5 ms·

How do you know there wasn’t a warrant?

by tiahura 1y ago

perihelions 1y ago
It'd be flatly unconstitutional to approve a dragnet warrant targeting a protest.
- tiahura 1y ago
  In a recently-unsealed search warrant reviewed by Forbes, ICE used such a cell-site simulator in an attempt to track down an individual in Orem, Utah. Maybe you missed it when you read the article?
  - perihelions 1y ago
    The article[0] I'm replying to is about a political protest in Tukwila, Washington. [0] https://san.com/cc/exclusive-evidence-of-cell-phone-surveillance-detected-at-anti-ice-protest/ https://san.com/cc/exclusive-evidence-of-cell-phone-surveill...
    - loeg 1y ago
      (It establishes that it is possible to obtain a warrant to use this device. One could have been obtained in Tukwila.)
- dmix 1y ago
  They wouldn't necessarily be targeting the whole protest, the IMSI catcher would work broadly and from that the warrant would require them to narrow down to one and ignore rest. Unless I misunderstood the technical details the parent comment posted. This broad dragnet nature of Stingray collection has always been why it's been a major privacy issue. Like doing a wiretap by tapping the whole neighbourhood and filtering phone calls for a certain address.
- cosmicgadget 1y ago
  After reading Kavanaugh's latest concurrence I am not so sure.
  - Yeul 1y ago
    Whoever thought it was a good idea to let a president appoint the supreme court was a naive fool.
    - vkou 1y ago
      Given that the Supreme Court has managed to appoint[1] two presidents in the past thirty years, I'd say that the Gordian knot has tightened. [1] Bush 2000, and less directly but far more dangerously, by making Trump unprosecutable in the run-up to 2024.
    - dylan604 1y ago
      Appoint, yet still needing Senate approval is probably what made this palatable to the founding fathers. I'm guessing the old white dudes in wigs never thought that the Senate would abdicate its role by become subservient to one old dude if not in a powdered wig at least in powdered face
    - smcin 1y ago
      But the Senate Judiciary Ctte and then the full Senate get to vote. Remember Kavanaugh's confirmation vote in 2018 was 50-48, Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) voted against, Susan Collins for, Joe Manchin (D-WV) also for [0]. Susan Collins' reluctant-voice-of-moderation act has run out of steam, finally, probably decades overdue [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brett_Kavanaugh_Supreme_Court_nomination?wprov=sfla1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brett_Kavanaugh_Supreme_Court_...
      - Yeul 1y ago
        Unfortunately American politics has completely deteriorated to a civil war between red and blue. Which I suppose is another thing that was predicted but not acted upon: the establishment of political parties.
vkou 1y ago
When you treat with someone you know to be a compulsive liar, the onus of proof is on them. If this government has not proven that they had one, you'd be mad to trust that they did. There are no consequences to it for lying, or for not following the law, or not acting in good faith. It has a well-documented history of doing all three, and is headed by a convicted criminal.
analognoise 1y ago
Can we stop sanewashing these people? They clearly don't care for legality, constitutionality, anything positive or good.
- tiahura 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - vharuck 1y ago
    This is an administration that once had a man who, during a meeting about deportations attended by department lawyers, in response to what would be done if the courts rejected their rationale, said "Fuck the courts." This man is no longer part of the administration. But not because he was fired for this blatant disregard for the judicial branch. It's because he was nominated to be a judge (and the Senate confirmed him).
  - Refreeze5224 1y ago
    Please argue in good faith. "Just because xyz" is not. It's asking to ignore tons of evidence and explicit speech to the contrary.
lordhumphrey 1y ago
Whether an action has gotten a legal thumbs-up or not is of little relevance here. I'd like to leave the question of why that's true as an exercise for the reader, but your comment makes it sound as if you have trouble with this concept, so let's be explicit - a state operating autocratically can, and often will, rubberstamp whatever it decides it wants to do. Had a quick look for the numbers from FISA to give you an example of this. https://www.motherjones.com/criminal-justice/2013/06/fisa-court-nsa-spying-opinion-reject-request/ https://www.motherjones.com/criminal-justice/2013/06/fisa-co... says that they denied 11 requests for surveillance warrants out of 33,900 requests over 33 years of operation. That's a pass rate of 99.07%! So allow me to say - a warrant wouldn't have changed anything, they give them out like nothing. In the article though, it does say: "ICE did not respond to requests for comment from SAN. It is not clear whether ICE or any other law enforcement agency obtained a warrant to use an IMSI catcher — commonly referred to as a “Stingray” — to conduct surveillance."
- Levitz 1y ago
  >Whether an action has gotten a legal thumbs-up or not is of little relevance here. On the contrary, I don't think there's anything more relevant. That such action can be legal speaks volumes about the state of what is legal and tolerated within the US. This, like pretty much everything about the current administration, is not explicitly about Trump, but something that has been cooking for at the very least the past two decades.
  - anecdatas 1y ago
    It's relevant in the sense of "is this an indicator of increasing autocracy" but not relevant in the sense of "does the presence of the warrant indicate this is ok". I think the parent poster is saying that the present of a warrant does not make the action not autocratic. And you are disagreeing with a different idea (that the presence of a warrant doesn't matter at all), by saying it does matter, but in the opposite way -- if a warrant is present that indicates the state is losing checks and balances.
- tiahura 1y ago
  It seems like it would be hard to make pronouncements about the error rate without knowing the actual rate of unsupportable requests? Moreover, you’re referencing FISA warrants which are so unlike typical warrants that constructing arguments based on FISA practice is risky. Point me to an article if I’m wrong, but I haven’t heard even a single credible rumor that these Stingrays aren’t being used for exactly what authorities say they are - trying to find particular individuals is a general area. Have you heard of whistleblower accounts or accidentally leaked details about large scale storage ordata mining of location data from Stingrays? If your argument is simply that law enforcement agencies don’t have the right to conduct a dragnet when pursuing a fugitive murderer, as is the case here, you’re going to need something more persuasive than a rant against authoritarianism.
throwawayq3423 1y ago
A warrant for several thousand people at a spontaneous event ?

