Police Secretly Track Cell Phones To Solve Routine Crimes

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
Wasn't it the FBI that was recently caught abusing the hell out of those stingray devices? Well, now you can add local police departments to the list.

In one case after another, USA TODAY found police in Baltimore and other cities used the phone tracker, commonly known as a stingray, to locate the perpetrators of routine street crimes and frequently concealed that fact from the suspects, their lawyers and even judges. In the process, they quietly transformed a form of surveillance billed as a tool to hunt terrorists and kidnappers into a staple of everyday policing.
 
If the tool is there its going to be used. Doesn't surprise me one bit.
 
This is how many applications of the law become common place. Its a series of gradual steps. You always start with the "save the children" shoe-in and after several years or decades you are using it against the common people for common things.

For example. Google "weapon of mass destruction". You get a definition.
a chemical, biological or radioactive weapon capable of causing widespread death and destruction.
Click to expand...

Most people would agree with that.

But the government has a different definition.

(2) the term “weapon of mass destruction” means—
(A) any destructive device as defined in section 921 of this title;
(B) any weapon that can cause death or serious bodily injury through toxic or poisonous chemicals;
(C) any weapon involving a biological agent, toxin, or vector;
(D) any weapon that is designed to release radiation or radioactivity at a level dangerous to human life;
Click to expand...

Sounds reasonable right? But wait what is that section (A)? Any "destructive device" is considered a weapon of mass destruction. Well lets go see what that means.

(4) The term “destructive device” means—
(A) any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas—
(i) bomb,
(ii) grenade,
(iii) rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces,
(iv) missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce,
(v) mine, or
(vi) device similar to any of the devices described in the preceding clauses;
Click to expand...

Oh, well now the law is saying anything that explodes is a destructive device. Which means now a single grenade is considered a weapon of mass destruction.

But if you look in that same section, you see the definition of a "firearm".

(3) The term “firearm” means
(A) any weapon which will expel a projectile by the action of an explosive;
(B) the frame or receiver of any such weapon;
(C) any firearm muffler or firearm silencer; or
(D) any destructive device. Such term does not include an antique firearm.
Click to expand...

Notice section D? A firearm is "any destructive device". So legally a destructive device can be called a firearm. Thus can a firearm be called a destructive device? And thus could we call a firearm a weapon of mass destruction? Calling a pistol a weapon of mass destruction is a far cry from the atomic bomb that comes to most peoples minds. But this is an example of the trickle down affect that the government applies to many many applications of laws.
 
Found on YT and quoted for truth,

Dear policeman: You're not a peace officer. Your job is not Law Enforcement. Those are euphemisms. You don't keep the peace. You routinely initiate conflicts where, otherwise, no conflict would have been. You are an agent by which your employer uses violence to enforce a monopoly on law de facto. The vast majority of the disputes that you initiate on behalf of your employer are also adjudicated by your employer, where the plaintiff, the judge, the antagonist (that's you) and the only witness (also you), all represent the same party, and, since no corpus delicti, mens rea or actus reus can be produced, doesn't technically qualify to be heard according to its own "laws". Your employer is indistinguishable from a criminal cartel.

You do not serve us. When the matter of whether or not you have a duty to protect the subjects of your employer has been brought before one of your employer's courts, your employer has decided that you do not. But, when you are charged with the task of using deadly force to apprehend a person who has incurred no liability for damages to anyone, you are obligated to obey.

Everything I've written, here, is literally true. I understand that you can't believe that, but, once you strip away all the obfuscation and rationalizations, nothing else remains.

So, you see, even if you always do your job, as you believe it to be, to what you believe to be the best of your ability, you cannot be a good cop. There is no such thing as a good cop because what cops do is, by necessity of its nature, bad.
Click to expand...
 
From the perspective of a not-criminal type person, I think if it makes arresting someone a less time-intensive process, I don't see any reason why tracking someone's phone matters. If criminals had like half a brain anyhow, they'd not even own a cell phone.
 
Glad I live in America where that doesn't happen.
 
