HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Can you hear me now? Feds...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Fri Mar 29, 2013, 05:37 PM

 

Can you hear me now? Feds admit FBI warrantless cellphone tracking ‘very common’

Source: Washington Times.

FBI investigators for at least five years have routinely used a sophisticated cellphone tracking tool that can pinpoint callers’ locations and listen to their conversations — all without getting a warrant for it, a federal court was told this week.

The use of the “Stingray,” as the tool is called, “is a very common practice” by federal investigators, Justice Department attorneys told the U.S. District Court for Arizona Thursday, according to the American Civil Liberties Union.

Installed in an unmarked van, Stingray mimics a cellphone tower, so it can pinpoint the precise location of any mobile device in range and intercept conversations and data, said Linda Lye, staff attorney at the ACLU of Northern California in a blog post about the case.

In a rare public discussion of federal electronic surveillance capabilities and authorities, Justice Department lawyers told the court hearing that, instead of a warrant, the FBI operates Stingray and other cellphone-mimicking technology under the authority of “pen register” orders. These court orders, also known as “tap and trace” orders, are generally issued to allow investigators to collect only so-called “metadata” — like all phone numbers calling to or called from a particular number.


Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/29/feds-fbi-warrantless-cell-tracking-very-common/



16 replies, 2219 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 16 replies Author Time Post
Reply Can you hear me now? Feds admit FBI warrantless cellphone tracking ‘very common’ (Original post)
Paul E Ester Mar 2013 OP
indepat Mar 2013 #1
davsand Mar 2013 #2
cbrer Mar 2013 #10
davsand Mar 2013 #12
napoleon_in_rags Mar 2013 #3
onehandle Mar 2013 #4
Paul E Ester Mar 2013 #8
24601 Mar 2013 #5
Trillo Mar 2013 #6
Occulus Mar 2013 #7
OnyxCollie Mar 2013 #11
AnotherMcIntosh Mar 2013 #15
cstanleytech Mar 2013 #9
struggle4progress Mar 2013 #13
blkmusclmachine Mar 2013 #14
AnotherMcIntosh Mar 2013 #16

Response to Paul E Ester (Original post)

Fri Mar 29, 2013, 06:09 PM

1. Big brother must use all its sophisticated technology to track down any possible/suspected terraist

or garden-variety criminal, especially those pot-user-type louts, and if just one pot-user-type lout could be ferreted out, violation of constitutional rights of millions at a cost of billions would be such small prices to pay to achieve this modicum of peace of mind.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Paul E Ester (Original post)

Fri Mar 29, 2013, 06:13 PM

2. I feel SO sorry for anybody stuck eavesdropping on me and my conversations!

"Are you picking (our daughter) from school or am I?" "I'm going to the store, do you need anything for your lunches?" "Oh, Hi, mom..."

I'm telling you, whoever gets stuck on that job is gonna have a cure for insomnia!



Laura

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to davsand (Reply #2)

Fri Mar 29, 2013, 09:19 PM

10. Boring, right

 

so the 4th amendment argument is just so much fluff?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cbrer (Reply #10)

Fri Mar 29, 2013, 10:53 PM

12. Not at all. Mostly it was a commentary on my own mundane life.

I'm sorry humor is a challenge.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Paul E Ester (Original post)

Fri Mar 29, 2013, 07:00 PM

3. Ah it all makes sense now.

I was wondering why my carrier map lists no coverage in my area yet I have it. Thanks FBI roving van!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Paul E Ester (Original post)

Fri Mar 29, 2013, 07:10 PM

4. Washington Times? Ugh, Republican Moonie Rag. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Reply #4)

Fri Mar 29, 2013, 07:58 PM

8. agreed

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/mar/28/aclu-stingray-surveillance-police-cellphones

ACLU challenges 'stingray surveillance' that allows police to track cellphones


A secretive technology which lets police locate and track people through their cellphones in alleged violation of the US constitution will be challenged in a potential landmark court case on Thursday.

