Judge Allows Evidence Gathered From FBI’s Spoofed Cell Tower

[Sherman A1]

An Arizona judge has denied a motion to suppress evidence collected through a spoofed cell tower that the FBI used to track the location of an accused identity thief.

The ruling means that the government may use not only evidence gathered through its fake cell tower to locate an air card that Daniel David Rigmaiden was using to access the internet, but also evidence gathered from the apartment to which they tracked him through the air card and evidence collected from a storage space and computer hard drives found in the apartment and storage locker.

In his ruling, U.S. District Judge David Campbell based his decision on whether Rigmaiden had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the use of the air card inside his apartment, as well as in the apartment itself and the storage unit that was discovered through the search of the apartment.

Judge Campbell concluded that Rigmaiden did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in any of these because he had obtained the air card and rented the apartment and storage space through fraudulent means — that is, using identifications that he had stolen from other people.

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/05/rigmaiden-cell-tower-evidence/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+wired%2Findex+%28Wired%3A+Top+Stories%29

[Demeter]

1. Does that seem like circular reasoning to anyone else?

Because he did fraud first, we can do it, too?

[randome]

2. No. If you steal something, does LE have the right to 'steal' it back? Yes.

[geek tragedy]

3. If you steal someone's car, you can't object to the police

searching it.

He can't open an account in someone else's name and expect the same privacy protections in that account as if he were that person.

[Junkdrawer]

4. Is this one of those "The ALCU defends the Stokie Nazis" things?

or, put another way, did the FBI choose the biggest scum it could to trot out it's latest privacy-killer?

[geek tragedy]

5. No, this is like the NRA objecting to background checks.

Basic rule is identity thieves don't have a right to privacy in accounts they've stolen.