Reply With Quote
Obama's in it up to his neck, no doubt
whine hole is just another butt-hurt -slapping victim of The Great Boutons
DOJ also told FL officials TO LIE about how fake cell nodes were used to sting.
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.
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 by seeing how far they can push the "exigent cir stances" 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 cir stances 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/20...h-phones.shtml
An exigent cir stance, in the criminal procedure law of the United States, allows law enforcement, under certain cir stances, to enter a structure without asearch warrant or, if they have a "knock and announce" warrant, without knocking and waiting for refusal. It must be a situation where people are in imminent danger,evidence faces imminent destruction, or a suspect's imminent escape.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exigent...ted_States_law
So "exigent cir stances" is whatever the 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.
Last edited by boutons_deux; 06-29-2014 at 09:45 AM.
Warrantless Cell Phone Tracking Ruled Uncons utional in Federal Court
Judges say Americans have an expectation of privacy in their movements and that warrantless tracking violated fourth amendmentInvestigators 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-...-federal-court
encouraging, if true"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.
it's all a dog-and-pony fraud show.
Nothing more lawless than law enforcement goons.
and NOBODY stops the NSA.
The ultimate goal of the NSA is total population control
At 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
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: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.
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]
http://dissenter.firedoglake.com/201...e-lied-to-fcc/
Harris will of course go unpunished.
Last edited by boutons_deux; 09-17-2014 at 12:58 PM.
More mystery cell towers found, this time in Washington D.C
A few weeks ago, the news that 17 cell phone towers 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 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 su ion is that it is a foreign en y,"
( 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.
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/4375...day_2014-09-23
Last edited by boutons_deux; 09-23-2014 at 09:49 AM.
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/0...ants-stingraysAt long last, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has announced a slew of much-needed policy changes 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.
"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)
Last edited by boutons_deux; 09-05-2015 at 12:24 PM.
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.
ACLU FOIA requests granted:
https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-futur...ay-use-floridaLast year, we sent public records requests 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. Therecords we obtained do ent 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, the Florida Department of Law Enforcement has spent more than $3 million on Stingrays and related equipment since 2008. But it isn’t keeping the technology to itself. The FDLE has signed agreements 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.)
Use of the FDLE’s Stingrays has been extensive. In a May 2014 email, the FDLE identified a staggering 1,835 uses 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 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, 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.
The Tallahassee Police aren’t alone in obfuscating references to Stingray use in case files and court do ents. As we have previously reported, 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 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, our justice system can’t properly function when judges and defense attorneys are kept in the dark about covert electronic surveillance by police.
Several agencies refused to comply with Florida's open records laws by properly providing do ents. Some acknowledged that they had responsive records, but refused to release them. The Brevard County Sheriff’s Office, for example, denied our records request in full, partly relying on a “non-disclosure agreement or requirement” with a “federal agency.” (We know the FBI has been making local agencies sign non-disclosure agreements before buying Stingrays; a fully redacted copy of the FBI agreement is likely contained in the pages released by the FDLE. The FDLE also released a copy of a non-disclosure agreement with the Harris Corporation.) The Sheriffs’ Offices in Broward and Pinellas Counties issued similar denials. Police Departments in Pembroke Pines and Port St. Lucie failed to respond to the ACLU’s request at all.
https://theintercept.com/2015/12/17/...our-cellphone/“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.”
The eternal GLOBAL war on terror knows no limits, no boundaries, and includes USA as being on that globe.
FBI encouraged local LE to cover its tracks in NDAs:
https://theintercept.com/2016/05/05/...hone-trackers/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 uncons utional surveillance and courts are deprived of an opportunity to curb law enforcement abuses,” Wessler continued.
don't LEOs take an oath to defend the Cons ution? parties to this sort of agreement should be fired and prosecuted.
pure lip service.
The militarized, pervasive, corrupt, illegal NatSec/police-state is irreversible, unstoppable.
sez you, johnny one-note
You can't counter my points, silly pollyanna
you can't prove them either
boutons sez don't fight the power
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions