Silk Road forums

Discussion => Security => Topic started by: fizzy on February 26, 2012, 09:59 pm

Title: DOJ attempting to justify warrantless search via stingray
Post by: fizzy on February 26, 2012, 09:59 pm
I didn't find this in a search of earlier posts  - sorry if it's a duplication. Most coverage online of this development was around 2/14/2012,  I'm catching up on my news here.
Worth keeping an eye on this perhaps.
I was watching it because the issue of deleted information that is never made available to the judge or defendant, which also still needs to be addressed.

http://blogs.findlaw.com/technologist/2012/02/buy-a-phone-with-a-fake-name-lose-your-privacy-rights.html
Quote
If you buy a phone using a fake name, you may be throwing away your reasonable expectation of privacy with regards to that device.

At least that is what the federal government is arguing in one Arizona case. The case involves a criminal defendant, Daniel David Rigmaiden.

He is accused of filing approximately $4 million worth of fraudulent tax returns starting in 2005. The FBI used a device called a "stingray" to catch Rigmaiden. It's able to track down a cell phone's location so long as it's powered "on."

The device acts like a cellphone tower. It "pings" the phone and measures the resulting signals. It has uses beyond apprehending suspected criminals. It can also be used in search and rescue attempts. And it's only sold to government and law enforcement.

It seems that the FBI obtained a court order -- but not a search warrant. And it appears that one of the prosecution's vital arguments is that a search warrant isn't necessary. They assert that Rigmaiden has no standing to bring a Fourth Amendment claim because he used a fake name when he purchased the broadband card and service. Furthermore, he used a false name to rent out his apartment.

In short, he has no reasonable expectation of privacy.

But The Wall Street Journal has pointed out these contentions may not stand. After all, courts in other cases have upheld an individual's privacy rights when they use a false name.

The FBI's use of the stingray device may face further scrutiny. The data is actually deleted off the device. It's not returned to a judge. A criminal defendant also cannot access the information because the information has already been wiped.

Should buying a phone with a fake name reduce your right to privacy? That's the question the federal court may have to weigh in on.

http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2012/02/14/feds-argue-using-a-fake-name-deprives-you-of-fourth-amendment-rights/
Quote
The government conceded in the case that the use of the stingray was intrusive enough qualify as a search under the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. But in a court filing on Jan. 27, the government argues that the defendant, Daniel David Rigmaiden, doesn’t have standing to bring a Fourth Amendment claim because the broadband card, service and computer were purchased under false names and the apartment was rented using the name of a dead person and a fake ID.

Courts recently have found that a warrantless search is OK if the person used fraud to get the thing being searched, said Susan Freiwald, a professor at the University of San Francisco School of Law. In one example, the defendant had bought a computer with a stolen credit card and the person who actually owned the card consented to the search. In another, the defendant was receiving mail addressed to an alias he used only as part of a fraud.

But other cases have found that people still have a reasonable expectation of privacy – and thus can’t have their property searched without a warrant – even if they are using an alias.

“It’s not against the law to use a fake name,” said Adam Candeub, director of the Intellectual Property, Information and Communications Law Program at Michigan State University. The use of a fake ID and signing of a lease might be a different matter, though. “It can be fraudulent if you are entering into a contract under a fake name, but if it is a simple retail transaction the law is not clear,” he said.

Ms. Freiwald said that although prosecutors have argued repeatedly that using an alias diminishes a person’s Fourth Amendment rights, “it would be too large an encroachment on both privacy rights and the rights of free speech if the mere use of a pseudonym were enough to deprive someone” of Fourth Amendment protections.
Title: Re: DOJ attempting to justify warrantless search via stingray
Post by: inscape on February 27, 2012, 02:30 am
good stuff. it'll be interesting to see how this plays out. i'm assuming with the conflicting rulings/opinions and the constitutional undertones it'll be headed to the supreme court eventually. im curious since "the courts in other cases have upheld an individual's privacy rights when they use a false name." i'd think this could also essentially apply to getting a warrant on mail sent using false name? opening a PO box with a fake id, ect. could be pretty far reaching...
Title: Re: DOJ attempting to justify warrantless search via stingray
Post by: TheNewDude on February 27, 2012, 03:39 am
Nothing will come of this.

The 4th amendment is dead. (As is the rest of our constitution)
Title: Re: DOJ attempting to justify warrantless search via stingray
Post by: A. Dubois on February 27, 2012, 03:45 am
Obama are you in the US? If so, you are DEAD WRONG about recording people's phone calls being legal. In ALL FIFTY states wiretapping laws require that at least one person, and in many states BOTH parties know that the call is being recorded. If you are secretly recording without either party knowing, recording the calls is highly illegal. Most likely a felony. In any case where a person has an EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY recording them is illegal. I would like you to post case law regarding these court cases. But you won't because you can't. Recording phone calls is ILLEGAL, unless you are in a state where only one party is required to know the call is being recorded, and you are providing one half of the recorded conversation. Please refrain from posting hyperbole and falsehoods in the forum.
Title: Re: DOJ attempting to justify warrantless search via stingray
Post by: A. Dubois on February 27, 2012, 03:49 am
And the New Dude is right. But I don't see this as a bad thing. The constitution doesn't provide freedom. As we've seen, tyrants can and have used it to restrict freedom and enslave the population. Agorism, or libertarian anarchism, is real freedom. Research the Non Aggression Principle. That's where the NEW freedom will come from.
Title: Re: DOJ attempting to justify warrantless search via stingray
Post by: fizzy on February 27, 2012, 07:06 am
Mm. Let me clarify. I don't think much new will come of this.
I don't expect that I have much privacy these days. But I do like to fight for what I have, because closing my eyes and thinking of England while they continue to bang away at what's left? *not better.*

Cases are still thrown out over such things though, as it turns out, so it seems worthwhile to be aware of the information. For example, a situation in which someone tries to force me into a plea based on somewhat misleadingly reported conviction rates and when I have a public defender who may be outstanding but have divided attention. Or a case in which I'm recorded/tracked without cause - which is the basis of Jones (gps tracking) - but due to changes in tech, no one quite has caught up with the concepts.

And, by the by, as far as Jones and developments:
http://www.theverge.com/2012/2/26/2826606/fbi-gps-tracking-device-shutdown-supreme-court-privacy-ruling
haven't talked to anyone at the actual conference or found the talk/transcript online yet

@Inscape: yes, exactly, as far as the boxes, etc., under false names. The commentors talk about nyms being standard practice online. Great (well, so is giving a pseudonym for a drop phone, arguably, but that's beside the point.) How about enrolling for email accounts, then? How about use of a cash-paid debit card for online access which requires entering a name and address? Is the 'fraud line' going to be "name and physical address were entered?" Or... anything where the TOS say so? Or what?
*I don't know.* This is a glossy icy slippery nasty slope. So I think it bears watching as it works its way through the system. Personally I was just pleasantly surprised when the stingray was considered invasive search.

--f.
Title: Re: DOJ attempting to justify warrantless search via stingray
Post by: sourman on February 27, 2012, 12:27 pm
^I don't even hear about them physically tapping phones anymore. They just send the necessary paperwork to your telco and comfortably listen to your conversations in their office using special hardware appliances directly connected to the telephone infrastructure. Some companies--especially if they provide exclusively digital voice and data--have special LE terminals set up that the agent just logs into, kind of like a webmaster using cpanel. All they need is the login info and a court order, and they can pull up your call history, email records, web logs, etc. If they have a search warrant, then they can access the actual contents of your communications, depending on what the judge allowed them to spy on.

tl;dr government forced all telcos to install packet sniffer/voice interception hardware on their infrastructure that allows them to log in from their office and view practically all of your network/voice/text message/email activity, etc. provided they have a warrant or court order.
Title: Re: DOJ attempting to justify warrantless search via stingray
Post by: sourman on February 27, 2012, 12:57 pm
Well, they definitely stopped tapping into the actual phone line going into one's house for decades. The method you are describing is how they did it up until now, when practically everything is digital. Now they turn on their office computer, log in to your phone company over the "internet", and listen to/watch/read whatever their subpoena lets them (or they just read everything anyway) while sitting in a chair and drinking coffee. They might still tap the entire exchange or whatever they call that box where the neighborhood's phone lines connect to, but only if you are on some antiqued phone network. Perhaps somewhere rural, or maybe in other jurisdictions. Cell phones are all "tapped" from the office, 100%. They just log in and listen.
Title: Re: DOJ attempting to justify warrantless search via stingray
Post by: inscape on February 27, 2012, 06:02 pm
i can say from experience that there have been multiple cases where i have been falsley accuse of felonies and it was definately in my best interest to try and record a phone call to introduce as evidence. each time my lawyer assured me such "evidence" was specifically not allowed to be introduced. this was straight from my "very" competant $150/h. lawyer, who is also specifically and highly recomended by Norml on their website and otherwise. Granted that could be state law since neither of the cases were federal. the patrtiot act is most definately pure evil and throws a stick in the wheel in so many wayz. they had that shit wriiten up long before 9/11. fucking PNAC, ect... :x
Title: Re: DOJ attempting to justify warrantless search via stingray
Post by: Oldtoker on February 29, 2012, 08:44 am
And just an FYI

Do you know how the police tap land lines now?