How do you know there wasn’t a warrant?

perihelions 1y ago

It'd be flatly unconstitutional to approve a dragnet warrant targeting a protest.

tiahura 1y ago
In a recently-unsealed search warrant reviewed by Forbes, ICE used such a cell-site simulator in an attempt to track down an individual in Orem, Utah. Maybe you missed it when you read the article?
- perihelions 1y ago
  The article[0] I'm replying to is about a political protest in Tukwila, Washington. [0] https://san.com/cc/exclusive-evidence-of-cell-phone-surveillance-detected-at-anti-ice-protest/ https://san.com/cc/exclusive-evidence-of-cell-phone-surveill...
  - loeg 1y ago
    (It establishes that it is possible to obtain a warrant to use this device. One could have been obtained in Tukwila.)
dmix 1y ago
They wouldn't necessarily be targeting the whole protest, the IMSI catcher would work broadly and from that the warrant would require them to narrow down to one and ignore rest. Unless I misunderstood the technical details the parent comment posted. This broad dragnet nature of Stingray collection has always been why it's been a major privacy issue. Like doing a wiretap by tapping the whole neighbourhood and filtering phone calls for a certain address.
cosmicgadget 1y ago
After reading Kavanaugh's latest concurrence I am not so sure.
- Yeul 1y ago
  Whoever thought it was a good idea to let a president appoint the supreme court was a naive fool.
  - vkou 1y ago
    Given that the Supreme Court has managed to appoint[1] two presidents in the past thirty years, I'd say that the Gordian knot has tightened. [1] Bush 2000, and less directly but far more dangerously, by making Trump unprosecutable in the run-up to 2024.
  - dylan604 1y ago
    Appoint, yet still needing Senate approval is probably what made this palatable to the founding fathers. I'm guessing the old white dudes in wigs never thought that the Senate would abdicate its role by become subservient to one old dude if not in a powdered wig at least in powdered face
  - smcin 1y ago
    But the Senate Judiciary Ctte and then the full Senate get to vote. Remember Kavanaugh's confirmation vote in 2018 was 50-48, Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) voted against, Susan Collins for, Joe Manchin (D-WV) also for [0]. Susan Collins' reluctant-voice-of-moderation act has run out of steam, finally, probably decades overdue [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brett_Kavanaugh_Supreme_Court_nomination?wprov=sfla1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brett_Kavanaugh_Supreme_Court_...
    - Yeul 1y ago
      Unfortunately American politics has completely deteriorated to a civil war between red and blue. Which I suppose is another thing that was predicted but not acted upon: the establishment of political parties.

