Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Privacy Government United States

Before Using StingRays, Police Must Sign NDA With FBI 124

Posted by samzenpus from the the-first-rule-of-tracking-club dept.
v3rgEz writes Advanced cell phone tracking devices known as StingRays allow police nationwide to home in on suspects and to log individuals present at a given location. But before acquiring a StingRay, state and local police must sign a nondisclosure agreement with the FBI, according to documents released via a MuckRock FOIA request. As Shawn Musgrave reports, it's an unusual setup arrangement for two public agencies to swear each other to secrecy, but such maneuvers are becoming more common.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Before Using StingRays, Police Must Sign NDA With FBI More

Before Using StingRays, Police Must Sign NDA With FBI

Comments Filter:

  • United States of Amerika (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Next, they'll be coming for your firearms.

    • I can only hope. From your fingers to God's eyes.

      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward

        I can only hope. From your fingers to God's eyes.

        The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms.
        - Adolf Hitler

        If the opposition disarms, well and good. If it refuses to disarm, we shall disarm it ourselves.
        - Joseph Stalin

        I gave the categorical order to confiscate the largest possible number of weapons of every sort and kind. This confiscation, which continues with the utmost energy, has given satisfactory results.
        - Benito Mussolini, address to the Italian Senate, 1931

        All political power comes from the

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by zieroh ( 307208 )

          What, Godwined already? Sheesh.

          • Re:United States of Amerika (Score:4, Informative)

            by Mashiki ( 184564 ) <mashiki&gmail,com> on Monday September 22, 2014 @10:04PM (#47970617) Homepage

            If the only thing you can get out of that is "godwin" you need to update yourself on the topic. That is, fascism always marches towards disarming a population in order to further it's own agenda. A disarmed population is a cowed population.

            • Re: (Score:1)

              by Anonymous Coward
              If anytime you hear a story about guns, all you can do is defend them, you need to update yourself on the topic. That is, zealotry always marches toward arming a select population in order to further its own agenda. An armed mob is a menace to the population.

              • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

                by Sarius64 ( 880298 )
                Let me guess -- you're part of the animals that count more.

        • Maybe I should provide quotes from serial killers as well? Maybe presidential assassins? How about drug dealers? Pimps? Organized Criminals? Crazy rednecks?

          That's how arguments are won right? By providing the most extreme quotes from people everyone knows and disagrees with? Screw logic, statistics, or evidence right?

          We should really be trying to come up with the best 15 second sound bite for political attack ads, you woman beating, rapist enabling, high tax wanting, budget busting, nazi communist seal cl

          • I think you are failing to see the point. These are historical references to people who brought extreme harm to their populations. The quotes are them telling others that they could not have accomplished that harm without first disarming the population.

      • Re:United States of Amerika (Score:4, Informative)

        by Mashiki ( 184564 ) <mashiki&gmail,com> on Monday September 22, 2014 @10:13PM (#47970651) Homepage

        I can only hope. From your fingers to God's eyes.

        Oh noes...guns. So we've got guns in Canada, and guess what? We don't have the murder problem, what you have in the US in a culture problem. Or rather a culture problem with sections of your society, should I just point out the obvious? Well what the hell I've got karma to burn. If you remove black gun related crime guess where the US would sit in terms of gun violence? Not much higher than most countries in Europe. You can bury your heads in the sand, scream "zomg racist" all you want and the longer you continue to do so, the longer the problem remains unresolved. It's the same in Canada with drinking and driving, and aggravated assault. The vast majority of these cases resolve around two groups: Jamaicans and Natives. With Jamaicans it's mainly around the drug trade, especially hard drugs and Natives it's DUI, and violent altercations while intoxicated. That's why they're the two most represented minority clases in our prisons.

        I'm sure someone will trot out the "but countries that have banned guns..." yes indeed, they have pretty much eliminated gun violence. Of course criminals moved onto knives, bats, and other things. Which is why in a place like the UK if you're under 18 you can't buy a knife easily, and why assault with a weapon is the most commonly laid charge with "blunt force, or lacerations" being the primary indicator in cases of death or AS.

        I'm sure someone with an agenda will start modding this into oblivion, and I say "disprove it." The stats are out there, you can see them yourself on wikipedia and can order them under FOIA/Open Access in various countries. You don't like it? Tough, it's reality. You want it changed, fix the problem.

        • Yes, Canada has guns, but we don't have the same culture.

          There's no public/concealed carry permits. You're not allowed to simply walk around carrying unless you're a police officer etc. If you see somebody walking around with a gun, you call the cops, and - depending on the location - he/she is likely to be surrounded by red and blue lights in short order. You're allowed to own guns (after passing certain tests/checks etc) but there are some fairly strict rules about where you're allowed to be out and about

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Mashiki ( 184564 )

            In the US, it's not just gun ownership, but the number of people owning guns and toting them around in public.

            It's not the people "toting them around in public" it's the cultural problem with particular segments of the population. Have you ever questioned why "fergison" was such smashing news, or the zimmerman trial, when not a weekend goes by in Chicago that 10-40+ people are shot, with 1-20 fatalities.

            You should spend more time researching this.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by gmack ( 197796 )

          I can only hope. From your fingers to God's eyes.

          I'm sure someone will trot out the "but countries that have banned guns..." yes indeed, they have pretty much eliminated gun violence. Of course criminals moved onto knives, bats, and other things. Which is why in a place like the UK if you're under 18 you can't buy a knife easily, and why assault with a weapon is the most commonly laid charge with "blunt force, or lacerations" being the primary indicator in cases of death or AS.

          I'm sure someone with an agenda will start modding this into oblivion, and I say "disprove it." The stats are out there, you can see them yourself on wikipedia and can order them under FOIA/Open Access in various countries. You don't like it? Tough, it's reality. You want it changed, fix the problem.

          The stats are out there but the stats don't back you up. Checking the UN's Intentional homicide, number and rate per 100,000 population [un.org] For 2008, we have Canada at 1.8, the UK at 1.3 and the US at 4.6. So yes, not allowing people to walk around armed to the teeth really does seem to help.

        • I'm sure someone will trot out the "but countries that have banned guns..." yes indeed, they have pretty much eliminated gun violence. Of course criminals moved onto knives, bats, and other things.

          For your information, people had knives and cludgels a few hundred millennia before they had guns. Removing guns from society did not remove the pre-existing blade weapons and blunt-force weapons.

          Removing guns from society is something that we've been working on since the mid-17th century, when they became cheap

  • Isn't mutual secrecy just implied? (Score:5, Informative)

    by swb ( 14022 ) on Monday September 22, 2014 @05:01PM (#47968569)

    Of course we won't arrest you for drunk driving or domestic assault Mr. FBI, just like you won't arrest us for violating civil rights or using this highfalutin' cell phone spy gizmo.

  • More common, and possibly unconstitutional... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 22, 2014 @05:03PM (#47968603)

    Because if they don't get a warrant, and don't tell the judge how they acquired the evidence, it's still OK, right?

    • Re:More common, and possibly unconstitutional... (Score:5, Informative)

      by mythosaz ( 572040 ) on Monday September 22, 2014 @05:06PM (#47968629)

      Nah, now that we've listened in on your phone calls, we'll begin our process of Parallel Construction. [wikipedia.org]

      Thanks for making the calls though :)

      • It's not just the calls. Text messages, e-mails, location data, IMEI number, heck even the make, model, and OS version of your phone gets captured by these things (probably--most likely).

        In reality, it's not so different from what would be captured via a wiretap. All this does is circumvents the need for a warrant.

        • Nah, it doesn't circumvent the need for a warrant, it circumvents the need for a third party who would/might ask for a warrant before processing and handing the information over.

          A huge difference if you ask me.

          • A huge difference if you ask me.

            Yeah, if you still believe the fairy tale that the government needs a warrant for anything. Jeeze, man, all that stuff went out the window decades ago. Nobody gives a shit. They're still voting for the same rat bastards.

            • They do need a warrant and you pretending they do not only enables them.

              And yes, people do give a shit. Hey just have not prelubed and bent over yet likr it seems you have.

              • Yes, if they need a warrant they will produce one. I would think you would have studied their past performance a bit deeper. The law only applies to some.

                • Lol.. they need a warrant to use the devices period. The problem is they are using it without one, finding reason they should have one, and dealing with it after the fact.

                  And yes, i see your tongue in cheek. I just didn't some young person who grew up watching cops, 24, ncis and whatever else on TV thinking it was fine to work ghe other way. Cop shows always seemed to me to be indoctination to having your rights violated. I mean how often do we go WTF when watching one out of bordom. I do quite often.

        • Re:More common, and possibly unconstitutional... (Score:4, Insightful)

          by BringsApples ( 3418089 ) on Monday September 22, 2014 @08:25PM (#47970161)

          In reality, it's not so different from what would be captured via a wiretap. All this does is circumvents the need for a warrant.

          Not really. This is a silly device that will capture smart phone location and what it's doing. So if you and your drug cartel buddies want to have a secret meeting, you'll have to leave your cell at the house. Or maybe pay someone to carry your phone for you while you go to the meeting. Or maybe you could just turn your phone off when you don't want to be tracked.

          On the other hand, if you want to kidnap a person, you'll need to get rid of their cell, fast. Maybe toss it in someone's backyard/shed that you don't like. Also, just wait till one of these things hits the streets, and it's used against law enforcement agents.

          Anyone that wants a single go-to for criminal activity, or fighting crime, will have to eventually admit that they're doing it wrong, as anything that requires the use of one weapon, can easily be defeated with a few smaller actions, or inaction.

          • These are on the streets and being used to illegally search innocent civilians, but hey it is all fine and good if they catch the "bad guys"... Maybe you don't pay attention but American citizens have rapidly become the bad guys in the eyes of our government.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by TWX ( 665546 )
      My guess is that they'll attempt to curtail use of these systems in circuits like the 9th so that they don't appeal through to the Supreme Court too quickly, trying to keep it mostly to Law-enforcement-friendly circuits.
    • No, it's not okay, but it's the technical equivalent of reverse engineering an innovative technology once you have your hands on it.

      Working backwards from a known result, even Maxwell Smart et al can arrive at a credible explanation for where the information came from legally.

      These methods of surveillance are no better than wet pig shit. Violating the rights of several thousand to track one "interesting" individual is precisely the opposite of how this is supposed to work in a modern, free society.

    • And it makes it easy to have the conviction quashed afterwards.

      • Re:More common, and possibly unconstitutional... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by NormalVisual ( 565491 ) on Monday September 22, 2014 @05:53PM (#47969073)
        Never happen. A previous poster alluded to parallel construction - what will happen is the suspect's calls will be listened to, then another agency will be given a time, location, and a car to look for. The suspect's car will get pulled over for failure to use a turn signal or some such, at which time a dog will be brought in, "alert" on the car, and the suspect will be arrested. These guys *know* that Stingray-gathered evidence won't hold up since the device itself can't be examined, and that operating them is contrary to FCC regulations to begin with. They can't allow any information gathered from them to be introduced into court, so parallel construction neatly solves all of their problems.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Because if they don't get a warrant, and don't tell the judge how they acquired the evidence, it's still OK, right?

      That is the whole idea, the devices themselves are technically not secret, just how (and by whom) they are being used. The FBI does not want mere mention of this device to come up in a court so a judge can rule that a warrant is required. The fact that the FBI is so desperately afraid that the courts are going to find out how often these are being used proves that they KNOW they are breaking the law.

    • Keeping it secret like that is a pretty good indication that they are up to no good, and are damn well aware of it.

  • "Advanced cell phone tracking devices known as StingRays allow police nationwide to home in on suspects and to log individuals present at a given location. But before acquiring a StingRay, state and local police must sign a nondisclosure agreement with the FBI, according todocuments released via a MuckRock FOIA request
    . As Shawn Musgrave reports,it's an unusual setup arrangement for two public agencies to swear each other to secrecy
    , but such maneuvers are becoming more common."

    - Excerpt from the forbidden

  • Who goes to jail? Everyone who signed the NDA?

    • The poor bastard that gets caught before defecting to the Russkies.

    • Re:What if they break the NDA? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Charliemopps ( 1157495 ) on Monday September 22, 2014 @05:33PM (#47968887)

      Who goes to jail? Everyone who signed the NDA?

      Edward Snowden. He's also responsible for all future acts of Terrorism, wars, and the color Beige.

  • Conspiracy to commit fraud (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward

    They are impersonating wireless carriers which is fraud.

  • read it wrong (Score:4, Funny)

    by excelsior_gr ( 969383 ) on Monday September 22, 2014 @05:29PM (#47968847)

    I read the title as "sign DNA" rather than "sign NDA". I got excited thinking about a deal signed in blood...

    • It is, kind of... an offer they can't refuse, either their brains or their signature would be on the contract...

  • -1 Paywall (Score:4, Informative)

    by Luthair ( 847766 ) on Monday September 22, 2014 @05:33PM (#47968879)
    NT

  • The government within the government (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    This is so frightening to think that no one can discuss what it is they are doing. This type of behavior WILL lead to secret police forces subverting the legal system; This WILL bring about a new Nazi SS, or Soviet Union KGB; This WILL be the undoing of the United States of America and the rights of the people.

    Anybody involved with these secret underground forces is not to be respected nor obeyed!!!

    • More like a government without a government..

      Anybody involved with these secret underground forces is not to be respected nor obeyed!!!

      How many degrees of separation are required? Kevin Bacon is everywhere...

    • Wake up, you're already there.

  • Even when you "turn them off" they can still be turned back on by any official at a higher government level.

    So if a city or municipality turns off theirs, the county or state can turn it on, and it will be turned on during high level fed visits.

    Naturally, they can neither confirm nor deny this occurs.

  • Oh yea forget they would not need them most of the time if they got one.

  • What stops city or state police departments from going out and buying their own? China probably makes some decent stuff by now.

    Illegal, you say? I think that horse bolted from the barn a long time ago.

  • For those having trouble understanding what is going on here exactly, the way I understand things is:

    The FCC is requiring anybody (specifically, state/local law enforcement) to sign an NDA with the FBI to purchase and/or use "Stingray"s (A proprietary name that is now being used as a catchall for the technology, like "Kleenex" for tissue). The NDA itself is classified & exempt from FOIA requests. The existence of the NDA is not, and was disclosed.

    My analysis:
    The FCC's NDA requirement, and the hiding

    • I don't see how anything a police department does could count as a trade secret, given that everything they do is covered by FOIA laws. I don't see how admitting to spying on people without a warrant could violate their right to privacy.
  • Defense attorneys need to ask any and all law enforcement offers who they depose and/or question on the stand if Stingray was used in the case. This is the best way to undermine this.

Slashdot Top Deals

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Close