FBI Says Search Warrants Not Needed To Use “Stingrays” In Public Places

[Purveyor]

by David Kravets - Jan 5 2015, 2:25pm EST

The Federal Bureau of Investigation is taking the position that court warrants are not required when deploying cell-site simulators in public places. Nicknamed "stingrays," the devices are decoy cell towers that capture locations and identities of mobile phone users and can intercept calls and texts.

The FBI made its position known during private briefings with staff members of Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa). In response, the two lawmakers wrote Attorney General Eric Holder and Homeland Security chief Jeh Johnson, maintaining they were "concerned about whether the FBI and other law enforcement agencies have adequately considered the privacy interests" of Americans.

According to the letter, which was released last week:

For example, we understand that the FBI’s new policy requires FBI agents to obtain a search warrant whenever a cell-site simulator is used as part of a FBI investigation or operation, unless one of several exceptions apply, including (among others): (1) cases that pose an imminent danger to public safety, (2) cases that involve a fugitive, or (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.

The letter was prompted in part by a Wall Street Journal report in November that said the Justice Department was deploying small airplanes equipped with cell-site simulators that enabled "investigators to scoop data from tens of thousands of cellphones in a single flight, collecting their identifying information and general location."

The bureau's position on Americans' privacy isn't surprising. The Obama Administration has repeatedly maintained that the public has no privacy in public places. It began making that argument as early as 2010, when it told a federal appeals court that the authorities should be allowed to affix GPS devices on vehicles and track a suspect's every move without court authorization. The Supreme Court, however, eventually ruled that warrants are required. What's more, the administration has argued that placing a webcam with pan-and-zoom capabilities on a utility pole to spy on a suspect at his or her residence was no different from a police officer's observation from the public right-of-way. A federal judge last month disagreed with the government's position, tossing evidence gathered by the webcam that was operated from afar.

MORE...

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

[nolabels]

1. How does that go again.......

Absolute power corrupts absolutely

[Sherman A1]

4. +1000

You hit the nail on the head.

[JDPriestly]

2. Why is the Obama administration taking these extremes stances on privacy?

[gopiscrap]

3. We have descended into a police state

[adieu]

5. How about this

every action by any law enforcement agency must require a warrant. The only thing that does not require a warrant is HUMAN, physical presence (as in a beat cop).

Any targeted action MUST REQUIRE A WARRANT.

[cstanleytech]

6. To be fair I can kinda see the FBIs point of view as the data is being broadcast freely by

the cellphones.
Now if they are decrypting the data to get the information thats another story though either way really I dont care for them doing this.

[nolabels]

8. You cannot be fair if you are uninformed

An excerpt

A Social History of Wiretaps
by DAVID H. PRICE
(snip)
A Pew/Washington Post poll conducted days after Snowden’s disclosures showed 56% of respondents find the NSA PRISM program’s collection of domestic metadata is “acceptable,” and 45% believe that the government should “be able to monitor everyone’s email to prevent possible terrorism.” Media and pundits spin an unchallenged narrative of NSA surveillance as a harmless, necessary, and effective tool in network-centric borderless warfare, and we can expect increasing public support for ubiquitous surveillance, as Millennials are further socialized to accept invisible omnipresent intrusions as necessary, and nonthreatening, and normal.
(snip)
http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/08/09/a-social-history-of-wiretaps-2/

[cstanleytech]

9. This isnt anymore of a wiretap though than if they FBI was recording PBS

though as its being broadcast over the airwaves.
Now if PBS and the cellphones were encrypting the transmission and the FBI was breaking the encryption to listen in then you might be able to argue the wiretap angle and I would probably agree with you that they are breaking the law.

[drm604]

7. A stingray being operated in a public place can intercept cell signals coming from a private place.

The "public place" argument is just a rationalization. If it's allowed then any device can be used to spy on us at home or anywhere else as long as it's physically located in a public place, which could simply be the street outside.

[cstanleytech]

10. But thats just it anyone can get this information as its not encrypted

and its being broadcast for anyone with a receiver to see and if someone challenges it in court I suspect that the court will side with FBI unless they are doing someone stupid like decrypting information being sent by the phones.