vkou 1y ago

When you treat with someone you know to be a compulsive liar, the onus of proof is on them. If this government has not proven that they had one, you'd be mad to trust that they did. There are no consequences to it for lying, or for not following the law, or not acting in good faith. It has a well-documented history of doing all three, and is headed by a convicted criminal.

analognoise 1y ago

Can we stop sanewashing these people? They clearly don't care for legality, constitutionality, anything positive or good.

tiahura 1y ago
[flagged]
- vharuck 1y ago
  This is an administration that once had a man who, during a meeting about deportations attended by department lawyers, in response to what would be done if the courts rejected their rationale, said "Fuck the courts." This man is no longer part of the administration. But not because he was fired for this blatant disregard for the judicial branch. It's because he was nominated to be a judge (and the Senate confirmed him).
- Refreeze5224 1y ago
  Please argue in good faith. "Just because xyz" is not. It's asking to ignore tons of evidence and explicit speech to the contrary.

lordhumphrey 1y ago

Whether an action has gotten a legal thumbs-up or not is of little relevance here. I'd like to leave the question of why that's true as an exercise for the reader, but your comment makes it sound as if you have trouble with this concept, so let's be explicit - a state operating autocratically can, and often will, rubberstamp whatever it decides it wants to do. Had a quick look for the numbers from FISA to give you an example of this. https://www.motherjones.com/criminal-justice/2013/06/fisa-court-nsa-spying-opinion-reject-request/ https://www.motherjones.com/criminal-justice/2013/06/fisa-co... says that they denied 11 requests for surveillance warrants out of 33,900 requests over 33 years of operation. That's a pass rate of 99.07%! So allow me to say - a warrant wouldn't have changed anything, they give them out like nothing. In the article though, it does say: "ICE did not respond to requests for comment from SAN. It is not clear whether ICE or any other law enforcement agency obtained a warrant to use an IMSI catcher — commonly referred to as a “Stingray” — to conduct surveillance."

Levitz 1y ago
>Whether an action has gotten a legal thumbs-up or not is of little relevance here. On the contrary, I don't think there's anything more relevant. That such action can be legal speaks volumes about the state of what is legal and tolerated within the US. This, like pretty much everything about the current administration, is not explicitly about Trump, but something that has been cooking for at the very least the past two decades.
- anecdatas 1y ago
  It's relevant in the sense of "is this an indicator of increasing autocracy" but not relevant in the sense of "does the presence of the warrant indicate this is ok". I think the parent poster is saying that the present of a warrant does not make the action not autocratic. And you are disagreeing with a different idea (that the presence of a warrant doesn't matter at all), by saying it does matter, but in the opposite way -- if a warrant is present that indicates the state is losing checks and balances.
tiahura 1y ago
It seems like it would be hard to make pronouncements about the error rate without knowing the actual rate of unsupportable requests? Moreover, you’re referencing FISA warrants which are so unlike typical warrants that constructing arguments based on FISA practice is risky. Point me to an article if I’m wrong, but I haven’t heard even a single credible rumor that these Stingrays aren’t being used for exactly what authorities say they are - trying to find particular individuals is a general area. Have you heard of whistleblower accounts or accidentally leaked details about large scale storage ordata mining of location data from Stingrays? If your argument is simply that law enforcement agencies don’t have the right to conduct a dragnet when pursuing a fugitive murderer, as is the case here, you’re going to need something more persuasive than a rant against authoritarianism.

throwawayq3423 1y ago

A warrant for several thousand people at a spontaneous event ?