

NY Cops Used ‘Stingray’ Spy Tool 46 Times Without Warrant - Red_
http://www.wired.com/2015/04/ny-cops-used-stingray-spy-tool-46-times-without-warrant/

======
mapt
At this point, we need more details than that to have any idea what happened.
You don't get to use "times" as a word in this context anymore when one "time"
can include getting an email service to provide an entire database dump for
all customers.

"46 times" could well mean "Set up 46 separate devices throughout the county
and collected all calls for four years", or perhaps "Left one device running
for 46 contiguous months in the center of town", with the way these people
work.

~~~
kyboren
Sorry to be so flippant, but you know how to click links, right?
[http://www.nyclu.org/files/20150331-ComplaintInfoReports-000...](http://www.nyclu.org/files/20150331-ComplaintInfoReports-00041709.pdf)
Most incidents read like, "ASSIST TOWN OF HAMBURG POLICE WITH CELL TRACKING
REGARDING OUTBACK ROBBERY ON 09/26/2011, MCKINLEY PKWY, HAMBURG, NY" Some
others are even more vague: "ASSISTING NYS POLICE, HOMOCIDE[sic]"

These give the impression that the use is targeted and for a limited time, but
of course one can never be sure. I'd like to know:

* For how long was the device used in each incident?

* How was it deployed?

* How many other cellular devices were picked up?

* What happened to the irrelevant data collected?

------
username223
As a couple commenters on a related Ars article[1] point out, it seems weird
that police would drop cases rather than reveal stingray details if it were
just a matter of scooping up voice, text, and location data using a fake
transmitter. Those things are pretty obvious, so why all the secrecy?

[1] [http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/04/fbi-would-
rather-...](http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/04/fbi-would-rather-
prosecutors-drop-cases-than-disclose-stingray-details/)

~~~
shard972
Because if we knew the government spies on us we would take steps to not be
spied on and that would help the terrorists which are us.

------
mirimir

        Spidey is an Android-based stingray (IMSI
        catcher) detector that uses machine learning
        to detect the presence of stingray devices
        which can be used to eavesdrop on cellular
        communication.
    

[http://signup.spideyapp.com/](http://signup.spideyapp.com/)

Also see [http://codesign.mit.edu/category/macluguardian-
project/](http://codesign.mit.edu/category/macluguardian-project/)

------
baldeagle
46 times in 51 months ... 1 time (at the end of the data collection period)
with slightly less than a warrant. Not much 'judicial review' here.

------
mckoss
It seems to me a Stingray is designed _specifically_ to get around the need
for a court order. OTW they would just subpoena the records of a cell carrier
to get the information on a target they suspect.

~~~
Istof
... but they still should be charged with hacking.

~~~
mckoss
I agree - totally illegal (or should be).

------
appleflaxen
The most insane part of all of this: there is __already a way to get this data
__. All the police need to do is show probable cause. Which, for any
reasonable application, is straightforward.

I don't know if they are lazy, authoritarian, or both.

------
dmix
Isn't the whole idea to use it without having to get a warrant?

~~~
wavefunction
Well, that's their idea, but that's also not legal.

------
omgitstom
This isn't state wide data, just one county in NY, with a population under
1MM. When you start to extrapolate the data it starts to get a little
interesting...

------
talmand
Seems we have an amount of falsifying documents, lying to judges, illegal
surveillance, and more potentially illegal activity going on. I'm sure we'll
here about the upcoming investigation into these acts by the justice
department any day now. I mean, there has to be court cases of some sort to be
able to get a court to determine the legality of such activity, right?

Except that the department of justice is involved and they do their best to
avoid such court cases that could determine legality of these activities.

------
upofadown
So the lesson learned here is that the police should not keep any records at
all. The fact that this particular department ended up recording use could in
some sense be considered an error. Law enforcement has been doing secret
surveillance since before ever. The Stingray stuff is just an attempt to
continue doing what they have always done in the face of encryption.

It's probably time for society to have a discussion about this issue. Law
enforcement can not protect us from ourselves if they don't know what we are
doing. The War on Drugs pretty much mandates the use of secret surveillance
for example. It's like asking a friend to help with your diet but at the same
time forbidding them from looking in the cupboards or the fridge. If we don't
like law enforcement snooping in our affairs then we should stop asking them
to do so.

~~~
wavefunction
The police broke the law. Whatever equivocations you want to offer in their
defense, they broke the law.

~~~
upofadown
That's sort of my point. If we want the police to stop breaking the law we
should come out and tell them that. I really doubt that law enforcement likes
being forced to break the very laws they are supposed to uphold. The police
are our employees. We are being bad employers by asking them to do things that
are impossible. Like most employees, they will do whatever it takes to do
their job.

------
salibhai
It sounds like there should be a way to limit your cell phone to "trusted"
towers. Is this possible?

------
Eye_of_Mordor
'secret' police

------
omarchowdhury
That's it?

