privacy DC Sex Abuser Challenging Conviction Due to Use of Cell Phone Tracker

[JaniceInAccounting]

http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/Conviction-of-DC-Sex-Abuser-Challenged-Due-to-Use-of-Secret-Cellphone-Tracking-Tool-370183151.html

Aaaaaaaaaand yet another case of the legal system rearing its grey, ugly head.

Quote

D.C. police have used secret technology for years to track cellphones without search warrants -- and a man found guilty of sexual assault is now challenging his conviction because he says use of the tool violated his rights.

Since 2003, D.C. police have used cell phone tower simulators known as Stingrays, the Metropolitan Police Department has testified in court. The suitcase-sized devices mimic the signals of the closest cellphone towers. Any cellphone in that area then is redirected to the Stingray, giving the user of the device the ability to determine a suspect's location and more.

The Metropolitan Police Department signed an agreement with the FBI in 2012. According to that agreement, the FBI can ask local police and prosecutors to dismiss cases rather than disclose information about Stingray technology. Congress is raising questions about that power of the FBI.

D.C. police paid for the Stingrays using a grant from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. They were intended to be used to fight terrorism, according to records submitted in court by the ACLU.

"This technology was given to them by the federal government for emergency circumstances, not, there’s a bank robber running down the street and we’re worried he might rob somebody else. This was for terrorism," Wilkenfeld said.

I hope privacy isn't becoming stale subject already.

If so, then sorry I wasted anybody's time.

[Bensemus]

lol. This just gets better and better. Anyone who thinks the FBI just wants one phone unlocked cuz it was a terrorist's phone is high. The government seems to love using these "terrorist catching tools" on civilians without going through the courts. Since the first topic on Apple vs FBI there have been a few on other abuses of power. 

[Spongy141]

1 hour ago, Bensemus said:

lol. This just gets better and better. Anyone who thinks the FBI just wants one phone unlocked cuz it was a terrorist's phone is high. The government seems to love using these "terrorist catching tools" on civilians without going through the courts. Since the first topic on Apple vs FBI there have been a few on other abuses of power. 

Oh yea they just love to spy on the every day person, totally not using any algorithms to catch people, no instead they sit people behind a screen and have them watch everything you do because that makes so much sense and is very cost efficient.

[bobhays]

24 minutes ago, Spongy141 said:

Oh yea they just love to spy on the every day person, totally not using any algorithms to catch people, no instead they sit people behind a screen and have them watch everything you do because that makes so much sense and is very cost efficient.

Oh yea that is totally exactly what he said and claimed because he's a totally irrational human that likes to hypothesize potentialities and post his hyperbolized interpretation of a quote.

[Bensemus]

19 minutes ago, Spongy141 said:

Oh yea they just love to spy on the every day person, totally not using any algorithms to catch people, no instead they sit people behind a screen and have them watch everything you do because that makes so much sense and is very cost efficient.

I never said anything about NSA style mass surveillance. I'm talking about police forces using tech like the stingray that was meant for emergencies to go after civilians with no court order. The FBI asking or a one off hack into a single iPhone and now there are reports that there are another 12 phones plus a bunch of police forces with a ton of iPhones they would loved opened. This is the second post about someone potently getting off cuz the police used surveillance equipment without a court order. 

[Spongy141]

9 minutes ago, bobhays said:

Oh yea that is totally exactly what he said and claimed because he's a totally irrational human that likes to hypothesize potentialities and post his hyperbolized interpretation of a quote.

Guess it wasn't obvious, but I was not JUST directing my message to him, but to other ideas around privacy related things that people would try to complain about on a topic like this, my bad next time I will make it more apparent what I am trying to do.

 

6 minutes ago, Bensemus said:

I never said anything about NSA style mass surveillance. I'm talking about police forces using tech like the stingray that was meant for emergencies to go after civilians with no court order. The FBI asking or a one off hack into a single iPhone and now there are reports that there are another 12 phones plus a bunch of police forces with a ton of iPhones they would loved opened. This is the second post about someone potently getting off cuz the police used surveillance equipment without a court order. 

Honestly they shouldn't need a court order for everything like this, our police are so restricted in the ways they can catch someone it makes it too easy for a professional to never get caught because if they do obtain evidence its usually in an illegal way, allowing people to go free, which is completely stupid, if the only way to get evidence is by getting it illegally, make it legal to get it that way, problem solved.

[SSL]

4 minutes ago, Spongy141 said:

Guess it wasn't obvious, but I was not JUST directing my message to him, but to other ideas around privacy related things that people would try to complain about on a topic like this, my bad next time I will make it more apparent what I am trying to do.

 

Honestly they shouldn't need a court order for everything like this, our police are so restricted in the ways they can catch someone it makes it too easy for a professional to never get caught because if they do obtain evidence its usually in an illegal way, allowing people to go free, which is completely stupid, if the only way to get evidence is by getting it illegally, make it legal to get it that way, problem solved.

 

Good. Fuck the police.

