Police Change How They Seek Permission To Use Cellphone Tracker

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
Apparently judges don't like being in the news for authorizing stuff they didn't know they were authorizing. Whoops!

From 2009 to earlier this year, the county’s Superior Court judges unwittingly signed more than 170 orders that Tacoma police and other local law enforcement agencies say authorized them to use a device that allows investigators to track a suspect’s cellphone but also sweeps cellphone data from innocent people nearby.
Click to expand...
 
we will probably hear at some point a boilerplate answer from LEOs that tells us how this will limit their ability to find and capture bad guys.
 
Hey cool, a local victory for the people! Good job judges, and good job News Tribune reporters!
 
What's more concerning, the fact that the cops requested authorization, (Court Orders), to use the devices, or that these Judges claim they signed and authorized at least 170 Police Actions that the Judges say they didn't know what they had authorized?

Police Cheif; "Hey Judge Bobo, I need your John Hancock on this pen register, trap and trace order."

Judge Bobo; "Sure, here you go, all signed."

Judge Bobo's golfing buddy; "Hey Bobo old buddy, what is a pen register, trap and trace order."

Judge Bobo; "Fuck if I know hahaha"
 
But hey, as long as the local Tacoma media thinks everything is cool and all, that's what counts right?
 
lcpiper said:
What's more concerning, the fact that the cops requested authorization, (Court Orders), to use the devices, or that these Judges claim they signed and authorized at least 170 Police Actions that the Judges say they didn't know what they had authorized?

Police Cheif; "Hey Judge Bobo, I need your John Hancock on this pen register, trap and trace order."

Judge Bobo; "Sure, here you go, all signed."

Judge Bobo's golfing buddy; "Hey Bobo old buddy, what is a pen register, trap and trace order."

Judge Bobo; "Fuck if I know hahaha"
Click to expand...

I got the impression it was more like the police hid the shit in a regular order, using ambiguous verbiage and shit.

Still I agree, and that's what got this all moving. The news tribune called the judges out on okaying shit that they didn't know was there. So these judges hopefully start reading some shit.
 
chockomonkey said:
I got the impression it was more like the police hid the shit in a regular order, using ambiguous verbiage and shit.

Still I agree, and that's what got this all moving. The news tribune called the judges out on okaying shit that they didn't know was there. So these judges hopefully start reading some shit.
Click to expand...

No, the cops didn't hide anything. If the Judges didn't know what the cops were asking for or didn't even ask, that's on them, not on the cops.

I think the Judges are just trying to cover their asses before an election or something. Still, the same shit is going on and the media are pulling the same tricks like this;

a device that allows investigators to track a suspect’s cellphone but also sweeps cellphone data from innocent people nearby.

Read more here: http://www.thenewstribune.com/2014/...olice-change-how-they.html?rh=1#storylink=cpy
Click to expand...

Now the media knows exactly what data the Stingray intercepts and they know it isn't emails, sms messages, phone conversations, none of that. All the Stingray "sweeps up" is the cellular ID or Pin and if the phone is making a call the connected cell phone pin. But in a sea of Pins they don't know who's pin belongs to who and the device doesn't record them all, it's not an intelligence gathering device, it's a tracking device used for finding a known Pin and getting the cops close enough to arrest the guy with the phone.

But the Media isn't telling you that, in fact, they are telling you only enough for you to jump to conclusions.

It sorta leave all of us in the same position as those Judges, we can just sign the order and believe what we are feed, or we can find out and know for sure what we are dealing with.
 
I find the entire article amazing, catch the Headline again;
Tacoma police change how they seek permission to use cellphone tracker
Click to expand...

But here is the result of what the Judges have "changed"

That’s now changed.

The county’s 22 Superior Court judges, who first learned of the police department’s cell site simulator from The News Tribune’s reporting, now require language in pen register applications that spells out police intend to use the device.

Law enforcement agencies that want to deploy the device also must swear in their affidavits that they will not store data collected from people who are not the target of the investigation, said Judge Bryan Chushcoff, who requested the verbiage during recent meetings with police officials.

“They said they could live with that,” Chushcoff said.

