MD Police under Fire for using Anti-Terrorism device to track sandwich thief

Misfit

Lawful neutral
http://cnsmaryland.org/interactives/spring-2016/maryland-police-cell-phone-trackers/index.html

http://www.businessinsider.com/poli...) 2016-05-06&utm_term=Business Insider Select

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stingray_phone_tracker

A Stingray is a "suitcase-size" device that US law enforcement, both state and federal, have used to hunt suspects by tracking their cellphones.

Capital News points to one instance in which a pizza shop's employee in Annapolis was robbed of 15 chicken wings and three sub sandwiches while on a delivery run. The value of the stolen items was $56.77. The police got a court order to use a Stingray, but they didn't end up catching the robber.

"It's supposed to be used for terrorism," Janine Meckler, the Baltimore public defender, told Capital News. "It's not being used for the purpose for which it's being designed." And Meckler should know. Stingrays have been used to surveil Baltimore residents more than 4,300 times since 2007, according to a report last year by The Baltimore Sun.
 

tom88

Well-Known Member

Ya gotta love the spin from these attorney's. The cops may be violating someone's rights. Anti-terrorism device. This device is essentially a device which can find a cell phone. It can pinpoint where that phone is located. There is no unreasonable search. In the case cited, the cops aren't breaking any laws. The headline would lead someone to believe all the criminal did was to steal a cell phone. It creates an automatic bias to people prior to reading the story. If the headline was, Cops catch man who robbed 77 year old woman at gunpoint with new technology, people would be applauding the story.

If someone you loved were robbed at gunpoint, would you not want the cops to use what ever technology available to capture the person?
 

glhs837

Power with Control
Read up. It comes with non-disclosure to protect the technology so that people can't create countermeasures.

The stingray alone tracks cell phones. Nothing else.

So, reading was too hard, eh? Sorry if I tend to not believe protestations that they are leaving capabilities on the table. Given the "WE must collect ALL the datas" attitude of the govt over these last 15 years, it seems like a stretch.

The FBI uses the Stingray to track suspects and says that it does not use the tool to intercept the content of communications. However, this capability does exist. Procurement documents indicate that the Stingray can also be used with software called “FishHawk,” (PDF) which boosts the device’s capabilities by allowing authorities to eavesdrop on conversations. Other similar Harris software includes “Porpoise,” which is sold on a USB drive and is designed to be installed on a laptop and used in conjunction with transceivers—possibly including the Stingray—for surveillance of text messages.
 

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
Read up. It comes with non-disclosure to protect the technology so that people can't create countermeasures.

The stingray alone tracks cell phones. Nothing else.

Here's Baltimore's NDA:
https://www.documentcloud.org/docum...police-stingray-non-disclosure-agreement.html

They specifically state that they should drop a case instead of revealing where the info came from. So that hypothetical about police using any and all technology to catch a criminal would be for naught because as soon as they ask where it came from, they'd drop the case instead of spilling the beans.

Because that's EXACTLY what happened in Baltimore.
City police Det. John L. Haley, a member of a specialized phone tracking unit, said officers did not use the controversial device known as a stingray. But when pressed on how phones are tracked, he cited what he called a "nondisclosure agreement" with the FBI.

"You don't have a nondisclosure agreement with the court," Baltimore Circuit Judge Barry G. Williams replied. Williams threatened to hold Haley in contempt if he did not respond. Prosecutors decided to withdraw the evidence instead.

The tense exchange during a motion to suppress evidence in the robbery trial of 16-year-old Shemar Taylor was the latest confrontation in a growing campaign by defense attorneys and advocates for civil liberties nationwide to get law enforcement to provide details of their phone tracking technology, and how and when they use it.
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/ma...stingray-officer-contempt-20141117-story.html

And if anyone form the State's Attorney's office tries getting that info, it goes right to the FBI for them to "intervene".




Nothing says "tough on crime" like spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on this technology and dropping cases in order to protect where they got their info. Nevermind the whole 4th Amendment thing.
 
All of this is really moot and kind of old tech. One of the news shows (CBS?) was interviewing an outfit in Germany that can use a laptop, and nothing else, to listen in on phone calls and read texts. All they need is the cell phone number to decode packets due to a huge flaw in the cellular data protocols.

CBS 60 Minutes

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/60-minutes-hacking-your-phone/
 
Last edited:

tom88

Well-Known Member
So, reading was too hard, eh? Sorry if I tend to not believe protestations that they are leaving capabilities on the table. Given the "WE must collect ALL the datas" attitude of the govt over these last 15 years, it seems like a stretch.

Reading wasn't too hard at all. Your comprehension is what sucks. I told you the stingray by itself only searches for cell phones. Then you quoted proof while insinuating I didn't read what you provided.

I'll make it easy for you and quote it so it's less difficult for you to understand.

can also be used with software called “FishHawk,” (PDF)
 

tom88

Well-Known Member
Here's Baltimore's NDA:
https://www.documentcloud.org/docum...police-stingray-non-disclosure-agreement.html

They specifically state that they should drop a case instead of revealing where the info came from. So that hypothetical about police using any and all technology to catch a criminal would be for naught because as soon as they ask where it came from, they'd drop the case instead of spilling the beans.

Because that's EXACTLY what happened in Baltimore.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/ma...stingray-officer-contempt-20141117-story.html

And if anyone form the State's Attorney's office tries getting that info, it goes right to the FBI for them to "intervene".




Nothing says "tough on crime" like spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on this technology and dropping cases in order to protect where they got their info. Nevermind the whole 4th Amendment thing.

