6 ms·

This is a good step forward, but until we (the citizens) are able to say that LEOs are no longer using parallel construction[0], this is a lot less helpful than

This is a good step forward, but until we (the citizens) are able to say that LEOs are no longer using parallel construction[0], this is a lot less helpful than it could be. This just means LEOs have to work a bit harder to mask their illegal activities. For example, say you're talking to your friend who sells weed and drive over to pick it up. The cops know you're buying drugs, so they pull you over for rolling through a stop sign, search your car, and "stumble" upon the weed. There is no way to prove they used a Stringray to get this information in the first place. Extrapolate this to other activities. [0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction

iancarroll 10y ago
> For example, say you're talking to your friend who sells weed and drive over to pick it up. The cops know you're buying drugs That's not what a Stingray does.
- wavefunction 10y ago
  A Stingray doesn't intercept your call to a suspected drug-dealer? What does it do then?
  - ProAm 10y ago
    It provides your location and meta phone data.
    - sli 10y ago
      This is not true. Interception of communications is one of the Stingray's uses, as well as extraction of data from a phone's internal storage. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stingray_phone_tracker https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stingray_phone_tracker
      - bpchaps 10y ago
        I had a very long debate with someone on this about its MitM uses and it confuses the crap out of me when people say it's not used for that. For some reason many people seem to think that, even though there's enough information for research, that it's not what they're used for. The same folk love to critique and minimize those with privacy concerns for wearing "tin foil hats". I really, really don't understand it considering all that's happened...
      - tedunangst 10y ago
        How does it extract data from the phone's internal storage?
        DigitalJack 10y ago
        provides a venue for MITM of cloud syncing/storage.
        tedunangst 10y ago
        I would not describe that as "extraction of data", but fair enough.
        monocasa 10y ago
        Tower to baseband injected code (via some update mechanism explicitly placed in the code, or an exploit) that then now has DMA access to physical memory?
      - ProAm 10y ago
        The data it is extracting is largely meta data about the phone's identity, the wikipedia article you link to even states that.
    - AnimalMuppet 10y ago
      Meta phone data like the number that you called? That's the drug dealer's number, in this example. That's an notification of a call, but not of the contents. So is that an intercept? I would say no, but it depends on your definition of "intercept".
cmdrfred 10y ago
I'd question why rolling a stop sign allows them to get a warrant to search a car as well. Stop and ticket, absolutely but a search seems too far.
- heartsucker 10y ago
  I'm pretty sure a cop claiming to smell weed is enough to search. Or it happens to be a K9 unit that stops them.
  - logfromblammo 10y ago
    I'm moving to the opinion that whenever K-9 or human cop noses are used to generate probable cause, three mylar balloons must be filled, using a pump, with the air alleged to contain the illegal odor, and sealed with chain-of-evidence stickers. One balloon is later fed to an "electronic nose" machine, in a double-blind fashion, to create an arguably impartial report. Then one is for the use of the prosecutor, and one is for the use of the defense. If the balloon does not contain marijuana odor molecules, all evidence collected in the subsequent search is inadmissible. One cannot cross-examine a dog, and human cops are no more trustworthy than any other witness that has a personal stake in the outcome of the case. What people can see and hear can be recorded by cameras and microphones, and examined after the fact by both sides in the adversarial process. Allowing smell, touch, and taste "evidence" for determination of probable cause seems to be an end-run around due process. "I smell weed" or "the dog alerted [because I signaled it to alert]" should not be a substitute for judicial oversight of police activity.
  - cmdrfred 10y ago
    So basically, cops can search whenever they please.
  - bpchaps 10y ago
    I was once told that if you're ever pulled over by a cop in my home town that the only thing you could do was to comply with everything, including warrantless searches even if innocent. That, if nothing illegal was found as a reason to get pulled over, a light would be busted. On top of that, it was argued that since false charges led to enough jailtime throughout the years that compliance was the only choice. At the time, it was stupidly hard to believe that it was good advice, especially after watching the "Don't Talk to Police" video [1]. About a year later, I saw [2] from the Chicago Tribune from my hometown which pretty much completely confirmed what I was told. I apologized to him after reading that. The conversation seriously, seriously raised doubt towards the "don't talk to the police" advice, since it minimizes a very, very turbulent legal landscape. [1] http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/watchdog/ct-waukegan-police-problems-met-20151028-story.html http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/watchdog/ct-waukegan-poli... [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc
deelowe 10y ago
It's always better to use non-illegal activities when constructing examples. After all, why is it a bad thing that police are more efficient at catching criminals (I'm a strong supporter of legalization btw, but recognize that as long as it's illegal, the police need to do their jobs). So whys is parallel construction a bad thing? Here's a different example. The FBI uses machine learning to develop models for predicting whether an individual is involved in terrorist activities. You are an innocent civilian who just so happens to a) be mulsim b) be an immigrant c) have recently visited a suspected country and d) work in agriculture and had to buy a lot of fertilizer recently. The FBI's system has labeled you a thread and that info was shared with the local authorities. At midnight on a Tuesday, your home is raided based on this info. The local police use the fertilizer purchase as the reason. The rest came from the FBI. It's a no-knock raid. A family member is injured or killed in the process. You end up in jail for several days during the interrogation. Turns out you are a closet homosexual. Various other things surface. You go to trail. You're innocent. Much of the evidence is fabricated or spurious, so it's thrown out. You get found not guilty. Your life is ruined. You are a disgrace to your religion. Your wife has divorced you. Your child has a permanent disability. You've lost your job. All because due process wasn't followed.
- cmurf 10y ago
  Not merely because due process wasn't followed, regular Joe Citizen passively supports it by having no problem with this outcome in any meaningful way. There are no political consequences. This is a country where a significant minority have elected a presidential candidate who activity argues against due process, using the argument that because terrorists don't follow due process neither should we. And that is an increasingly popular sentiment, that somehow following the law and ethics is liberal bullcrap, and that selective application of due process as a kind of loyalty test and reward is patriotic and heroic.
- heartsucker 10y ago
  My reason for citing something illegal is this is 1) this is a case where it is more likely to be used, and 2) it's still wrong here, so in cases that are more grey, it should be definitely seen as wrong. However, your example doesn't really require a Stingray. It shows that pre-crime modeling and no-knock warrants have negative outcomes (to which I agree).
InclinedPlane 10y ago
The practice of parallel construction should be illegal, with severe penalties for its use, it makes a mockery of our entire system of government. The only reason it's allowed is because the entire bill of rights is today viewed as a "nice to have" rather than the foundation of our republic.
bsder 10y ago
> This is a good step forward, but until we (the citizens) are able to say that LEOs are no longer using parallel construction[0], this is a lot less helpful than it could be. This just means LEOs have to work a bit harder to mask their illegal activities. But that's good. Don't let perfect be the enemy of better. Before this ruling, they didn't even have to go that far. While we assume that LEOs are good at parallel construction, standard human laziness applies and something will trip them up a lot of the time. If a three-letter-agency is out to get YOU, specifically, you are hosed no matter what. However, that is a different problem from an LEO being able to vacuum up a ton of stuff and sift through it cheaply simply because they need a couple more collars to make their drug arrest quota. If the NSA is out to get you, they will simply fabricate the evidence, no parallel construction needed.

