Legislation Seeks To Criminalize Warrantless Data Collection

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
Doesn't it just seem like a good idea all the way around to have a warrant for stuff like this?

House Oversight Committee Chairman Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, is introducing the Cell-Site Simulator Act. Under draft text of the bill provided to the Washington Examiner, collecting metadata with a device known as a stingray would require a warrant. Violations would be punishable by a fine and up to 10 years in prison.
 
The fact that we need another new law to make it illegal to do something that inherently and by definition already is illegal has got to be one of the dumbest most idiotic things I've ever heard of in my entire span of existence on this world.

I mean really, will the stupidity ever end?
 
So who is going to go get prosecuted for using a stingray if it is used illegally? The chief of police? The cops who use it? Who?
 
I think one thing both constituencies should be able to agree on is that we need privacy laws for ourselves. Bills like this are the beginning.
 
It's good to know that if this passes that the regular policing agencies won't use this anymore without a warrant but then that still leaves the CIA and NSA and [insert any other agency that regularly breaks every law we have] to do so. This law won't stop them as they're above the law. After all, it's for 'national security' and who's really going to stop them?
 
xJ321x said:
It's good to know that if this passes that the regular policing agencies won't use this anymore without a warrant but then that still leaves the CIA and NSA and [insert any other agency that regularly breaks every law we have] to do so. This law won't stop them as they're above the law. After all, it's for 'national security' and who's really going to stop them?
Click to expand...

Your concern reminds me of a good Star Trek TNG episode:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Watches_the_Watchers
 
xJ321x said:
It's good to know that if this passes that the regular policing agencies won't use this anymore without a warrant but then that still leaves the CIA and NSA and [insert any other agency that regularly breaks every law we have] to do so. This law won't stop them as they're above the law. After all, it's for 'national security' and who's really going to stop them?
Click to expand...

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state...
Click to expand...

So, who's got a well regulated militia handy?
 
Methadras said:
So who is going to go get prosecuted for using a stingray if it is used illegally? The chief of police? The cops who use it? Who?
Click to expand...

The person who ordered it on down to the people who executed it use knowing it was illegal. Not that hard really.
 
I should point out, under the last guidance by the US Supreme Court: Private data on a public network is not protected. So technically, Stingray was always legal, if not pushing the bounds of previous court decisions.

What it really comes down to, is people need to learn that the Internet is a PUBLIC network, and there are no laws on the books that guarantee a rite to privacy for ANY data on it.
 
gamerk2 said:
I should point out, under the last guidance by the US Supreme Court: Private data on a public network is not protected. So technically, Stingray was always legal, if not pushing the bounds of previous court decisions.
Click to expand...
Cell phone towers aren't public networks, they're private networks. So technically stingray was always illegal.

What it really comes down to, is people need to learn that the Internet is a PUBLIC network, and there are no laws on the books that guarantee a rite to privacy for ANY data on it.
Click to expand...
The Internet is the global system of interconnected computer networks that use the Internet protocol suite (TCP/IP) to link billions of devices worldwide. It is a network of networks that consists of millions of private, public, academic, business, and government networks of local to global scope, linked by a broad array of electronic, wireless, and optical networking technologies.
Click to expand...
Yes, there are many parts of the internet that are private (Like the site we're on right now) and there should be even more rights to privacy on the internet (Like the right to not be stripped searched by police for just walking down the street). However none of which is was the point of this bill or this topic concerning it.
 
Zarathustra[H];1041948256 said:
First reasonable piece of legislation I've seen from Representative Chaffetz
Click to expand...

Well, until I can actually read the text of the bill as opposed to some filtered mouthpiece of a reporter, I'll hold my judgement.

But I will raise a technical issue.
... collecting metadata with a device known as a stingray would require a warrant.
Click to expand...

So as long as they have a warrant for the person they are looking for, the rest is same same nothing new. What this bill technically does is authorize the use of Cell Site Simulators as long as they get a warrant to use it to find their "suspect". It won't stop the device from collecting all the other stuff while they look for him.


But without the Bill's text, this is a guess based on what the reporter said.
 
lcpiper said:
Well, until I can actually read the text of the bill as opposed to some filtered mouthpiece of a reporter, I'll hold my judgement.

But I will raise a technical issue.


So as long as they have a warrant for the person they are looking for, the rest is same same nothing new. What this bill technically does is authorize the use of Cell Site Simulators as long as they get a warrant to use it to find their "suspect". It won't stop the device from collecting all the other stuff while they look for him.


