A real win for privacy

VivaRevolution

Banned
Banned
Joined
Feb 2, 2016
Messages
34,002
Reaction score
1
In first, U.S. judge throws out cell phone 'stingray' evidence

By Nate Raymond
July 13, 2016

By Nate Raymond

NEW YORK (Reuters) - For the first time, a federal judge has suppressed evidence obtained without a warrant by U.S. law enforcement using a stingray, a surveillance device that can trick suspects' cell phones into revealing their locations.

U.S. District Judge William Pauley in Manhattan on Tuesday ruled that defendant Raymond Lambis' rights were violated when the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration used such a device without a warrant to find his Washington Heights apartment.

The DEA had used a stingray to identify Lambis' apartment as the most likely location of a cell phone identified during a drug-trafficking probe. Pauley said doing so constituted an unreasonable search.

"Absent a search warrant, the government may not turn a citizen's cell phone into a tracking device," Pauley wrote.

The ruling marked the first time a federal judge had suppressed evidence obtained using a stingray, according to the American Civil Liberties Union, which like other privacy advocacy groups has criticized law enforcement's use of such devices.

"This opinion strongly reinforces the strength of our constitutional privacy rights in the digital age," ACLU attorney Nathan Freed Wessler said in a statement.

It was unclear whether prosecutors would seek to appeal. A spokeswoman for Manhattan U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara, whose office was prosecuting the case, declined to comment.

Stingrays, also known as "cell site simulators," mimic cell phone towers in order to force cell phones in the area to transmit "pings" back to the devices, enabling law enforcement to track a suspect's phone and pinpoint its location.

Critics of the technology call it invasive and say it has been regularly used in secret to catch suspect in violation of their rights under the U.S. Constitution.

The ACLU has counted 66 agencies in 24 states and the District of Columbia that own stingrays but said that figure underrepresents the actual number of devices in use given what it called secrecy surrounding their purchases.

https://www.yahoo.com/tech/first-u-judge-throws-cell-phone-stingray-evidence-021216696.html?nhp=1


______________________________________________________________________________

orson_wells_Slow-Clap.gif
 
They are working on removing our rights to arms, and next to freedom of speech, privacy will not last long. All the left needs is another tragedy or two so they can stand on the tombstones so they can bend us over.
 
They are working on removing our rights to arms, and next to freedom of speech, privacy will not last long. All the left needs is another tragedy or two so they can stand on the tombstones so they can bend us over.

The 4th amendment has been basically destroyed already.

This is one of many reasons I constantly talk about the illusion of choice between the two parties.

The votes against defunding the NSA were bi-partisan, as were the votes for it.

Bush started this undermining of our constitution, and Obama has continued it, as will Clinton, and most likely Trump.

The only presidential candidate I have any faith in to restore the 4th amendment, is Gary Johnson.
 
The 4th amendment has been basically destroyed already.

This is one of many reasons I constantly talk about the illusion of choice between the two parties.

The votes against defunding the NSA were bi-partisan, as were the votes for it.

Bush started this undermining of our constitution, and Obama has continued it, as will Clinton, and most likely Trump.

The only presidential candidate I have any faith in to restore the 4th amendment, is Gary Johnson.

You mean Jill Stein
 
You mean Jill Stein


I think Stein would probably be good on this issue, but I would be giving Stein a pass on her lack of history to judge her by.

Definitely the second most likely in my book though, and most likely a close second.
 
In light of the recent terror attack I have to wonder to myself, why would anyone be concerned with privacy or overreaching domestic surveillance?
 
*waits for civilian version of technology to trickle down*
 
In light of the recent terror attack I have to wonder to myself, why would anyone be concerned with privacy or overreaching domestic surveillance?

Because it doesn't work, as proven by the recent terror attack.

You might want to read up on what Snowden has said, because he has been very consistent in explaining we are made less safe by the avalanche of information being collected, that could never be properly analyzed.

We took the idea of looking for a needle in a haystack, and made the haystack 1,000's of times larger. It makes LE's job more difficult, not easier.
 
Back
Top