SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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: 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.