DC Appeals Court Rules Police Need Warrant Before Using StingRay Cellphone Tracker
Police around the US have been using StingRay technology for several years now in order to spy on Americans.
Despite their heavy use however, many police departments haven't exactly been forthcoming about their use of this technology or their policies surrounding it.
These devices are used to sweep up private data about individuals who are within a certain range of the device, they can have an affect on any phone within 200-500m.
The device is able to sweep up data from every phone that is within the area and this is the exact sort of phishing expedition behavior that the Constitution has sought to prevent against. Americans should be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, but yet this sort of technology enables police departments to sweep up private data in violation of that privacy. And they have been doing it for years.
Critics want to be sure that the police are using this technology in the right way.
Because the worst thing for the police to do would be for them to misuse and abuse what they believe is a beneficial tool for them to do their jobs. Because if they misuse and abuse that tool, then it opens up for the chance to have that tool taken away from them, so they should use it with the utmost caution. And not only that, but police should obtain a warrant before using this technology to spy on an individual.
It seems that an appeals court in Washington DC has also agreed, that the use of this technology, under ordinary circumstances without a warrant, is a direct violation to the 4th amendment.
And they've recently ruled that the police do need a warrant before they can go using the StingRay technology to spy on people. This isn't the first ruling of its kind either, similar rulings were given in courts New York City, San Francisco, and Maryland.
Because law enforcement hasn't been forthcoming about their policies and use with this technology, police departments in various states have been sued. And if they are using that technology in a way that coincides with their legal authority, then they shouldn't have a problem with detailing their policies or use of that technology. They should be eager to demonstrate how that technology is being used to supposedly keep communities safe.
Pics:
Pixabay
AP via nydailynews.com/new-york/nypd-stingray-tech-spy-new-yorker-cell-phones-article-1.2992708
Sources:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stingray_phone_tracker
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/true-crime/wp/2017/09/21/police-use-of-stingray-cellphone-tracker-requires-search-warrant-appeals-court-rules/?utm_term=.0dce5a018724
https://steemit.com/technology/@doitvoluntarily/using-stingray-devices-to-try-and-track-gunshots
https://www.engadget.com/2017/09/21/court-stingray-without-warrant-violates-fourth-amendment/
I'm happy to see a ruling that requires a warrant for this technology, but I'm afraid data collection will continue to be used covertly.
Ouch, I hadn't even heard of this tech. It's a ridiculous invasion of privacy
Who knows what they do on the low . I feel like authority abuse power
Does it work on laptops? Thanks for sharing.
Very scary
I like your posting .post is good. i want to be like you are a lot of fans. and i need your support in achieving the ideals in order to become a good artist. i need support from you.
Between this and drones, there will be no privacy.
The "right" way? What kind of warrant could actually allow to sweep in a nearly 1/2-km radius?
It doesn't.
Just to add some balance...these devices do not "sweep up private data." They are used as a tracking tool, not a collection tool. They have always required a warrant or court order, with a small exception. I believe this addresses that exception and not the broader rule. This make it sound like there is rampant abuse of the tool, which simply is not the case. Nor is it random, but rather, targeted to an individual.
there has been rampant abuse with this tool, which violates the constitution and that is why there has been numerous lawsuits.
https://www.wired.com/2015/04/ny-cops-used-stingray-spy-tool-46-times-without-warrant/
http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/local/watchdog/article59776736.html
When they use this tool they are able to harvest/collect data from many different devices, any within the affected area, and so hundreds or thousands of people could have their private information harvested (sweep up their private data) when there has been no due process or warrant to permit such activity. It's an outrageous violation of civil liberties and police need to be more forthcoming with their use of this tool.
What "data" are you suggesting they are "harvesting?" That is not what these are used for. And the warantless ones are done under CALEA rules for a very limited time under exigency circumstances.
https://www.wired.com/2015/10/stingray-government-spy-tools-can-record-calls-new-documents-confirm/ 👍
that is exactly what they have been used for. Hence the lawsuits.
They are used to locate a phone. They are not used to sweep up massive data as is being suggested here. It is a locational tool.
it's a tool that is able to sweep up data in violation to the constitution, according to the stingray manual itself https://theintercept.com/2016/09/12/long-secret-stingray-manuals-detail-how-police-can-spy-on-phones/
That is not what these devices are used for. They are used for locating a device. If the data were being collected and stored from non target devices, that is another story. That is not how these are deployed.
What is this country coming too???
That's ridiculous!