knock_and_announce)" warrant, without knocking and waiting for refusal. It must be a situation where people are in imminent danger,evidence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_(law)) faces imminent destruction, or a suspect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspect)'s imminent escape.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exigent_circumstance_in_United_States_law

So "exigent circumstances" is whatever the fuck law enforcement wants it to be, like "feeling threatened" is justification ALWAYS for murdering non-threatening citizens. like murdering with shotgun bean bags at close range a 90 year old man in a wheel chair.

[boutons_deux]

Warrantless Cell Phone Tracking Ruled Unconstitutional in Federal Court


Judges say Americans have an expectation of privacy in their movements and that warrantless tracking violated fourth amendment


Investigators must obtain a search warrant from a judge in order to obtain cellphone tower tracking data that is widely used as evidence to show suspects were in the vicinity of a crime, a federal appeals court ruled Wednesday.

A three-judge panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals determined people have an expectation of privacy in their movements and that the cell tower data was part of that.

As such, obtaining the records without a search warrant is a violation of the Fourth Amendment's ban on unreasonable searches and seizures, the judges ruled.

"While committing a crime is certainly not within a legitimate expectation of privacy, if the cell site location data could place him near those scenes, it could place him near any other scene," the judges wrote.

"There is a reasonable privacy interest in being near the home of a lover, or a dispensary of medication, or a place of worship, or a house of ill repute."

The ruling does not block investigators from obtaining the records — which show which calls are routed through specific towers — but simply requires a higher legal showing of probable cause to obtain a search warrant rather than a less-strict court order.

"The court soundly repudiates the government's argument that merely by using a cellphone, people somehow surrender their privacy rights," said ACLU attorney Nathan Freed Wessler, who argued the case.

http://readersupportednews.org/news-section2/318-66/24697-focus-warrantless-cell-phone-tracking-ruled-unconstitutional-in-federal-court

[Winehole23]

"The court soundly repudiates the government's argument that merely by using a cellphone, people somehow surrender their privacy rights," said ACLU attorney Nathan Freed Wessler, who argued the case.
encouraging, if true

[boutons_deux]

encouraging, if true

:lol it's all a dog-and-pony fraud show.

Nothing more lawless than law enforcement goons.

and NOBODY stops the NSA.

[boutons_deux]

The ultimate goal of the NSA is total population controlAt least 80% of all audio calls, not just metadata, are recorded and stored in the US, says whistleblower William Binney – that's a 'totalitarian mentality'http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/11/the-ultimate-goal-of-the-nsa-is-total-population-control

[boutons_deux]

Email Suggests Manufacturer of Stingray Surveillance Equipment May Have Lied to FCC (http://dissenter.firedoglake.com/2014/09/17/email-suggests-manufacturer-of-stingray-surveillance-equipment-may-have-lied-to-fcc/)


The American Civil Liberties Union has accused the manufacturer of StingRay surveillance products of providing inaccurate information and possibly even lying to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), which is the agency that is supposed to regulate communications over cable, radio, satellite, television and wire.

Harris Corporation is one of the leading manufacturers of StingRay technology. The technology was “initially designed for the military and intelligence community” and “operates by mimicking cellular service providers’ base stations and forcing all cellular phones in range to register their electronic serial numbers and other identifying information,” according to the ACLU.

The ACLU of Northern California chapter managed to obtain a series of emails from 2010 between the FCC’s Office of Engineering and Technology (OET) and Harris Corporation employees, where the “equipment authorization application for law enforcement use of Harris’ StingRay line of products” is being discussed.

An email sent on June 24, 2010 by Harris representative Tania Hanna states:

Just want to make you aware of the question below we received regarding the application for the Sting Fish. I know many of these questions are generated automatically but it sounds as if there is some confusion about the purpose of the equipment authorization application. As you may recall, the purpose is only to provide state/local law enforcement officials with authority to utilize this equipment in emergency situations. [emphasis added]



Yet, long before 2010, as the ACLU points out, law enforcement at the state and local level often used the surveillance equipment for non-emergencies.

http://dissenter.firedoglake.com/2014/09/17/email-suggests-manufacturer-of-stingray-surveillance-equipment-may-have-lied-to-fcc/

Harris will of course go unpunished.

