Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

ACLU sues Homeland Security over 'stingray' cell phone surveillance

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 163 posts

Re: ACLU sues Homeland Security over 'stingray' cell phone surveillance

#31

Post by t34543 »

fooey wrote: post #14
calibas wrote: post #12

Stingray use requires a warrant and every case should be dismissed where one was used without a warrant. I'm sure that's the main reason they want to hide the use of stingrays, they know they're doing something wrong. Police having the ability to spy on everyone with little to no oversight is nightmarish authoritarianism, it's completely against the spirit of American democracy, not to mention in violation of The Con…

The problem is knowing a Stingray was ever used in the first place. It's been documented that the police routinely utilize parallel construction when they discover things through illegal means in the first place. https://www.wired.com/story/stingray-secret-surveillance-pro...

Almost all airports permanently run a Stingray like device

Re: ACLU sues Homeland Security over 'stingray' cell phone surveillance

#32

Post by ceejayoz »

tonyarkles wrote: post #29
kick wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

After giving up on Gilmore v. Gonzales , in my opinion.

I just did a quick read here. What options are there for their case? They tried to escalate to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court was not interested. Where do you go from there? (note: Am Canadian, curious about it hypothetically)

You're correct; that case has no options remaining. The ACLU would likely have to get a different district to issue a conflicting opinion in a different case to get SCOTUS to take a look.

Re: ACLU sues Homeland Security over 'stingray' cell phone surveillance

#33

Post by blotter_paper »

sachdevap wrote: post #21
kick wrote: post #5

Is it just me, or has the ACLU been on a roll lately? I'm really enjoying its current direction. It might have just been that the most controversial headlines were getting the most airtime, but it seemed to be going off the tracks for a while.

When was the ACLU going off the tracks exactly?

I love the work that the ACLU does, but they've always been picking and choosing which rights to actively support. See the opinion of the 2nd amendment on their own website: https://www.aclu.org/other/second-amendment

I personally don't hold the constitution as a sacred document, though I do find that it aligns with my ideals more than the actual policies of modern America. I could respect an organization being opposed to an amendment and deciding not to defend it for that reason, but it's always been weird to me that they have to hide behind a legal rationale rather than just admitting their political opposition to individual gun rights.

I still love the ACLU, and in the past I've given them time (passing out flyers, IANAL) and money despite these reservations. I'm really not trying to hate on them, but I would consider them "off the tracks" in this regard.

Re: ACLU sues Homeland Security over 'stingray' cell phone surveillance

#34

Post by clSTophEjUdRanu »

calibas wrote: post #12

Stingray use requires a warrant and every case should be dismissed where one was used without a warrant. I'm sure that's the main reason they want to hide the use of stingrays, they know they're doing something wrong. Police having the ability to spy on everyone with little to no oversight is nightmarish authoritarianism, it's completely against the spirit of American democracy, not to mention in violation of The Con…

Any smart, ethical police department would go for a warrant. I'm friends with someone in law enforcement and they say the last thing they want is evidence tossed. Often they get warrants they don't even need just so there isn't a chance of having evidence tossed later.

Re: ACLU sues Homeland Security over 'stingray' cell phone surveillance

#35

Post by 2StepsOutOfLine »

t34543 wrote: post #31
fooey wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is knowing a Stingray was ever used in the first place. It's been documented that the police routinely utilize parallel construction when they discover things through illegal means in the first place. https://www.wired.com/story/stingray-secret-surveillance-pro...

Almost all airports permanently run a Stingray like device

Care to elaborate more on this?

Re: ACLU sues Homeland Security over 'stingray' cell phone surveillance

#36

Post by arminiusreturns »

syshum wrote: post #11

Hopefully, this puts to rest the idea that government can use "private contracts" as a end-run around constitutional and legal restrictions on their activity They have been hiding behind the NDA as a reason they should not have to follow federal disclosure laws, but never in the history of the law has a private contract superceeded the law itself. they also hide behind these same NDA's when criminal defendants get to…

The third party doctrine loophole is huge and not likely to be impacted very much by this, unfortunately.

Here's a relevant talk from the National Constitution Center, if you want to hear some of the nuance: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hW32k7x7zE0

Re: ACLU sues Homeland Security over 'stingray' cell phone surveillance

#37

Post by TallGuyShort »

calibas wrote: post #20
fooey wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is knowing a Stingray was ever used in the first place. It's been documented that the police routinely utilize parallel construction when they discover things through illegal means in the first place. https://www.wired.com/story/stingray-secret-surveillance-pro...

Seems like the police casually breaking the law is the core of the issue. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

The ACLU.

edit: to be clear, I think the government itself could really do with reeling it back a bit as well - but this very news is a reminder that some people are watching out for the watched.

Re: ACLU sues Homeland Security over 'stingray' cell phone surveillance

#38

Post by tylerjwilk00 »

This made me wonder,

Do spoofed callers appear on a capture device as the spoofed number?

If so, you could in theory use law to target anyone by calling their number using a spoofed number that is included on a surveillance order. Just keep calling the numbers you want to monitor and the net keeps getting bigger.

Please tell me this is not the case?

Re: ACLU sues Homeland Security over 'stingray' cell phone surveillance

#39

Post by bootlooped »

abeppu wrote: post #24

Some informed person can probably tell us: are there any technical developments on the horizon which could plausibly make stingrays unviable? From a lay perspective, it seems like cell tech hasn't been designed to meet some criteria that ought to be achievable. - Are there future cell technology standards being planned which would make it harder for a 3rd party device to impersonate a cell tower? (e.g. the police wou…

I don't think American carriers care at all about preventing government spying.

Re: ACLU sues Homeland Security over 'stingray' cell phone surveillance

#40

Post by throwaway894345 »

calibas wrote: post #20
fooey wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is knowing a Stingray was ever used in the first place. It's been documented that the police routinely utilize parallel construction when they discover things through illegal means in the first place. https://www.wired.com/story/stingray-secret-surveillance-pro...

Seems like the police casually breaking the law is the core of the issue. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

The judiciary branch.
Post reply on HN