The Chicago Sun-Times reports that the Chicago Police Department is fighting a lawsuit to force them to reveal how they use Stingray cell tower-emulating devices:
Since 2005, the department has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on cell-site simulators manufactured by the Harris Corp. in Melbourne, Florida, records show. The devices — with names like StingRay and KingFish — capture cellphone signals.
Cops can use the technology, originally developed for the military, to locate cellphones. Police agencies in other states have revealed in court that StingRays and similar devices have been used to locate suspects, fugitives and victims in criminal investigations.
But privacy activists across the country have begun to question whether law enforcement agencies have used the devices to track people involved in demonstrations in violation of their constitutional rights. They also have concerns the technology scoops up the phone data of innocent citizens and police targets alike.
The Chicago Police Department has also been running a CIA-style black site, according to a recent report by the Guardian.
When the federal government began imprisoning people at Guantanamo in violation of the Constitution, some argued it was the only place, and that there were exceptional, extenuating circumstances. When the network of CIA black sites around the world and its practice of "extraordinary rendition," known to normal people as, "kidnapping," were revealed, some argued it was only for terrorists and other bad guys. When the NSA's mass violations of the Constitution were revealed by the Snowden leaks, some argued that it was for our own protection. Each time, they were justified as defense against the "Other."
Is this Chicago case a harbinger of things to come, that those tools and practices developed to violate the rights of the "Other" elsewhere, are now being applied to "Us", here?
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 24 2015, @11:43PM
is that we get to see Americans shooting themselves in the foot.
I laugh at you America.
Your own constitution is shit and you twist the law to fuck yourselves.
Great job!
Keep up the great work!
(Score: 0, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 24 2015, @11:46PM
But still way the fuck better than anywhere else. I notice dickwads like you who are quick to shit on the US never seem to brag on that utopia where you live. Things that make you go "hmmmmmm".
(Score: 1) by Ox0000 on Wednesday March 25 2015, @01:01PM
You mean places like Denmark, Sweden, Norway, The Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Switzerland, ...
Shall I go on?
Face it, we've lost our #1 spot... (Except for being #1 in the developed world in illiteracy, belief in 'Angels', religiosity, arrogance, dislike-by-others, teen pregnancy, STDs... shall I go on as well?)
Instead of blindly saying "we're number one" and thumping your chest ignoring the facts and being dismissive about anyone who tells us the truth, we should take it upon ourselves to try to regain the #1 spot in things that aren't on the list of things we are #1 in right now...
Dumb-ass!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 25 2015, @06:04PM
We may or may not have lost our #1 spot in various places, but the vast majority of the dipshits here who to love to shit on anything US-related never own up to where they live, because the majority of their complaints apply equally to whatever shithole they live in. For instance, as we all know on this site, the NSA is entirely evil and everyone who works there (and even thinks of working there) is morally corrupt (call this the Soylent Axiom of Moral Righteousness). This is, of course, because the NSA spies, and we know that no other country in the world spies. The majority of the comments are from people who are shocked, SHOCKED! that the NSA spies on other countries, because surely THEIR country would never stoop so low as to do something so underhanded.
This isn't about chest-thumping as you seem to think it is, or your apparent feelings of inadequacy I suppose, but it is about simple honesty from the shithead talking regulars here who are as predictable and intellectually honest as any talking head on any cable pundit show.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by TLA on Tuesday March 24 2015, @11:59PM
I'll bite.
The Constitution of the United States is pretty much the most powerful document ever written, up there next to Magna Carta, and the Orange Constitution of 1688.
With a few notable exceptions, and notwithstanding decisions out of the Supreme Court, the US legal system is pretty much compliant to the clauses contained within the Constitution. Any that aren't are either given exceptions or are rapidly struck out as "bad Law".
This is in stark contrast to the English legal system, wherein Laws are enacted by Parliamentary vote and Royal Assent (which is a joke since there has been no right to veto since 1911), and when bad Laws are enacted (happens often) Parliament and the Government both pass the buck to the Courts who pass it back to Government, all three claiming Constitutional privilege with one hand and saying we don't have a Constitution with the other (what's Magna Carta then? Toilet paper??), and all saying that they can't unilaterally change the Law. I say the body responsible for enacting the Law in the first place (Parliament) is also quite capable of repealing it. You can unfry an egg.
1911 Parliament Act: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo5/1-2/13/contents [legislation.gov.uk]
Unfry an egg: http://www.uchospitals.edu/news/1998/19980710-hsp104.html [uchospitals.edu]
Excuse me, I think I need to reboot my horse. - NCommander
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 25 2015, @12:43AM
With a few notable exceptions, and notwithstanding decisions out of the Supreme Court, the US legal system is pretty much compliant to the clauses contained within the Constitution. Any that aren't are either given exceptions or are rapidly struck out as "bad Law".
