
U.S. judge throws out cell phone 'stingray' evidence - d0ne
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN0ZS2VI
======
heartsucker
This is a good step forward, but until we (the citizens) are able to say that
LEOs are no longer using parallel construction[0], this is a lot less helpful
than it could be. This just means LEOs have to work a bit harder to mask their
illegal activities.

For example, say you're talking to your friend who sells weed and drive over
to pick it up. The cops know you're buying drugs, so they pull you over for
rolling through a stop sign, search your car, and "stumble" upon the weed.
There is no way to prove they used a Stringray to get this information in the
first place. Extrapolate this to other activities.

[0] -
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction)

~~~
deelowe
It's always better to use non-illegal activities when constructing examples.
After all, why is it a bad thing that police are more efficient at catching
criminals (I'm a strong supporter of legalization btw, but recognize that as
long as it's illegal, the police need to do their jobs).

So whys is parallel construction a bad thing? Here's a different example. The
FBI uses machine learning to develop models for predicting whether an
individual is involved in terrorist activities. You are an innocent civilian
who just so happens to a) be mulsim b) be an immigrant c) have recently
visited a suspected country and d) work in agriculture and had to buy a lot of
fertilizer recently. The FBI's system has labeled you a thread and that info
was shared with the local authorities.

At midnight on a Tuesday, your home is raided based on this info. The local
police use the fertilizer purchase as the reason. The rest came from the FBI.
It's a no-knock raid. A family member is injured or killed in the process. You
end up in jail for several days during the interrogation. Turns out you are a
closet homosexual. Various other things surface. You go to trail. You're
innocent. Much of the evidence is fabricated or spurious, so it's thrown out.
You get found not guilty.

Your life is ruined. You are a disgrace to your religion. Your wife has
divorced you. Your child has a permanent disability. You've lost your job. All
because due process wasn't followed.

~~~
coldtea
> _It 's always better to use non-illegal activities when constructing
> examples. After all, why is it a bad thing that police are more efficient at
> catching criminals_

Because the police's job is not to "catch criminals", it is to "catch
criminals within the boundaries of the law/constitution".

~~~
themartorana
It's actually to "serve and protect" not "catch criminals." If that's one of
the ways they serve the community, fine. But it's a far cry from where we are
today. I don't feel served or protected by police at all - and I'm white.

Anecdotally I'm sure there's plenty of examples out there, but in my personal
experience, interactions with police are tense, adversarial, and scary, and
that's if you haven't done anything illegal. Police should be jovial and
friendly with the public they are supposed to protect. I see no evidence of
that where I live.

~~~
jsymolon
Sorry to ruin that ... but Police do NOT have to "serve and protect" that's a
marketing line.

[http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-
pol...](http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-police-do-
not-have-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect.html?_r=0)

~~~
themartorana
_" She argued that the order gave her a "property interest" within the meaning
of the 14th Amendment's due process guarantee, which prohibits the deprivation
of property without due process."_

It was shaky legal ground to begin with, with clear precedent against the
argument.

While a restraining order may not compel police to act in a certain fashion on
demand, that has nothing to do with the general reason police exist to begin
with, and the way they interact with the public. In a true government "of the
people" the police exist to protect those people.

~~~
nickpsecurity
You're still missing it. The police's job is to enforce the laws passed by
Congress or local governments. Those laws in theory are to protect the public
or their interests. In reality, there are often bribes (eg big pharma or oil),
politics (gay marriage), or just evil (slavery). Enforcing these laws harms
the many for the selfish gain/purposes of a few. They'll enforce them anyway.

Later on, someone tries go push against that leaning on the theory that
they're responsible for our safety. Supreme Court gets extra clear that
they're not. That's while they continue to let laws from bribes stand. Little
room for debate now. Also, anyone pushed into confessions using cops and
prosecutor's legal right to lie about the evidence already knows system isnt
about protecting people. That shit wouldnt exist if it was.

So no, they're neither intended to nor required to "serve and protect."
They're instead enforcers of arbitrary laws that can protect or harm
individual citizens. From there, individual departments or prosecutors might
have policies (as some do) to treat community with respect while focusing
activities on reducing actual harms. However, that's entirely voluntary.

