Fight your local NSA: NY state judge slaps local sherriff with a disclosure ruling - Polidicks

Margaret Thatcher once said: "You may have to fight a battle more than once to win it." Well, its time for another round! [QUOTE]A state judge Tuesday ordered the Erie County Sheriff’s Office to release information about its acquisition and use of cellphone-tracking devices to monitor users and their locations.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]As a result, NeMoyer (the judge) ordered the sheriff to turn over unredacted copies of: • Purchase orders “of a Kingfish system, a Stingray system, and the proprietary software for each, as well as training classes, from the Harris Corp. (a Florida-based electronics firm) on three different dates in 2008 and 2012 for a total price of about $350,000.” • Copies of a June 5, 2012, letter from a Harris representative to the sheriff, which advertised the equipment and software in question, and a June 29, 2012, letter from an FBI agent to the Sheriff’s Office, setting out a “non-disclosure agreement” as a condition of the sheriff acquiring and using the Stingray system. • Reports on the [B]office’s use of the Stingray system between May 1, 2010, and Oct. 3, 2014[/B], to track cellphones.[/QUOTE] ([URL="http://www.buffalonews.com/city-region/sheriff-must-air-phone-tracking-details-20150317"]Full source[/URL]) One small step for [...], one giant leap for [...]

Story continuation: I guess the whole scare didn't work... Guess what? [URL="http://www.ksl.com/?nid=157&sid=33878539"]FBI lets suspects go to protect "Stingray" secrets[/URL]

What's the point in using Stingray and similar systems if they have to let you go so as not to use evidence from such illegal systems? Our police are way ahead of themselves. They can't even prosecute because they can't get incriminating evidence legally anymore. I hope they drive themselves bankrupt. -Just another downside of blurring the lines between police, military, and anti-terrorist forces.

[QUOTE=CoilingTesla;47379955]What's the point in using Stingray and similar systems if they have to let you go so as not to use evidence from such illegal systems?[/QUOTE] That's not how it works. They gather incriminating information or leads through covert systems like Stingray and then use [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction]parallel construction[/url] to present a viable case, while disclosing to the judge in secret the true source of the information used to make an arrest. They let people go when the only evidence comes from one of these systems and there's no way they can construct a case without revealing their ability. It's a technique that's been used in counter-terrorism for decades (if you capture an Al-Qaeda agent and put him on trial, you're probably going to want to hide the fact that you've compromised their communications network), but has only recently been applied to conventional law enforcement as the sorts of tools used become available to rank-and-file police forces.

The idea that a county sheriff's department needs a Stingray system to do their job is, frankly, ludicrous.

[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;47380112]The idea that a county sheriff's department needs a Stingray system to do their job is, frankly, ludicrous.[/QUOTE] I know I'm in a minority here in thinking that there's nothing inherently wrong with the Stingray system when backed up with civil oversight and legal justification, but even I think a county sheriff using it is total overkill. State-level, at the very smallest, would be more appropriate, and make it easier to audit and track.

[QUOTE=CoilingTesla;47379955] -Just another downside of blurring the lines between police, military, and anti-terrorist forces.[/QUOTE] There is no line between the police and anti-terrorist forces. End of story. They are the domestic anti-terrorist force. When terrorism attacks happen the police are first on scene. First to act. First to deal with the shit the government failed to stop. If you want something to bitch about, bitch about E911 and how it violates your right to privacy. Not to mention the new age of E911 which will give them access to your phone's camera and audio. Or the new cell towers that can ping your phone down to a few meters. Or pen registers. Or Title III. Dont bitch about anti-terrorism because you take your safety for granted. edit: a letter

[QUOTE=catbarf;47380004]That's not how it works. They gather incriminating information or leads through covert systems like Stingray and then use [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction]parallel construction[/url] to present a viable case, while disclosing to the judge in secret the true source of the information used to make an arrest. They let people go when the only evidence comes from one of these systems and there's no way they can construct a case without revealing their ability. It's a technique that's been used in counter-terrorism for decades (if you capture an Al-Qaeda agent and put him on trial, you're probably going to want to hide the fact that you've compromised their communications network), but has only recently been applied to conventional law enforcement as the sorts of tools used become available to rank-and-file police forces.[/QUOTE] So much for the right to see the evidence against you in court, eh?