This has to be a joke. The government routinely ignores the constitution. And why exclude Supreme Court decisions? Because they frequently ignore what the constitution actually says?
(Score: 4, Interesting) by TLA on Wednesday March 25 2015, @01:13AM
I refer specifically to numerous decisions concerning PATRIOT, which the SCOTUS rolls have it repeatedly as being Constitutional. Simply put, I and many others disagree which is why it keeps ending up back in court as a not-settled Constitutional issue.
Excuse me, I think I need to reboot my horse. - NCommander
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 25 2015, @06:09PM
It does not. Don't let your ignorance of the law or legal decisions stand in the way of comprehension. Just because you can recite verbatim the 4th Amendment, just as a bible thumper can recite John 3:16, doesn't mean you understand what the words mean or how they have been interpreted by the courts for 200+ years. Do not be so self-centered to think that anything you disagree with or do not like means that it is illegal or corrupt.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 25 2015, @07:09PM
Certain government agencies, such as the DEA have their sole purpose as violating the constitution. The NSA and DHS seem to be that way now too. Not the whole government, sure, but entire governmental agencies, absolutely.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Jeremiah Cornelius on Wednesday March 25 2015, @02:48AM
"The Constitution has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist."
– Lysander Spooner
You're betting on the pantomime horse...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 25 2015, @06:11PM
I fail to see how quoting a 19th century anarchist is relevant or even meaningful.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by tathra on Wednesday March 25 2015, @07:21PM
the constitution has failed to prevent our current police state due to the non-enforcement of Title 18 USC § 1918 [cornell.edu] which explicitly states anyone holding government office that ignores, subverts, or suggests to ignore or subvert the constitution (all acts that work towards overthrowing our constitutional form of government) is to be fined or jailed for a year, and also due to the past 100 years of the "drug war". alcohol prohibition took a constitutional amendment, thus by precedent if nothing else all drug prohibitions require one to be legal. once the constitution-subverting precedents were set "fighting against drugs" (which was really nothing more than racism, fighting to keep non-whites oppressed), it was easy to use them to further subvert the constitution. the process was so slow (and so many people supported each individual step) that its only recently that we can see that our constitutional form of government has been overthrown.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 25 2015, @07:59PM
Awwwww. looks like someone is a little jealous that they don't live in the USA. It's okay. You're not alone.
(Score: 2) by TLA on Tuesday March 24 2015, @11:48PM
https://soylentnews.org/article.pl?sid=15/03/17/1526231 [soylentnews.org] although it doesn't count as "Dupe", the referred one concerns a technological solution to Stingray deployment (as opposed to simply leaving your cellphone at home). Personally, I find coded hand signals completely unbreakable as a means of near-field, line of sight communication.
Excuse me, I think I need to reboot my horse. - NCommander
(Score: 0, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 25 2015, @12:48AM
YOU JUST GOT HIT BY
¶▅c●▄███████||▅▅▅▅▅▅▅▅▅▅▅▅▅▅▅▅|█
▄██ OBAMACARE ███▅▄▃▂
█████████████████████►
(Score: 4, Informative) by splodus on Tuesday March 24 2015, @11:49PM
Just to add, when this was an issue ten years ago in the UK, the Prime Minister, Tony Blair, was questioned in the House of Commons.
He brushed it off [bbc.co.uk], more than once, leaving the leader of the Liberal Democrats at the time, Charles Kennedy, (who placed the question), unable to pursue the issue (such is the nature of Prime Minister's Questions in the UK)
This was one of the issues that led to Tony Blair gaining the moniker 'Teflon Tony'
(Score: 4, Interesting) by TLA on Wednesday March 25 2015, @11:24AM
yes, I remember this chapter. It even prompted a perplexed Paxman to comment that not only did the PM sidestep the issue of what is basically state sanctioned abduction with other states simply looking the other way, and use the [unrelated] issue of torture as a distraction, he used the privilege of PMQs to shut down further discussion on the subject. Utterly disgusting behaviour and something Blair still has to answer for.
Speaking of the past coming back to bite one in the arse, Blair has had to step down as Special Envoy to the Middle East. Oh well, no more State-to-State weapons deals for him. At least he still has the under-the-counter stuff; you know, the sarin, the mustard gas, the "surplus" vehicles and small arms that're right this minute sitting unclaimed and rotting in the Afghan mountains... I think he needs to hand back his Dodd prize. His Human Rights record reads like one of the Oriental dictators he claims to despise.