Read more here: http://www.thenewstribune.com/2014/...olice-change-how-they.html?rh=1#storylink=cpy
Click to expand...

So the cops are supposed to use the same document as before and the proceedure for getting it signed hasn't changed either, what is different is that instead of saying "Mother May I?" they have to say "Mother may I, I'll do it if you let me?" And that they can't keep anything stored from people who aren't part of the investigation which they already say they delete everything anyway so.

And the Cops said "they could live with it", I bet they did because this isn't anything but changing the default wording on a form letter.

So this is a change according to the media.
 
It's impossible to make a judgement call unless we have the before and after pen register applications. From the article, now require language in pen register applications that spells out police intend to use the device. sounds like a good thing.
 
I suppose according to the cops, they say they never actually used it yet, and that's possible, could be anything. Maybe their site license expired and they can't legally use the software until they get funds for the license, or something else is in the way. But out of 170 requests they never used it, sounds like they started using it as part of the default request bundle, ok, ask for this and that, and this other that. Of course saying they intend to use it still doesn't say that they have to use it if they request it so...
 
They do agree that case law on the matter is evolving.

“This is an area where the law is not very clear,” said Mary Fan, Henry M. Jackson professor of law at the University of Washington. “The law is changing really fast.”
Click to expand...

Not really. The whole situation is slimy, so it's just a matter of time before case law catches up.
 
Like I said, the cops using Stingrays to find bad guys by their cell phones is no where near as disturbing to me as Judges who don't even know what they are signing and worse, didn't care to find out.
 
lcpiper said:
I find the entire article amazing, catch the Headline again;


But here is the result of what the Judges have "changed"



So the cops are supposed to use the same document as before and the proceedure for getting it signed hasn't changed either, what is different is that instead of saying "Mother May I?" they have to say "Mother may I, I'll do it if you let me?" And that they can't keep anything stored from people who aren't part of the investigation which they already say they delete everything anyway so.

And the Cops said "they could live with it", I bet they did because this isn't anything but changing the default wording on a form letter.

So this is a change according to the media.
Click to expand...

wow, this is some fucking bullshit

people need to stop believing that it's OK to give up a portion of your rights in order to catch criminals
 
lcpiper said:
Of course saying they intend to use it still doesn't say that they have to use it if they request it so...
Click to expand...
If someone swears in an affidavit that he or she intends to use something and then chooses not to for no particular reason then that would constitute perjury; so yes, they do have to use it absent cause not to so it may seem like a minor point but it's a significant difference by legal standards
 
Reality said:
wow, this is some fucking bullshit

people need to stop believing that it's OK to give up a portion of your rights in order to catch criminals
Click to expand...

Can't get it into your head huh?

It's legal, it's legal because it doesn't violate your rights no matter how hard the media tries to make it sound like it does.

That only leaves one option, the media is misleading the gullible, are you the gullible? Are you the intended sheep these writers are administering their attentions too? Are you one of the intended targets of their campaign? Are you one of the people they are counting on to be convinced that 1+1=3?
 
mope54 said:
If someone swears in an affidavit that he or she intends to use something and then chooses not to for no particular reason then that would constitute perjury; so yes, they do have to use it absent cause not to so it may seem like a minor point but it's a significant difference by legal standards
Click to expand...

No it doesn't, it means they are investigating a crime, have a suspect, and have requested warrants and court orders to allow the investigation to continue into the realm of the man's private domain, his home, his car, his phone, and his records.

They do have a process they use, they have been at it a long time. Start here and look in these places, if you find something continue on, otherwise it's starting to look like you have the wrong suspect so go ahead and start looking at your next tier of possibles. The Stingrays are mostly used to locate the phone and therefor hopefully the suspect so by the time they get around to using it a few things need to happen first, like they need to have enough evidence that they think they can convict because the only reason to actually hunt the guy down is if he is probably going to be arrested and charged. And if the guy is still staying at his home there is also no reason to use this to find him so they'll try the easy route first, grab him at home or work. It's when he has started running that it get's tougher and they need something like this, or if they have no idea where he can be found. Remember, to use this device they have to know who the guy is, they have to have requested his phone's ID from the Cellular Provider before they can go looking for ti.

Have you actually thought this through at all Mope54?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top