

FBI says search warrants not needed to use “stingrays” in public places - rrauenza
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/01/fbi-says-search-warrants-not-needed-to-use-stringrays-in-public-places/

======
zaroth
There's strong Supreme Court precedence that establishes, just because a
technology is installed in a public location, doesn't mean everything that it
can see is therefore public. I believe there were cases both for thermal
imaging, as well as surveillance cameras pointed at the front door of a house.
Typically the defining factor is the duration and scope of the surveillance.
E.g. It's OK to look at someone's front door on your way by, it's not OK to
aim a camera at it and record 24/7 for a week.

What we see in practice is, they don't get a warrant, and if the defense is
sophisticated enough to determine if a Stingray was used, and they ask the
right questions, the prosecution withdraws any direct evidence from the
Stringray, but tries to keep all the subsequently discovered evidence.

The interesting case of the fly-over-Stringray is it approximates the fly-
over-thermal scanning which is commonplace today, but the analogy _shouldn 't_
hold when you cross over from capturing passive emissions to active
communication spoofing, e.g. activities which would be illegal under CFAA.

------
jgrowl
"(3) cases in which the technology is used in public places or other locations
at which the FBI deems there is no reasonable expectation of privacy."

How could they ensure people not in public places would not be targeted? Or do
they just mean that as long as the system is _deployed_ in a public place they
can do whatever they want.

So if they make something that can see through walls into every room of your
house, it is OK as long as it is deployed somewhere public like a utility
pole...