Excuse me, I think I need to reboot my horse. - NCommander
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 24 2015, @11:50PM
"The three men, to be hereby known as "The NATO Three" since it adds a cool counter-culture-y angle to the story we want to sell, . . . "
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 25 2015, @11:43AM
So after reading the stories of warrantless mass surveillance and torture both on US soil, you're worried that journalists might get paid?
(Score: 2) by takyon on Tuesday March 24 2015, @11:58PM
Thanks for keeping us updated on Stingray.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday March 25 2015, @12:35AM
It's not so much about the technology but about how the technology is being abused. It's rather similar to recent reports about how police are using backscatter vans to illegally peer inside buildings and vehicles.
The more police and every level of government grow accustomed to routinely violating our rights, the worse it's going to turn out for everyone.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 25 2015, @02:30AM
Not sure it can get much worse.
They crossed the line a long long time ago.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 25 2015, @10:04AM
"Not sure it can get much worse."
Oh, it can, and almost certainly will.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 25 2015, @06:15PM
Get some perspective. Every age is seen as the worst of times, and things have not been monotonically decreasing for thousands of years.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by kaszz on Tuesday March 24 2015, @11:59PM
How these devices are designed ought to be quite obvious?
And their location should be quite straightforward to locate? they kind of advertise their localization with RF signals.
(Score: 4, Informative) by frojack on Wednesday March 25 2015, @05:02AM
They aren't that big, and not many people walk around with a RDF in their pocket. They are mobile, can be there one minute and gone the next.
They don't have a big giant antenna. They tend to be used to find someone the police already know about, but because they disrupt phone calls of everybody in range, the tend to use them sparingly, just long enough to confirm their target is in the area.
Recently in Vegas, my phone went totally bonkers, and I couldn't get a signal with three cell towers in clear line of sight, one second, the next second I had full bars. Everybody near by had the same problem, and laughed it off as typical Vegas Police activity. Data connection was out of the question, and calls all failed. I was miles from any big crowd. There was no obvious police activity. I've had this happen in down town Seattle as well, but that time I knew Obama was driving to a speaking engagement (inconveniencing an entire city to enrich his party). I have no idea if a Stingray was in use or just some kid with a jammer.
You could be standing 10 feet from one and not notice it. Not that easy to find. There's an App for that. [vice.com] There are also people who make a project of finding them [computerworld.com]. (And yeah they did find one in Vegas).
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 1) by Ox0000 on Wednesday March 25 2015, @01:05PM
Everybody near by had the same problem, and laughed it off as typical Vegas Police activity.
Laughed it off??? Wow, talk about cynicism... When people joke about their rights being trampled, you know it's bad... (I'm not taking a jab at you frojack)
(Score: 2) by frojack on Wednesday March 25 2015, @04:54PM
Yeah, I was pretty much gob smacked too.
That being said, most of the people there were out of towners, and alcohol was flowing.
Like I say, I have no real clue what it was, it could have been just a tower crash or something, dumping us all onto a tower much farther away. Being my naturally suspicious self I assumed the worst.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by c0lo on Wednesday March 25 2015, @12:00AM
As usual, the tools are in any way not responsible for the way they are used or the subjects they are used for/against.
That's one of the beauties of the nature, I guess: keeps working the same way no matter or the intent or what the intellect of humans may come with.
My point? Why the (rhetorical?) surprise in the question?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 25 2015, @12:36AM
That should be good enough reason to oppose war in most cases. Whatever method used in war against the "others" inevitably comes back to be used against our own population.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 25 2015, @12:51AM
YOU JUST GOT HIT BY
¶▅c●▄███████||▅▅▅▅▅▅▅▅▅▅▅▅▅▅▅▅|█
▄██ OBAMACARE ███▅▄▃▂
█████████████████████►
(Score: 2) by pogostix on Wednesday March 25 2015, @06:20AM
Haha this deserves the troll mod but I can't wait till the day I'm browsing on my phone and I get hit by some on topic relevant ascii art :)
(Score: 5, Insightful) by TrumpetPower! on Wednesday March 25 2015, @12:03AM
There can be no legitimate reason for a police force to keep this sort of information from the public. Either it's going to come out in trial or it's inadmissible -- and, if it's inadmissible, the police have no business doing it.
Of course, the other option is that their reasons are illegitimate.
You can make an argument that the military should have certain secrets. No such arguments can apply to the police, beyond certain types details of an active investigation or privacy-intruding records of closed investigations that didn't result in charges. Everything beyond that, especially once charges are filed, either must be public record...or the police are not public servants but rather the domestic ground troops of a police state.
b&
All but God can prove this sentence true.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by RedGreen on Wednesday March 25 2015, @12:55AM
"or the police are not public servants but rather the domestic ground troops of a police state."