Well since this is Baltimore, I'm fine with them using it. After all, murder has been getting out of hand thanks to the incompetent DA.
 
In B4 some @#$%Hole says if you have nothing to hide why is it an issue because you know giving away freedom for security always works out great just ask the Russians and the Chinese.
 
*puts on tin foil hat*

Is there any way from your phone phone which radio tower your phone is connecting to for network service? Like is there a way to get the GPS coords of the cell tower your phone is currently connecting to? I would imagine you could make an app to compare the distance from your phone to the cell tower and give you an option to set a 'warning distance' if the cell tower is like within 100m to let you know if there is a potential that some group using a stingray are intercepting your phone calls. It would probably give a bunch of false positives if you were in a large urban area where the cell towers are everywhere, but might work if you live out in the burbs to see if that suspicious van parked across from your house for 2 days straight is trolling :)

The thing that really scares me is that I was reading that there can be a situation where if say you were at a protest, they can sit in a nearby van I guess, grab all the SIMs, and then put those ppl on a watch list or make some kind of association to you later.

Also, I know the govt has no interest in following the law, but doesn't doing this on innocent ppl violate wiretap laws since most states I believe require at least 1 party to be informed they are being recorded? Or is it okay because they are only collecting 'metadata' (SIM ids)? I assume they are not getting warrants either...oh well just another day in our lovely police state.
 
CreepyUncleGoogle said:
From the perspective of a not-criminal type person, I think if it makes arresting someone a less time-intensive process, I don't see any reason why tracking someone's phone matters. If criminals had like half a brain anyhow, they'd not even own a cell phone.
Click to expand...

wait I'm too late..... oh wait it's CreepyuncleGoogle man you almost had me there.
 
And this is why criminals can walk away from crimes they rightfully should have been convicted of. When the police don't scrupulously follow the law they create all manner of legal holes that criminals can slip through. You might as well not do your job at all if your going to take the laziest possible route to arresting someone for a crime. Save the tax payers all the money that will be wasted on a prosecution that's a lost cause before the case even begins because you didn't follow proper procedure.
 
westrock2000 said:
This is how many applications of the law become common place. Its a series of gradual steps. You always start with the "save the children" shoe-in and after several years or decades you are using it against the common people for common things.

For example. Google "weapon of mass destruction". You get a definition.


Most people would agree with that.

But the government has a different definition.



Sounds reasonable right? But wait what is that section (A)? Any "destructive device" is considered a weapon of mass destruction. Well lets go see what that means.



Oh, well now the law is saying anything that explodes is a destructive device. Which means now a single grenade is considered a weapon of mass destruction.

But if you look in that same section, you see the definition of a "firearm".



Notice section D? A firearm is "any destructive device". So legally a destructive device can be called a firearm. Thus can a firearm be called a destructive device? And thus could we call a firearm a weapon of mass destruction? Calling a pistol a weapon of mass destruction is a far cry from the atomic bomb that comes to most peoples minds. But this is an example of the trickle down affect that the government applies to many many applications of laws.
Click to expand...

All of this, every bit, including the definition of a destructive device, is coded to specific to crimes of terrorism. Therefor this definition is not used for other crimes. And meeting this definition does not in and of itself constitute terrorism.

Here is the important part, the caveat that should take the worry out of your information.

§2332a. Use of weapons of mass destruction
(a) Offense Against a National of the United States or Within the United States.—A person who, without lawful authority, uses, threatens, or attempts or conspires to use, a weapon of mass destruction—

(1) against a national of the United States while such national is outside of the United States;
(2) against any person or property within the United States, and
(A) the mail or any facility of interstate or foreign commerce is used in furtherance of the offense;
(B) such property is used in interstate or foreign commerce or in an activity that affects interstate or foreign commerce;
(C) any perpetrator travels in or causes another to travel in interstate or foreign commerce in furtherance of the offense; or
(D) the offense, or the results of the offense, affect interstate or foreign commerce, or, in the case of a threat, attempt, or conspiracy, would have affected interstate or foreign commerce;
(3) against any property that is owned, leased or used by the United States or by any department or agency of the United States, whether the property is within or outside of the United States; or
(4) against any property within the United States that is owned, leased, or used by a foreign government,


shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, and if death results, shall be punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life.

(b) Offense by National of the United States Outside of the United States.—Any national of the United States who, without lawful authority, uses, or threatens, attempts, or conspires to use, a weapon of mass destruction outside of the United States shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, and if death results, shall be punished by death, or by imprisonment for any term of years or for life.

(c) Definitions.—For purposes of this section—

(1) the term “national of the United States” has the meaning given in section 101(a)(22) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(22));

(2) the term “weapon of mass destruction” means—

(A) any destructive device as defined in section 921 of this title;
(B) any weapon that is designed or intended to cause death or serious bodily injury through the release, dissemination, or impact of toxic or poisonous chemicals, or their precursors;
(C) any weapon involving a biological agent, toxin, or vector (as those terms are defined in section 178 of this title); or
(D) any weapon that is designed to release radiation or radioactivity at a level dangerous to human life; and
(3) the term “property” includes all real and personal property.
Click to expand...
 
So in short, although the definition of what consitutes a weapon of mass destruction seems overly broad, such definition only pertains to the language surrounding cases of terrorism and does not extend beyond this specific legislation.
 
CreepyUncleGoogle said:
From the perspective of a not-criminal type person, I think if it makes arresting someone a less time-intensive process, I don't see any reason why tracking someone's phone matters. If criminals had like half a brain anyhow, they'd not even own a cell phone.
Click to expand...

Even better, since they weren't tracking the criminal's phone but in fact were tracking the stollen phone ... well, I am sure you see the distinction.
 
Steve said:
Wasn't it the FBI that was recently caught abusing the hell out of those stingray devices? Well, now you can add local police departments to the list.

In one case after another, USA TODAY found police in Baltimore and other cities used the phone tracker, commonly known as a stingray, to locate the perpetrators of routine street crimes and frequently concealed that fact from the suspects, their lawyers and even judges. In the process, they quietly transformed a form of surveillance billed as a tool to hunt terrorists and kidnappers into a staple of everyday policing.
Click to expand...

Hiding that material fact is likely going to get a lot of convictions overturned. Smooth.
 
lcpiper said:
Even better, since they weren't tracking the criminal's phone but in fact were tracking the stollen phone ... well, I am sure you see the distinction.
Click to expand...

As long as they had a warrant, great. I don't care if it's easy or if it's a known criminal committing a crime and you just need proof... If it requires a warrant, get one. Just because you think someone stole something doesn't mean you can just go looking in their house...

I'm not sure how that plays out in court, but if the guy was caught using means that weren't exactly legal, then aren't they dropped? Even if the owner of the phone were to give the OK, wouldn't they still need a warrant to use the tool, or is it fair game?
 
Booyaah said:
*puts on tin foil hat*

Is there any way from your phone phone which radio tower your phone is connecting to for network service? Like is there a way to get the GPS coords of the cell tower your phone is currently connecting to? I would imagine you could make an app to compare the distance from your phone to the cell tower and give you an option to set a 'warning distance' if the cell tower is like within 100m to let you know if there is a potential that some group using a stingray are intercepting your phone calls. It would probably give a bunch of false positives if you were in a large urban area where the cell towers are everywhere, but might work if you live out in the burbs to see if that suspicious van parked across from your house for 2 days straight is trolling :)

The thing that really scares me is that I was reading that there can be a situation where if say you were at a protest, they can sit in a nearby van I guess, grab all the SIMs, and then put those ppl on a watch list or make some kind of association to you later.

Also, I know the govt has no interest in following the law, but doesn't doing this on innocent ppl violate wiretap laws since most states I believe require at least 1 party to be informed they are being recorded? Or is it okay because they are only collecting 'metadata' (SIM ids)? I assume they are not getting warrants either...oh well just another day in our lovely police state.
Click to expand...

You have a nice hat. No really, this is good thinking in many ways and it is how you could know if you were connecting to an 'unknown" tower.

