

An Oakland shooting reveals how cops snoop on cell phones - anamexis
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/08/ping-susp-phone-an-oakland-shooting-reveals-how-cops-snoop-on-cell-phones/

======
jonpaine
An interesting side-effect of the scale and efficiency of current tech is this
phenomenon of deploy first, ask questions later.

Ideas and tools can be conceived, developed, deployed and adopted before a
(state-sanctioned) response can be formed. Significant results (and value) can
be reaped in the inherent lag between deployment/discovery and responsive-
legislation.

In tech, we've seen it recently as startups deploy faster than labor laws can
(re)define boundaries.

In government, when it's the police doing the rapid deployment... well, it's
kind of uncharted territory.

Has anyone modeled a system of checks and balances where one of the three
processes has an n month setTimeout() before it can respond to inputs from
another? Where does the system find equilibrium?

------
gleenn
This is the first time I've heard of a pen register, apparently somewhat
broad, modern parlance for things that capture phone data. It seems pretty
damning that they spent the time to fax MetroPCS but couldn't, ya know, even
get the pen register or ask a judge to ask if they thought it was a good idea.

Maybe the bad guys are really bad, but sometimes I hope that they get off just
to make the point that the cops are suppose to do the "right thing", otherwise
the cops really are the bad guys.

~~~
fluidcruft
> Maybe the bad guys are really bad, but sometimes I hope that they get off
> just to make the point that the cops are suppose to do the "right thing",
> otherwise the cops really are the bad guys

The US way is to exclude evidence and protect the cops--the idea being that
cops have no motive to cross lines if they can't use the evidence. More and
more I'm leaning towards what I understand is the European way: let the
evidence stand, but hold the cops accountable for their actions through
parallel civil and criminal proceedings. The feedback for "cop behavior" is
direct vs indirect.

~~~
baseballmerpeak
Let _unconstitutionally acquired_ exidence stand?

No, let's not let the abuses of a government stand, as we should _also_ go
after its agents.

~~~
fluidcruft
The constitutionality of actions used to obtain evidence is completely
independent of the truth of the defendants guilt or innocence. If the actions
are bad, actually prosecute the actions in non-kangaroo proceedings.

A) let the abuses of a government stand

B) go after its agents

In the US we have neither A nor B.

~~~
dragonwriter
The Constitution restricts what government may do against individuals. Perhaps
the agents that break the rules should be held individually accountable in
more cases than they currently are (though, as with most cases of using law to
provide accountability for executive agents, there are agency problems that
make that unlikely to be effective in many important cases), but that should
not be an excuse to void the purpose of the restrictions, which is to limit
the power of government, not just its agents individually. The government
cannot be allowed to benefit from the it's unconstitutional acts while certain
agents are punished as scapegoats.

~~~
fluidcruft
Sometimes it's not only about the government. Sometimes victims of crime
deserve justice, too.

~~~
dragonwriter
> Sometimes it's not only about the government. Sometimes victims of crime
> deserve justice, too.

When the power of the executive branch of government is being used as the
means seek something, its _always_ about the Constitutional limits on
government. No matter what you feel you deserve, the Constitution is the deal
by which the outer bounds of the scope of your privilege to have the coercive
power of government deployed to get you what you deserve is limited.

Government shouldn't get to escape the Constitutional limits on its
application of power against those subject to it because "think of the victims
of crime", or "think of the children", or "think of..." whatever else.

Otherwise, we're tossing out the concept of limited government in favor of
arbitrary power.

~~~
fluidcruft
You can view government as an imperfect tool that attempts to achieve the
impossible goal of justice, or your can view government as the definition of
justice.

It's a question of whether to judge an imperfect tool based on details of how
its mechanism works or whether to judge it based on how well it performs the
tasks we ask of it.

I'm just saying that within this focus on microtransactions above all else the
overall goals are lost and the balance of penalties is wrong. When the
government goofs, we let the criminal go and deny the victims justice. The
purpose of the justice system is justice. The focus on these microtransactions
elevates government as the definition of justice which seems much more
expansive than the alternative, IMHO.

~~~
dragonwriter
> You can view government as an imperfect tool that attempts to achieve the
> goal of justice, or your can view government as the definition of justice.

You could also view "justice" in such a way that the claim that a victim of
crime "deserves justices" is, to the extent that it is meaningful, completely
inapplicable to the concept of criminal punishment.

> It's a question of whether to judge an imperfect tool based on its mechanism
> or whether to judge it based on how well it achieves the tasks we use it
> for.

No, even agreeing that government should be viewed as an imperfect tool for
achieving justice, its a question of what "justice" means, and whether it can
ever be consistent with violating the agreement by which persons are, under
the guise of acting in the name of government, granted power over others.

Some would view such violations as, themselves, inherently and fundamentally
_unjust_.

~~~
fluidcruft
In the situation where knowledge of guilt has been found by unjust means, how
does ignoring that knowledge promote justice.

> Some would view such violations as, themselves, inherently and fundamentally
> unjust

Exactly. Which is why the government should be held accountable to the victims
of that abuse, not accountable to itself.

~~~
dragonwriter
> Which is why the government should be held accountable to the victims of
> that abuse

The exclusionary rule holds the government accountable to victims of abuse, by
removing the value that the government sought to gain by the abuse and the
expense of the victim (it is imperfect, of course, in that it fails where the
abuse was targeted at some use other than criminal prosecution.)