They always have been that and will continue to be the illusion that they are there for our protection is just that an illusion. They serve the elite in their ongoing effort to keep the masses in check there are so many laws on the books virtually no one can go a day without breaking one of them and once you become an irritant they will come for you.
"I modded down, down, down, and the flames went higher." -- Sven Olsen
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 25 2015, @01:29AM
Similar action going on in Western NY State --
http://www.buffalonews.com/city-region/police-courts/nyclu-taking-sheriff-to-court-over-cellphone-monitoring-20141208 [buffalonews.com]
From the article:
The NYCLU filed the legal action in State Supreme Court after the Sheriff’s Office denied its request under the Freedom of Information Law for records on the acquisition and use of the mobile devices known as Stingrays.
“The Erie County Sheriff’s Department cannot hide behind a shroud of secrecy when it is in fact invading the privacy of the communities it has sworn to serve and protect,” said John A. Curr III, director of the NYCLU’s Western Regional Office.
“This advanced surveillance technology raises serious concerns regarding the tracking of innocent people, and the public has a right to know how and when such invasive techniques will be employed.”
The Sheriff’s Office on Monday declined to comment on the legal action, referring any questions to the County Attorney’s Office, which is expected to file legal papers responding to the action by Friday.
Sheriff Timothy B. Howard has acknowledged that specially trained deputies have been using Stingrays since 2008. He told Erie County lawmakers at a committee hearing in May that it was up to the courts and not legislators to provide oversight on how the devices are used.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by epitaxial on Wednesday March 25 2015, @02:07AM
How did Harris get tapped to make these devices? What technology do they use that is proprietary to the cell phone industry?
(Score: 1) by kstox on Wednesday March 25 2015, @03:58AM
Harris has been doing consulting work for Telco's forever. I worked with them while at Ameritech in the early 1990's. The issue isn't the technology, the issue is that they have access to the keys. This enables them to advertise themselves as an AT&T/Verizon/Etc tower.
(Score: 2) by Arik on Wednesday March 25 2015, @02:42AM
Of course. War is the health of the state.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by jmorris on Wednesday March 25 2015, @02:57AM
I have a more fundamental question about the Stingray's use. Ok, I understand why spies would use it abroad. Perfectly fine with that even, spies gotta spy and all that. And I can even see a few cases where they might use one here in the U.S. for spying. Some spying is really dark and secret and I'm enough of an adult to even accept it in some cases. Ok, all that out of the way. Just saying I understand why somebody built one in the first place, there was a real use case. Now somebody explain what in the bloody Hell a police dept would use one for? Anyone?
If they use one on targets without a warrant the case is going right into the toilet. If recent history is a guide, if the defense even gets wind one -might- have been used and starts throwing paper the pattern seems to be to drop the case to avoid the possibility of being forced to talk about it.
If they can get a warrant they can just force the carrier to give up not only the call details but the minute by minute location track that is almost certain to cover more area than what they can have Stingrays deployed into. And they can even get that level of detail backward in time if they can get a judge to sign off. They can also have the content of the calls/texts/network traffic delivered right to the stationhouse in realtime if they have a warrant, no mucking about tailing people with a Stingray or that old cop show foolishness of non-descript panel vans parked down the street from the suspect. Clean, undetectable, and unavoidable.
So again. They are buying the boxes and using them for something but it ain't law enforcement as such. So what are they buying for their bucks? What is the pitch the sales weasel makes at the convention booth? Do they even buy booth space at LEO trade shows? Can somebody throw a scan of their brochure up somewhere? This whole deal just has a wrongness to it.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Ox0000 on Wednesday March 25 2015, @01:09PM
I think this ought to be a fairly binary case:
Do you have a warrant? Then you don't need a stingray!
Do you not have a warrant? Then you have no business doing that shit!
Here's a handy question for all police departments thinking about acquiring stingrays to ask themselves with the answer filled in: "Do think you need or want a StingRay device? If the answer is 'yes' then you are not allowed to get one!" (with regards to the late mr. Carlin)
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday March 25 2015, @07:18PM
Parallel Construction. [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 26 2015, @09:59PM
They can also have the content of the calls/texts/network traffic delivered right to the stationhouse in realtime if they have a warrant, no mucking about tailing people with a Stingray or that old cop show foolishness of non-descript panel vans parked down the street from the suspect. Clean, undetectable, and unavoidable.
Citation needed, aside from watching too much Law & Order SVU?
(Score: 1, Redundant) by The Archon V2.0 on Wednesday March 25 2015, @12:58PM
"If you've done nothing wrong, you've got nothing to hide."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 26 2015, @12:30PM
Interesting how this is only applied to civilians, and not to government.