The American Civil Liberties Union hopes to rein in the little known but widespread "stingray" surveillance devices which it claims violate the fourth amendment and the right to privacy.

The group will urge a federal court in Arizona to disregard evidence obtained by a stingray in what could be a test case for limiting the technology's use without a warrant.

The case revolves around Daniel Rigmaiden, a hacker accused of leading a gang of sophisticated identity thieves which allegedly stole millions of dollars by filing bogus tax returns.

"We hope that the court sends the clear message to the government that it cannot keep judges in the dark. Judges are not rubber stamps – they are constitutional safeguards of our privacy," Linda Lyle, the attorney leading the case, wrote in an ACLU blog post on Wednesday.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Paul E Ester (Original post)

Fri Mar 29, 2013, 07:12 PM

5. Life 360 does that without the vans. You get a time and a Circular Error Probable (CEP) - like

radius in feet.

https://www.life360.com/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Paul E Ester (Original post)

Fri Mar 29, 2013, 07:45 PM

6. I wonder if any of these are Amendment 3 violations

First the assertion is an unmarked van, which can "move into" any neighborhood via roadways, is the asserted mechanism. Surely there is more than one van so equipped.

I'm just wondering where the line between quartering a soldier in a house without the owner's consent, the fact such quartering would make any such soldier a witness to all audible or open communications within that house (amendment was written before radio had been invented) during any times when such soldiers were present, versus having a mobile-police presence that can "hear" and presumably tape all of ones wireless communications 24/7, might be drawn.

According to Wikipedia, the 3rd Amendment was involved in a 1965 decision as granting a certain right of privacy in one's home.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Paul E Ester (Original post)

Fri Mar 29, 2013, 07:54 PM

7. Where's MineralMan to tell us how it's not an issue for him because he's boring?

I could have sworn he'd have posted by now to infer how full of ourselves the rest of us are for being concerned that our government might be listening in on us, because of course none of us have anything to say that could possibly be of any interest to our government.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Occulus (Reply #7)

Fri Mar 29, 2013, 10:53 PM

11. +1. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Occulus (Reply #7)

Sat Mar 30, 2013, 02:11 AM

15. +2

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Paul E Ester (Original post)

Fri Mar 29, 2013, 09:08 PM

9. Could someone please explain if they had a warrant or not please?

As I am confused as at the start it says they did it all without a warrant yet then later it says "These court orders, also known as “tap and trace” orders, are generally issued to allow investigators to collect only so-called “metadata” — like all phone numbers calling to or called from a particular number."
So, did they have the courts consent or not?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cstanleytech (Reply #9)

Sat Mar 30, 2013, 12:32 AM

13. ACLU challenges 'stingray surveillance' that allows police to track cellphones


Rory Carroll in Los Angeles
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 28 March 2013 10.03 EDT

... The American Civil Liberties Union hopes to rein in the little known but widespread "stingray" surveillance devices which it claims violate the fourth amendment and the right to privacy.

The group will urge a federal court in Arizona to disregard evidence obtained by a stingray in what could be a test case for limiting the technology's use without a warrant.

The case revolves around Daniel Rigmaiden, a hacker accused of leading a gang of sophisticated identity thieves which allegedly stole millions of dollars by filing bogus tax returns.

"We hope that the court sends the clear message to the government that it cannot keep judges in the dark. Judges are not rubber stamps – they are constitutional safeguards of our privacy," Linda Lyle, the attorney leading the case, wrote in an ACLU blog post on Wednesday ...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/mar/28/aclu-stingray-surveillance-police-cellphones

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Paul E Ester (Original post)

Sat Mar 30, 2013, 01:55 AM

14. Looks like we're all terr'ists now. Enemies in our own land. Guilty until (never) proven innocent.

The Drones cometh ..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blkmusclmachine (Reply #14)

Sat Mar 30, 2013, 02:14 AM

16. Only if you complain.

 

By the way, if the NSA, FBI, or any other 3-letter agency is evesdropping, I think that you're doing a great job.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread