Is Stingray a Violation?

I don't see it as a rights issue....after all how is this all that much different than caller ID is in a general sense.

All the criminals have do do is NOT use a cell phone....or turn it off. Its really not the same as a wire tap....or putting a tracking device on your car.

with caller ID, you (the caller) initiate communication, the person you call gets to answer your request with a decisive yes or no. You (the caller) have identified yourself. You (the recipient) may select the option that denies your caller access to information about your status. Your rights are protected.

Stingray is an eavesdropping device that allows the caller to obtain information about you (location) without your permission, clearly a violation of your rights. Technical superiority is not sufficient grounds for invasion of privacy. Wireless carriers could devise a solution.

You aren't required to place calls if you suspect someone might overhear....A smart crook would get a prepaid phone....

Besides....there are ways to intercept digital Cell phone calls...(though its not as easy as it was when they were analog).

You have to be careful about what you presume are rights.....they are not unlimited and universal.

And incidently.....superficially thats how caller id may seem to work to the public....call routing including the source is known the instant the call goes through (nothing you as a caller can do to change that) you can only affect what the other party might actually see on their phone display.....the fallacy of it taking time to trace it dates back to the electro-mechanical switch days.....with digital switches used today the information is there before the other party has time to pick up the phone.

We are not talking about placing calls. Stingray is not predicated on using your phone. And if you are talking about phone taps (which I have not seen in this discussion) I would take issue with classifying that as "overhearing"

You evidently think "smart crooks" need not abide by the Constitution, nor the police (if they are smart). I'm sure there are many ways to intercept calls. What has that to do with this thread, unless you believe that is legal.

Human rights are universal. Whether you choose to subscribe to them is up for discussion. I don't understand the "unlimited" comment. Of course they are limited.

Caller id empowers the receiver to identify the caller. You can choose to refuse. With Stingray, you cannot choose to refuse. Caller ID is not a "superficial" experience. Receive request and deny, or receive request and accept.

There is good precedent for cell phone privacy rights. There are no public directories of numbers. The cell phone companies expressly forbid publication of the number database that contains specific subscriber data. Subscribers have a right to that privacy, unless they consent. Do they exist for snail mail? yes Do they exist for landlines? yes Do they exist for e-mail? almost always, usually exceptions revolve around work place usage. Do they exist for web browser history? yes All of these can be examined with a warrant.

There is good precedent for cell phone privacy rights. There are no public directories of numbers.

No not free ones.

Yes you can avoid it...you can make landline calls.....

Its in the air...its fair game for interception....are you being reimbursed for use of the airwaves over your house? Likely not. You or anyone else can intercept any openly transmitted signals....privacy.....don't make me laugh...people yap all the time on the street, on the subway, bus, movie theater, store. Try and inforce a right to privacy when everyone around you can hear...many cases those close to you can hear both sides as well. Hell I've snooped in on them since the 80's. I know how I could do it now....but its more work than its worth as a radio hobbyist.

If you get a prepaid phone...how are they going to know its you vs the millions of others around you? Most newer phones have that in them. It helps 911 find you in an emergency. Thats why its there.

As far as rights....

Try and argue your unlimited right to drive your car after a DUI or two....try and argue your right to not pay taxes....or any number of things....

Try and argue with the Store about your right to free food....or the owner of the property you are squatting on for a free place to live....

Do you have the right to not be followed by the cops? No, but obviously they aren't going to waste their time if you aren't doing anything they suspect. And if you are, they have the right to do so. Its NOT the same thing as barging into your house unannounced without a warrant, unless they hear someone screaming.

Would it be illegal for YOU to park next to an Embassy on a public street with a communications reciever hoping to listen to something? Would it be legal for you to own and use a Police fire or aircraft scanner? Tracking you is not the same as a wiretap. They could simply put a hidden tracking device on your car......and yes they do that...and yes its been used as critical evidence before.

settle down........this talk of a nanny state is getting me upset.

Anybody remember the landlines when they had a party line......

How many grandma's listening in........ 100%. How different is that?

Hell they knew where every one was and what they did. Grandma-ray they don't built them like they used to. ^{it was the topic of many disscussions... but it was tolerated with a response every so often "Grandma Anderson, I know your listening, get off the line"}

The young ones are questioning "Where this thing you call a party line, and why wasn't I invited, it's my right"

I remember those.....My neighbor had one when I was growing up.....but my parents had a private one. I remember having it explained to me as a kid what it was...

Its in the air...its fair game for interception.... You or anyone else can intercept any openly transmitted signals....

I would kindly disagree. There are 5 states that have laws that make it illegal to receive police bands in a vehicle, punishable by fines and jail unless you have a license or permission. This is just one example and as a radio hobbyist you know there are more (or at least should know).

The Supreme Court is hearing a case on the legality of using tracking devices. Stating that one form of tracking is OK based on the use of other speculative forms doesn't make for a very convincing argument. It will be interesting to see the ruling, I suppose it could make for a very convincing argument depending on the outcome.

There is one other interesting point. I'll assume what you said about hidden tracking devices being used as critical evidence being true. Stingray info is DELETED (at least when the FBI uses it). The use the info to build the case, but get rid of it (seems odd doesn't it?!). Information obtained through warrants are required to be disclosed to the judge who signed off on it. In the case of your vehicle trackers, I imagine this is the process (ie, there is a check and balance still in the system).

Where are the checks and balances for a law enforcement agency that keeps the judicial system out of the loop??

How would that be any different than them just tailing you like they have done basically forever.

Running around in public has no legal assumption of privacy because everyone sees you.

