
Leaked Catalog Reveals a Vast Array of Military Spy Gear Offered to U.S. Police - CapitalistCartr
https://theintercept.com/2016/09/01/leaked-catalogue-reveals-a-vast-array-of-military-spy-gear-offered-to-u-s-police/
======
maxxxxx
US police definitely has to stop seeing itself as another form of military.
Here in LA I see billboard ads for police recruitment with some super fit
people and words like "Courage" and others. Pretty much the same style as the
Marines ads. They never mention "Service" or "Peace". Seems they want to
attract wannabe soldiers.

~~~
awqrre
I agree with you but it could also get much worst... for example if Soros'
plan to federalize US police[1] becomes a reality, I think that it would get
worst. But at least, Obama banned some military equipment sales to police[2].

I think that citizens should be allowed to own whatever police officers are
allowed to use without warrants.

1\. [http://www.anonews.co/soros-leaked-memo/](http://www.anonews.co/soros-
leaked-memo/)

2\.
[http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/05/18/obama...](http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/05/18/obama-
police-military-equipment-sales-new-jersey/27521793/)

~~~
sammydavis
I don't think either of those documents says that Soros wants to federalize US
police. Soros is a progressive, and progressives want to limit the power of
police, and limit the militarization of police forces. I believe Soros is on
board with both of those things.

If I sent a letter to the secretary of state or my own representatives in govt
asking for something, like say changing our govts investigation about Syria,
you could claim that I somehow influenced the govt. Of course Soros is really
rich and could convince people to do things. But HRC is really rich too.

~~~
awqrre
With his "letter", he also sent millions of dollars to Hillary Clinton's
campaign... but I get your point (ie: of course you don't necessarily need
money to influence)

------
GVIrish
This is extremely dangerous tech in the hands of any law enforcement or
government agency. We've already seen multiple cases of police in the US
destroying video evidence, disabling dashcams, and deleting videos from
people's cell phones. Given the ability to jam people's cellular signal it's
all but certain it will be misused to cover up wrongdoing.

Technology like this will also undoubtedly be used to disrupt and harass
activists and protesters.

And really, what risk is there for law enforcement in using this stuff? If
they get caught, maybe a few cases get thrown out but as it stands no one is
likely to go to jail for illegal surveillance.

------
TaylorAlexander
"For geo-locating and tracking purposes the UMTS target phone is 'pushed' onto
the GSM-XPZ cell and then placed into blind call mode." [1]

Oh, yeah, of course blind call mode.... wait, what?

Does anyone have more information on "blind call mode"? It sounds like a
standard feature of some devices, perhaps where the phone actively transmits
as if in a call, but without the user knowing. I definitely don't want a
device that will help someone spy on me...

Also it's great that people are beginning to question the values of law
enforcement, but don't forget too that good old fashioned criminals will have
this tech too. Sometimes, the two will be the same entity.

[1] [https://prod01-cdn07.cdn.firstlook.org/wp-
uploads/sites/1/20...](https://prod01-cdn07.cdn.firstlook.org/wp-
uploads/sites/1/2016/08/Screen-Shot-2016-08-30-at-12.04.19-PM.png)

~~~
ju-st
Page 7: [https://info.publicintelligence.net/Gamma-
GSM.pdf](https://info.publicintelligence.net/Gamma-GSM.pdf)

~~~
Phlarp
I'm not seeing anything on page 7 that details "blind call mode" and only one
mention of "blind call mode" in the document-- Do you have any further reading
on this?

~~~
jjp
Page 7 doesn't detail how it works, but does seem to describe what it does.
From cell base station creates a connection to a target cell phone without the
user of the cell phone being aware. Can then use RF direction finding to
identify location of cell phone. Obviously multiple base stations required to
be more accurate.

More explanation available in this patent application -
[https://data.epo.org/publication-
server/rest/v1.0/publicatio...](https://data.epo.org/publication-
server/rest/v1.0/publication-
dates/20101229/patents/EP1908318NWB1/document.html)

------
roflchoppa
I just think that's it's nuts how law enforcement can mess with radio
waves(jamming), but if I did it I would have fines/jail time. BONKERS.

~~~
justinpombrio
Serious follow up question: what part of the legal code allows this? Are there
exceptions written into laws for the police? Or is that it's illegal but would
never be prosecuted?

~~~
brassic
Here in the UK there are exceptions written into the law. For example, here's
the speed limit exception [0]. If the government want to give the police new
powers contrary to existing laws they will pass a bill making amendments to
the old laws.

[0]:
[http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/27/section/87](http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/27/section/87)

------
ArtDev
This is the catalog referenced in the article:
[https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3038285/2014-Cobh...](https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3038285/2014-Cobham-
TCS-Catalog.pdf)

------
Shivetya
think that is bad, check out Baltimore's "pre search" system that was detailed
over at CATO [http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/pre-search-
comin...](http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/pre-search-coming-us-
policing)

Face it, without specific laws blocking the use of military grade hardware by
the police we will end up with a police state. First came over militarization
of SWAT teams to the same with nearly all police. They even have tracked
military vehicles in some jurisdiction as well as military transports never
designed for road use (one of my neighboring counties has a tank and was
ridiculed over it after someone put a training video to death metal; search
for Doraville tank)

~~~
ocdtrekkie
I find the focus on "military grade hardware" to be a red herring in the
police conduct issue. In many cases, the hardware being discussed (tracked
vehicles? okay, I guess they're good in mud?) have nothing to do with
offensive capabilities, and are quite often defensive. (Armored vehicles).

If anything, the better defended our cops are, the less excuse they have to
use lethal force. If a cop knew his life was never in danger, he would have
almost no reason to use lethal force.

In many cases, this hardware's already built, it's built to survive a lot
tougher duty than the police put it through, and it makes no sense to me why
they wouldn't use it.

~~~
maxerickson
A really good reason not to use them is that they are expensive to maintain
and operate and they don't really need them.

~~~
ocdtrekkie
And that is an absolutely fair point. Police departments will need to evaluate
the cost/benefit of any equipment they use. (And damage that equipment can
cause to roadways also factors in as well.)

------
jefe_
Apparently SkyMall & Popular Science conditioned me to believe that all hidden
cameras are obviously hidden cameras. The realism of the concealments in this
document was sort of jarring.

~~~
okwhatthe2
"If the taps are good enough you'll never find them."

------
JoeAltmaier
Lots of dangerous stuff here. But the camera systems are mostly available on
the internet already? Except they've painted it all black. Anybody can make a
dyi surveillance kit just shopping on Amazon.

------
0xdeadbeefbabe
Anyone live in a country where the military is the police? I think it's a
really bad idea, and Allende probably agrees.

~~~
spacemanmatt
So may Aristide.