But here are a few distinctions for you.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/08/23/baltimore-police-stingray-cell-surveillance/31994181/
The suitcase-size tracking systems, which can cost as much as $400,000, allow the police to pinpoint a phone’s location within a few yards by posing as a cell tower. In the process, they can intercept information from the phones of nearly everyone else who happens to be nearby, including innocent bystanders. They do not intercept the content of any communications.
Click to expand...

The thing is, somehow people get this idea that they use the stingrays to "troll" for suspicious behavior by listening to conversations in some random manner. They don't and can't do it this way. They take a known cell phone ID for a target phone, like the example above, one that was stollen, and search the area for that phones ID. Yes, to get the ID the device must connect to many other defices, but it's just so it can sort through them looking for the one they want.

And wiretap laws were designed to stop the government from listening to your conversations without a warrant. All they are doing in this case in finding the phone's location and hoping it leads them to the bad guy. Apples and oranges.
 
Ur_Mom said:
As long as they had a warrant, great. I don't care if it's easy or if it's a known criminal committing a crime and you just need proof... If it requires a warrant, get one. Just because you think someone stole something doesn't mean you can just go looking in their house...

I'm not sure how that plays out in court, but if the guy was caught using means that weren't exactly legal, then aren't they dropped? Even if the owner of the phone were to give the OK, wouldn't they still need a warrant to use the tool, or is it fair game?
Click to expand...

It all depends on the judge that hears the case or the seemingly inevitable appeal...
 
lcpiper said:
All of this, every bit, including the definition of a destructive device, is coded to specific to crimes of terrorism. Therefor this definition is not used for other crimes. And meeting this definition does not in and of itself constitute terrorism.

Here is the important part, the caveat that should take the worry out of your information.
Click to expand...

But that's my point. You put the "big gates" in there and then slowly wear the gates down.

Here's an article about a teenager here in America doing stupid shit, but not an obvious terrorist. Being charged with weapon of mass destruction
http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/26/justice/pennsylvania-teen-bomb-arrest/

Yes he is a Russian citizen, but that is not that hard of a barrier to cross from a legal perspective. Wouldn't it be reasonable rethink that if it was ok to charge THIS guy with the law that you would want a U.S. citizen being just as reckless to be charged? Even if it saved just 1 child?

Here's another about a guy who was honeypot'ed
http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/florida-resident-charged-attempting-use-weapon-mass-destruction
U.S. citizen, but thought it would support brown people in the Middle East. Sounds great.

But what about people who just want to blow up people or property just because? Are we going to not charge them with using a weapon of mass destruction?

Tsarnaev was charged with using a weapon of mass destruction. He killed a coue people. He's an American. As far as I know there is no direct proof he was working on behalf of a known terrorist group. Just pissed off.
http://www.salon.com/2013/04/22/weapon_of_mass_destruction_charge_explained/
 
MrCaffeineX said:
It all depends on the judge that hears the case or the seemingly inevitable appeal...
Click to expand...

No it does. It's a stollen phone. The stollen phone was reported to the cops. The cops can now get the phones SSID, punch it into a Stingray, and go find the phone, hopefully in the pocket of the theif. Why should there even be a discussion about this?

Ohh, I know why, it's cause the reporter used the dirty word, survielance :p

Let's see, how about an analogy;

http://gmauthority.com/blog/2015/03/gmc-acadia-theft-thwarted-with-help-from-onstar/

Do you think the cops should need a warrant before they contacted OnStar? Do you think it would be up to the Judge?
 
westrock2000 said:
But that's my point. You put the "big gates" in there and then slowly wear the gates down.

Here's an article about a teenager here in America doing stupid shit, but not an obvious terrorist. Being charged with weapon of mass destruction
http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/26/justice/pennsylvania-teen-bomb-arrest/

Yes he is a Russian citizen, but that is not that hard of a barrier to cross from a legal perspective. Wouldn't it be reasonable rethink that if it was ok to charge THIS guy with the law that you would want a U.S. citizen being just as reckless to be charged? Even if it saved just 1 child?