 

Seriously, the police are restricted for the benefit of society. Warrants are easy to get in any case.

[Bensemus]

Just now, Spongy141 said:

if they do obtain evidence its usually in an illegal way, allowing people to go free, which is completely stupid, if the only way to get evidence is by getting it illegally, make it legal to get it that way, problem solved.

We have courts and warrants cuz we operate under the assumption that people are innocent until proven guilty. The police need a warrant. That is how our legal system works. They went outside the law so now they have to deal with the consequences. I would rather the guy did't get away but this did happen. The police seem to think that they need access to everything, unrestricted, or else they will never be able to catch the people making CP or all the terrorists running around /s. They could of used the stingray with a warrant but they seem to think they are above the law and can do what they want. You can look at some third world countries for examples of what can happen when police and governments go outside the law or just change it to suit their needs.

[bobhays]

1 minute ago, Spongy141 said:

snip

First I just want to state I'm glad you didn't take that the wrong way. (No offense) the way the 1st comment was phrased I thought you'd be one of those blind pro-government protection bobbleheads I've seen too many of lately.

 

Also the issue with the stingray is it doesn't just work on who they are trying to catch it works on anyone nearby. If they didn't need a court order the police could literally do what you were saying where they just sit there listening to it and then try to catch people. Of course the FBI wouldn't do it because they don't have enough people to make it worth it but local police officers could easily do that. That's why court orders and search warrants are important so they can't just listen or invade literally anyone's privacy without consequence. The issue here isn't that it requires a court order, the issue is they used it without a court order.

 

On an individual case basis it seems really dumb to let someone go free because they were caught using an illegal method because they still committed a crime, but if you look at it from a larger perspective it's important to keep the justice system legal from bottom to top. Otherwise they could be doing illegal things and just claim it's to gain evidence and we can't have officers breaking laws to catch people breaking laws.

[Spongy141]

3 minutes ago, bobhays said:

First I just want to state I'm glad you didn't take that the wrong way. (No offense) the way the 1st comment was phrased I thought you'd be one of those blind pro-government protection bobbleheads I've seen too many of lately.

 

Also the issue with the stingray is it doesn't just work on who they are trying to catch it works on anyone nearby. If they didn't need a court order the police could literally do what you were saying where they just sit there listening to it and then try to catch people. Of course the FBI wouldn't do it because they don't have enough people to make it worth it but local police officers could easily do that. That's why court orders and search warrants are important so they can't just listen or invade literally anyone's privacy without consequence. The issue here isn't that it requires a court order, the issue is they used it without a court order.

 

On an individual case basis it seems really dumb to let someone go free because they were caught using an illegal method because they still committed a crime, but if you look at it from a larger perspective it's important to keep the justice system legal from bottom to top. Otherwise they could be doing illegal things and just claim it's to gain evidence and we can't have officers breaking laws to catch people breaking laws.

 

4 minutes ago, Bensemus said:

We have courts and warrants cuz we operate under the assumption that people are innocent until proven guilty. The police need a warrant. That is how our legal system works. They went outside the law so now they have to deal with the consequences. I would rather the guy did't get away but this did happen. The police seem to think that they need access to everything, unrestricted, or else they will never be able to catch the people making CP or all the terrorists running around /s. They could of used the stingray with a warrant but they seem to think they are above the law and can do what they want. You can look at some third world countries for examples of what can happen when police and governments go outside the law or just change it to suit their needs.

I get what your both saying, to compromise I feel there should just be some more leeway in this kind of situation, like he should be held in custody for a period of time while the investigators are force to get convicting evidence legally or something like that, which would allow criminals that clearly committed a crime to be caught a lot easier, people involved will tend to go into a panic and become sloppy giving away evidence that could be used.

[Tmt97]

22 minutes ago, Spongy141 said:

 

I get what your both saying, to compromise I feel there should just be some more leeway in this kind of situation, like he should be held in custody for a period of time while the investigators are force to get convicting evidence legally or something like that, which would allow criminals that clearly committed a crime to be caught a lot easier, people involved will tend to go into a panic and become sloppy giving away evidence that could be used.

I actually think that's a very reasonable compromise. This has been an issue with courts for ages not just with technology, but there are tons of ways police have gotten convicting evidence in ways that are at best illegal, and at worst violate human rights. Its a tough moral question because the police should be held accountable for their actions and not be above the law, but its a fair point to say that it's immoral to let a person back into society if we know they are a killer, rapist, or other violent criminal regardless of how the information was found. Its too bad we don't have more politicians like you because the idea you came up with is actually very good. I actually had an alternate compromise I had come up with for this problem that might also help. I suggest that when these situations arise that cops use illegally obtained evidence, it should be allowed in court, because if there's legit evidence that a guy committed a crime he should be punished. However the cop, or cops who illegally obtained the information should be immediately fired and heavily fined. That way there is justice on both sides, and we have a deterrent for cops who think they are above the law.

