5 ms·

Does this outlaw stingray use by police? If I am near a suspect and they get all calls in the area, I would be tracked unlawfully?

djsumdog 8y ago
That's what I was wondering too. There hasn't been any mention, and this is for a years old cellphone case that doesn't deal with GPS tracking, just regular tower triangulation. (The podcast Serial, season 1, covers an interesting cases where such data was used to convict someone for murder). I don't see any specific mention of the Stingray in any of the articles I've seen on this, but from the surface it would seem to indicate police would need a warrant to use a Stingray to target an individual. Anyone else got more info?
advisedwang 8y ago
It doesn't immediately have that effect. Very likely police will continue to use stingrays until courts explicitly rule against it (and probably has been appealed to the supreme court). However this does indicate the way that the supreme court leans. Not only does this suggest they would rule against stingrays, but it also might push lower courts to also rule against them.
caconym_ 8y ago
I've been skimming but I don't think the data stingrays collect would count as "business records" since they are actually (AFAIK) intercepted communications. Of course, I think they should be subject to the same restrictions and oversight. It's encouraging that the SCOTUS seems to be recognizing (to some degree) the relatively new and uniquely horrific potential of unchecked electronic surveillance.
quasse 8y ago
My reading of SCOTUSBlog implies that they in fact were fairly careful to imply that today's ruling does not affect stingray use. > "He took pains to point out that the ruling did not “express a view on” other privacy issues, such as obtaining cell-site location records in real time, or getting information about all of the phones that connected to a particular tower at a particular time." http://www.scotusblog.com/2018/06/opinion-analysis-court-holds-that-police-will-generally-need-a-warrant-for-cellphone-location-information/ http://www.scotusblog.com/2018/06/opinion-analysis-court-hol...

djsumdog 8y ago

That's what I was wondering too. There hasn't been any mention, and this is for a years old cellphone case that doesn't deal with GPS tracking, just regular tower triangulation. (The podcast Serial, season 1, covers an interesting cases where such data was used to convict someone for murder). I don't see any specific mention of the Stingray in any of the articles I've seen on this, but from the surface it would seem to indicate police would need a warrant to use a Stingray to target an individual. Anyone else got more info?

advisedwang 8y ago

It doesn't immediately have that effect. Very likely police will continue to use stingrays until courts explicitly rule against it (and probably has been appealed to the supreme court). However this does indicate the way that the supreme court leans. Not only does this suggest they would rule against stingrays, but it also might push lower courts to also rule against them.

caconym_ 8y ago

I've been skimming but I don't think the data stingrays collect would count as "business records" since they are actually (AFAIK) intercepted communications. Of course, I think they should be subject to the same restrictions and oversight. It's encouraging that the SCOTUS seems to be recognizing (to some degree) the relatively new and uniquely horrific potential of unchecked electronic surveillance.

quasse 8y ago

My reading of SCOTUSBlog implies that they in fact were fairly careful to imply that today's ruling does not affect stingray use. > "He took pains to point out that the ruling did not “express a view on” other privacy issues, such as obtaining cell-site location records in real time, or getting information about all of the phones that connected to a particular tower at a particular time." http://www.scotusblog.com/2018/06/opinion-analysis-court-holds-that-police-will-generally-need-a-warrant-for-cellphone-location-information/ http://www.scotusblog.com/2018/06/opinion-analysis-court-hol...