
Cops hid use of phone tracking tech in court documents at feds’ request - Atlas
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/06/cops-hid-use-of-phone-tracking-tech-in-court-documents-at-feds-request/
======
downandout
Cops are basically saying that they can do illegal things, and then actively
conceal them during the discovery process so that defendants cannot challenge
the illegal conduct in court. This kind of thing isn't going to stop. Everyone
should assume that any unencrypted cell phone calls and texts can and will be
examined by law enforcement. Act accordingly.

That said, defense attorneys really need to be on the lookout for cases like
this, where only vague references to confidential sources of information are
disclosed. If they know the tell-tale signs, they can ask the judge to issue
orders during discovery that will put the prosecutor in the position of either
being held in contempt of court or disclosing to the defense the specific
illegal tactics the police used.

~~~
draugadrotten
> Everyone should assume that any unencrypted cell phone calls and texts can
> and will be examined by law enforcement. Act accordingly.

Duh. It is a good thing that law enforcement can examine texts and phone
calls, unencrypted and encrypted. However, it is unacceptable that doing so is
hidden to the courts.

~~~
moomin
Actually, no, not without probable cause. It appears that in some of these
cases that the probable cause was "because we bugged his phone".

------
bediger4000
It appears that there's more going on beneath the surface than we knew about.
First, police departments sign NDAs so threatening that they don't want to
reveal the use of stringrays. Next, US Marshalls seize Florida records of the
use of stingrays. What does this pervasive concealment of the use of IMSI
catchers/stingrays mean? I can think of two things:

1\. IMSI catchers are used constantly, without warrant and maybe even without
any administrative oversight. The discloseed use is the tip of some giant
iceberg of surveillance. Revealing the use of IMSI catchers would imply the
giant iceberg, even if we don't know where it is.

2\. There's some kind of Freudian shame/concealment issue at the DoJ. They
know it's un-American (and it is!) but they can't stop doing it for some
reason. So, they hide its use.

~~~
droopyEyelids
3\. This is a valuable tool for police, and the police worry about criminal
countermeasures once it becomes public.

My money is on a combination of 2 & 3.

~~~
talmand
A tool so valuable that both local police, plus the Federal government, will
break numerous laws and trample on the rights of citizens to protect the
secret of its existence. An existence so secret that the only people to
understand the possibility of its existence is anyone who's been paying
attention the last decade. So secret in fact, that the Wikipedia page is only
about three years old.

I don't care how valuable it is. If it is used by government agencies in a
manner that breaks the law, wait, numerous laws and rights, then that implies
those agencies feel they are above the law. Once such agencies that enforce
the law are no longer beholden to it, things tend to fall apart.

~~~
click170
First, I agree with everything you said whole-heartedly.

I don't believe that most cops out there actually have an intent to do evil,
or to trample your rights though. They deal with criminal after criminal after
criminal, I think their perspective is more likely that these tools and
methods help solve cases quicker and there-for save taxpayer money and that us
civilians aren't able to see that perspective.

I think that they aren't aware of the long term implications of what they're
doing and that they should stop, but also that it's important not to think of
them as evil if you want to have a dialogue with them about change.

~~~
bediger4000
Ignorance of the law (and Constitution, in DoJ and DA's cases) is no excuse. I
think you're cutting them undeserved slack. If any company in the USA used the
"it saves money!" excuse to do illegal things, we'd show them no mercy.

------
codyb
I'm not sure what to say. Mostly I'm just frightened for the future. It's very
disheartening to watch civil liberties be dismantled so rapidly.

When you combine this with the secret transatlantic talks for the
proliferation of extremely large multinational corporations and the rapid
militarization of the police, it almost feels as if there might be a coup
being slowly but silently executed right under our noses.

And no one cares. I did my first stand up set and had a joke about going to an
ACLU meeting, and no one even knows what the ACLU is.

As scary as it, I certainly understand, that it is not as bad here as many
places, but that doesn't mean I can't be concerned with the recent
developments.

I just hope the American spirit will shine through one day and turn all of
this around. The house passing to defund back door NSA research is heartening
at least. Lets see what happens in the Senate.

~~~
opendais
I don't think this is really a coup of some kind. It is more a consolidation
of power by the oligarchy into a handful of politically powerful, wealthy
groups.

I think the reason this is working so well is the marketing.

Almost no one goes out and admits that the domestic usage is partially to
catch people violating "social norm" laws [marijuana bad; alcohol good], and
keep an eye on things that are highly political [e.g. Occupy Wall Street].

I think the average person assumes "because MURICA" that doesn't happen.