[boutons_deux]

More mystery cell towers found, this time in Washington D.C

A few weeks ago, the news that 17 cell phone towers (http://www.itworld.com/mobile-wireless/434462/secure-phones-find-17-cell-towers-unknown-origin) of unknown origin shot around the Internet faster than the latest stolen celebrity nude photos. Since then, a variety of publications have launched their own investigations and they are finding a whole lot more towers, but not their owners.

Les Goldsmith, CEO of ESD America, the company behind the secure phones that first discovered the mystery towers, told VentureBeat he's found 18 towers (http://venturebeat.com/2014/09/18/are-the-mysterious-interceptor-cell-towers-the-handiwork-of-foreign-entities/) in and around the Washington D.C. area. And who does Goldsmith think is behind it? “It’s highly unlikely that federal law enforcement would be using mobile interceptors near the Senate.

"My suspicion is that it is a foreign entity," :lol he told VB.

( this asshole is part of the NSA disinformation/deflection campaign. I suspect most/all of the towers are run by "the Deep State" )

Goldsmith said two kinds of interceptors have been identified: IMSI Catchers, which can steal subscriber info, and GSM Interceptors, which can listen into calls. Goldsmith added that a complete interceptor includes both capabilities.

Separately, The Blaze has also found intercept devices, which are not cell towers and can be as small as a briefcase, around the Russian embassy. "In several locations including on Pennsylvania Avenue in downtown D.C. someone is operating a full-blown intercept where whenever you walk past they actually break open your communications and look at what’s going on on the device," Aaron Turner, president of Integricell, a company that specializes in mobile security, told The Blaze (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/09/18/investigator-says-he-found-multiple-fake-cell-towers-near-white-house-around-d-c/).

Goldsmith, who also talked to The Blaze, said there are three tell-tale signs that phone calls are being intercepted: Your phone thinks it only has the option to talk to one cell tower; the deceptive one, the phone is forced to downgrade from 4G/3G to the simpler, unsecured 2G service; and standard network cyphering is disabled on the phone.

What's really disturbing about all of this is there does not seem to be any concern beyond the tech press. There do not seem to be any investigations or for that matter, anyone going to the devices they've detected to see what it is. Even scarier is how they got there in the first place. That someone could set up these interceptors and no one noticed does not give me a great sense of comfort. Goldsmith's comment that they are of foreign origin should scare the daylights out of Congress, even if they have all gone home to campaign for re-election.

Something has to be done, and the first thing should be taking these interceptors down, disassembling them and finding out where the information they capture is being sent. Why no one is doing that right now is beyond me.

http://www.itworld.com/security/437568/more-mystery-cell-towers-found-time-washington-dc?source=ITWNLE_nlt_today_2014-09-23

[Winehole23]

At long last, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has announced a slew of much-needed policy changes (http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-announces-enhanced-policy-use-cell-site-simulators) regarding the use of cell-site simulators. Most importantly, starting today all federal law enforcement agencies—and all state and local agencies working with the federal government—will be required to obtain a search warrant supported by probable cause before they are allowed to use cell-site simulators. EFF welcomes these policy changes as long overdue.https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/09/finally-doj-reverses-course-and-will-get-warrants-stingrays

[boutons_deux]

"all state and local agencies working with the federal government"

but if state, local are NOT working with the feds, they can run cell tower simulators?

and once they get data, they upload it to the national police state "fusion centers" where it remains for eternity.

But NRA/GOA/gun fellators says we cannot have a national run registry to assist tracking the guns of Bad Guys (c)

[Winehole23]

it's a first step and a significant one all by itself. DOJ regs don't bind state and local officials, but states and localities occasionally follow best practices established at the federal level.

EFF and others will keep chipping away at this. the price of liberty and all that.

[Winehole23]

ACLU FOIA requests granted:


Last year, we sent public records requests (https://www.aclu.org/files/assets/140227%20Tallahassee%20PD%20Records%20Request.pdf) to three dozen police and sheriffs’ departments in Florida seeking information about their use of Stingrays, also called “cell cite simulators” because they mimic cell phone towers and force phones in the area to broadcast information that can be used to identify and locate them. The https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/imce_images/stingray_document_image2.jpgrecords we obtained document millions of dollars spent purchasing the technology and show their use in many hundreds of investigations in every corner of the state.