Explain how this is a violation of the fourth amendment? Where does it say that the police can't track a cellphone which was stolen at gunpoint?
 

tom88

Well-Known Member
Wait, so the NDA is simply them trying to keep the technology under wraps, yet you know it only "tracks cell phones"?

Um well, uh...yea. There is a lot of technology out there and we know it's out there, but how it works is classified. Please tell me that concept isn't too difficult for you to grasp. We know about the stingrays and their capabilities but that doesn't mean we are supposed to know how it works as we would if it were used in court trial.

Still trying to figure out how it violates the fourth amendment?
 

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
Explain how this is a violation of the fourth amendment? Where does it say that the police can't track a cellphone which was stolen at gunpoint?

By tracking everyone's phone around it who isn't part of the investigation.

There's a reasonable expectation of privacy regarding one's cell phone and police emulating a cell phone tower and capturing who you are, where you are, content, etc. via dragnet violates the 4th Amendment, IMO. GPS data should need a warrant (US v. Maynard, US v. Skinner).

The govt. agrees (in United States v. Rigmaiden)
...actions it took during the air card locating mission were sufficiently intrusive to constitute a search under the Fourth Amendment if Defendant has a reasonable expectation of privacy....

Yes, people voluntarily give up certain info to their wireless provider (by signing a cell phone plan agreement), but this is meant to be used and stored by the wireless company (and available to law enforcement with a warrant), but that's not happening here. We're talking about a mobile cell phone tower.
 
Last edited:

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
Um well, uh...yea. There is a lot of technology out there and we know it's out there, but how it works is classified. Please tell me that concept isn't too difficult for you to grasp. We know about the stingrays and their capabilities but that doesn't mean we are supposed to know how it works as we would if it were used in court trial.

Still trying to figure out how it violates the fourth amendment?

That's not what I'm talking about.

You assume it only tracks phones and doesn't collect metadata including location data, nor content such as conversations and text messages. That's my point.

You agree they should keep the technology under wraps, including exactly what it does (I don't give a #### on the inner workings). I'm saying due to the fact police have these NDAs, we don't know exactly what it does or what it collects, so to simply claim "it tracks phones and that's it" is disingenuous.
 

tom88

Well-Known Member
That's not what I'm talking about.

You assume it only tracks phones and doesn't collect metadata including location data, nor content such as conversations and text messages. That's my point.

You agree they should keep the technology under wraps, including exactly what it does (I don't give a #### on the inner workings). I'm saying due to the fact police have these NDAs, we don't know exactly what it does or what it collects, so to simply claim "it tracks phones and that's it" is disingenuous.

But to make claims that it does more without any evidence to back that up is not disingenuous? Just because you are anti-police doesn't mean I have to be. I'm fine with the NDA's. I'm also happy that they are able to track and capture dangerous criminals because of this technology. I wish they didn't have to give lesser sentences because they should be able to keep this technology secret but there are those in this society who have such distrust against law enforcement they would forgo the apprehension of a dangerous criminal. These are probably the same people who would not cooperate with police in an investigation and would then blame the police for being incompetent when they can't do their jobs.
 

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
But to make claims that it does more without any evidence to back that up is not disingenuous? Just because you are anti-police doesn't mean I have to be. I'm fine with the NDA's. I'm also happy that they are able to track and capture dangerous criminals because of this technology. I wish they didn't have to give lesser sentences because they should be able to keep this technology secret but there are those in this society who have such distrust against law enforcement they would forgo the apprehension of a dangerous criminal. These are probably the same people who would not cooperate with police in an investigation and would then blame the police for being incompetent when they can't do their jobs.

What claims have I made? Since it hasn't been argued in front of SCOTUS, my claim is it's a violation of the 4th Amendment. Beyond that I've included info on my statements or it was already included in this thread.

I think it's silly to say ,yes, we need this technology. Spend hundreds of thousands of tax dollars to find criminals (and whoever may be near by, but they don't know, so what the hell), but when we do find them, don't say how you found them. If they ask, drop the case.

I also think its silly to consistently label anyone who disagrees with mass surveillance (in the United States no less) as "anti-police".
 

tom88

Well-Known Member
What claims have I made? Since it hasn't been argued in front of SCOTUS, my claim is it's a violation of the 4th Amendment. Beyond that I've included info on my statements or it was already included in this thread.

I think it's silly to say ,yes, we need this technology. Spend hundreds of thousands of tax dollars to find criminals (and whoever may be near by, but they don't know, so what the hell), but when we do find them, don't say how you found them. If they ask, drop the case.

I also think its silly to consistently label anyone who disagrees with mass surveillance (in the United States no less) as "anti-police".

I don't label anyone who disagrees with mass surveillance anti-police. I said you were anti-police.
 

glhs837

Power with Control
Reading wasn't too hard at all. Your comprehension is what sucks. I told you the stingray by itself only searches for cell phones. Then you quoted proof while insinuating I didn't read what you provided.

I'll make it easy for you and quote it so it's less difficult for you to understand.

Yep, and my point was that barring any proof otherwise, it makes sense to assume they are not using the bare device. Hell, they wont even admit to using it unless they are forced. And then they will drop the case. So, yeah, not trusting them blindly.Which of course doesnt address the other point, that being them sucking up the location and ID data from every other phone within range. What happens to that data? Want to bet it goes into a database someplace similar to the automatic plate reader data on citizens who are not the subject of any investigation? No way to know, barring some sort of policy stating what happens to the data. Which very few places have actually promulgated.
 
Top