Here's another about a guy who was honeypot'ed
http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/florida-resident-charged-attempting-use-weapon-mass-destruction
U.S. citizen, but thought it would support brown people in the Middle East. Sounds great.

But what about people who just want to blow up people or property just because? Are we going to not charge them with using a weapon of mass destruction?

Tsarnaev was charged with using a weapon of mass destruction. He killed a coue people. He's an American. As far as I know there is no direct proof he was working on behalf of a known terrorist group. Just pissed off.
http://www.salon.com/2013/04/22/weapon_of_mass_destruction_charge_explained/
Click to expand...

You brought up chemical and biological agents. You said,
For example. Google "weapon of mass destruction". You get a definition.
Quote:
"a chemical, biological or radioactive weapon capable of causing widespread death and destruction."
Click to expand...

How much VX nerve agent must I intend to use for you to think it qualifies as a WMD? I
A milliliter?, a deciliter?, a liter? How much?
How much weaponized smallpox is a WMD and how much is just a prank?


You bring up the Tsarnaev brothers and say "He killed a couple of people"...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Marathon_bombing
They killed 3 people and injured an estimated 264 others.
Click to expand...
...well it wasn't for want of trying.

And the guy who was honeypotted, yes, He wanted a backpack sized explosive device to use in an attack. Do you know how much damage that can cause? I spent 4 years as a Combat Engineer on M728 CEVs, they have a demolition gun that fires a 65 pound charge of High Explosive Plastique. That gun, if fired into the middle of the crowded Boston Marathon would have killed every unprotect sole within 100 meters of the blast from concussion alone. That's what 65 lbs of quality explosives can do. How many would be in that circumferance? A backpack would carry 25 or 35 lbs no sweat. How many would that kill?

Many murders are crimes of passion or simple motives involving crime and greed. A bad one is a family killed by a loved one who has lost it. But when you try to classify a form of homicide in which a person wants to kill "as many as possible" and you try to use the method of conveying that death, well where do you start? Where do you draw the lines? How many must die to satisify your sensabilities when it comes to the definition of "mass". It would seem that only a couple killed, with over 250 injured is not massive enough for you. You require a bigger show. I don't, I don't care if you think you can pull it off with a bottle rocket, if your intent is to kill as many people as you can, your level of inneptitude has no bearing in my mind. Will alone is enough to damn you.
 
lcpiper said:
Do you think the cops should need a warrant before they contacted OnStar? Do you think it would be up to the Judge?
Click to expand...

Without the owners consent? Yes, a warrant would be needed. The owner would need to give consent to OnStar, not take the officers word for it.

If a cop came to me about a stolen laptop, I'd need something from the user themselves or a warrant. I couldn't give out that information without it. Hell, I can't give out files to a manager without HR approval. Protect your ass, man. If a user called (and was verified to be the user) and gave permission to give out information on the laptop, then yes I would. But, it'd be well documented, as well.

I'd want to get that laptop back, but I can't give out information all willy nilly. We have to protect our company assets and our employees. Without the proper consent, we aren't doing that.
 
Ur_Mom said:
Without the owners consent? Yes, a warrant would be needed. The owner would need to give consent to OnStar, not take the officers word for it.

If a cop came to me about a stolen laptop, I'd need something from the user themselves or a warrant. I couldn't give out that information without it. Hell, I can't give out files to a manager without HR approval. Protect your ass, man. If a user called (and was verified to be the user) and gave permission to give out information on the laptop, then yes I would. But, it'd be well documented, as well.

I'd want to get that laptop back, but I can't give out information all willy nilly. We have to protect our company assets and our employees. Without the proper consent, we aren't doing that.
Click to expand...