As we revealed last year (https://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security-technology-and-liberty/local-police-florida-acting-theyre-cia-theyre-not), the Florida Department of Law Enforcement has spent more than $3 million (https://www.aclu.org/files/assets/floridastingray/03.18.2014%20-%20FDLE%20Stingray%20Records%20Stingray%20Purchase %20Order%20Summary.pdf) on Stingrays and related equipment (https://www.aclu.org/files/assets/floridastingray/03.18.2014%20-%20FDLE%20Stingray%20Records%20Stingray%20Purchase %20Orders.pdf) since 2008. But it isn’t keeping the technology to itself. The FDLE has signed agreements (https://www.aclu.org/files/assets/floridastingray/03.18.2014%20-%20FDLE%20Stingray%20Records%20ESST%20Agreements%2 0and%20Addenda.pdf) with at least 11 local and regional law enforcement agencies allowing them to use the FDLE’s Stingrays and to share them with neighboring jurisdictions. (Though the version of the sharing agreement released by the FDLE is partially redacted, a local police department near Tampa provided an unredacted copy (https://www.aclu.org/files/assets/floridastingray/04.09.2014%20-%20FDLE%20Mutual%20Aid%20Agreement.pdf).)
Use of the FDLE’s Stingrays has been extensive. In a May 2014 email, the FDLE identified a staggering 1,835 uses (https://www.aclu.org/files/assets/floridastingray/05.14.2014%20-%20Estimate%20for%20Responsive%20records.pdf) of cell site simulator equipment, likely reflecting deployment in both state and local investigations throughout Florida.
The Tallahassee Police Department (TPD) provided the most extensive information about a local agency’s use of Stingrays on loan from the FDLE, including a detailed list of more than 250 investigations (https://www.aclu.org/files/assets/floridastingray/03.27.2014%20-%20Master%20CE%20Log.pdf) in which it used Stingrays from September 2007 through February 2014. Although law enforcement agencies often justify their purchase of Stingrays—and the excessive secrecy surrounding their use — on homeland security grounds (http://privacysos.org/node/1554), the Tallahassee list reveals not a single national security-related investigation. Robbery, burglary, and theft investigations represent nearly a third of the total, followed by “wanted person” investigations, and then a laundry list of other run-of-the-mill offenses. The list also shows that the TPD allowed other police departments to access Stingrays, even crossing state lines into Georgia on at least five occasions.

https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-future/aclu-obtained-documents-reveal-breadth-secretive-stingray-use-florida

[Winehole23]

The Tallahassee Police aren’t alone in obfuscating references to Stingray use in case files and court documents. As we have previously reported (https://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security-technology-and-liberty/internal-police-emails-show-efforts-hide-use-cell), for example, police in the Sarasota area were instructed by the U.S. Marshals Service to eliminate descriptions of Stingray cell phone tracking in court filings and replace them with the cryptic phrase “received information from a confidential source regarding the location of the suspect.”


A new Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/secrecy-around-police-surveillance-equipment-proves-a-cases-undoing/2015/02/22/ce72308a-b7ac-11e4-aa05-1ce812b3fdd2_story.html) article, based partly on the records obtained by the ACLU, provides further detail about how Stingray secrecy functions — and malfunctions — in Tallahassee. In one case detailed by the Post, prosecutors opted to offer a defendant a no-jail plea deal instead of revealing details about the Stingray as part of court-ordered pre-trial discovery. As we’ve seen elsewhere in the country (http://www.thenewstribune.com/2014/11/15/3488642_tacoma-police-change-how-they.html?sp=/99/289/&rh=1), our justice system can’t properly function when judges and defense attorneys are kept in the dark about covert electronic surveillance by police.

