State Judges pushing back against Stingray.

[Savannahmann]

Stingray, those devices designed to mimic cell phone towers so that the law enforcement types can track people are in the news again. This time, an article showing how the Courts are pushing back against them. The reason is that the FBI and Homeland Security have made nondisclosure agreements with the police departments about the devices. These agreements appear to the Judges, not to mention little old me who hasn't driven within a mile of a law school to violate the 6th Amendment's confrontation clause.

The Washington Post reports and links to other news stories about the same subject.

In short, the Defense attorneys ask the police how they tracked the suspect using his cell phone. The Police give a vague answer. The Defense attorney asks questions for specific information and the police say they can't answer because of nondisclosure agreements, or some vague reference to national security and how it will be harmed if the answer is given. The Prosecutors so far are withdrawing the evidence rather than allow it into open court, which brings up a good question. Why are the police using techniques and technology that are obviously inadmissible in court?

Let's put it another way. You get arrested for suspicion of a crime, say murder. The police beat a confession out of you, and during the beating you expose the location of the murder weapon. It has your finger prints and DNA on it. During the trial, the prosecutor withdraws the confession, but is allowed to use the gun with fingerprints and DNA which was obtained during the torture. That would be wrong to me. Anything that resulted from the Cell Phone data should be suppressed until the Police are left with nothing but swearing they know this is the bad guy and you'll just have to take his word for it because nothing else is available to prove the guilt. A search warrant would be problematic because the probable cause for the warrant was itself inadmissible in court.

But that's my opinion. I post this so you can see what is going on, and if you feel as strongly as I do, toss out a fuck you to the law enforcement types that are abusing this technology every day.

[Android3.14]

1. I would gently suggest you missed the point

Your example, "You get arrested for suspicion of a crime, say murder. The police beat a confession out of you, and during the beating you expose the location of the murder weapon. It has your finger prints and DNA on it," is one that implies the person committed the murder. It further implies that the only way to investigate a murder with any success is by using illegal surveillance and torture. A better example would be when the police use the information to prosecute an innocent person or use the information to blackmail local officials and regular citizens.

That is the actual danger of this Stingray crap.

Without public oversight, state surveillance corrupts those who are watching, suppresses democracy and promotes fascism.

[Fred Sanders]

2. You are correct. What information do police collect and hold that is private? What might they do

with that information other than use for criminal prosecution.

The more information the State collects on you the more control they can have...these cell listening devices are an abomination, the fact their use may help a prosecution in a case or two is heavily outweighed by the privacy concerns.

Same goes with automatics license plate readers that can also track your movements daily, and things like air mounted X-ray cameras and listening devices.....police spying capacities have to be limited.

"Privacy creep" has to be halted somewhere.