An Oakland shooting reveals how cops snoop on cell phones
arstechnica.com
An Oakland shooting reveals how cops snoop on cell phones
1–10 of 51 posts
Re: An Oakland shooting reveals how cops snoop on cell phones
#2What is "CRUM ADV LOCK ON PHONE"?
Re: An Oakland shooting reveals how cops snoop on cell phones
#3An interesting side-effect of the scale and efficiency of current tech is this phenomenon of deploy first, ask questions later.
Ideas and tools can be conceived, developed, deployed and adopted before a (state-sanctioned) response can be formed. Significant results (and value) can be reaped in the inherent lag between deployment/discovery and responsive-legislation.
In tech, we've seen it recently as startups deploy faster than labor laws can (re)define boundaries.
In government, when it's the police doing the rapid deployment... well, it's kind of uncharted territory.
Has anyone modeled a system of checks and balances where one of the three processes has an n month setTimeout() before it can respond to inputs from another? Where does the system find equilibrium?
Re: An Oakland shooting reveals how cops snoop on cell phones
#4This is the first time I've heard of a pen register, apparently somewhat broad, modern parlance for things that capture phone data. It seems pretty damning that they spent the time to fax MetroPCS but couldn't, ya know, even get the pen register or ask a judge to ask if they thought it was a good idea.
Maybe the bad guys are really bad, but sometimes I hope that they get off just to make the point that the cops are suppose to do the "right thing", otherwise the cops really are the bad guys.
Re: An Oakland shooting reveals how cops snoop on cell phones
#5If three armed gang members are on the run after shooting someone, and an informant names some suspects, looking up the location of the suspects' phones seems acceptable to me. I have no doubt that stingrays are abused, but this specific instance, even if not legal, is ethical.
That said, I do have issues with the OPD's incompetence and the prosecution's attempt at a cover-up. Seriously, why did the officer put himself in such a dangerous situation? Have the same prosecutors hidden evidence from the defense in the past? I'd love to get answers to those questions.
Re: An Oakland shooting reveals how cops snoop on cell phones
#6If three armed gang members are on the run after shooting someone, and an informant names some suspects, looking up the location of the suspects' phones seems acceptable to me. I have no doubt that stingrays are abused, but this specific instance, even if not legal, is ethical. That said, I do have issues with the OPD's incompetence and the prosecution's attempt at a cover-up. Seriously, why did the officer put himse…
There's no reason to think they're on a rampage or anything. There was no threat of a future crime. So why is it ethical to throw out all the checks and balances? There's no good moral or ethical argument I can see, you're just hand waving because you feel like they deserve to get caught.
The police department was obviously just embarrassed that service weapons had been stolen.
Re: An Oakland shooting reveals how cops snoop on cell phones
#7If three armed gang members are on the run after shooting someone, and an informant names some suspects, looking up the location of the suspects' phones seems acceptable to me. I have no doubt that stingrays are abused, but this specific instance, even if not legal, is ethical. That said, I do have issues with the OPD's incompetence and the prosecution's attempt at a cover-up. Seriously, why did the officer put himse…
There's no reason to think they're on a rampage or anything. There was no threat of a future crime. So why is it ethical to throw out all the checks and balances? There's no good moral or ethical argument I can see, you're just hand waving because you feel like they deserve to get caught. The police department was obviously just embarrassed that service weapons had been stolen.
> There was no threat of a future crime.
If there is any circumstance in which someone is likely to commit future crimes, it's probably after shooting a cop and taking their gun. At that point, the punishment is so bad that additional crimes are a rounding error. If carjacking or robbery can decrease your chances of getting caught, they're worth doing. Ditto for destroying evidence. It's fortunate that none of these things happened, but they all too easily could have.
> So why is it ethical to throw out all the checks and balances?