The person reported the stolen phone. "hey Officer, somone stole my phone, but don't try to find them or anything, I just need you to sign here for the insurance, You know". FFS if the person reports the crime it's now in the Cops hand's to investigate the theft. And you don't need a warrant to ask OnStar for assistance and it's up to your User Agreement with OnStar if they have to contact you for your permission or not. Got nothing to do with a warrant, it's not a search, it's assistance with an investigation which is a selling point for OnStar to begin with.
 
lcpiper said:
The person reported the stolen phone. "hey Officer, somone stole my phone, but don't try to find them or anything, I just need you to sign here for the insurance, You know". FFS if the person reports the crime it's now in the Cops hand's to investigate the theft. And you don't need a warrant to ask OnStar for assistance and it's up to your User Agreement with OnStar if they have to contact you for your permission or not. Got nothing to do with a warrant, it's not a search, it's assistance with an investigation which is a selling point for OnStar to begin with.
Click to expand...

If it's in the user agreement, then it's different.

Just because a cop is investigating doesn't give them access to anything and everything. There are still limits. If there wasn't, they'd be able to recover my stuff... Or some large penguin stuffed animal from Six Flags (post in GenMay). :)

I'm not a lawyer, and I don't know. These are just my opinions. FFS, man. ;)
 
[URL="https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=OnStar+user+agreement+in+case+of+theft"]https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=OnStar+user+agreement+in+case+of+theft[/URL]

26. Data Collection / Privacy. OnStar collects, uses, and shares information from and about You and your vehicle. The OnStar Privacy Statement describes what OnStar does with that information. You consent to the collection, use, and sharing of information described in the Privacy Statement and in any revisions to the Privacy Statement. If You sell, transfer, lease or dispose of your vehicle or your Connected Device You are solely responsible for deleting information about You contained in the vehicle or Connected Device, or in your related account.
Click to expand...

Just because the cops ask for information to help them locate something it doesn't mean they are gaining access to all the secrets inside. For the cops to call OnStar and ask if the vehicle can be located and be notified of a change in it's location is not accessing the information stored in the systems of the vehicle.

The same is true of a phone, to ask the Service Provider for the SSID so they can plug that into a scanner that locates the phone doesn't mean they can lsiten to the phone, whoever is talking on it, or access data stored on the device or access it's cloud connected data store.

Now someone is going to bring up the fact that there exists a modification to the Stingray that can allow them to listen in on the phone once they find it. That is something a judge would have to think through and decide on. But I would think that the fact the phone is stolen, and therefor anyone using the phone is in fact either the theif, or someone who is guilty of recieving stolen property, would way in that decision.

Can a stingray be misused? I would answer YES, on course, almost anything can. Have they been? I can't say, but I would say the odds are high, people are people, the make mistakes and some just don't give a damn about what's right and wrong.

Sorry to hear about your Penguin ;)

I get so ...... involved you know? :eek:
 
Oh but the police are good, they will never abuse phone tracking, or wire tapping, or tag scanners, or traffic cameras.. no sir if you are a law abiding citizen you have nothing to fear.....

And some of you wonder why many of us are utterly against slippery slope technology use. You are the metaphorical frog boiling.
 
Dekoth-E- said:
Oh but the police are good, they will never abuse phone tracking, or wire tapping, or tag scanners, or traffic cameras.. no sir if you are a law abiding citizen you have nothing to fear.....

And some of you wonder why many of us are utterly against slippery slope technology use. You are the metaphorical frog boiling.
Click to expand...

They are good and as long as they're using the technologies to stop, prevent, or deter crime we have every reason (except the people who are afraid of being caught like those Ashley Madison slimeballs or pretty much any male who drives a car someplace) to support them in using all technology to the fullest extent reasonable to help.

Just think of a world where camera technologies, facial recognition, geotagging through phones, full monitoring of internet activity and so forth is combined in big data scenarios. Add stuff like pulse and breathing monitoring through your Fitbit or whatever, and you can predict when someone is thinking about doing some criminal act so that police can arrive BEFORE it even happens and arrest them so they can be put on trial for murder and get assigned to a corrections facility without the person they were gonna kill even knowing it was about to happen until they testify at their would-be murderer's trial.