~~~
mxiia
It's almost as if America has become a culture that if something doesn't
directly impact the individual they don't care about it, no matter how unjust.
We see this with the "well, I have nothing to hide" mentality as well as the
"maybe they shouldn't have broken the law in the first place" mentality.

The average American has almost assumed the government to be perfect except
for the few parts it dislikes and doesn't want to look more deeply to realize
that other people have pointed out just as valid criticisms of other parts of
the government.

What we end up with is a majority of people (say 80%) that all dislike a
different small part of the government and think the rest of this group is
complaining for no reason or should just accept the way things are.

We see this with things like teachers not liking the state-run testing but
refusing to acknowledge that the state's interference with drug policies is
having an equal if not greater impact.

No one is satisfied but everyone has a different problem.

We've become closed minded in being open minded. Once we decide we're open
minded to one thing we feel that's enough and turn a blind eye to the rest.

~~~
hga
That doesn't jibe at all with how "average Americans" have been arming
themselves with rifles of military utility at historically unprecedented rates
(some details on request, drilling down to that level would be a lot of work;
it started post-9/11, I believe because the government made it clear we were
on our own).

Concealed carry is also very big, although a lot of that seems to be driven by
an aging population, plus I think the media's perfervid portrayal of crime
while actual rates are going down in most places.

~~~
opendais
NCIS checks are up over 50% since 2002.

[http://www.forbes.com/sites/frankminiter/2012/08/23/what-
the...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/frankminiter/2012/08/23/what-the-left-
wont-tell-you-about-the-boom-in-u-s-gun-sales/)

So overall purchases are up.

However, the number of households with guns is down:
[http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/10/us/rate-of-gun-
ownership-i...](http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/10/us/rate-of-gun-ownership-is-
down-survey-shows.html?pagewanted=all)

So I think you is mistaken in that gun ownership is increasing as a share of
the population in a major way.

~~~
hga
Come on; while the NYT is now paywalled for me as of today (I guess I used up
my monthly quota), the date of the article shows it's during the Sandy Hook
furor, when after a decade's pause the Democrats at the national level
returned to gun-grabbing. _Self-reported gun ownership to a nosy stranger
calling you on the phone_ has _always_ tracked the political situation.

Doing the math is a lot more productive; I don't know about the above (since I
can't read it!), but when I ran the numbers on another gun-grabber claim of
the sort at around the same time, it implied we gun owners have now, on
average, accumulated gun collections worth more than $100,000. That obviously
doesn't pass the smell test, especially N years into the Great Recession.

~~~
opendais
It was a discussion of the long term trend, not specific to that instance.

So you are saying more people lie about owning a gun to a nosy stranger than
they did over the past 40 years?

It also isn't a democrat or republican issue. The growth in gun purchases
began in 2002.

Since it won't let me reply yet:

"But by the mid-2000s, the federal government stopped asking the questions,
leaving researchers to rely on much smaller surveys, like the General Social
Survey, which is conducted by NORC, a research center at the University of
Chicago.

Measuring the level of gun ownership can be a vexing problem, with various
recent national polls reporting rates between 35 percent and 52 percent.
Responses can vary because the survey designs and the wording of questions
differ.

But researchers say the survey done by the center at the University of Chicago
is crucial because it has consistently tracked gun ownership since 1973,
asking if respondents “happen to have in your home (or garage) any guns or
revolvers.”

The center’s 2012 survey, conducted mostly in person but also by phone,
involved interviews with about 2,000 people from March to September and had a
margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points.

Gallup, which asks a similar question but has a different survey design, shows
a higher ownership rate and a more moderate decrease. No national survey
tracks the number of guns within households."

Key flaw here is the fact it doesn't track nationwide [and there isn't one,
even by the NRA and other gun rights groups].

The article itself shows a decline from about 50% to about 30%. I don't think
reading the rest would really help you pick apart what I've said.

~~~
hga
" _It was a discussion of the long term trend, not specific to that instance._
"

Well, point me at a source I can read, or quote the relevant parts, or email
me them (see my profile). Or just tell me which polling outfit did it, e.g.
Gallup puts this sort of stuff on-line and without a paywall.

" _So you are saying more people lie about owning a gun to a nosy stranger
than they did over the past 40 years?_ "

See above WRT my not being able to know what you're asking, but I wouldn't be
at all surprised by such a trend, though I'd really like to look at the
endpoints; also note phone surveys have had an increasing problem with just
getting people to even answer questions of any sort. The errors in all too
many election based surveys ought to give you pause in taking this claim so
far.

And, as I said, the math doesn't work. That should be enough to falsify this
claim.

" _It also isn 't a democrat or republican issue. The growth in gun purchases
began in 2002._"

Which just might be why I said in my original posting above that " _it started
post-9 /11, I believe because the government made it clear we were on our
own_".

------
vaadu
How is this not a form of perjury? How does this not get every defendant a new
trial? How many law suits will come of this for violations of people's
constitutional rights?

This crap should result in RICO charges and jail time for all parties that
knew of this coverup and didn't try to stop it.

