Is Stingray a Violation?

Pointing out corruption in politics (however obvious or larger that may be) is no excuse for allowing law enforcement to act without proper judicial oversight. This isn't a debate about who needs more accountability, every branch is supposed to have checks and balances.

See.., I don't view it that way.....you do.

I view it as a valuable tool that helps them stop or prevent crimes......you don't.

I don't think they should HAVE to get seperate judicial approval for every single step in an investigation. Cripes....they would not only have time to commit the crimes...but die of old age as well before they got them all. There is oversight...then there is hamstringing.....

I view it as a valuable tool that helps them stop or prevent crimes......you don't

Not true. It's usefulness is apparent from the fact that law enforcement uses it. I'm all giving law enforcement tools to help do their job. But the decision of what tools they can use and how they use them lies with the courts, it is not up to the police to determine what is appropriate, they are NOT self-regulating.

I don't think they should HAVE to get separate judicial approval for every single step in an investigation

Nor do I. But in the situations where there is obvious question (and it is obvious, else the supreme court wouldn't be involved in the appropriateness), when the agencies themselves are aware of the need for oversight, but choose to hide their behavior from oversight... that's when I take issue.

There is nothing difficult about simply telling a judge, "We want to use Stingray for X days to track the geographical movement of John Doe's cell phone." They're already talking to the judge to get a court order and in one simple sentence the situation is clarified to the benefit of all parties.

I see it as a means to gather enough evidence to get search warrant issued by a judge. The policey usually have to present enough probible cause to get one.

So you're fine with handing the police and not a judge the power to decide on whether or not the tools and methods they employ are legal or violate constitutional rights?

There hasn't been any determination that you have that guarantee of privacy since between caller ID and the the functions emergency services now have access to WITHOUT a special warrant is any violation.

Since essentially 100% of the cell phone users make and take calls around others. Your expectation of privacy is effectively zero.

Again, you ignore the question and attempt to derail the real issue here (or at least what I see as the real issue). There wouldn't be any question of whether there is an expectation of privacy if the police would simply let the judge decide whether what they're doing is legal (again, they're already talking to the judge and it'd be one extra sentence to clarify things) rather than operate in a self-righteous I'll-be-the-judge mode.

Short circuiting the checks and balances in our system by hiding what they're doing from the judge is nothing short of juvenile.

No...its a VERY valid point I'm making.....Unless its specifically illegal for them to do....then its perfectly acceptible AND legal for them to do.

And keep in mind, there are always consequences....if the cops have their hands tied....then so will emergency responders....Imagine a frantic 911 call by someone that can't explain where they are or don't know where they are...

Imagine having to tell them we will call you back after we get a warrant to find you.

Unless its specifically illegal for them to do....then its perfectly acceptable AND legal for them to do.

I have to agree that if it isn't illegal, then it is legal, but I don't make the call whether something is legal or not - I leave that to the lawyers and judges. I think that since the cops aren't lawyers either, perhaps it'd be best if they leave the decision of it's use up to someone who is as well. By the fact that the police understand that a court order is required to use it, this implies even they understand a need to protect the rights of the people from it's unrestricted use (even if JohnQPublic doesn't). By the fact that they hide the details from the judges implies they're doing something wrong. Note the judge in the WSJ article even said the legality of the court orders for these can be argued.

The other thing that needs to be understood is "implied consent." If you're choking, bleeding, etc I do NOT have the right to jump in and save you... your rights prevent my action unless I have consent from you. If I say I can help and you shake your head NO, I am powerless... until you pass out. As soon as you become unconscious I have what is called implied consent and can legally jump in and save you regardless of any of your previous statements or wishes.

This is what a call to 911 is.... consent is implied.

I read an article over the weekend that was kind of scary to me. According to what I read, the Obama administration says the use of all forms of tracking, through whatever means (be it a cell phone, planted tracker, or CCTV with facial recognition), do not need a warrant or court order (no judicial oversight required for them) and are pushing for things to move that direction.

I can only hope the Supreme Court decides differently.

So whats the differnce between using that GPS to find an active crime scene (or a simple medical emergency).....or the same information prevent the next one? Like I said...just like medications and side effects....laws can have unintended consequences. And its those that will trip you up every time.

I don't see anyone getting tripped up, except you. I wonder what you will say to this question.

Is there a difference between requesting assistance (a 911 call) and police surveillance. I think most can discern the difference, but I wanted to get your take.

No....you are ignoring the fact that not all 911 calls are medical in nature....

or how many are dialed and people can not or do not respond on the other end....and the fact they are required to deal with every one of those and not blow them off.

And keep in mind the law can't discriminate.....or its going to find itself not being a law for very long.

There is a huge difference between determining a persons geographical location and listening to their calls. The former there is no expectation of privacy moving about in public....and the latter there is...and would require a wiretap warrant.

