[Rushtalk] Slipper slope justice
John A. Quayle
blueoval57 at verizon.net
Fri Apr 5 11:33:45 MDT 2013
From now on, don't answer the phone with
"hello?" Just say "<bleep!> the FBI.....go ahead."
At 11:34 AM 4/5/2013, Paf Dvorak wrote:
>Can you hear me now? Feds admit FBI warrantless
>cellphone tracking very common
>FBI investigators for at least five years have
>routinely used a sophisticated cellphone
>tracking tool that can pinpoint callers
>locations and listen to their conversations
>all without getting a warrant for it, a federal court was told this week.
>The use of the Stingray, as the tool is
>called, is a very common practice by federal
>investigators, Justice Department attorneys told
>the U.S. District Court for Arizona Thursday,
>according to the American Civil Liberties Union.
>Installed in an unmarked van, Stingray mimics a
>cellphone tower, so it can pinpoint the precise
>location of any mobile device in range and
>intercept conversations and data, said Linda
>Lye, staff attorney at the ACLU of Northern
>California in a blog post about the case.
>In a rare public discussion of federal
>electronic surveillance capabilities and
>authorities, Justice Department lawyers told the
>court hearing that, instead of a warrant, the
>FBI operates Stingray and other
>cellphone-mimicking technology under the
>authority of pen register orders. These court
>orders, also known as tap and trace orders,
>are generally issued to allow investigators to
>collect only so-called metadata like all
>phone numbers calling to or called from a particular number.
>But Stingray collects much more than just phone
>numbers and also sweep[s] up the data of
>innocent people who happen to be nearby, according to the ACLU filing.
>Given the broad nature of the information
>Stingray collects and its ability to eavesdrop
>on conversations, many federal judges insisted
>that they should be told when its use was
>envisaged under a tap and trace order, the ACLU filing says.
>Tap and trace orders are generally more easily
>granted than a warrant, which requires probable
>cause under the Fourth Amendment.
>But Justice Department emails that the group
>obtained under the federal Freedom of
>Information Act and filed with their brief show
>that government lawyers were concerned some FBI
>agents were not properly disclosing their use of Stingray.
>It has recently come to my attention that many
>agents are still using [Stingray] technology in
>the field although the pen register application
>does not make that explicit, reads one May 2011
>email from a Justice Department attorney.
>It is important that we are consistent and
>forthright in our pen register requests to the
>magistrates, the attorney concludes.
>The ACLU has filed an amicus brief in the case
>U.S. vs. Rigmaiden. An amicus brief is filed not
>by the defendant or anyone on his behalf, but by another interested party.
>In the case, first brought in 2008, Mr.
>Rigmaiden, charged with identity theft, is
>seeking to suppress evidence obtained by
>Stingray on the basis that using it constitutes
>a search and requires a probable cause warrant.
>The Department of Justice declined a request for
>comment, as neither they nor the FBI generally speak about ongoing litigation.
><http://thatswaytoomuch.info/>notmyname at thatswaytoomuch.info
>Rushtalk mailing list
>Rushtalk at csdco.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Rushtalk