So you were wrong in accusing me of not reading. You now admit the information about I provided about the stingray was correct. Good to know you can take a second look. They have broken no laws and have captured bad guys using the technology. I am good with this method.
MD Police under Fire for using Anti-Terrorism device to track sandwich thief
- Thread starter Misfit
- Start date
So you were wrong in accusing me of not reading. You now admit the information about I provided about the stingray was correct. Good to know you can take a second look. They have broken no laws and have captured bad guys using the technology. I am good with this method.
it is all smoke and mirrors ...
...if police / fbi weren't breaking the rules, they would not be sneaking around in the dark like a bunch of criminals
... police sure as hell act guilty
danjuandemarco
AKA Captain Awesome
A few times a day, same as you and everyone else. Read "Three Felonies a Day" and you'll understand how impossible it is for everyday people to avoid committing crimes, when there are thousands upon thousands of pages of laws, many of which are contradictory. You can't follow some laws without breaking others. To claim that you've never broken a law is akin to saying you've never stepped on an ant.
That said: in regards to this particular case, I don't see how violation of privacy can be used as a defense for the thief. He was not located using his own phone. Assuming the woman gave consent to track the location of her property, there would be no constitutional requirement for a warrant, unless the phone was located inside a private residence. The major concern here is the possibility of tracking other cell phone users picked up by the device. If the device doesn't have a save feature, then it's fine. If it does, there's certainly cause for alarm.
Last edited:
You are paranoid. That's why you are unhappy with your place in life and have never succeeded.
There is nothing secret about Stingray. There also isn't much you can do in the way of counter measures unless you can build your own network. It's the networks, not the phones, the allows them to collect the data and the networks have no interest in securing the system like Apple.
I've also seen enough of the "well if you haven't done anything wrong..." #### to last me a life time. Since when is it acceptable to allow the government to violate the constitution of the United States?
Oh wait, only protest if they try and violate an amendment you like, the others you think don't affect you, let them go. Getting easy access to this data is unlawful search. But hey, we will gladly trade our freedoms for being safe - or maybe a little safer?
Why does the federal government not want the data used in court (where the source would have to be revealed)? Not because the people don't know Stingray exists, they don't want you to know how pervasive it's use has become.
FWIW, I bet in this county nobody would challenge where the data came from.
Bah Bah sheeple
It's not collecting data. Did you read the article? It located a phone which was robbed, at gunpoint, from an elderly lady. Yes, sheeple are people who would allow that crime to go unsolved and criminal to go on committing crimes.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
Is it fair to describe you as perhaps a little more on the side of the gummint than the folks it's supposed to serve?
No. I'm not going to assume government is doing something wrong when there is no evidence of such. People are claiming the government is collecting data, but the story shows the government collected a cell phone. Our government is run by us. The vast majority of people on here are part of government. I don't think those people are corrupt.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
Well, is it fair to say you are not a natural skeptic when it comes to the power, and it's use, we allow our gummint?
Yea, that's a fair assessment.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
Cool.
I don't like to argue for arguments sake. I often make the mistake of assuming we, people in general, have similar values and then argue from there. In this case I'd tend to think everyone would assume this thing is being used beyond what it was approved for because that's a pretty natural thing to want to do. In my view.
So, I'd not want to argue with you because you're not skeptical here.
bitch please ... I am very content, I am cautions not to give MEN anymore power then they already have ...
... history has taught time and again what goes down, when men have unlimited power
Tilted
..
One of the problems with the use of this technology by law enforcement is that in the past they have had NDAs which prevented them not only from disclosing how the technology worked but from even disclosing that it was (or would be) used. And those agreements applied even to disclosing information to courts.
A defendant is, to some extent, entitled to know how law enforcement did certain things so that they can know whether their constitutional rights were violated in the process. A court needs to be able to know how law enforcement did certain things so that it can decide whether someone's constitutional rights were violated in the process. It needs to know what law enforcement intends to do so that it can weigh the various factors that go into issuing an order or warrant allowing law enforcement to do those things.
Law enforcement doesn't get to just say - sorry, we can't tell you what we're going to do or what we did [or in the alternative lie about it], you'll just have to trust us in that it won't or didn't violate someone's constitutional rights. No. Sorry. It doesn't work that way and it isn't supposed to work that way. The courts get to decide whether something is constitutional. That often means that the courts have to know what the something is. So if law enforcement doesn't want to disclose that they used (or intend to use) certain technology, that's fine - then they don't get to use whatever evidence they collected (or were lead to) by use of that technology. That represents the minimum that should be required, the minimum degree of reasonableness.
A defendant is, to some extent, entitled to know how law enforcement did certain things so that they can know whether their constitutional rights were violated in the process. A court needs to be able to know how law enforcement did certain things so that it can decide whether someone's constitutional rights were violated in the process. It needs to know what law enforcement intends to do so that it can weigh the various factors that go into issuing an order or warrant allowing law enforcement to do those things.
Law enforcement doesn't get to just say - sorry, we can't tell you what we're going to do or what we did [or in the alternative lie about it], you'll just have to trust us in that it won't or didn't violate someone's constitutional rights. No. Sorry. It doesn't work that way and it isn't supposed to work that way. The courts get to decide whether something is constitutional. That often means that the courts have to know what the something is. So if law enforcement doesn't want to disclose that they used (or intend to use) certain technology, that's fine - then they don't get to use whatever evidence they collected (or were lead to) by use of that technology. That represents the minimum that should be required, the minimum degree of reasonableness.
Tilted
..
Did they have a warrant in that case? To use the technology that they actually used? And would they tell the court considering whether the evidence was admissible how they got it?
That's why it was thrown out. They either didn't have a warrant or they were unwilling to provide the court with the information it needed to determine whether they violated the defendant's rights. So they didn't get to use the evidence. If they're unwilling to demonstrate that what they did was constitutional, then they don't get the benefit of the evidence thusly collected. It was in effect an unreasonable warrantless search, a violation of the Constitution.
More generally: In Maryland at least, and at least for now, using this kind of of technology to determine someone's location is a Fourth Amendment search and generally (i.e. when the recognized exigent circumstances aren't present) requires a warrant.
DannyMotorcycle
Active Member
i agree with using the technology to find criminals. If you dont' want the gov't snooping, get a burner phone.
encrypt your transmissions. Talk in person, write notes and burn them lol it's not like the gov't is using a camera peeping into your home or your clothes... well they might be doing the latter and i'm against that.. because i'm shy..
encrypt your transmissions. Talk in person, write notes and burn them lol it's not like the gov't is using a camera peeping into your home or your clothes... well they might be doing the latter and i'm against that.. because i'm shy..
glhs837
Power with Control
Nobody objects to using this to catch bad guys. Same with using ALPRs to catch bad guys. What people object to is the vacuuming up of the data of innocent citizens while in the process. Oh, and this hiding of doing that or that they are doing it at all. When govt gets sneaky, citizens should be concerned.
Chris0nllyn
Well-Known Member
Federal judge tossed out evidence gathered by Stingray. Saying the use of a cell-site simulator constitutes a Fourth Amendment search meaning the DEA (in this case) they need a warrant.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2992109-Pauley-Stingray-Opinion-7-12-16.html
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2992109-Pauley-Stingray-Opinion-7-12-16.html