[Winehole23]

Several agencies refused to comply with Florida's open records laws by properly providing documents. Some acknowledged that they had responsive records, but refused to release them. The Brevard County Sheriff’s Office, for example, denied (https://www.aclu.org/files/assets/floridastingray/04.22.2014%20-%20Refusal%20to%20Produce%20Records.pdf) our records request in full, partly relying on a “non-disclosure agreement or requirement” with a “federal agency.” (We know the FBI (https://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security-technology-and-liberty/documents-aclu-case-reveal-more-detail-fbi-attempt) has been making local agencies sign non-disclosure agreements (http://www.startribune.com/politics/statelocal/284945781.html) before buying Stingrays; a fully redacted copy (https://www.aclu.org/files/assets/floridastingray/03.18.2014%20-%20FDLE%20Stingray%20Records%20ESST%20Agreements%2 0and%20Addenda.pdf) of the FBI agreement is likely contained in the pages released by the FDLE. The FDLE also released a copy (https://www.aclu.org/files/assets/floridastingray/03.27.2014%20-%20FDLE%20Stingray%20Records%20Non-Disclosure%20Agreement%20with%20Harris%20Corp.pdf) of a non-disclosure agreement with the Harris Corporation.) The Sheriffs’ Offices in Broward (https://www.aclu.org/files/assets/floridastingray/05.20.2014%20-%20Additional%20Information%20re%20Claimed%20Exemp tions.pdf) and Pinellas (https://www.aclu.org/files/assets/floridastingray/9.8.14%20Pinellas%20County%20SO%20denial%20letter. pdf) Counties issued similar denials. Police Departments in Pembroke Pines and Port St. Lucie failed to respond to the ACLU’s request at all.

[Winehole23]

“We’ve seen a trend in the years since 9/11 to bring sophisticated surveillance technologies that were originally designed for military use — like Stingrays or drones or biometrics — back home to the United States,” said Jennifer Lynch, a senior staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which has waged a legal battle challenging the use of cellphone surveillance devices domestically. “But using these technologies for domestic law enforcement purposes raises a host of issues that are different from a military context.”https://theintercept.com/2015/12/17/a-secret-catalogue-of-government-gear-for-spying-on-your-cellphone/

[boutons_deux]

The eternal GLOBAL war on terror knows no limits, no boundaries, and includes USA as being on that globe.

[Winehole23]

FBI encouraged local LE to cover its tracks in NDAs:


Privacy advocates have long warned of “parallel construction,” in which investigators cover up information obtained without a warrant by finding other ways to attribute it — never allowing the source of the original lead to be scrutinized or subject to judicial oversight.


“This is the first time I have seen language this explicit in an FBI non-disclosure agreement,” Nate Wessler, a staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project, wrote in an email to The Intercept. “The typical NDAs order local police to hide information from courts and defense attorneys, which is bad enough, but this goes the outrageous extra step of ordering police to actually engage in evidence laundering,”

“Instead of just hiding the surveillance, the FBI is mandating manufacture of a whole new chain of evidence to throw defense attorneys and judges off the scent. As a result, defendants are denied their right to challenge potentially unconstitutional surveillance and courts are deprived of an opportunity to curb law enforcement abuses,” Wessler continued.

https://theintercept.com/2016/05/05/fbi-told-cops-to-recreate-evidence-from-secret-cell-phone-trackers/

[Winehole23]

don't LEOs take an oath to defend the Constitution? parties to this sort of agreement should be fired and prosecuted.

[boutons_deux]

don't LEOs take an oath to defend the Constitution?

pure lip service.

The militarized, pervasive, corrupt, illegal NatSec/police-state is irreversible, unstoppable.

[Winehole23]

sez you, johnny one-note

[boutons_deux]

sez you, johnny one-note

You can't counter my points, silly pollyanna

[Winehole23]

you can't prove them either

[Winehole23]

boutons sez don't fight the power

[boutons_deux]

you can't prove them either

YOU are providing the EVIDENCE. :lol

I'm providing the Big Picture drawn your (and my) evidence. :lol

Evidence? :lol You post a LOT of very nasty evidence, but NEVER say how to stop or reverse it, because, I SAY, it's unstoppable, irreversible.

Ball in your court ... (has been for years, while I've been serving aces)

[Winehole23]

it's not tennis, and I don't pretend to have any answers for the problems discussed here.

you put an inordinate stress on having solutions to problems ready at hand. answers to questions.

[Winehole23]

I question your certainty and self-assuredness. it's totally unearned.