Any mechanism that fails to prevent the government from getting what it seeks
by the abuse fails to hold the government accountable to the victim of the
abuse.

~~~
fluidcruft
That argument rests on the asserted non-existence of alternate mechanisms to
hold the government accountable when they abuse the general public. Believe it
or not letting criminals walk free is actually not the only available
mechanism for addressing government abuse. It's just the mechanism our
government has chosen for itself.

------
ggreer
If three armed gang members are on the run after shooting someone, and an
informant names some suspects, looking up the location of the suspects' phones
seems acceptable to me. I have no doubt that stingrays are abused, but this
specific instance, even if not legal, is ethical.

That said, I _do_ have issues with the OPD's incompetence and the
prosecution's attempt at a cover-up. Seriously, why did the officer put
himself in such a dangerous situation? Have the same prosecutors hidden
evidence from the defense in the past? I'd love to get answers to those
questions.

~~~
mattlutze
Tl;dr: The least ethical time to ignore the law is when a highly dynamic
incident is underway.

> If three armed gang members are on the run after shooting someone, and an
> informant names some suspects, looking up the location of the suspects'
> phones seems acceptable to me. I have no doubt that stingrays are abused,
> but this specific instance, even if not legal, is ethical.

This assumes that

1\. The informant is truthful and accurate 2\. The informant is truthful and
accurate

Laws and procedures exist so that in situations of increased emotion, there is
a guard against making rash, unethical, or illegal decisions.

Eyewitnesses are generally pretty terrible at providing a true and accurate
accounting of specific details in a sudden situation. For many reasons,
informants can be misinformed, confused, incorrect, malicious.

And, if there's an emotional imperative to act on the part of the police,
there will be an active pressure to ignore some of these concerns or some of
the rigor needed to be certain they're pursuing the right suspects.

So, you have procedure, and you absolutely have to follow it because it's the
one thing that's protecting you (as the officer) from making a bad decision
(when the emotions are running high).

~~~
ggreer
I'm aware of the inaccuracy of eyewitness testimony, but that's not relevant
in this case. The tip came from a known confidential informant, not a random
person. The police were going to pursue the lead, stinger or no. The stinger
just made it easier for them to verify that the suspects were at their homes.

Yes, proper procedures are important. Yes, I doubt this stinger usage was
legal. Yes, this was bad police work. I agree with all of those points. As I
said before, the OPD was incompetent.

Now for a thought experiment: Imagine we lived in a world where police needed
a warrant to dust for latent fingerprints. Such procedures would safeguard the
privacy of citizens and prevent many abuses of power. Still, I think that
world would be worse than this one. Such hindrances would, at the margin, make
it harder to solve cases and allow more criminals to evade capture. Those
costs are high enough to outweigh the privacy benefits.

Now imagine trying to convince people of the advantages of warrantless
fingerprint-dusting. No matter how you frame it, everyone thinks you don't
care about civil liberties. Many of them try to educate you on the importance
of checks and balances in the legal system. Sounds pretty frustrating, huh?

I hope that helps you see where I'm coming from.

Edit: So far in this whole thread, not a single reply has engaged with my
actual argument. (sigh) I give up. Here's another thought experiment: If the
Supreme Court ruled in favor of warrantless stingrays, would you be OK with
them? If not, maybe legality isn't your true reason for opposing them.

~~~
mattlutze
>> Eyewitnesses are generally pretty terrible at providing a true and accurate
accounting of specific details in a sudden situation. For many reasons,
informants can be misinformed, confused, incorrect, malicious.

> I'm aware of the inaccuracy of eyewitness testimony, but that's not relevant
> in this case. The tip came from a known confidential informant, not a random
> person.

Many informants provide information all the time about crimes. Accuracy and
reliability of informant reporting is always an issue for police. Again,
that's why they have procedures dictating how they have to verify information,
etc.

The article says only "confidential informant," so you may have misread and
assigned more value to the informant's report than you otherwise would have,
which is understandable.

> Yes, this was bad police work

The issue here isn't "bad" police work as much as it's "warrant-less search
and seizure." So, possibly illegal police work. They were quite competent and
use tools that haven't necessarily been outlawed yet; when courts start
outlawing stingrays, then its incompetence.

> Now for a thought experiment:

If I leave evidence at the scene of a crime, it's understood to be within the
law for the police to collect it and analyze it. Fingerprints, body fluids,
electronic devices, all fair game. I have no reasonable expectation of privacy
if I've left stuff at a crime scene.

This is not that. This is if the police didn't need a warrant to enter your
house and collect fingerprint/other samples, for the purpose of determining if
you may have been involved in a crime in the past. That's a violation of your
right of the people to be secure in your person, houses, papers, and effects,
against unreasonable searches and seizures.

In a similar way, the courts need to decide if it's also a violation when
police, without a warrant, sett a wiretrap to spoof a cell phone tower with
the intent of discovering a person's location or other personal information
from a person's private electronic devices.

It's held to be the case that a wiretap cannot be placed without a warrant. It
is reasonable to extend that logic to the
automatic/unintentional/"unconscious" communication a person's cell phone does
with the cellular network, to say nothing about using that stingray to capture
actual explicit communications made by the person over that network.

I do get where you're coming from; I just don't agree that the argument you've
laid out is sufficient to subjugate a constitutionally dictated right. It'll
be interesting to see how this plays out in the federal courts and in
congress.

~~~
merpnderp
The problem is they often verify the information with a SWAT raid on someone's
home in the middle of the night. Lots of people have been shot on these kinds
of raids and in many of the cases the informant's info was wrong.

------
paulmd
What is "CRUM ADV LOCK ON PHONE"?

~~~
imroot
I believe it's "(person's name) Advises a lock on (the) phone (signal)."

