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/
indepat
(20,899 posts)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.
davsand
(13,421 posts)"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
cbrer
(1,831 posts)so the 4th amendment argument is just so much fluff?
davsand
(13,421 posts)I'm sorry humor is a challenge.
napoleon_in_rags
(3,991 posts)I was wondering why my carrier map lists no coverage in my area yet I have it. Thanks FBI roving van!
onehandle
(51,122 posts)Paul E Ester
(952 posts)ACLU challenges 'stingray surveillance' that allows police to track cellphones
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.
24601
(3,955 posts)radius in feet.
https://www.life360.com/
Trillo
(9,154 posts)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.
Occulus
(20,599 posts)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.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)cstanleytech
(26,248 posts)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?
struggle4progress
(118,236 posts)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
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)By the way, if the NSA, FBI, or any other 3-letter agency is evesdropping, I think that you're doing a great job.