[boutons_deux]

I question your certainty and self-assuredness. it's totally unearned.

Pick up a racket try even stopping, reversing the horrible shit you yourself post :lol

Inequality, the militarized police state, the loss of 10Ms of good jobs, 10Ms in poverty and on public assistance, gone: any financial security, all getting worse, Americans getting sicker and fatter by the day, have been, and going on indefinitely

[Winehole23]

the sky hasn't fallen yet, Chicken-Little

[boutons_deux]

the sky hasn't fallen yet, Chicken-Little

been crashing down since mid-70s. Your own posts provide lots of evidence.

"It's ALWAYS the Economy, stupid'

You ignore the data, even your own, but anyway:

Five Charts That Show Americans Families’ Debt Crisis

U.S. households owe trillions in student loans, credit card loans, auto loans, and mortgages.

1. Although household debt relative to GDP has declined since the recession, it remains higher than it was for almost all of postwar history.

2. Nonmortgage debt, which includes student loans, credit card debt, and auto loans, is creeping up. Meanwhile, mortgage debt is creeping back up, having fallen after the housing bubble popped.

3. Student loan debt now exceeds credit card debt, auto loans, and other nonmortga

4. Household debt relative to GDP is greater in the U.S. than in Germany, France, Italy, and Spain.

5. The average household that has credit card debt owes$16,000. That number is $27,000 for auto loans, $48,000 for student loans, and $169,000 for mortgages.

http://www.slate.com/articles/business/the_united_states_of_debt/2016/05/the_rise_of_household_debt_in_the_u_s_in_five_char ts.html

And you offer nothing to stop, to reverse the unstoppable, irreversible income suppression, the wealth sucking, the militarized police state, and total corruption of politics by capitalists.

[Winehole23]

same shit, different day.

studies on IMSI catchers should be done in every city and state.

1393970363521028104

[Winehole23]

Same shit, different day



These non-disclosure agreements, dozens of which police departments have (intentionally or not) already made public, can be described as explicitly prohibiting police from discussing the use of stingrays in the broadest sense. An agreement prepared by the bureau (https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3405109-Indianapolis-Metro-PD-FBI-NDA-3Jan2012.html) for the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department in 2012, for instance, bars police from telling anyone they acquired a stingray, including the public, the press, and “other law enforcement agencies.”

https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/a6401bf56feec5f71b7132eb27c7034d.png
Screenshot: Mike Katz-Lacabe, Center for Human Rights and Privacy (https://www.cehrp.org/)


In plain English, the agreement instructs police to try to convict people of crimes using the data collected from such devices while also concealing the existence of the devices themselves from judges, defendants, and juries. Lastly, it asserts the FBI holds the right to seek the dismissal of any charges brought against a suspect if the case is likely to result in the public learning “any information” about the devices or their capabilities.

The FBI publicly acknowledged the existence of these agreements to the Washington Post (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/fbi-clarifies-rules-on-secretive-cellphone-tracking-devices/2015/05/14/655b4696-f914-11e4-a13c-193b1241d51a_story.html) years ago. Perplexingly, it is now refusing to do so a second time. Although, in 2015, an agency spokesperson told the Post that “nondisclosure agreements do not preclude police from discussing the equipment’s use.” The agreements themselves contradict that statement, and maybe the FBI now prefers silence rather than continuing to live a lie.

While the Freedom of Information Act allows the FBI to withhold certain information from the public based on the idea (https://foia.wiki/wiki/Exemption_7(E)) that doing so would compromise “techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions,” the ACLU is arguing that the agreements themselves are not covered under this exemption.

Here are 26 of them (https://www.cehrp.org/non-disclosure-agreements-between-fbi-and-local-law-enforcement/), compiled by Mike Katz-Lacabe at the Center for Human Rights and Privacy. I’m not a lawyer, but feel free to judge for yourself.

The ACLU said on Wednesday that it launched its effort to gather copies of the non-disclosure agreements 11 months ago after Gizmodo discovered the primary company responsible for providing law enforcement stingrays, the Harris Corporation, had decided it would no longer sell them directly to local police. As Gizmodo reported (https://gizmodo.com/american-cops-turns-to-canadian-phone-tracking-firm-aft-1845442778), police agencies are now turning to other manufacturers, including one in Canada whose patents lean heavily on the work of engineers overseas.