Again, this is not a wiretap.

I give up here. It's a simple matter, with incredible consequences, and poof, it's a given that you make airwaves public. The fact is that they are not. It is illegal to listen in on someones mobile phone conversation. Can someone? Of course. I can read your mail, hack your credit report, etc. The fact that you can do it illegally is justification for giving up the expectation?

My parents thought the hippies were delusional to the left. I think many of you are off your rocker, to the right. I guess that's how the US works.

Exactly at what point does stingray actually listen you the content of the calls? It doesn't....if it did it would be different.

Could the device also be used by criminals and businesses to track investigators and regulators?

Gavilan

In an episode of The Sopranos, the Cadillac dealer asked Tony how he liked his new Escalade. Tony said, "Just fine, after I took out the GPS." In another episode, they replaced the automatic toll booth device so they couldn't be tracked crossing toll bridges. Criminals are hip to every kind of tracking device. The ones who get caught are the dumb ones.

Oh, not so SLOW one. Do you know, what is wrong with you. You are hip to old tricks, and cannot grasp, that the young ones are, oh so smarter.

Since technology changes, human nature is getting refined.

Capiche? RRRight!

Are you sure you want to use the term that "human nature is being refined?" It's probably just a point of semantics on the word "refined". Refined means "made pure, free of impurities, coarseness, vulgarities." That's not the way human nature is.

We do learn how to change actions because of external forces, i.e. debt, law enforcement, etc. We adapt our behavior to achieve a certain outcome.

Regarding the OP: I don't have a big issue with law enforcement using the tools at their disposal to catch law breakers. I am concerned with personal privacy rights being abused, but that isn't the fault of the "tool", it is the fault of the ones who may use the tool wrongly.

There is a verse that says "if you don't break the law, you don't have to fear the law". If none of my actions lead law enforcement to examine my behavior my and my conscience is clear, I don't have to be concerned with the tools being used.

"if you don't break the law, you don't have to fear the law" - Respectfully, I fear this premise. I disagree with allowing the government to use any and all tools available to them, so long as they pursue the criminal. The main reason has to do with crimes of behavior, things that are against the law becuase most people dont like them. These are always subject to change, and it isnt unusual for something like a light bulb to become unlawful. Recent changes in Mens Rea - the guilty mind - should scare you. Its not neccesary to prove that you did not know you committed a crime; if you did it, you are guilty. The WSJ had an interesting article about people being prosecuted for felonies for collecting arrowheads, for being in posession of feathers, or the wrong kind of wood (primalry in instruments). An interesting story about how Bobby Unser (?) got lost in a snowstorm and accidently crossed in to a federal park on a snowmobile, which is prohibited.

Just picture in your mind the politican you hate the most having access to your every move, and a file that shows you worked for the other candidate. Now picture the library at the attornies office; are you absolutely certain you havent violated something in all those books? There are enough laws, and enough criminals to pursue already. They dont need it, even if they say thet do.

I used to be a firm believer in the philosophy that if I do the right thing, I won't have issues. In general, this is probably the case. One gentleman I met was the exception to this. There was a rape in his city (one with a somewhat major population). He happened to own the same make/model/color vehicle identified during the investigation. He had an alibi and was quickly cleared.

Sounds pretty much like the way it's supposed to work right?

Except now he is automatically questioned when ANY rape has occurred (his name was entered into a database for a rape investigation, ergo he's AUTOMATICALLY a suspect for any future rapes). He has since retained a lawyer to deal with it. While this isn't guilty until proven innocent, this is at best p!ss poor police work and at worst harassment, but this is the standard practice in his area.

One more reason I won't hand liberties/rights over in the name of safety/justice/law enforcement... etc, etc, etc.

As a final note, for those of you willing to hand over your rights so easily, when is the last time any government returned some of them?

Victims of circumstances have been around for a while.

It is tough for the person going through i is a victim themselves.

Like the victim who just found out the perpetrator who was caught red handed, and released due to a technicality.

Something else wrong with me...I don't understand what some of you "young ones" are saying half the time. You may be smart, but you don't communicate very well.

Sorry about that. I'll work at being more clear.

What about my comment is vague to you.

Your comment was perfectly clear.

yes it can be difficult, I find a translator helps.

Well, FM, I beg to differ with you in the most polite terms.

You do the right things, because core values. You have them or you do not. Law enforcement is a very poor second to that.

Our republic exempted, most of the world and most of the history held, that, when the powerful accused you, you were guilty, until you were clearing your name, were you that lucky.

We have a system of separation and balance between the different branches of the government. It was until now, and it should be good enough to go to a iudge, to get a warrant. I know, there are technical problems. But an unapproved one should be invalid against a citizen. Otherwise, it is a rule of men, instead rule of law.

That may sound hard, and it is. I grew up in a different system, and I know better.

And I would like getting the right quotations along these lines, as I am not well versed in them. I am certain they are there.

I don't believe in random checks no, it should not be used this way.

Following or locating a felon, yes, use it.

A judge will grant the warrant to locate a felon. That is how stingray should be used, with a warrant. You people who keep saying things like it's ok to use it to catch bad people are missing the point. The Law says that a judge has to examine the proposal to violate the right to privacy, and if extenuating circumstances are found to be legitimate, they can issue documentation allowing the breach.

BTW, random road blocks/checks are the result of years of constant badgering and intimidation by law enforcement, who are not, historically, good judges of basic human rights. It is now common practice.