This is what they do all over the country..........

The police used to just tap the line in question but thier tap would make noises and make the phone do stupid things that could give them away in cases. Phone taping technology has evolved along way. NOW what the police do is tap your entire block. So if you have a drug dealer doing drug deals from a phone in your neighbor hood and the cops do tap his house phone, they are taping all the phone lines connected to that grid. Now yes, they can do a TON with any information they get from you but you best believe they are listening to your phone calls to.

Its so beautiful and perfect when I see these young kinds that think police are good guys and dont break the laws. The bottom line is the police carry dope right on them incase you piss them off they can drop it in your pocket. Police fuck prostitutes that they catch hookin while in uniform on the job. Police rob drug dealers. hell in my city I even saw a market police car get pulled over and I watched a cop get arrested.

Cops are criminals but for the most part they have more resources. They illegally spy on you. They lie to you. They dont respond when you need help, trust me on this one. There is 1 in 100 good cops. When you meet that one recognize him and become friends because as far as the other 99 are concerned they are the Patriots and you are the Giants.

My brother was an under cover cop in a major US City.  He was on one of their special task forces.  He got married and had a couple of kids.  It got to the point where there was so much shady shit going on in his unit that he asked to be re-assigned.  He was somewhat new on the force when first assigned to this new special task force.  At first he said he really enjoyed it.  But, after a couple of years he said it just got to be too risky as far as all of the shady crap that was going on.  He finally just bailed and retired a few years ago. 
Title: Re: DOJ attempting to justify warrantless search via stingray
Post by: minorthreat71 on February 29, 2012, 10:48 am
No your dead wrong. I am in law school. It is not "wiretapping" to listen in to someones wireless phone call. In the future please be sure to make sure your information is correct. Under the Patriot Act the government can justify using your cellular device to locate you, record your calls, and do anything else. Also the Patriot Act deems drug dealing a pre-lude to terrorism since drug money "funds" terror. Due to this reasons multiple fed agencies including the FBI, CIA, NSA, and numerous police agencies have listened in on cell phone calls without a judges permission. I am in my 3rd year of law school what is your experience in this matter? We JUST went over the Patriot Act this week and how it allows the government to listen to your calls on cell phones because there is no FCC law protecting it. In fact it also can be used to monitor your ISP activity regardless of your actions. So lets say your not a terrorists but for some reason an FBI agent wants to know what your doing, bam patriot act. He brings a letter issued by the FBI that says your ISP must cooperate.

So thanks for spreading your own lack of knowledge. I am going to be a criminal defense attorney so this is something I know a small amount about.

Not to be a dick here, but where do you go to law school?  Starting with "no your wrong" made me laugh. Words are the weapons....  failing third grade grammar obfuscates your argument, but you're probably typing in haste to demonstrate your superiority as a 3L. 

That said, you're confusing your case law. However, YOU'RE more correct than the other guy.  Might want to brush up on criminal procedures before the bar exam. Once the feds determine the convo is unrelated to the Act, they can no longer listen, theoretically, at least.  Beside, Ms. 3L, that's what a motion to supress is for....  Remember Katz?
Title: Re: DOJ attempting to justify warrantless search via stingray
Post by: lilith2u on February 29, 2012, 04:10 pm
And just an FYI

Do you know how the police tap land lines now?

This is what they do all over the country..........

The police used to just tap the line in question but thier tap would make noises and make the phone do stupid things that could give them away in cases. Phone taping technology has evolved along way. NOW what the police do is tap your entire block. So if you have a drug dealer doing drug deals from a phone in your neighbor hood and the cops do tap his house phone, they are taping all the phone lines connected to that grid. Now yes, they can do a TON with any information they get from you but you best believe they are listening to your phone calls to.

Its so beautiful and perfect when I see these young kinds that think police are good guys and dont break the laws. The bottom line is the police carry dope right on them incase you piss them off they can drop it in your pocket. Police fuck prostitutes that they catch hookin while in uniform on the job. Police rob drug dealers. hell in my city I even saw a market police car get pulled over and I watched a cop get arrested.

Cops are criminals but for the most part they have more resources. They illegally spy on you. They lie to you. They dont respond when you need help, trust me on this one. There is 1 in 100 good cops. When you meet that one recognize him and become friends because as far as the other 99 are concerned they are the Patriots and you are the Giants.
i couldn't agree more! know the enemy!