And assuming they even did listen in....it would not be admissible in court as it would have been gathered without a warrant...assuming they weren't bored to death before they actually heard anything of any use.

Because a smart crook would have been using a prepaid throw-away or a stolen phone anyway. Not one thats obviously on the "freinds and family" plan.

I don't follow you. Any 911 call is a request for help. Medical, police etc. THE PERSON DIALS THE PHONE.

And what has this to do with getting a warrant to search someones person or property (their cell phone) whether by radio wave, X-Ray, laser, pat down.

See...we are back to the basic issue....of having no assumed right to privacy when in public.

Police have been tailing suspects as long as there were police to tail them....this in effect is no different.

Because there has been nothing to credibly establish that they will be doing more than tracking physical location of the phone (like listening in which would trigger the wiretap statutes).....I am saying that is its sole purpose for the point of discussion.

Based on your scenario....lets say the phone was the perps...dropped or taken by the victim and dialed? Its still the perps phone...the perp didn't concent for its use...

See there can be a whole lot of what-ifs, but-ifs coming into play here, particularly, if one group gets a blanket pass while another doesn't.

Then there is the apps that do exist used to spy on spouses or kids that track their locations and report back...or employers.....if the cops can't do that....private individuals shouldn't either......

See, we have that slippery slope thing because its not a blanket law that applies equally to everyone.

I officially retire from this thread. I think you are batty.

Not hardly.....I could tell you things about electronic surveillance that would make your jaw drop. And not from a theoretical perspective.

.....if the cops can't do that....private individuals shouldn't either......

The founding fathers didn't agree. The funny thing about the Constitution and the 4th amendment is that it is specific to the government. There is no such thing as 4th amendment protection from illegal search and seizure from a private citizen. It is designed to protect you from the government, not the people.

I wouldn't recommend tapping into your neighbors outside phone block.....you will find yourself in serious trouble if you did. You might be surprised the sorts of things as a private citizen you could find themselves in real trouble over that the Government could do, that you can't, with or without a warrant.

Example being try taking back your property out of your own home your soon to be ex-wife is occupying in the middle of a divorce....even though you paid for it with your own money, while she sat on her butt and fooled around behind your back with all your friends.

There is no white and black separation, its all shades of grey...with a whole lot of traps to step in along the way.

And there are laws against illegal search and seizure by private citizens.....only they call it something different....breaking and entering, and Robbery.

Its a real minefield....and a lot of people find themselves in a lot of trouble thinking they know how to navigate it every day.

Besides...most of those are geared to what they can present as evidence in court...vs. what they can do to warrant a closer look.

Just to be clear.....I don't totally disagree with the point you are trying to make, only its not nearly as clear or cut and dry as it appears you think it is....and that's why there are so many lawyers.

Yes, you are correct. There are laws that protect people from the actions of other citizens. Just because the Constitution doesn't provide protection from another citizen doesn't mean there aren't other laws on the books. I wasn't trying to say search and seizure from a private citizen is legal, only that the 4th amendment only protects us from the government.

I am not firm in the belief that Stingray is illegal. I am, however, firm in the belief that the checks and balances in our system are a vital necessity to ensure that the rights of citizens aren't trampled. As you've already stated, there is enough corruption in our government already.

Let a judge rule on it and be done.

claiming validity is generally considered to be a breach of debate etiquette. In a public forum, the readers will be the judge of what is valid.

Also read post #42. If you did, reread it, because I don't think without laying it all in front of you, you can comprehend the extend of the implications. as far as the topic of porn as an example that is all it was, an example and part of the big picture, you have to stop dwelling on it and look at the big picture.

The initial reactions of the Supreme Court - from this morning's news...

http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9QSME201.htm

unsettling reactions at that.

Because this could extend to the previous post of unsecured internet for the definition of reasonable privacy.....with some imagination

Between Google and a number of other search engines a websites....they already know your habits and where you go.....and not just the government.....lots of other places you would not expect.....you can thank cookies and other stuff for that....you are rarely as anonymous as you think you are, or wish you were.

Perhaps the Supreme Court ruling will extend to what the NSA is doing... (ok, I had to laugh at that...)

http://cr4.globalspec.com/blogentry/16951/Former-NSA-Genius-Apologizes-for-His-Super-Spying-Software

This thread is a good starting point for how far our government goes spying on US citizens... or just google "NSA internet" and see what comes up!

SO what do they plan to do about all the other places and ways to track internet usage? They can't legislate what takes place via offshore websites....outside their jurisdiction. And those are far more dangerous than anything the NSA might be doing.

J. Edgar Hoover had been doing it.......good thing mass communication technology was not available back then.

Heres the other thing, and I know this has change due to technology.

A professor?????? back in the 70's had proposed to open every thing up, and bury the Russians with data.

But with digital data and the software now, this won't be effective.

Can do = not equal should do

can do = not equal habitually done.

There is a reason for the Constitution, and its reference to Natural Laws for a real and good reasons.

Duh.