But without the Bill's text, this is a guess based on what the reporter said.
Click to expand...

That is true. Good point.

It should require that they identify the exact ID of the suspect, and drops all other data without writing it to disk.

On a side note, how does something like a Stingray not violate FCC guidelines for use of spectrum and interference?


On a side note, I THINK I have found a way to figure out if there is a stingray in the area.

On a few occasions I have driven by spots where every day, at the same time, I very briefly lose data signal, and the clock on my phone changes. Same spot for a few days in a row, and then it is gone.

I suspect this is some sort of Stingray device, and the operators are sloppy/incompetent and don't know how to set the time on the device properly.
 
SnoopSnitch is supposed to be able to detect these stingrays but I never used the program and don't know if it's full of shit. Just thought I'd throw it out there.
 
There are laws on the books forbidding cops from murdering people too.

I call their efficacy into question.
 
Zarathustra[H];1041948369 said:
That is true. Good point.

It should require that they identify the exact ID of the suspect, and drops all other data without writing it to disk.

On a side note, how does something like a Stingray not violate FCC guidelines for use of spectrum and interference?


On a side note, I THINK I have found a way to figure out if there is a stingray in the area.

On a few occasions I have driven by spots where every day, at the same time, I very briefly lose data signal, and the clock on my phone changes. Same spot for a few days in a row, and then it is gone.

I suspect this is some sort of Stingray device, and the operators are sloppy/incompetent and don't know how to set the time on the device properly.
Click to expand...

It doesn't stop service, it inserts itself in between a phone and the next tower up the chain. Therefor it isn't jamming anything or preventing service, wouldn't interfere with emergency services.

Of course the devices were originally used by DoD overseas so the initial concept and application wouldn't even have looked at any US Regulatory issues during it's development. It wasn't until Law Enforcement got interested in them that such a thing would have come up. These things started out in Iraq and later in Afghanistan, not in Hometown USA.

It's possible but I'll offer another possibility. Most devices and computer systems have their own time set internally, they just need one even when they aren't talking on a network. But when they are on a network, they usually get their time from a time source from that network so that everyone on the network is on the same time. NTP, Network Time Protocol, is a big standard service in IT. It's possible something else is interfering with your phone connecting to the cell network and your phone is bouncing between the network time and the phone's internal clock.

Of course it would seem that if this is the case then the network would be down in that immediate area for as long as the interference persists. At that point it becomes an issue of signal strength.

You know, someone could be running a cell phone jammer in that area too. Like that dude in Florida, maybe some business nearby doesn't want their employees on their phones, it's illegal, but it's happened before.
 
It should require that they identify the exact ID of the suspect, and drops all other data without writing it to disk.
Click to expand...

Well, the "all other data" is all the other phones in the area that connect to the stingray while they search for the guy they have a warrant for.

You can bet some people will read this article and think that this bill will require the cops to have a warrant for every phone that connects to there stingray but that's not what it will be. What it will be tho is at least some legal assurance that the cops have to have a warrant on someone to be using the device and that they must purge the stingrays data as soon as they can.

It doesn't guarantee they won't use it wrong, only that you have grounds to complain if they get caught.
 
I just like this part.


yYutwkt.jpg


Link to DHS.GOV PDF.
 
The Secret Service is of course exempt from these laws.

Asked whether that essentially granted a blanket exception for the Secret Service, Stodder said that the exemption would not be used in routine criminal probes, such as a counterfeiting investigation.
Click to expand...
So why wouldn't the CIA or NSA find an exemption to utilize as well? I'm sure they have a loophole or two they can jump through to keep their evasion of privacy toys in play.

So regular law enforcement will have to get a warrant and that's about it.
 
xJ321x said:
The Secret Service is of course exempt from these laws.

So why wouldn't the CIA or NSA find an exemption to utilize as well? I'm sure they have a loophole or two they can jump through to keep their evasion of privacy toys in play.
Click to expand...

Um, first, this is policy handed down from DHS to it's subordinate departments. This is not a US Law. The NSA is DoD and the CIA is it's own Agency with no Perant Organization, it's independent. Therefor the DHS has no authority to issue policy or guidance to the Department of Defense or the CIA.

So regular law enforcement will have to get a warrant and that's about it
Click to expand...

Nooo. The DHS also has no authority over State Law Enforcement, Sheriff's Offices, or Local City Police Departments.

It seems you are a little week when it comes to understanding how government and particularly Law Enforcement and such work in the US.