There are almost always obvious signs anyhow, like a change in normal routine, internet searches, purchasing firearms or ammo, drinking alcohol, or whatever and picking apart those patterns of activity and then combining them with say a recent breakup with their girlfriend AND a tendency towards addiction or criminal acts, and you can pretty much stop all crime. It's also be a great system to predict who has a defective mind that might be prone to do drugs or join the libertarian movement to get them off the street before they get hooked on pot and start waving some stupid sign around when other people are trying to go to work (because a lot of protestors have like no job usually anyhow so they don't even care if they stop traffic someplace).
 
Booyaah said:
*puts on tin foil hat*

Is there any way from your phone phone which radio tower your phone is connecting to for network service? Like is there a way to get the GPS coords of the cell tower your phone is currently connecting to? I would imagine you could make an app to compare the distance from your phone to the cell tower and give you an option to set a 'warning distance' if the cell tower is like within 100m to let you know if there is a potential that some group using a stingray are intercepting your phone calls. It would probably give a bunch of false positives if you were in a large urban area where the cell towers are everywhere, but might work if you live out in the burbs to see if that suspicious van parked across from your house for 2 days straight is trolling :)

The thing that really scares me is that I was reading that there can be a situation where if say you were at a protest, they can sit in a nearby van I guess, grab all the SIMs, and then put those ppl on a watch list or make some kind of association to you later.

Also, I know the govt has no interest in following the law, but doesn't doing this on innocent ppl violate wiretap laws since most states I believe require at least 1 party to be informed they are being recorded? Or is it okay because they are only collecting 'metadata' (SIM ids)? I assume they are not getting warrants either...oh well just another day in our lovely police state.
Click to expand...


Supposedly there are android apps that can allegedly detect a stingray in use.

As for protests, the Chicago PD allegedly used them to surveil the leaders of a protest.


chicago.cbslocal.com/2014/12/06/activists-say-chicago-police-used-stingray-eavesdropping-technology-during-protests/

CBS) — Activists who have been protesting in Chicago claim they have proof that police have been using so-called “Stingray” technology to eavesdrop on their phones, reports WBBM’s Mike Krauser.

The technology essentially puts up a wall between the user’s phone and their provider, forcing phones in the immediate area to send data to the police instead of the nearest cell towers.
Activists have posted photos online of a City of Chicago marked emergency management vehicle with what looks like radar on top following protestors.

In October, the Chicago Police department acknowledged that it had purchased cell-phone interceptor devices back in 2008. This included IMSI Catchers, sold under names like Stingray — hence the name.


The activists think they’ve found proof police are using Stingray technology in a radio exchange between officers on the street and headquarters during a recent protest.
Dispatch: “CPIC [Chicago police’s spy ‘fusion’ center] on the air for a mobile”
Officer 1: “Go ahead”
Officer 2: “Yeah one of the girls, an organizer here, she’s been on her phone a lot. You guys picking up any information, uh, where they’re going, possibly?”
Officer 1: “Yeah we’ll keep an eye on it, we’ll let you know if we hear anything.”
Officer 2: “10-4. They’re compliant, and they’re, they’re doing ok now but she’s spending a lot of time on the phone.”
Officer 1: “10-4”
Click to expand...

Free speech is terrorism because it threatens the establishment.
 
Booyaah said:
*puts on tin foil hat*

Is there any way from your phone phone which radio tower your phone is connecting to for network service? Like is there a way to get the GPS coords of the cell tower your phone is currently connecting to? I would imagine you could make an app to compare the distance from your phone to the cell tower and give you an option to set a 'warning distance' if the cell tower is like within 100m to let you know if there is a potential that some group using a stingray are intercepting your phone calls. It would probably give a bunch of false positives if you were in a large urban area where the cell towers are everywhere, but might work if you live out in the burbs to see if that suspicious van parked across from your house for 2 days straight is trolling :)

The thing that really scares me is that I was reading that there can be a situation where if say you were at a protest, they can sit in a nearby van I guess, grab all the SIMs, and then put those ppl on a watch list or make some kind of association to you later.

Also, I know the govt has no interest in following the law, but doesn't doing this on innocent ppl violate wiretap laws since most states I believe require at least 1 party to be informed they are being recorded? Or is it okay because they are only collecting 'metadata' (SIM ids)? I assume they are not getting warrants either...oh well just another day in our lovely police state.
Click to expand...