------
yomly
I hesitate to comment on topics like this for fear of coming across as
ignorant, but I find myself very conflicted over this subject.

I am a huge advocate for privacy and am strongly against unnecessary
surveillance by governments and companies. On the other hand, if the evidence
is compelling it seems a waste to discard it.

It's a hard question - do you think about the bigger picture: protect human
rights by setting a precedence Or do you think think about the short term:
convict a dangerous criminal.

In a more hypothetical scenario, if a dangerous serial killer was brought into
court and there was only one compelling piece of evidence, but it was obtained
in an extremely unlawful manner - what would a judge be expected to do?

~~~
tremon
In the long run, the more dangerous criminal is the government itself if
unchecked. Yes, it is frustrating to have criminals go free because police or
prosecutor fucked up -- but government holds both the power of law and the
power of (sanctioned) violence. If even they cannot be expected to follow
their own law, why are they expecting others to follow it?

Your hypothetical is clear: the defendant's counsel would ask the judge to
throw out the case, and the judge would comply. To make it a bit less
hypothetical: what if the compelling piece of evidence was obtained through
torturing a witness?

(edit: also, a "dangerous serial killer" is not so until a judge has convicted
him/her. You are begging the question by presuming guilt)

~~~
thaumasiotes
> what if the compelling piece of evidence was obtained through torturing a
> witness?

The standard reply is that evidence obtained from torture can't be compelling
because it is by definition unreliable. I've never been happy with that, since
some claims can easily be independently verified. (For example, if I wanted
credentials for a bank account belonging to Bill Gates, and I tortured him for
those credentials, I wouldn't be too worried over the fact that someone under
torture will be willing to say anything to stop it, and thus I can never
really know if he was telling the truth about his credentials -- I can just
try to take money, and if it doesn't work I'll keep torturing him.)

Once we stipulate that the compelling evidence obtained from torture is known
to be true, I think you'll find that a lot of people still consider this a
tough question.

> edit: also, a "dangerous serial killer" is not so until a judge has
> convicted him/her. You are begging the question by presuming guilt

No, a dangerous serial killer is one regardless of conviction. It's fair game
to have whatever facts you want in a thought experiment.

~~~
joncrocks
> No, a dangerous serial killer is one regardless of conviction.

True enough, but the point he raises is at what point do you justify illegal
actions.

In your example, torture may or not bear fruit, depending on if your
suppositions are correct.

The point is generally that in order for extreme measures to be taken, extreme
justification must be given. And in general the justifications needed for
torture would be so high that you would probably be able to convict without
it, i.e. You can only torture someone if you knew beyond any doubt they
dunnit.

The point of restricting the collection of evidence is to ensure that law
enforcement go through a process with justification at each stage. This is to
protect innocent/law abiding from law enforcement itself, as a lot of the acts
they go through in the course of their business would be illegal if they were
not law enforcement.

~~~
tremon
_You can only torture someone if you knew beyond any doubt they dunnit._

I asked about torturing a witness though, not the suspect.

------
cloudjacker
How federal agencies act when a constitutional lawyer is president for 8 years

------
oasisbob
One thing to keep in mind is that Stingray use isn't limited to collecting
evidence to use at trial. It's sometimes used just to make warrant service &
arrests easier.

I wonder how often it's used as a law enforcement tool with no intent to
disclose its use.

~~~
Floegipoky
One of their major use cases is to siphon up information about people
attending protests. Obviously these data are never, ever used to repress
political dissidents, promise.

------
fucking_tragedy
FBI made it clear to lower level law enforcement to always conceal evidence
obtained through Stingrays and to never enter such evidence for this reason.
Their use will be further concealed behind parallel construction for national
security.

------
joering2
I think Stingray is here to stay. And Harris Corporation is a privately owned
public company.

Any idea what would happen to me, if I were to design, develop, produce and
sell IMSI-catching devices?

(serious question)

~~~
Zak
There's an app for that: [https://github.com/CellularPrivacy/Android-IMSI-
Catcher-Dete...](https://github.com/CellularPrivacy/Android-IMSI-Catcher-
Detector)