I never said that. I live in Oakland. I know my phone could be targeted. I'm completely in favor of checks and balances. I'm simply looking at the specifics of this case: Someone is accosted, beaten, and shot by armed gang members. An informant names some suspects. Is it ethical to look up the location of their phones? I'm pretty sure it is. If you disagree, I'd love to hear where you'd draw the line for stinger use.
> The police department was obviously just embarrassed that service weapons had been stolen.
That was a factor, but it was minor. The main reason for the OPD's ridiculous overreaction was that one of their own had been shot. That's what I wish had been the focus of this story: Poor training (and possibly corruption) causing public servants to do a bad job.
Re: An Oakland shooting reveals how cops snoop on cell phones
#8If three armed gang members are on the run after shooting someone, and an informant names some suspects, looking up the location of the suspects' phones seems acceptable to me. I have no doubt that stingrays are abused, but this specific instance, even if not legal, is ethical. That said, I do have issues with the OPD's incompetence and the prosecution's attempt at a cover-up. Seriously, why did the officer put himse…
an informant names some suspects, looking up the
location of the suspects' phones seems acceptable to me.
Re: An Oakland shooting reveals how cops snoop on cell phones
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's no reason to think they're on a rampage or anything. There was no threat of a future crime. So why is it ethical to throw out all the checks and balances? There's no good moral or ethical argument I can see, you're just hand waving because you feel like they deserve to get caught. The police department was obviously just embarrassed that service weapons had been stolen.
> There was no threat of a future crime. If there is any circumstance in which someone is likely to commit future crimes, it's probably after shooting a cop and taking their gun. At that point, the punishment is so bad that additional crimes are a rounding error. If carjacking or robbery can decrease your chances of getting caught, they're worth doing. Ditto for destroying evidence. It's fortunate that none of these…
> Is it ethical to look up the location of their phones?
Sure it is. They just have to get a warrant. This is not a difficult burden in such a situation. Remember that a warrant requirement only requires probably cause, which is obvious in this case). The entire point is that the government has to make sure the justification is put on record instead of simply letting the police search whatever they want. This obviously wasn't a significant burden... as they did it just an hour earlier:
At 1:05am on January 22, roughly six hours after Karsseboom was shot,
the OPD got a search warrant for three apartments: #108, #110, and #212.
At 2:45am, the OPD faxed Metro PCS, asking the company to activate a pen
register on two target phone numbers (a 510 number and a 661 number)
citing exigent circumstances.
This is terrible police work: they what should have been an easy case, but rather than simply getting a warrant and making sure the necessary evidence was handled properly, they rushed the job and ruined the evidence.
Re: An Oakland shooting reveals how cops snoop on cell phones
#10If three armed gang members are on the run after shooting someone, and an informant names some suspects, looking up the location of the suspects' phones seems acceptable to me. I have no doubt that stingrays are abused, but this specific instance, even if not legal, is ethical. That said, I do have issues with the OPD's incompetence and the prosecution's attempt at a cover-up. Seriously, why did the officer put himse…
Tl;dr: The least ethical time to ignore the law is when a highly dynamic incident is underway.
> If three armed gang members are on the run after shooting someone, and an informant names some suspects, looking up the location of the suspects' phones seems acceptable to me. I have no doubt that stingrays are abused, but this specific instance, even if not legal, is ethical.
This assumes that
1. The informant is truthful and accurate 2. The informant is truthful and accurate
Laws and procedures exist so that in situations of increased emotion, there is a guard against making rash, unethical, or illegal decisions.
Eyewitnesses are generally pretty terrible at providing a true and accurate accounting of specific details in a sudden situation. For many reasons, informants can be misinformed, confused, incorrect, malicious.
And, if there's an emotional imperative to act on the part of the police, there will be an active pressure to ignore some of these concerns or some of the rigor needed to be certain they're pursuing the right suspects.
So, you have procedure, and you absolutely have to follow it because it's the one thing that's protecting you (as the officer) from making a bad decision (when the emotions are running high).