Supposedly there are android apps that can allegedly detect a stingray in use.

As for protests, the Chicago PD allegedly used them to surveil the leaders of a protest.


chicago.cbslocal.com/2014/12/06/activists-say-chicago-police-used-stingray-eavesdropping-technology-during-protests/

CBS) — Activists who have been protesting in Chicago claim they have proof that police have been using so-called “Stingray” technology to eavesdrop on their phones, reports WBBM’s Mike Krauser.

The technology essentially puts up a wall between the user’s phone and their provider, forcing phones in the immediate area to send data to the police instead of the nearest cell towers.
Activists have posted photos online of a City of Chicago marked emergency management vehicle with what looks like radar on top following protestors.

In October, the Chicago Police department acknowledged that it had purchased cell-phone interceptor devices back in 2008. This included IMSI Catchers, sold under names like Stingray — hence the name.


The activists think they’ve found proof police are using Stingray technology in a radio exchange between officers on the street and headquarters during a recent protest.
Dispatch: “CPIC [Chicago police’s spy ‘fusion’ center] on the air for a mobile”
Officer 1: “Go ahead”
Officer 2: “Yeah one of the girls, an organizer here, she’s been on her phone a lot. You guys picking up any information, uh, where they’re going, possibly?”
Officer 1: “Yeah we’ll keep an eye on it, we’ll let you know if we hear anything.”
Officer 2: “10-4. They’re compliant, and they’re, they’re doing ok now but she’s spending a lot of time on the phone.”
Officer 1: “10-4”
Click to expand...

Free speech is terrorism because it threatens the establishment.

Watch "Lawsuit filed against Chicago Police Department over concerns of phone interceptions" on YouTube
https://youtu.be/Smd7vTVX5To
 
Freedom and liberty is pretty much dead here :(

We are supposed to have a 4th Amendment right against this kinda stuff.
 
Some people will say we need to monitor the police.

"Well, who's gonna monitor the monitors of the monitors?"
 
rezerekted said:
You think the police only use this software as authorized? Hahaha...
Click to expand...

I think the software only does what's it's programing allows ahhahaha.

Stingrays were developed for use by the Military in order to locate and track bad guys. But for them to work you need the phone's SSID and that means you have to get your hands on the phone or have assistance from the service provider.

Only farely recently has a package, which is an add on to a newer model of the Stingray, been developed which allows you to also listen to the phone conversations. This package doesn't work with all stingrays, only the newer models, and even if a police department has the newer model stingray it doesn't mean that they also have this added capability.

Try being more informed before you insinuate people are stupid. It's you that doesn't know what he is talking about.
 
Lith1um said:
Supposedly there are android apps that can allegedly detect a stingray in use.

As for protests, the Chicago PD allegedly used them to surveil the leaders of a protest.


chicago.cbslocal.com/2014/12/06/activists-say-chicago-police-used-stingray-eavesdropping-technology-during-protests/



Free speech is terrorism because it threatens the establishment.

Watch "Lawsuit filed against Chicago Police Department over concerns of phone interceptions" on YouTube
https://youtu.be/Smd7vTVX5To
Click to expand...

Yes, but there was no real proof, it's just conjecture. It did look like they had vehicle there they might have Stingray's equiped but they are making a wild assumption that they were being used improperly. Particularly since so many people assume the defices are much more capable then they really are.
 
Dekoth-E- said:
Oh but the police are good, they will never abuse phone tracking, or wire tapping, or tag scanners, or traffic cameras.. no sir if you are a law abiding citizen you have nothing to fear.....

And some of you wonder why many of us are utterly against slippery slope technology use. You are the metaphorical frog boiling.
Click to expand...

Did someone here claim this? Slippery Slope technology. There is write and wrong, there are good cops and bad cops. Bad cops should be punished when found. But restricting the use of technologies because some cops might abuse them is foolishness as the bad cops will still be bad.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top