I agree that it should not be done but I question weather it is a violation of rights. Do we as American citizens have the right to have a cell phone or the right to send data through the air with out it being observed. I know we have the right to send the older version of communication privately (letters) but does that inherently extend to cell phones. The only people who I can see that might be having their rights violated are the ones who manage these networks if and only if they are being forced to cooperate with the government. If the government is using radio waves they snatched out of the air and decoded on their own then they are within their rights in my mind. If i am right the bigger question I would ask is "Are American rights adequate for this new technological world we have built?"

The cell phone tracking device, known as stingray, is designed to locate a mobile phone even when not in use

It isn't' about me using a technology and expecting it not to be observed. As an interesting side note, there IS legal protection against recieving and decoding signals, and is the same reason you can be prosecuted for getting free cable TV. For me it's about someone (ie government entities) using a technology DESIGNED to circumvent privacy. It isn't them tracking my usage, it is them using stingray (a cell phone tracking device) to track me even if I don't use my phone.

"Are American rights adequate for this new technological world we have built?"

It's a good question, but one that becomes moot if the citizens aren't just willing but are often convinced to give them away.

I am not saying you are wrong but I would have to know more about these laws on receiving and decoding signals before I could take a definite side on weather or not this is a rights violation. I do however like your comment "It's a good question, but one that becomes moot if the citizens aren't just willing but are often convinced to give them away." I do believe we have become way to lax about trading freedom for convenience.

There is a well proscribed and accepted third way with data starting with the good old Census forms (not the latest troublesome form). It is the sanitized bulk data. All personal data need to be filtered out, before it can be made available to qualified research. That does not include market research (and that was violated recently, and repeatedly). That is how valid statistical works can be performed. And we all can enioy the results.

And red you are wrong. You cannot in general give up your right, without giving up mine along with it. I did not consent, so nobody has even the right to be ambivalent about mine. Other than that, the discussion is worthwhile.

After months of reading and enjoying the posts, I decided to sign up for the fun.

Cell phones can be tracked while not in use (use meaning powerered on).

There has been a concern for a number of years that cell phone carriers "can" track where you are. The only way for a cell phone not to be "tracked" is to remove the battery from it. Many cell phones don't even allow you to remove the battery, thus like it or not you are being "tracked" if you have a cell phone of this type.

Stingray will be used by law enforcement...lawfully or not...ever been pulled over by a police officer? LAW is not always followed by those who enforce them.

welcome SITMWY2

LAW is not always followed by those who enforce them.

True

I needed to find more info on this so I started doing a bit of digging. One article I liked was from the Wall Street Journal.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904194604576583112723197574.html

I particularly liked the part about (paraphrasing the FBI here)... 'we can't get a search warrant, so we need this technology to build up evidence so a judge will give us one'

Has anyone ever dealt with the people who live by the letter of the law instead of the spirit (maybe not actual law, but perhaps workplace rules)? This type of behavior is practically juvenile. It generates only short term gain for the one person and lots of new excess and what should be unneeded rules to deal with people who want to cut corners instead of just doing the right thing.

'we can't get a search warrant, so we need this technology to build up evidence so a judge will give us one'

It can be quote a paradox.

one side looks at it as a tool, the other side human rights, no to mention the third side that are the violators.

Where is the paradox? It is naive logic, and this quote is totally off post. No one is saying the technology is not useful. Every one says it is useful. It is a tool. So is a wiretap, or a home search. It is illegal without a warrant.

Where is the Paradox?

The Paradox is: To commit a crime to catch a criminal.

It is naive logic, and this quote is totally off post.

An opinion I disagree with and is to the point of the topic.

Where is it so annotated in the legal code its actually illegal? If it isn't then its legal.

You can use it on your wife...a PI can use it on you...without warrants

I'm not up to date.......at one point FCC stand point, was't anything over the airwaves basically public domain....except for miltary

It's called the 4th Amendment. It states that in order to search your person, (in this case electronically) a warrant must be obtained from a judge who decides if law enforcement has probable cause. If they don't have a warrant, it is illegal, unless the subject does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Evidently, I expect to enjoy my privacy. Evidently you do not.

It's called the 4th Amendment. It states that in order to search your person, (in this case electronically) a warrant must be obtained from a judge who decides if law enforcement has probable cause.

(in this case electronically) that's your interpretative assessment. i.e. an opinion.

An excerpt from wiki of the 4th amendment:

In Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967), the Supreme Court ruled that the amendment's protections do not apply when the searched party lacks a "reasonable expectation of privacy".

I'm not an expert on this subject, I was wondering, do you actually read past the first sentence of the Constitution, and actually read the Amendments and The Supreme Court Rulings?

There's is an awful lot of interpretations here where I can't even put an opinion on it. And that would be all it would be, an opinion.

See thats where people start making assumptions that just don't hold water legally....

This isn't "your person"....you are broadcasting this to the world just like a bank robber that was bragging about it to everyone publically within earshot....then trying to argue his utterances are private.

You can't walk around naked in public...then complain your privacy is being invaded because someone looks at you.

And again...this isn't the contents of actual calls....its not actual phone records....

Would you be objecting if 911 used it to find you after you made a call, or should THEY be required to get a warrant from a judge before using it to locate you after an emergency call. And why would that be any different.

For me, the heart of the matter isn't whether my location is private or not, it is about maintaining the checks and balances in our system.

Everyone has to operate within the rules set down for them, whether they choose to operate within the confines of the letter of those rules or the spirit of the rules is another thing.

According to the FBI, the stingray technology currently falls into the "pen register" category of devices and thus don't need a warrant, but still require a court order. A pen register is "a device which records or decodes electronic or other impulses which identify the numbers called or otherwise transmitted on the telephone line to which such device is dedicated."

