These are just things we finally know about. I don't even want to imagine what we have no clue about yet. Well, at least the huge freaking database the government built in Utah isn't going to go to waste. -------
The ACLU and Electronic Frontier Foundation have filed an amicus brief in what will be the first case in the country to address the constitutional implications of a so-called “stingray,” a little known device that can be used to track a suspect’s location and engage in other types of surveillance. We argue that if the government wants to use invasive surveillance technology like this, it must explain the technology to the courts so they can perform their judicial oversight function as required by the Constitution.
The case is highly significant for two reasons. First, it shows that the government is using new types of technology—not just GPS and cell site location records—to track location. Second, it shows that the government is going to great lengths to keep its surveillance practices secret. The government is hiding information about new surveillance technology not only from the public, but even from the courts. By keeping courts in the dark about new technologies, the government is essentially seeking to write its own search warrants. That’s not how the Constitution works.
Several aspects about stingrays are important to understand from a privacy perspective. First, they collect information about the devices and whereabouts of third parties, not just the targets of an investigation. As noted above, IMSI catchers mimic a wireless carrier’s network equipment; in doing so, they send and receive signals to and from all mobile devices in the vicinity on the same network. Second, the devices can pinpoint a target with extraordinary precision. Some have an accuracy of two meters. This means that individuals can be tracked even when they are inside their homes. Third, although the government says the device used in Rigmaiden’s case was not capable of capturing the content of communications, many IMSI catchers offered for sale by surveillance vendors offer this feature. IMSI catchers can thus be used for eavesdropping, not just location tracking.
Because stingrays are indiscriminate, highly intrusive devices that obtain information from all nearby third parties on the same cellular network, and not just the target of an investigation, there is a serious question whether they can ever be used consistent with the Fourth Amendment. But at a minimum, the Fourth Amendment means that the government can’t hide new surveillance technologies from the courts. Some judges are pushing back against this practice and denying broad surveillance requests when the government fails to explain the technology. Judges are not rubber stamps—they are constitutional safeguards of our privacy. http://www.aclu.org/blog...ocation
----------------- Last week, the New York Times reported on "the rise of a secret docket on a scale that has no parallels in American history." This docket consists of government requests to engage in various novel forms of electronic surveillance - including tracking people's movements through their cell phones. According to a federal judge profiled in the article, there were more than 30,000 sealed electronic surveillance orders issued in one recent year alone. And in many cases, these orders remain sealed indefinitely. Although recent efforts to demand government records by the ACLU and representatives in Congress have begun to shed light on the massive scale of the government's electronic surveillance efforts, the unfortunate truth is that the public still remains largely in the dark.
If that sounds strange to you, it should. Justice is not supposed to be administered behind closed doors. But once the criminal investigation is over, continued secrecy serves no purpose other than to shield from public view the workings of government. We, as a society, are engaged in a vigorous debate about location information, and the protections that should apply before the government can use it to track us. But we cannot engage in a meaningful or informed debate if we don't even know what the government is up to. Our motion asks the court to unseal the order so the public can view it. Unsealing the orders would be an important victory for transparency, but the case also highlights a much larger problem. It cannot be that the doors to the courthouse open only when lawyers specifically ask for access.
Because the entire judicial docket is often sealed when it comes to surveillance orders, the public is prevented from learning anything about the location tracking technology being used by the government and the legal standard that courts are applying in authorizing the use of evolving technology. Worse yet, the sealed docket means that the public is kept completely in the dark. If we don't even know about the existence of surveillance orders, we can't ask for access to them. https://www.aclunc.org/issues...y.shtml ----------------- Law enforcement seems to think that because these devices can track cell phones without going to the trouble of even interacting with mobile carriers, they don’t need a search warrant. A Stingray is basically a fake cell tower. When a mobile phone comes within range, the Stingray can offer to connect the phone to the network so that the phone can send and receive communications. If a phone takes it up on that offer, the Stingray is able to capture the identity of the phone, which can readily be traced back to the identity of its owner. This means that Stingray devices can potentially record information about every phone that comes into range, not just those owned by targets of a criminal investigation.
Despite the potential for invasions of privacy that these devices create, law enforcement has been extremely reluctant to reveal anything at all about how the devices are used. The LAPD refused to answer questions from LA Weekly about how the devices are used. They also refused to answer the question of whether or not they obtain a search warrant before using the device—though we know from a previous case that the FBI does not always do so (though we had to fight to get that information). This is exactly the kind of practice that we should not tolerate. When law enforcement has a legitimate need for location information, they should go before a judge and present the evidence needed to obtain a search warrant. They should not be using technology to get around the constraints of the California and U.S. Constitutions in order to track individuals—suspects and non-suspects alike—without any sort of oversight or checks and balances. https://www.aclunc.org/issues...t.shtml
Our rights are being eroded everyday. Rather than our pols working to make this a free and prosperous country, they are more worried about dealing with the paranoia they have with their citizens. I recently read that our government agencies will have around 30,000 domestic drones flying around in the not to distant future.
Bush may have started it with the patriot act but Obama is taking it to a whole new level. Who would have thought the same people ripping Bush about water boarding enemy combatants during war would support Obama using drones to kill Americans (albeit traders) without any oversight? I'm living in an upside down world.
I am happy to see that some ammunition companies are finally refusing to sell ammo to government agencies that they feel are infringing on our 2nd amendment rights. It is unbelievable that we are allowing the Obama administration to control the supply of ammunition with taxpayer money because the libs can't win the gun control debate in congress. This guy (Obama) thinks he's a dictator and the lamestream media is giving him a pass.
Law enforcement seems to think that because these devices can track cell phones without going to the trouble of even interacting with mobile carriers, they don’t need a search warrant.
I hear the Austin police "pinging" suspects' phones all the time, not just on 911 calls. I wonder how constitutional that is.
-------------- Dear future generations: Please accept our apologies. We were rolling drunk on petroleum.
I am happy to see that some ammunition companies are finally refusing to sell ammo to government agencies that they feel are infringing on our 2nd amendment rights.