“The public lacks information about whether the FBI is currently imposing conditions on state and local agencies’ purchase of cell site simulator technology from these or other companies,” the ACLU’s complaint says.“In response to our request, the FBI issued a ‘Glomar response (https://foia.wiki/wiki/Glomar),’ meaning they refused to confirm or deny the existence of any responsive records,” the ACLU said. “Glomar responses are only legal in rare situations where disclosing the existence (or non-existence) of the requested records would itself reveal information that is exempt from disclosure under FOIA.”

“In this case, the FBI’s Glomar response doesn’t come close to passing the sniff test,” the lawyers said, calling the bureau’s refusal to “confirm or deny” if it even has records about secrecy agreements “ironic indeed.”

“The fact of whether the FBI has continued to impose nondisclosure agreements and other conditions on local and state police isn’t a secret law enforcement technique or procedure,” they added. “It’s basic information about whether the government is evading foundational transparency requirements we expect in a democratic society.”https://gizmodo.com/fbi-will-neither-confirm-nor-deny-the-existence-of-thes-1848234939

[Winehole23]

"we make the rules, we break the rules"



The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Office of the Inspector General (OIG) looked at CSS deployment by the Secret Service and ICE and found, "Secret Service and ICE HSI [Homeland Security Investigations] did not always adhere to Federal statute and CSS policies when using CSS during investigations involving exigent circumstances."



The OIG audit report (https://www.oig.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/assets/2023-03/OIG-23-17-Feb23-Redacted.pdf) [PDF] also found that "ICE HSI did not adhere to Department privacy policies and the applicable Federal privacy statute when using CSS."
https://www.theregister.com/2023/03/04/dhs_secret_service_ice_stingray/

[Winehole23]

tower dumps found unconstitutional


A Nevada man, Cory Spurlock, is facing charges related to dealing marijuana and a murder-for-hire scheme. Cops used a tower dump to connect his cellphone with the location of some of the crimes he is accused of. Spurlock’s lawyers argued that the tower dump was an unconstitutional search and that the evidence obtained during it should not be. The cops got a warrant to conduct the tower dump but argued it wasn’t technically a “search” and therefore wasn’t subject to the Fourth Amendment.

U.S. District Juste Miranda M. Du rejected this argument, but wouldn’t suppress the evidence. “The Court finds that a tower dump is a search and the warrant law enforcement used to get it is a general warrant forbidden under the Fourth Amendment,” she said in a ruling filed on April 11. “That said, because the Court appears to be the first court within the Ninth Circuit to reach this conclusion and the good faith exception otherwise applies, the Court will not order any evidence suppressed.”

Du argued that the officers acted in good faith when they filed the warrant and that they didn’t know the search was unconstitutional when they conducted it. According to Du, the warrant wasn’t unconstitutional when a judge issued it.https://www.404media.co/judge-rules-blanket-search-of-cell-tower-data-unconstitutional/

[Winehole23]

tower dumps found unconstitutional


A Nevada man, Cory Spurlock, is facing charges related to dealing marijuana and a murder-for-hire scheme. Cops used a tower dump to connect his cellphone with the location of some of the crimes he is accused of. Spurlock’s lawyers argued that the tower dump was an unconstitutional search and that the evidence obtained during it should not be. The cops got a warrant to conduct the tower dump but argued it wasn’t technically a “search” and therefore wasn’t subject to the Fourth Amendment.

U.S. District Juste Miranda M. Du rejected this argument, but wouldn’t suppress the evidence. “The Court finds that a tower dump is a search and the warrant law enforcement used to get it is a general warrant forbidden under the Fourth Amendment,” she said in a ruling filed on April 11. “That said, because the Court appears to be the first court within the Ninth Circuit to reach this conclusion and the good faith exception otherwise applies, the Court will not order any evidence suppressed.”

Du argued that the officers acted in good faith when they filed the warrant and that they didn’t know the search was unconstitutional when they conducted it. According to Du, the warrant wasn’t unconstitutional when a judge issued it.https://www.404media.co/judge-rules-blanket-search-of-cell-tower-data-unconstitutional/