It doesn't really fit the definition to me and funny enough the FBI doesn't disclose that they're using a stingray to the judge that signs off on the order, nor does the FBI disclose the information back to the court as is usually the case. They destroy it.

It seems like shady behavior to me. If the use of the stingray is completely legal then why keep the judicial system in the dark???

If you leave the keys in your car, and someone takes it, it is still grand theft auto. You may want to stick it to the idiot who left his keys in the car, but he may want to stick it to you for being such an immoral human being. Both have solid arguments. Which side do you want to argue.?

When I was in the service and living on a ship or on base, you had no expectation of privacy, period. I know we have "rights" and we have "laws". With all of this you have no expectation of privacy, ever. If you want to keep a secret, don't put it on a computer. Remember Spkr Gingrich's cellphone call? A couple claimed to have used a modified scanner and heard his phone call and just happened to have a tape recorder nearby. If I recall that happened in MD, with very strict wire tapping standards. Does anyone believe for a minute that wasn't a professional eves dropping situation? I remember listening to Marine Operators in the '70's and the stuff people said on the radio. One of the rules was that you couldn't anything you heard for profit. I'm certain if you heard someone talking to their broker, the info was used. What about the morons who used their vessels names, and then called their girlfriends?

I had a customer who wanted his radio system encrypted. I contacted the company who made the encryption chips, they offered several levels of security. Never could get them to admit that there was no "backdoor" or the algorithms weren't given to the NSA.

Your question "what do I think" is irrelevant. What is relevant, is that if it is electronic, it will be monitored, and can be made public at any time.

Well, we'll find out soon enough, I heard this on public radio this morning. and is a perfect landmark case.

The guy Antoine Jone was caught with drugs, but they tracked him for 29 days. a little beyond reason that it invaded his privacy, because the warrant for wire taps Jones was to careful on what he said over the phone.

btw, he was caught with 97 kilos of cocaine. If it upholds the 4th amendment for this guy goes through, I'm sure we'll see his work at a school yard near you.

Like I said before in post #30, quite a paradox.

Antoine had a warrant out for his arrest, and a warrant for a wire tap. A judge granted it. It's a great place to use stingray, but a judge must grant a warrant.

Your logic is that because drug dealers deal drugs, and use cell phones, that cell phones are criminal devices that do not qualify for 4th amendment rights.This right is not relevant to what you say, or if you say anything at all. It is relevant to the permission you grant to someone to communicate. It is your right to communicate information, or not. I don't think you comprehend the issue.

And once again, there is no paradox

I believe our systems is the best one around hands down, but it's not a perfect system, and it's the criminal that takes advantage of it.

Why, for one reason and one reason only...

What is that, that lady justice wearing on her head?

You can state your case any way you want with your interpretations, because, at this point, that's all it is.

I like to wait for the ruling, why? because its important.

The real controversy in this topic, I believe is. There are a camp that believes the answer should be discreet. i.e., a definite yes/no outcome.

But with the topic, there is wording that is left in this, and that wording is "reasonable privacy".

Why is that, that it's not definite. It because the police can and will push the envelope to catch the criminals. And the reasonable privacy is left up to the judge for interpretation of each case.

Like Antoine Jones, or like what was mentioned earlier with a victim of circumstance when it comes to trial. Is it fair, that can come into question.

But to cry 4th amendment rights violation, in my opinion, would be premature. The system does have its checks and balances, and a topic like this, with the technology, a ruling today, can be overturned down the road.

The controversy here can be, if law enforcement catches a crime in action, pursues the suspect, is he invading his right to privacy? No there has to be lead way for interpretation.

if law enforcement catches a crime in action, pursues the suspect...

I have no issue with this and I don't believe the law does either. One big issue that comes into play is when your "if" statement doesn't occur. A crime happens and the police have circumstantial evidence that points to someone, but not enough evidence for a warrant... ie, the judicial oversight would say "NO" to a warrant. But the law enforcement agencies are using this (stingray) technology to deliberately circumvent the judicial system. That is the issue.

But the law enforcement agencies are using this (stingray) technology to deliberately circumvent the judicial system.

That can't happen, it would have to go to court....fortunately.

But lets take that into account, I agree, and that if it is pursued, and goes to court where the judge throws it out because the judges interpretation is that the reasonable privacy has been over stepped.

The link I posted, where the supreme court will give a little more detail on how to use it. but I don't think they will give a definite yes/no ruling, but leave it ambiguous for interpretation by each judge.

1.) Will this leave a trail of victim of circumstances?.... unfortunately yes.

2.) Will it release a criminal due to a technicality ^{(yes the meaning of a technicality is that someones rights were violated)} ?, yes, because everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Sometimes it sounds like a cliche, but it is the premise. not a perfect system, but the only one we have.

3.) Do I like it? no,

4.) what's my position? sucks, because each case can be different, and frankly, its hard to put a comment on it, because it can go either way. i.e. see 1 and 2

5.) Will it be an easy ruling for the supreme court to make? ha, you think this thread is in a quagmire.

That can't happen, it would have to go to court....fortunately.

Yes and no, just in case you didn't read through the Wall Street Journal article I linked in #27 here's a quick excerpt

"The prosecutor, Frederick A. Battista, said the government obtained a "court order that satisfied [the] language" in the federal law on warrants. The judge then asked how an order or warrant could have been obtained without telling the judge what technology was being used. Mr. Battista said: "It was a standard practice, your honor."

Judge Campbell responded that it "can be litigated whether those orders were appropriate.""