[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;47380434]So much for the right to see the evidence against you in court, eh?[/QUOTE] The evidence used in parallel construction isn't invented. If you get stopped during what looks like a routine traffic stop and the officer finds drugs in your car, the presence of drugs in your car is the evidence against you. What might not be disclosed, except to the judge, is that it wasn't a random stop, it was a planned stop after a monitoring system overheard you planning a sale to a buyer over the phone. The evidence isn't affected, it's how exactly the police were led to that evidence that is concealed. If the traffic stop didn't happen and the only evidence of wrongdoing they had was what they picked up through the communication, like the fact that you were planning to sell drugs, they wouldn't be able to prosecute you without revealing that they had overheard your phone call, so they'd have to let you go. That's what Dr. Haxx's link is about.

[QUOTE=Code3Response;47380352]There is no line between the police and anti-terrorist forces. End of story. They are the domestic anti-terrorist force. When terrorism attacks happen the police are first on scene. First to act. First to deal with the shit the government failed to stop. If you want something to bitch about, bitch about E911 and how it violates your right to privacy. Not to mention the new age of E911 which will give them access to your phone's camera and audio. Or the new cell towers that can ping your phone down to a few meters. Or pen registers. Or Title III. Dont bitch about anti-terrorism because you take your safety for granted. edit: a letter[/QUOTE] People who sacrifice freedom for security will get neither. Also don't know why this technology is banned from police use if they violate peoples right to privacy.

[QUOTE=catbarf;47380134]I know I'm in a minority here in thinking that there's nothing inherently wrong with the Stingray system when backed up with civil oversight and legal justification...[/QUOTE] I think that the issue stems for from a perceived lack of accountability rather than the use of the system itself. A lot of people feel like the law enforcement/anti-terrorism interests in the government view the judicial system as an obstacle rather than an ally. We've seen plenty of examples that help promote those suspicions as well, but this article is a pretty good example of things working as they should. I agree that there's nothing inherently wrong with using the system in parallel construction as you described earlier. Edit: meant judicial system, not justice system. [editline]23rd March 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=ultra_bright;47381241]People who sacrifice freedom for security will get neither.[/QUOTE] Maxims have limits. If we were to follow that quote to its logical conclusion, there would be no need for any form of government, as all government is established by the consent of the population in a logical exit from the state of nature. We have to assert our rights in the courts, but we also can't have infinite freedom and total security. The court will do its best to protect the rights guaranteed to us through the constitution.

[QUOTE=Dr. Haxx;47379071][...] [URL="http://www.ksl.com/?nid=157&sid=33878539"]FBI lets suspects go to protect "Stingray" secrets[/URL][/QUOTE] Weird... this kind of device is really well known (at least in security and tech-interested circles), you now just need ~1000$ to build it iirc. You also need some software to triangulate the phone, but even that is within the specifications and as such (relatively) easy to replicate. (On a related note apparently they used something similar to track Mitnick once when he was calling people using a cloned device ID.) My guess is there were some shady uses and they don't want that information public.

[QUOTE=ultra_bright;47381241]People who sacrifice freedom for security will get neither. Also don't know why this technology is banned from police use if they violate peoples right to privacy.[/QUOTE] they always use the worst worst case to justify every day use of these systems. they say they [B]need[/B] access to all phones in case a little 5 year old girl with a phone is kidnapped, but they use the same system to track movement of people with little oversight there might be a need to use stingrays, but i really don't want the local cops to be able to use them considering the poor track record cops have with using anything special, such as the use of swat teams to serve warrants [editline]23rd March 2015[/editline] [quote]But everything else is a mystery because police agencies have non-disclosure agreements with the maker of Stingrays: the Harris Corporation based in Melbourne, Florida.[/quote] this however should be completely illegal, a private company should not have the authority to legally silence the government

[QUOTE=Sableye;47383059]this however should be completely illegal, a private company should not have the authority to legally silence the government[/QUOTE] It's not 'legally silencing the government'. It's a procurement contract with a non-disclosure agreement, a stipulation that technical details of the system are not released to the public. Just about every defense or government communications contract has the same stipulation, because Raytheon and Lockheed and Iridium and all those other big corporations don't want their state-of-the-art tech getting leaked out and ripped off by the lowest bidder or compromised by another country. Stingrays don't do a lot of good if everyone knows exactly how they work.