iancarroll 10y ago

> For example, say you're talking to your friend who sells weed and drive over to pick it up. The cops know you're buying drugs That's not what a Stingray does.

wavefunction 10y ago
A Stingray doesn't intercept your call to a suspected drug-dealer? What does it do then?
- ProAm 10y ago
  It provides your location and meta phone data.
  - sli 10y ago
    This is not true. Interception of communications is one of the Stingray's uses, as well as extraction of data from a phone's internal storage. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stingray_phone_tracker https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stingray_phone_tracker
    - bpchaps 10y ago
      I had a very long debate with someone on this about its MitM uses and it confuses the crap out of me when people say it's not used for that. For some reason many people seem to think that, even though there's enough information for research, that it's not what they're used for. The same folk love to critique and minimize those with privacy concerns for wearing "tin foil hats". I really, really don't understand it considering all that's happened...
    - tedunangst 10y ago
      How does it extract data from the phone's internal storage?
      - DigitalJack 10y ago
        provides a venue for MITM of cloud syncing/storage.
        tedunangst 10y ago
        I would not describe that as "extraction of data", but fair enough.
      - monocasa 10y ago
        Tower to baseband injected code (via some update mechanism explicitly placed in the code, or an exploit) that then now has DMA access to physical memory?
    - ProAm 10y ago
      The data it is extracting is largely meta data about the phone's identity, the wikipedia article you link to even states that.
  - AnimalMuppet 10y ago
    Meta phone data like the number that you called? That's the drug dealer's number, in this example. That's an notification of a call, but not of the contents. So is that an intercept? I would say no, but it depends on your definition of "intercept".

cmdrfred 10y ago

I'd question why rolling a stop sign allows them to get a warrant to search a car as well. Stop and ticket, absolutely but a search seems too far.

heartsucker 10y ago
I'm pretty sure a cop claiming to smell weed is enough to search. Or it happens to be a K9 unit that stops them.
- logfromblammo 10y ago
  I'm moving to the opinion that whenever K-9 or human cop noses are used to generate probable cause, three mylar balloons must be filled, using a pump, with the air alleged to contain the illegal odor, and sealed with chain-of-evidence stickers. One balloon is later fed to an "electronic nose" machine, in a double-blind fashion, to create an arguably impartial report. Then one is for the use of the prosecutor, and one is for the use of the defense. If the balloon does not contain marijuana odor molecules, all evidence collected in the subsequent search is inadmissible. One cannot cross-examine a dog, and human cops are no more trustworthy than any other witness that has a personal stake in the outcome of the case. What people can see and hear can be recorded by cameras and microphones, and examined after the fact by both sides in the adversarial process. Allowing smell, touch, and taste "evidence" for determination of probable cause seems to be an end-run around due process. "I smell weed" or "the dog alerted [because I signaled it to alert]" should not be a substitute for judicial oversight of police activity.
- cmdrfred 10y ago
  So basically, cops can search whenever they please.
- bpchaps 10y ago
  I was once told that if you're ever pulled over by a cop in my home town that the only thing you could do was to comply with everything, including warrantless searches even if innocent. That, if nothing illegal was found as a reason to get pulled over, a light would be busted. On top of that, it was argued that since false charges led to enough jailtime throughout the years that compliance was the only choice. At the time, it was stupidly hard to believe that it was good advice, especially after watching the "Don't Talk to Police" video [1]. About a year later, I saw [2] from the Chicago Tribune from my hometown which pretty much completely confirmed what I was told. I apologized to him after reading that. The conversation seriously, seriously raised doubt towards the "don't talk to the police" advice, since it minimizes a very, very turbulent legal landscape. [1] http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/watchdog/ct-waukegan-police-problems-met-20151028-story.html http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/watchdog/ct-waukegan-poli... [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc

deelowe 10y ago

It's always better to use non-illegal activities when constructing examples. After all, why is it a bad thing that police are more efficient at catching criminals (I'm a strong supporter of legalization btw, but recognize that as long as it's illegal, the police need to do their jobs). So whys is parallel construction a bad thing? Here's a different example. The FBI uses machine learning to develop models for predicting whether an individual is involved in terrorist activities. You are an innocent civilian who just so happens to a) be mulsim b) be an immigrant c) have recently visited a suspected country and d) work in agriculture and had to buy a lot of fertilizer recently. The FBI's system has labeled you a thread and that info was shared with the local authorities. At midnight on a Tuesday, your home is raided based on this info. The local police use the fertilizer purchase as the reason. The rest came from the FBI. It's a no-knock raid. A family member is injured or killed in the process. You end up in jail for several days during the interrogation. Turns out you are a closet homosexual. Various other things surface. You go to trail. You're innocent. Much of the evidence is fabricated or spurious, so it's thrown out. You get found not guilty. Your life is ruined. You are a disgrace to your religion. Your wife has divorced you. Your child has a permanent disability. You've lost your job. All because due process wasn't followed.

cmurf 10y ago
Not merely because due process wasn't followed, regular Joe Citizen passively supports it by having no problem with this outcome in any meaningful way. There are no political consequences. This is a country where a significant minority have elected a presidential candidate who activity argues against due process, using the argument that because terrorists don't follow due process neither should we. And that is an increasingly popular sentiment, that somehow following the law and ethics is liberal bullcrap, and that selective application of due process as a kind of loyalty test and reward is patriotic and heroic.
heartsucker 10y ago
My reason for citing something illegal is this is 1) this is a case where it is more likely to be used, and 2) it's still wrong here, so in cases that are more grey, it should be definitely seen as wrong. However, your example doesn't really require a Stingray. It shows that pre-crime modeling and no-knock warrants have negative outcomes (to which I agree).

InclinedPlane 10y ago

The practice of parallel construction should be illegal, with severe penalties for its use, it makes a mockery of our entire system of government. The only reason it's allowed is because the entire bill of rights is today viewed as a "nice to have" rather than the foundation of our republic.

bsder 10y ago

> This is a good step forward, but until we (the citizens) are able to say that LEOs are no longer using parallel construction[0], this is a lot less helpful than it could be. This just means LEOs have to work a bit harder to mask their illegal activities. But that's good. Don't let perfect be the enemy of better. Before this ruling, they didn't even have to go that far. While we assume that LEOs are good at parallel construction, standard human laziness applies and something will trip them up a lot of the time. If a three-letter-agency is out to get YOU, specifically, you are hosed no matter what. However, that is a different problem from an LEO being able to vacuum up a ton of stuff and sift through it cheaply simply because they need a couple more collars to make their drug arrest quota. If the NSA is out to get you, they will simply fabricate the evidence, no parallel construction needed.