Frankly, it doesn't seem like rocket science to me. Quit acting shady and just tell the judge what you're doing (i.e. openly disclose everything) and these issues won't come up.. or at least less often.

BTW, the WSJ says they're hearing the case today!! It'll be interesting to hear the outcome.

I missed that link

That is the type of wording thats ambiguous that I'm getting at, what is the definition of extended periods of time?

I agree, its going to be interesting.

as far as your comment:

Frankly, it doesn't seem like rocket science to me. Quit acting shady and just tell the judge what you're doing (i.e. openly disclose everything) and these issues won't come up.. or at least less often.

There was a saying that in court you shouldn't say more than you have to, cuz you may hang yourself?

Yeah, I've heard that saying and if you're in the hotseat it is good advice.

Honestly though, doesn't it remind you of childlike behavior? Things like lying by omission or doing things EXACTLY to the letter rather than to the intent (or the real mature thing of getting clarification if there's any question)... these are things I expect from a child or a teen, but not from an adult and definitely NOT the police.

Yeah, I've heard that saying and if you're in the hotseat it is good advice.

some of it is pretty good advice, I had something simular as my tag line for a while, which is, I had to remove it because of the compliants, , It went something like this:

Your better off keeping your mouth shut and look stupid, then to open it and remove any remaining doubt.

Honestly though, doesn't it remind you of childlike behavior?

kinda like an adolescent chess match

these are things I expect from a child or a teen, but not from an adult and definitely NOT the police.

Something about our boys in blue, they're not all bad as you know. And take this the anyway you want, I friend of mine, had a PhD in Psychology, retire at 53. . He had done some research and the IQ in law enforcement was below average as a cross section of the area.

It is time to put some constraints on some flight of fancy remarks, to let them resemble more real life.

1,. If you break into a bank via bulldozer, phone terminals or microwave backhaul, the court will show scant interest in the technicalities, and you go away on a long federally paid vacation in the striped suit.

2,. If you tap into my home's line and I catch you, big trouble too. You see, Verizon, ATT and so on are Common Carrier, and tapping into them punishable, severely.

3,. There was a case of a well publicised case of a blue dress, and some phone calls taped around it. Two district attorneys were gunning for convictions. Were the calls made via wire, cell, moonbounce or ESP, nobody asked.

4,. Then there were "grandpa and grandma" in Florida, who happened to have a special scanner and a tape recorder in the car iust in case. And they happened to record some conversation of congressional leaders. They were convicted.

5,. In the mildest of cases, somebody disrupted a commercial TV satellite's feed for a few minutes. The guy got a small cell for a few years for his troubles.

6,. In New York there was a gang in possession of illegal cell scanners, and snatched ID's over the air from cellphones. They were caught, and were sitting for 3-7 years, if I recall correctly.

7,. Then there was Kevin Mitnick vs. the Internet. He stole nothing, but added some selfreplicating worms to it. They happened to turn out too lively. The FBI was on him like ton of bricks, then he got 2 years, and many restrictions (for life?).

So there ARE legal expectations of privacy, independently of the nature of the communication channel. The practical aspects, and taking reasonable precautions is a different story.

And skip the argument: I have been dragracing on XYZ boulevard by night, frequently, and nobody caught me yet. The operative word is YET.....

You forgot about piggy backing on someones unsecure internet downloading porn...... ...... and the host who knew nothing about it gets pinched.

I think that was on a feed here about 6 months back.

the other thing was, which is kinda related to the topic which as referenced to about privacy.

I thought I saw it here cr4, but I searched and couldn't find it. A person had piggy backed on his next door neighbor unsecured wireless internet and was soliciting and/or downloading child porn. The task force tracked it to the neighbor and he was responsible. Why, because he should of secured it. They did also caught the predator also.

That is a victim and I'm sure he has his wireless is secured now.

How does this effect reasonable privacy for the victim who had an unsecured wireless internet? I changing this to on topic. I need to find the thread with this.

You come on here and post these absurd posts, and expect to not be called out? It is in no way illegal to provide an unsecured wireless access point to the internet, and if someone steals the access to do something illegal like download child porn (which you conveniently left out in an earlier post when you stated that downloading porn was illegal) you are not responsible.

Post a news story to help you legitimize your claim. If you do not want anyone to use your internet access, secure it. If you don't want to give a hitchhiker a ride, drive past them. If you don't want to talk to a neighbor, shut the door. You are in control. If you perceive the risk to be too great, (sharing an internet connection) don't share it. It's exactly like driving a car. If you are unable to confidently navigate in traffic, you must opt out.

Fear makes people crazy.

You feel better now..... good now please, read the post.

you're the one that was grouping everything together. #62 conveniently

it's not illegal to have an unsecured internet, but it is when it's used to do something that is illegal and whether the owner knows it or not, it's the owner who is responsible. And there is still unsecured private Internets out there. Ignorancy of the law is still no excuse. But I'm not an attorney.

Back to the original post and what the precedence of the Supreme Court decision will carry through out, Its actual a person with a narrow point of view like yourself that doesn't see the implications of this, and where the line needs to be drawn

Yet you're the first to cry volition of the forth amendments without fully knowing what you're talking about. And then attack your opponents.

I like to add that you are right that I should back up with references and that I apologize.

Is there anything else I can help you with?

btw, about absurb posts the best is to start at the source of this direction, #59 which was the last sentence tougue in check and I'll took it as that....but this is not really that absurd, what is the definition of reasonable privacy. That is the root of the matter.

lighten up, but that just my opinion.