[QUOTE=catbarf;47380645]The evidence used in parallel construction isn't invented. If you get stopped during what looks like a routine traffic stop and the officer finds drugs in your car, the presence of drugs in your car is the evidence against you. What might not be disclosed, except to the judge, is that it wasn't a random stop, it was a planned stop after a monitoring system overheard you planning a sale to a buyer over the phone. The evidence isn't affected, it's how exactly the police were led to that evidence that is concealed. If the traffic stop didn't happen and the only evidence of wrongdoing they had was what they picked up through the communication, like the fact that you were planning to sell drugs, they wouldn't be able to prosecute you without revealing that they had overheard your phone call, so they'd have to let you go. That's what Dr. Haxx's link is about.[/QUOTE] i don't know what the term 'parallel construction' means exactly, but my understanding is that it's collecting information on a person in such a way that it can't be used in court, then using that information in conjunction with something like a random stop to make an arrest?

[QUOTE=_jesterk;47383332]i don't know what the term 'parallel construction' means exactly, but my understanding is that it's collecting information on a person in such a way that it can't be used in court, then using that information in conjunction with something like a random stop to make an arrest?[/QUOTE] That's exactly what he said..

[QUOTE=catbarf;47380645]The evidence used in parallel construction isn't invented. If you get stopped during what looks like a routine traffic stop and the officer finds drugs in your car, the presence of drugs in your car is the evidence against you. What might not be disclosed, except to the judge, is that it wasn't a random stop, it was a planned stop after a monitoring system overheard you planning a sale to a buyer over the phone. The evidence isn't affected, it's how exactly the police were led to that evidence that is concealed. If the traffic stop didn't happen and the only evidence of wrongdoing they had was what they picked up through the communication, like the fact that you were planning to sell drugs, they wouldn't be able to prosecute you without revealing that they had overheard your phone call, so they'd have to let you go. That's what Dr. Haxx's link is about.[/QUOTE] Your hypothetical arrest follows the letter of the law, but the pretense of the arrest violates the spirit of the law. When cops are making arguments that they're [I]technically[/I] following the law then we already have a problem. While the text of a law is what matters in court, the spirit of the law is what allows the legal system to have actual moral authority. People don't respect the legal system when it's a rigid series of technicalities that only allow the authority figures or those in power to benefit, and therefore the entire system is less stable as a result. Ex. Speed limits are usually to make sure people drive safely, however a speed limit in a small town is artificially lowered to gather more ticket revenue. In this case, the letter of the law is uncompromised, yet the spirit of the law is wholly violated. As a result, people passing through will begin to know the small town as a speedtrap, and be more reluctant to drive through or patronize the businesses there, as well as losing respect for the local police department, ultimately devaluing the authority of the town. Stability & security, the entire reasons for a legal system, are only benefits as long as the spirit is upheld over the letter of the law.

[QUOTE=Groat;47386189]Your hypothetical arrest follows the letter of the law, but the pretense of the arrest violates the spirit of the law. When cops are making arguments that they're [I]technically[/I] following the law then we already have a problem. While the text of a law is what matters in court, the spirit of the law is what allows the legal system to have actual moral authority. People don't respect the legal system when it's a rigid series of technicalities that only allow the authority figures or those in power to benefit, and therefore the entire system is less stable as a result. Ex. Speed limits are usually to make sure people drive safely, however a speed limit in a small town is artificially lowered to gather more ticket revenue. In this case, the letter of the law is uncompromised, yet the spirit of the law is wholly violated. As a result, people passing through will begin to know the small town as a speedtrap, and be more reluctant to drive through or patronize the businesses there, as well as losing respect for the local police department, ultimately devaluing the authority of the town. Stability & security, the entire reasons for a legal system, are only benefits as long as the spirit is upheld over the letter of the law.[/QUOTE] The spirit of the law is that people be able to see what evidence is being presented against them so they can address it, that evidence is not kept secret if it is to be used in court. That principle does not require or imply that the entire law enforcement process be an open book. So how is it against the spirit of the law to conceal the source of a piece of evidence? This isn't exactly a new thing- it's not like in the 1930s the police were tripping over themselves to name exactly which mobsters were secretly police informants every time some lead they gave led to an arrest. The time when it matters how evidence is acquired is when there is a question of legality regarding its acquisition. If evidence is acquired illegally, then it has to be thrown out. But the responsibility for that call rests on the judge, and that's why the judge must be privy to the actual source any time parallel construction is used. You've asserted that the spirit of the law is more important than the letter, and I agree, but you're not giving me any compelling reason why parallel construction represents a violation of the spirit.