[Bensemus]

33 minutes ago, Spongy141 said:

I get what your both saying, to compromise I feel there should just be some more leeway in this kind of situation, like he should be held in custody for a period of time while the investigators are force to get convicting evidence legally or something like that, which would allow criminals that clearly committed a crime to be caught a lot easier, people involved will tend to go into a panic and become sloppy giving away evidence that could be used.

I agree. The thing is cops can't just go fishing for evidence. They need a reason to suspect someone. If they have sufficient reason so suspect someone warrants are given. You can't just go after someone cuz you think they may be doing something illegal. It's not like cops have their hands tied behind their backs. They have plenty of tools at their disposal. 

[patrickjp93]

57 minutes ago, SSL said:

 

Good. Fuck the police.

 

Seriously, the police are restricted for the benefit of society. Warrants are easy to get in any case.

No, they aren't. Probable cause is not always so easy to obtain.

[Tmt97]

9 minutes ago, patrickjp93 said:

No, they aren't. Probable cause is not always so easy to obtain.

Well if you don't have a probable cause to suspect someone then it SHOULD be hard to obtain. Because if you don't have a legit reason to suspect someone of a crime you shouldn't be getting a warrant to invade their privacy by spying on them. Its "innocent until proven guilty" in this country, not "kinda guilty enough to illegally spy on you until we later find out your actually innocent"

[SSL]

59 minutes ago, patrickjp93 said:

No, they aren't. Probable cause is not always so easy to obtain.

 

Not so hard that it warrants doing away with warrants. Plus "not always easy" means that sometimes it is easy. So I'm not sure what your point is here.

[patrickjp93]

3 hours ago, Tmt97 said:

Well if you don't have a probable cause to suspect someone then it SHOULD be hard to obtain. Because if you don't have a legit reason to suspect someone of a crime you shouldn't be getting a warrant to invade their privacy by spying on them. Its "innocent until proven guilty" in this country, not "kinda guilty enough to illegally spy on you until we later find out your actually innocent"

Sigh, despite the fact it is a dramatization, you should watch Law & Order SVU. Sometimes even though the answer is obvious, probable cause can't be found. What is legitimate? If all of your evidence is circumstantial but no other answer makes sense, any logical person would considered that good reason. The law does not (at least in the U.S.).

 

My take on it is if it looks like the stars aligned on you, you're probably worth a look even if we don't have probable cause.

[patrickjp93]

2 hours ago, SSL said:

 

Not so hard that it warrants doing away with warrants. Plus "not always easy" means that sometimes it is easy. So I'm not sure what your point is here.

Many on here would argue police have way too much Liberty. The truth is their hands are tied and they deal with many impossible choices every day. Sure, body cams should be a full-time thing. I'm never going to argue against accountability, but the truth is we are asking our police to do more in an era where their technology and methods are a decade behind and the law doesn't adapt quickly enough to make up for it.

[stconquest]

4 minutes ago, patrickjp93 said:

Sigh, despite the fact it is a dramatization, you should watch Law & Order SVU. Sometimes even though the answer is obvious, probable cause can't be found. What is legitimate? If all of your evidence is circumstantial but no other answer makes sense, any logical person would considered that good reason. The law does not (at least in the U.S.).

 

My take on it is if it looks like the stars aligned on you, you're probably worth a look even if we don't have probable cause.

You can be smarter than this.  It all depends who's moving the stars.  People have lost their lives in the prison system because others have pointed their fingers.

 

Our police officer's are no smarter than your average gangster a lot of the time.  Some of them lose their desire to enrich a community and tend to further their own interests instead.  It is the nature of the beast:  survival.  They won't quit the force because they need the money and are not fit for duty.  Most of the time the police force will coddle and protect them.

 

Safeguards for innocent citizens need to be in place.

 

Going to sleep now, but will discuss this further.

[SSL]

A conversation consisting of a series of back-and-forth assertions is always fun.

[patrickjp93]

7 hours ago, stconquest said:

You can be smarter than this.  It all depends who's moving the stars.  People have lost their lives in the prison system because others have pointed their fingers.

 

Our police officer's are no smarter than your average gangster a lot of the time.  Some of them lose their desire to enrich a community and tend to further their own interests instead.  It is the nature of the beast:  survival.  They won't quit the force because they need the money and are not fit for duty.  Most of the time the police force will coddle and protect them.

 

Safeguards for innocent citizens need to be in place.

 

Going to sleep now, but will discuss this further.

I said worth a look. Deeper investigation should reveal they aren't guilty. Obviously no system is perfect, but we need to update ours for the modern day.

[samcool55]

A sex abuser isn't a terrorist. so they shouldn't be treated as one.

I'm not saying a sex abuser isn't a criminal. But every criminal should be treated accoring to their crimes, not to the fact they are a criminal or not.

Because if we keep this idea going, a person that's speeding will be treated the same as a terrorist blowing up a school. And even tho both are bad, i think it's safe to say they don't deserve the same treatment. I mean we aren't going to call the army for someone ignoring a stop sign, right?