I don't want to get in the middle of the unsecured wireless connection debate (as there is another thread for that), but you DO realize that your reference refutes your point, don't you? In both cases cited in the article the owner of the unsecured connection was not held liable. In the "unlucky" case, the owner missed his computer for several days... that's it.

Maybe I'm missing something...

I don't want to get in the middle of the unsecured wireless connection debate...

Wise choice and I don't blame you, but I feel this would have implications and is related.

Because its not black and white, and both are using signals over the airwaves that are not so private.

That's is true, but an excerpt from that is,

In reality, law enforcement officials often track potential criminal activity by wireless source. Accordingly, if you have an unsecured wireless connection, you could unwittingly find yourself at the center of a federal investigation into internet sex crimes.

Is that what comes downs to a victim of circumstance which reinforces your post 47.

Because of the pseudo legal experts here, I also have to add this excerpt:

If you have been charged or are currently under investigation for any type of sex crime, be certain to contact an experienced legal professional.

This post was provided for informational purposes only and is not to be construed as legal advice.

The post that I am looking for that I recall had where the owner of the unsecured was held liable, I just need to find the circumstances, if for anything for pacification.

Which is also only fair. But the point of the matter which is getting lost here is: What is the diffinition of reasonable privacy? Can you answer that.

...you could unwittingly find yourself at the center of a federal investigation into internet sex crimes

Just to bring it full circle, at that point, they (law enforcement) might have the evidence they need to get a judge to sign off on using Stingray LEGALLY!!

I am glad you find the humor in this serious discussion. Why am I laughing. .

I have to add, could that be entrapment?

I must have ESP.

The owner was found innocent......after some very embarressing situations.

An interesting excerpt:

Regarding the use of unsecured wi-fi internet connections, courts have held that we have little to no expectation of privacy. What? Is that surprising? In a 2010 Oregon case, U.S. vs. Ahrndt,

But that's another topic..... I guess.

Although, yes, the topic is veering, reading that is disturbing. Because this guy was on an open wi-fi connection it makes it OK to search his computer (no warrant)?? Saying that using an unsecured wi-fi somehow waives 4th amendment rights is ludicrous. That's like saying that because I choose to leave my front door unlocked the police don't need a warrant to search my house.

Saying that using an unsecured wi-fi somehow waives 4th amendment rights is ludicrous.

This is a reason why I started as a point to not make on opinion. There is allot of contradiction.

From your link on post #66.

A decision by spring. This is not going to be easy, but it has to be clarified. And I have a feeling even after, they're still going to be ambiguous wording to be left up to the judge.

I'm not even going to start with the castle doctrine, though I think that's ok with reservations...oops too late.

An unsecured internet connection can be views as a window with the curtains pulled asside.

They may need a warrant to enter the house to look, but they can look in a window that has the drapes pulled asside and if they can see 20 kilos of coke on the table through that window....there is their cause for the warrant.

yikes, you are in Washington DC? Let's hope you are not elected.

No chance of that ever happening....I want no parts of an elected political position.

Good Analogy, and the very reason why it's at the supreme court, to get some diffinitions. Because each side is going to choose they're own dififinition to best fit their agenda.

I don't agree with the analogy at all. I would revise it to me leaving the window open and the curtains drawn and the police reaching inside to move the curtains and have a peek. There is no "accidentally looking into the house" with wi-fi - it is done with purpose and intent.

But let's roll with it... From the article, "Regarding the use of unsecured wi-fi internet connections, courts have held that we have little to no expectation of privacy."

I disagree... and here's why.

Saying making your data difficult to decode (encrypted) somehow implies a reasonable expectation of privacy whereas non-encrypted data doesn't. I can see how a conversation on the street could be seen as not private, because the average person has the ability to intercept and understand the communication even without the intent to do so. But does the average Joe have the ability to intercept and understand a wi-fi signal let alone without the intent of doing so (as in a conversation)?? No, it takes equipment and programming.

If I'm doing something that requires you to need some special equipment and have to purposefully look for what it is I'm doing, then I have a reasonable expectation of privacy. What magical line of privacy is drawn at encrypted vs. non-encrypted? If I write a simple algorithm to encode my wi-fi in pig latin, is that encrypted "enough" or can the police still forgo a warrant to reach into my house and move my curtains??

What magical line of privacy is drawn at encrypted vs. non-encrypted?

or

is that encrypted "enough" or can the police still forgo a warrant to reach into my house and move my curtains

That is just it, where is that line or enough?

And if its crossed (either by a trespasser or law enforcement), then what?

And how would the average user know?

1.) By a trespasser. If found out, how do you go about ID'ing and how to apprehend Legally.

2.) By law enforcement. If found out, how do you go about ID'ing and to mitigate?

I have no idea how they can be found out, until their actions expose themselves.

^{They can be both trespassers I just used different terms to differentiate the two}

In my opinion, this is what the Supreme Court has to consider into its ruling.

But according to our legal system....unless there is a specific law prohibiting it and a corresponding precident particularly if it deviates from the wording of the law.

One can argue its illegal to listen to people phone calls....but how can you charge someone for doing that when one person is stitting so close you can hear both sides of the conversation?

And looking through an open window and seeing something will relate directly to a traffic stop where the office clearly can see your bag of crack and a crack pipe that slid out from under the seat.

He won't NEED to find another reason to get that warrant if you refuse to let him search the car without one. All he has to say is its in plain view.

Windows of a car, windows of a house....same thing. If its in plain view...they can use what they see in your house...as a justification to be granted a search warrant to enter your house, to get said items and search for others that weren't in plain view.

