A rare alliance of Democratic and Republican members of the US Congress could lead to increased restrictions on how police officers can deploy so-called Stingray cell phone trackers. These devices are regularly used to investigate suspected criminals, but the nature of the system means a lot of innocent Americans are caught up in the dragnet. This bill would force police to get warrants before using Stingrays.
The legislation was introduced Wednesday, and is called the Geolocation Privacy and Surveillance (GPS) Act. Congress does love its clever acronyms. The bill was sponsored by unlikely allies Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Oregon), Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), and Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich). That means essentially the same bill exists in the House and Senate, which both need to pass the legislation before it can become a law.
[...] Police have long maintained that the use of Stingrays does not constitute a "search," and as such does not require a warrant. The GPS bill seeks to force warrants before a Stingray could be used. That wouldn't stop Stingrays from being used in the US, of course. However, it would vastly reduce the frequency.
[...] If the bill is passed by Congress, it's up to President Trump to sign it. If law enforcement groups oppose it, he may decline to do so.
Source:
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 21 2017, @12:37AM
Seems reasonable.
If law enforcement groups oppose it, he may decline to do so.
Speculation and FUD.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Ethanol-fueled on Tuesday February 21 2017, @03:20AM
Sounds just like your typical NPR story:
I like Soylent News, but I don't listen to NPR anymore. I find sports radio to be a far less boorish and ham-handed listen on the way to and from work every morning now.
(Score: 3, Informative) by linuxrocks123 on Tuesday February 21 2017, @09:20AM
You should listen to the music channels. Find one that plays a lot of smooth jazz and other calming music. It would be good for you.
;)
(Score: 2) by davester666 on Tuesday February 21 2017, @05:58AM
More likely, hours before the bill will be voted on, the word "not" will be sprinkled throughout the bill, making it legal to use a stingray without a warrant to locate people who are late paying a parking fine. And also lawfully collect and use both voice and data "incidentally" captured from all phones in the area while using the stingray.
(Score: 1) by anubi on Tuesday February 21 2017, @07:08AM
I guess if they pull this off right, Stingray technology will become kinda like BitTorrent, with components out of China easily assembled into devices to be used by anyone who cares to use one for the purpose of things like assuring themselves of spousal fidelity, making sure phone calls at work are indeed of a business nature, or maybe he needs to know his customer's communications with his competitors.
Right now, the technology is expensive, but once replicated, costs quickly fall to the marginal cost of production, which in today's world - approach zero.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
(Score: 2) by art guerrilla on Tuesday February 21 2017, @12:42AM
...we'll only trample your rights a *little* bit, and everyone will feel more terrified and cowed for it, deal ? ? ?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by bob_super on Tuesday February 21 2017, @12:49AM
Congressmen opposed to cop unions will feel safer when they call their mistresses, boyfriends and escorts.
As a bonus, getting a warrant or asking the NSA to catch Bad Guys isn't a very high controversial threshold to have to clear, allowing them to parade as Freedom protectors.
(Score: 1) by Ethanol-fueled on Tuesday February 21 2017, @03:36AM
Snowden said that the system in place could be abused for the purpose of blackmailing, and I think what's happening is that politicians and others are starting to fall victim to blackmail (with the first obvious casualty being John Petraeus) -- even if they rightly don't bring that to public attention, word gets around.
J. Edgar-era FBI had plenty of dirt on all kinds of public figures, and much of that dirt was dubiously collected.
Oh, and then there's this. [theguardian.com]
If that information didn't cause a violent revolt against the American intelligence apparatus, then nothing will.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday February 21 2017, @12:54AM
"Police have long maintained that the use of Stingrays does not constitute a “search,” "
Which part of wire tap laws do they fail to understand? One has a reasonable expectation of privacy on his phone. Everyone knows that a phone can be tapped, but you don't expect it to be tapped, because courts have protected private communications. There is no difference here - your private conversations are meant to be private. It takes a little bit of technical skill to "tap" into the conversation. We need to get this right, and we need to do it soon. Get a damned warrant!
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 21 2017, @01:15AM
Yes, but the excuse is that they're not listening to the private conversations as such -- they're only using the metadata.
Which is a difference from wiretaps, just one that I don't think matters -- it's clear to me that there's a reasonable expectation of privacy in the metadata, too, but I don't think the Supreme Court has ruled on that yet.
(Score: 3, Informative) by martyb on Tuesday February 21 2017, @01:13PM
My view of metadata underwent a huge revision when I read this humorous yet insightful piece on how powerful metadata analysis can be: Using Metadata to find Paul Revere [kieranhealy.org]
Wit is intellect, dancing.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 21 2017, @01:27AM
Stingrays slurp up the communications of anyone nearby, which is potentially thousands and thousands of people. That constitutes mass surveillance, and a warrant for such a thing is not constitutionally valid. The only way for them to make this valid is for the devices to refuse to collect any information about anyone other than the specific targets, and for them to only use the device when they have a specific warrant for said targets.
(Score: 2) by Some call me Tim on Tuesday February 21 2017, @02:53AM
Exactly! If the unit cannot be set up in a way that it only captures the phone of the person of interest, then its use should be banned.
Questioning science is how you do science!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 21 2017, @07:57AM