~~~
talmand
I'm not sure if it would be considered perjury, but I would imagine it easily
falls under withholding evidence from the defendant, of which is entitled to
such information for their defense.

But I doubt there would be any prosecutions on this because the people to
prosecute such things are the the people who benefit from the technology.

~~~
tbyehl
Is it evidence? Sounds like they're using it to locate people who are already
wanted by law enforcement, not to gather evidence of a crime. What's the
recourse there?

~~~
talmand
To me, although not a lawyer, doesn't matter. This is just my gut instinct of
what is right.

If a person is a defendant then that person has the right to face all the
evidence being used against them. If the defendant feels that a certain part
of evidence gathering was done illegally then they have the ability to
question that gathering in court, of which the court will decide the legality
of the gathering method. If the prosecution has the ability to conceal methods
of evidence gathering then that means the defendant has no recourse.

If a person is under investigation, the police use a method to locate and/or
track the suspect, and that method ultimately leads to an arrest because of
where they happen to be while being located and/or tracked then I feel it
should be included as evidence.

But I'm not familiar with court cases concerning such technology so it's
possible that all this has already been decided and I just haven't heard of
it.

------
NoMoreNicksLeft
Some of you will end up on juries. Just vote to acquit. Obviously you can't
vote to acquit when evidence is withheld at trial... how would you know?

So vote to acquit for all crimes. Period. The damage that one or two or even
dozens of criminals will cause is much less than that caused by a government
that believes itself righteous when it undermines fundamental human liberties.

~~~
charonn0
I was going to argue with you, but then I realized I agreed. It's now
impossible to know whether the evidence presented to a jury was legally
acquired, creating (in my mind) an automatic reasonable doubt.

~~~
hga
I don't think it's quite that bad for a lot of the more serious crimes,
specifically the "real" crimes of violence.

Unless it's a homicide, there's likely to be a victim eyewitness. Or
surveillance cameras in areas where the accused has no presumption of privacy.
There's also forensic evidence, which in the case of DNA is sufficiently
strong in my judgement.

Unless you're inclined to dismiss the latter because you've decided the system
is so corrupt even that is in doubt. But I'd hope "enough" crimes of violence
can be judged safely that the deterrent effect of convictions and punishment
remains.

~~~
NoMoreNicksLeft
This isn't just about convicting the guilty. If only it were, we'd have the
police tossing homes like jail cells once a week, trying to ferret out the
criminals.

Even criminals have rights, and they have the right to hear _all_ evidence
against them. Only then can they possibly dispute it.

Jurors who rightly believe that not all evidence was presented or at least
scrutinized by the defense have a moral obligation to acquit. If this happened
enough, our government would soon be forced to act more responsibly.

------
CWuestefeld
The way stingray works is reportedly by pretending to be a cell phone tower.
It seems to me this can be used by a smartphone app to monitor for stingray
usage.

If the phone knows that it's not moving very fast (Androids certainly know
this, I'm sure iPhones can as well), and a new cell phone tower appears
suddenly, it seems to me that would be a good indicator somebody is
stingraying nearby. (this isn't bulletproof, but would be a good starting
point for further data analysis)

An app like this could record and report such incidents, so that we could form
a larger picture of how often and how widely it's used.

~~~
ihsw
There are already mobile cell towers in use by AT&T et al, they're used for
large events (eg: sporting events).

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_on_wheels](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_on_wheels)

Differentiating between them and stingrays would be difficult, especially
since the baseband chips in your phone are proprietary technology that can lie
to the host OS (iOS, Android, etc).

However there are already projects for real-time mapping of cell towers on a
national basis, which is a good start, but they will always be a step behind
the US Government (for example).

Additional reading:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_cell_sites](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_cell_sites)

------
jrochkind1
A couple months pre-snowden, I was robbed of a cell phone, and reported it to
the cops, and had an interview with a detective.

Who told me I should not call and cancel the cell phone yet, because 'they had
ways' of tracking it's use, wink wink, but we can't really tell you about the
details, wink wink.

Honestly, if he had left out the smirking and "we can't tell you about the
details", it probably wouldn't have occured to me that there was anything odd
here, sure, the cops can issue a warrant or some such paperwork and get
records from the phone company probably, who knows.

But with all the winking and smirking, I thought, geez, what the fuck, he says
it's not supposed to be public information but he's telling me about it...
should I, like, get in touch with the ACLU about this or something? I never
did though.