Lets assume closed windows and open drapes or sheers, just to simplify the theoretical situation. Nobody moving curtains or reaching through windows.

Step back a little bit, using the analogy of looking threw a window. You do that by walking by.

Now lets apply here, did he see whats in the window by surfing the air waves?

Cyber police looking for an open window or something out of the ordinary?

This is a little off by lets say attaching a tracker, but it's all bundled up and have to be addressed.

If you are broadcasting it in the open...unsecured and unencrypted...its there for anyone to grab...Only fools do that (leaving their system open and unsecured)...but there are a lots of them.

Its really no different....was your privacy a right when talking to someone on a CB radio.....(or an amateur radio)? You needed a way to intercept and hear those signals.

How is putting a tracker on a suspects car really any different than having police tail them and take notes.

Good questions?

How is putting a tracker on a suspects car really any different than having police tail them and take notes.

Actual contact to private property, your no longer arms length away. Is that invasion or trespassing?

As far as tailing some one as a comparison.

That is another thing, in my younger years, I had been ticketed for speeding.

The officer was actually looking for DUI, it was approx. 11:00 pm, she was very disappointed. It was in town and she tailed me for over a 1-1/2 miles before she pulled me over.

So she as she put it, the good news, she letting me go for throwing a cigerette butt out the window, The bad news shes writing me up for speeding.

I was PO'ed because I wasn't speeding nor do I smoke.

I came within a heart beat of just paying it, because of the cost of ticket compared to my time if I took it to court. My dad told me to take it to court.

I'm glad I did.

It's is funny when your lied to face to face, and your helpless to do anything about it at the time, because when I did, she threaten more tickets. Thank god she was consistant in court as she was out of court patrolling. She wasn't so bright.

The judge ended up throwing it out, and then having a talk with her in private????

Been through that myself....fought nearly every ticket I ever recieved....won most of the time, got it reduced to a lesser violation nearly every one of the rest. I had one cop changing his story completely 5 times.....judge threw the case out.. I've beaten 7 radar or Lidar tickets over the years....The last one was against a traffic cop with a lot of years service...shook my hand and had a real nice conversation on the way out the door as I was his last case. After I explained how he was able to clock the vehicle BEHIND me. I not only convinced the judge...but I convinced the cop as well I was right.

Helps to know how those things work to find a very plausible explanation of how it didn't work as they expected it to in your situation.

And yes...I've had a run-in with a female state trooper like you did.....HUGE chip on her shoulder....Got cited for an impropper passing on a deserted highway in the middle of the night. When I didn't see another car in 15 miles. Besides the cop who was on the shoulder at the time.

Yeah...they don't have quotas..........and I've got some sweet Nebraska Ocean front property too.

It seems hard to believe that a law enforcement official would lie to you. And then it annoyed you. And then you got off on a technicality. Then you were happy. And blamed it on their stupidity.

How does that jibe with your denial of rights fest you are having on this forum. The primary reason I keep responding to you is because I am disappointed in my ability to persuade you that you need those rights, but you persist in repeating the fear mantra, I'm not doing anything wrong, so I don't mind if I don't get the benefit of the doubt. The government may not stick it's nose in your window, or under your car, or in your cell phone, without a warrant. It can follow you around, but if you go in your house, it cannot follow you. Why are you so eager to give that up?

Why are you so eager to give that up?

Who said I want to give that up.

Hell if anything, I'm wavering, others have seen that, and pointed it out, you have not.

frankly, as I stated, this discussion is more in-depth that I can't give a solid opinion which I eluded to earlier, thats the part thats not sinking in.

One side, what is reasonable privacy.

Other side, To what extend can law enforcement impede before they cross the line.

Those two items, I can't answer, Hell I had to take it to court to find out.

I don't want to strip law enforcement of tools, nor do I want to give them authority to abuse it. Which I experienced.

Now what, do we have to compromise?

As far as tailing, the look on the judges face when I said she tailed me for 1-1/2 mile. I knew then he was leaning in my favor.

As far as stupidity of the officer, I know I conveniently left this out, but it was also compile with other items, when she estimated my speed, at 11:00 pm, light snow coming down, using no references such as sign posts, trees. Even though she told me the night she wrote out the ticket to me that she had use radar, In court the story was she clocked me using her experience on how my headlights were getting bigger on the approach with no reference points. Stupid, ^{NASA would be very interested with that.}

And the Cherry, I asked her to give me an alternate unit of distance in a mile, of which the judge told the DA and the officer to stop laughing and answer the question.

Of which her reply was. "Lets see, I know there's 4,820 feet in a mile". The Judge said, 'I heard enough'. And the gavel dropped.

If your hell bent on just picking my posts apart. Don't pick on the posts that don't agree on your point of view. Do it on the premise that my opinion/posts wavers on these issues. Which it does, it'll at least carry more weight.

A reasonable expectation of privacy exists if 1) you actually expect privacy, and 2) your expectation is one that society as a whole would think is legitimate.

I think it is reasonable, given that every truck stop and gas station in the US sells CB radios, that the average person could listen into a conversation I might have using one. I think society as a whole would agree... thus no privacy.

Name one store that I can go to right now that sells the necessary hardware/software and instructions to listen in on a computer wi-fi signal. I'm not saying it can't be done, only that the average person doesn't have the access or know how. Therefore, it is reasonable to me to expect that people won't be listening in.

There is probably a machine out there that is capable of decrypting the "secure" signals as well so why restrict the police to listening in on unsecured communications? We all want to live in a police state right?? The more people that believe as you do, the closer we come to society not expecting privacy and the more rights we let erode away.