You also may not know that the most powerful Law Enforcement entities in the US are the Sheriff's of our Counties/Parishes. Federal Law Enforcement is usually very polite to a Sheriff and usually they even notify the Sheriff's Office when they will be doing anything special in the Sheriff's area. If a Sheriff want's to, he can run the Feds out of his County if justified. A Sheriff draws his power and authority from the State in service to his county and is an elected official.

Do you remember all the talk about a Sheriff in Phoenix, Sheriff Arpaio?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Arpaio

This guy wouldn't be such a big news maker if he could be easily brought to heal. A Sheriff has real power and as long as the people in his County where he is elected are happy with him, he'll probably stay. Usually the guys who have the most influence over a Sheriff are Judges.

If you read some of this wiki page on Joe Arpaio keep something in mind. The article starts out with all the charges, accusations, and even law suites and court verdicts handed down against him. In fact, almost the entire page is devoted to all the controversies surrounding his time as Sheriff of Maricopa County. He was first elected in 1992 and he is still the Sheriff of Maricopa County today.

I'm not saying I think this guy is a great American. But you can't deny that Joe Arpaio is the most powerful man in his County and if it isn't clear from reading this. The Feds can sue him and even take Federal Authority to perform actions under Federal Law from him. But it doesn't look like he cares, that it has any real effect or hinders him in any way. That's because it's like I said. The Feds don't have any real power over a Sheriff, not unless they can prove he broke Federal Law in a manner serious enough to send him to prison for it.

If you are a power junky, the Sheriff's Office is for you.
 
xJ321x, I thought I would clarify for you just who this memo/policy does effect.
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

United States Secret Service

U.S. Customs and Border Protection

United States Coast Guard

Transportation Security Administration

Federal Protective Service
Click to expand...

That's it, this is policy for the Departments/Agencies that make up the Department of Homeland Security.

And because it is policy and not law, you can't sue them or send anyone to prison for breaking policy.
 
lcpiper said:
Um, first, this is policy handed down from DHS to it's subordinate departments. This is not a US Law. The NSA is DoD and the CIA is it's own Agency with no Perant Organization, it's independent. Therefor the DHS has no authority to issue policy or guidance to the Department of Defense or the CIA.
Click to expand...

1. I didn't say it was US law. I merely said that the DHS's policies are meant to be broken with no legal recourse for breaking them in place.

2. I didn't say the NSA or CIA was under DHS (reading comprehension). I said they all have the same shitty policies or find loopholes to justify their actions outside of the framework of the law.

3. I'd wager the only agencies following the actual law (as its supposed to be) will be the regular policing agencies.

Nooo. The DHS also has no authority over State Law Enforcement, Sheriff's Offices, or Local City Police Departments.
Click to expand...
I never said they did.

It seems you are a little week when it comes to understanding how government and particularly Law Enforcement and such work in the US.
Click to expand...
Said by the person that read my words as if they were in Latin.

And because it is policy and not law, you can't sue them or send anyone to prison for breaking policy.
Click to expand...
Sounds like an easy way to do what they want with no regard for what's right or wrong to do. Regardless of if it's currently law or not. That's all I was saying.

They're above the law, by design.
 
UnholyCarcass said:
How was data collection with the consent of the user not a crime? LOL
Click to expand...

I am going to go out on a limb here and assume that you meant "without the consent" of the user.


xJ321x originally posted this link, your answer is in there, I'll let you read it yourself but I'll re-post the link to save you the search. Remember, this is a Policy memo, not a law.

https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/Department%20Policy%20Regarding%20the%20Use%20of%20Cell-Site%20Simulator%20Technology.pdf
 
xJ321x said:
1. I didn't say it was US law. I merely said that the DHS's policies are meant to be broken with no legal recourse for breaking them in place.

2. I didn't say the NSA or CIA was under DHS (reading comprehension). I said they all have the same shitty policies or find loopholes to justify their actions outside of the framework of the law.

3. I'd wager the only agencies following the actual law (as its supposed to be) will be the regular policing agencies.

I never said they did.

Said by the person that read my words as if they were in Latin.

Sounds like an easy way to do what they want with no regard for what's right or wrong to do. Regardless of if it's currently law or not. That's all I was saying.

They're above the law, by design.
Click to expand...

Umm, I call your attention to post #26 made by me, which specifically quotes some of your statements and addresses them directly. My statements were not addressing your other unsubstantiated claims of impropriety.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top