Local Police Departments Have Been Driving Fake Cell Towers Into Neighborhoods To Collect Phone Data

[xchrom]

http://www.businessinsider.com/usa-today-police-department-cell-data-2013-12



USA Today's John Kelly reports many U.S. law enforcement agencies have accessed cell towers to gather call data from thousands of residents, similar to tactics used by the N.S.A.

Approximately one-in-four of the agencies Kelly surveyed have executed what is known as a "tower dump," which involves collecting phone records from wireless providers that show the identity, activity and location of any phone that's been picked up by a set of cell towers over a given time frame.

And at least 25 police departments own Stingrays — suitcase-sized devices that Kelly describes as "fake cell towers." They can be clandestinely driven into neighborhoods and "trick all nearby phones into connecting to it and feeding data to police." Some states allow any local department to use them, and the purchases, which cost up to $400,000, are usually funded by the government through anti-terror grants.

Both tactics are legal, and all of the instances Kelly cites were predicated on obtaining warrants or court orders, or occurred in states with no statutes governing cell phone data privacy.



Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/usa-today-police-department-cell-data-2013-12#ixzz2mykC84w8

[MADem]

1. It's legal, and they got warrants/court orders.

So there's no abuse cited.

It's interesting technology. A new way to do a thing that's almost as old as the telephone--tap someone's line.

I would imagine that law enforcement likes pulling out a suitcase better than dressing up like a "telephone repairman," scaling a pole, and tapping into the phone that way, or bullshitting their way into an apartment building and fiddling with the phone box in the basement, or what-have-you.

I agree with the magistrate who said that what happens with the "collateral information" needs to be clarified. Anything that isn't related to what they are looking for needs to be dumped.

[politicaljunkie41910]

2. Slight correction. Some incidents occurred in states with no laws governing cell phone data privacy

"...Both tactics are legal, and all of the instances Kelly cites were predicated on obtaining warrants or court orders, or occurred in states with no statutes governing cell phone data privacy. ..."

That is a big "or" if I've ever seen one.

Wish the article would have expanded on this statement to determine the extent of states not covered by such privacy statutes.

http://www.businessinsider.com/usa-today-police-department-cell-data-2013-12#ixzz2mzPMWYt9

[MADem]

3. It's a distinction, certainly, but the bottom line is no one was breaking the law.

Certainly, there are loopholes that need to be closed with regard to data collection of cellphone communications, but it's not like there was any deliberate attempt to get around any laws. Either there were hoops that needed to be jumped through, or there weren't.

For those living in the states where there aren't any "hoops," I'd urge them to get cracking and fashion some--unless they don't care what their law enforcement officials might do when it comes to listening in on cell phone conversations.

I like checks and balances, and this is an area that needs some "clean up" because they're a little shy on one or the other.