How is putting a tracker on a suspects car really any different than having police tail them and take notes.

The difference is in the details. Reread my posts above. I'm not against giving the police tools to do a job, I'm not trying to tie their hands, nor trying to let some bad guy get away with something. The police continually use the philosophy of "it's easier to ask for forgiveness than to ask for permission" when walking the lines of citzens' rights. THAT'S what I have a problem with. Just openly tell the judge what is going on, get the warrant, and do the investigation. It seems rather simple doesn't it???

As a final thought about privacy - it isn't about secrecy, solitude, or some need to hide wrong-doing. The core concept is human dignity - a concept that so many of our laws are built upon. A belief in the intrinsic value of each life, the respect for each person, and the belief in the goodness of people. With each inch of privacy that is given in the name of upholding the law, we put a chip in the basic principles, and in doing so, erode our view of human life and the value we place on it.

See, Stingray is nothing but something to identify a location....if you prohibit the police from using it....you legally have to prohibit 911 centers from using it too.

Consider the reason GPS is now in most phones is...no surprise...911 calls where the caller couldn't give a location. People died as the result of not having a land-line that could be traced to a location.

Remember Cops used to use the CB's to catch truckers and others, some cases to give false info to trap people at speed traps.

As far as Unsecured Wifi? Its so easy to get on that you don't need to be a computer geek. Buy any wifi card that's good for all the different standards, which is most of them...you find a availible network thats broadcasting its SSID, and if its unsecured you don't need either a username OR a password.

There is software out three that's easy to find that just through packet sniffing can get much of what you need to log in.....how hard all depends on how well it was set up by the owner.

See, Stingray is nothing but something to identify a location.....

Wrong. Although the full capability is the Stingray type of devices is still shrouded in secrecy (gee, I wonder why that is), the two known uses are to 1) identify the location of a specific number, and 2) find the numbers near a specific location.

if you prohibit the police from using it....you legally have to prohibit 911 centers from using it too

I don't see the connection between me calling 911 and providing a location (I think it is rather implied that a person who wants/needs emergency services wants their location information well known) and the police hiding behind what even judges have speculated are "legal" court orders. The behaviour is sketchy at best.

The rest of your post misses the target. It is simple enough to log into an unsecured network (so simple even a caveman can do it)... but watching what other network users are doing isn't quite so routine and easy to do. Again show me one piece of tech/software, sold at my local store, that allows me to receive and watch the wireless communications of another user.

Don't get me wrong, I'm sure the tech is out there. It just isn't sold at the store. I've seen custom devices similar to Stingray that not only find cell phones but would allow Person A to make use of any of those cell phones (which could lead to another topic of discussion about the already sketchy behavior and police corruption of planting evidence).

But even all this is way off the point.

Fact 1) even the police understand they need a court order to use Stingray (they DO get court orders)

Fact 2) law enforcement agencies claim SR falls into "pen register" category.

Fact 3) Legally defined a pen register is "a device which records or decodes electronic or other impulses which identify the numbers called or otherwise transmitted on the telephone line to which such device is dedicated."

Fact 4) Even if SR did fall into the definition (which it obviously doesn't), law enforcement is still required to explain to the judge exactly what technology is used and share the information gained with the court.

Fact 5) law enforcement agencies routinely attains court orders without doing either.

I don't know all the facets of the law, but it is simple to see that the behavior is sketchy at best and illegal at worst (and federal judges have stated it could be argued). Think for a moment about the reasons why people don't tell the whole story. I'm not a lawyer and neither are the cops, but most judges are... so again, it's simple, have law enforcement keep the judges in the loop and I won't have a problem with it.

If its shrouded in so much secrecy....how can you accurately make statements of what it can and can't do.

Not all 911 callers are capible of giving a location...or actually know their location.

You can't let one group use it and bar another....

As far as the wireless issue....how many people that don't bother to set up their wireless connection, bother to set up user accounts much less use passwords. THey are generally in as Admin without any restrictions....its not hard to get in to those.

I see a fair ammount of paranoia in the posts of people who are so worried about what someone might or might not see or hear.

The NSA and CIA aren't the evil overloards you should be fearing....its the elected officials that you should worry about, and their appointed minions parading around as Czars without any vetting or confirmations.

If its shrouded in so much secrecy....how can you accurately make statements of what it can and can't do.

I don't know the full capabilities. The only thing that has been made public is that it can be used to force cell phones to "log into it", thus finding the numbers at a location or to use it to track a given number. The rest of the capability is still hidden...

From the Wall Street Journal...

On Thursday the government will argue it should be able to withhold details about the tool used to locate Mr. Rigmaiden, according to documents filed by the prosecution. In a statement to the Journal, Sherry Sabol, Chief of the Science & Technology Office for the FBI's Office of General Counsel, says that information about stingrays and related technology is "considered Law Enforcement Sensitive, since its public release could harm law enforcement efforts by compromising future use of the equipment."

Why are you so eager to let the police run unchecked?? It really isn't rocket science, we all have people to hold us accountable for what we do. Why are you so adamant about letting go of judicial oversight of law enforcement and letting our country slip further toward a police state??

I don't...the difference is in what each of us defines as running roughshod over things.

And again....the root issue to fear...isn't the police (in general) or the CIA or the NSA. Most of them are people just like us and not the evil spys popularized by hollywood waiting for their shot at taking over the world.

The people to fear are the elected officials and their "unaccountible to anyone" minions.

Sure you have bad apples in every crowd...but there are far more in the Politicians ranks.