7 ms·

Emails Show Feds Asking Florida Cops to Deceive Judges

242 points by reirob 12y ago

thisjepisje 12y ago
Do/can they perform an MITM attack with a stingray?
- chk 12y ago
  From how I interpret the Stingray, it is executing a MITM attack. These types of devices are sometimes refereed to as IMSI-catchers, and sit in between the users phone, and the real network towers. [1] My concern is what exactly is being contained, and collected. The cell phone companies are already collecting the same data, but I would assume that with the Stingray it makes getting access to that data much faster versus having to request it from the cell phone network companies. The article mentions what they are collecting with the Stringray, "When mobile phones—and other wireless communication devices—connect to the stingray, the device can see and record their unique ID numbers and traffic data, as well as information that points to the device’s location. By moving the stingray around, authorities can triangulate the device’s location with greater precision than they can using data obtained from a fixed tower location." This technology could very well advance, and allow them in the future to collect much more maybe. Gathering location seems to be the biggest reasoning behind using the Stingray. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IMSI-catcher https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IMSI-catcher
  - chiph 12y ago
    I'm hoping that these devices don't interfere with 911 calls. The Enhanced 911 service uses GPS data from the cellphone (if available) and cell-tower triangulation to locate the caller. If the Stingray device is acting like a tower, and someone calls 911, wouldn't an incorrect (or no) location be reported?
    - thisjepisje 12y ago
      On the other hand, if an accident does occur, the police are already nearby. :P
pstop 12y ago
I'm actually surprised, I would have figured that by this point, there would have been a revolution, or at least mutterings. The federal government is actually circumventing the law and the justice system in order to illegally incarcerate citizens. The American government is the enemy of the American people by the governments own admission. It turns out it wasn't Brave New World or 1984, rather it's both, each enabling the other. I just pray America elects someone who can turn this ship around, rather than doubling down on the stupidity of it all.
- joshlegs 12y ago
  I don't think electing any one person is going to have an effect. The problem is that at this point, it's systemic corruption at nearly all levels of government.
- hvs 12y ago
  History shows through numerous examples that people are willing to put up with significantly more egregious activity from their governments before they do anything about it. And in many cases, they still never do.
  - r00fus 12y ago
    Do you not think this fear/caution is warranted based on history?
- pjc50 12y ago
  The American people is the enemy of the American people. By that I mean there are plenty of people who are happy to support this kind of thing so long as they believe it's only being used against people unlike them in skin color, socioeconomic background, religious or political beliefs. America is not strong on solidarity. On the other hand, the ship is turning, slowly. The war on drugs is being de-escalated, which may provide an opportunity to de-escalate the relationship between the public and the police.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
diafygi 12y ago
Reminder to support the ones fighting this on the front lines: https://www.aclu.org/donate/join-renew-give https://www.aclu.org/donate/join-renew-give
- contingencies 12y ago
  Yep. Noticing the Wikipedia article on these devices has expanded, I'd also encourage those with documentary skills and technological comprehension to lend their time to increasing the availability of the immediately accessible public record in areas of technology/politics as a means of effective protest. The more facts are out there, and the easier they are for people to discover, the greater the checks and balances on govscale surveillance.
EGreg 12y ago
I wonder what the specifics are of the "I signed an NDA so I am not able to tell the court anything, even with a subpoena" defense. Struck me as odd.
- michaelfeathers 12y ago
  I'm assuming a judge can put them under contempt. If they lie, it's perjury. The thing that is more interesting is the dynamic where neither happens because judges are unwilling to tip the apple cart. I hope that someone is doing a review of transcripts now to see if police in those courtrooms have perjured themselves.
- malka 12y ago
  My drug dealer made me sign a NDA :/ cant tell you anything cops, sorry !
cowardlydragon 12y ago
Stronger... grows the shadow.
graylights 12y ago
So the problem is they claimed "Confidential Source" and the presumption was that it was an informant? To me secret surveillance fits the definition of "Confidential Source". I don't see any deception there. (EDIT: I've been corrected, apparently legal definition defines source as person) The real question is why can the magic words "confidential source" be used as justification for a warrant without more clarification. Well also the part about using the devices in the first place without warrant.
- probably_wrong 12y ago
  According to this[1] definition, a confidential source is a PERSON who provides information. If this is so, then the judge that approved the warrant was actually tricked: a person providing information implies that the information may be volatile (the witness may have seen something by pure luck), and on top of that it also means that the information was obtained through a legally sanctioned way (ie, a witness and/or a confession). If they used a word that defines a person to identify something that was not a person, then yeah, there was some deception involved. If I read the article correctly, what happened is that the police obtained information in ways they apparently weren't allowed to use (unconstitutional surveillance), and then hid this fact under the pretense of a supposed person giving that information. This is all kinds of wrong and, among other things, voids those warrants. [1] http://definitions.uslegal.com/c/confidential-source%20/ http://definitions.uslegal.com/c/confidential-source%20/
  - thaumasiotes 12y ago
    There's a much bigger problem going on here. Why is it acceptable to say that your information comes from a "confidential source" at all? The nature of the claim is that it can't be verified; a confidential source cannot be distinguished by any means from a fevered imagination. I assume you can't get a warrant to search someone's house for drugs by saying "he looks like a junkie to me". It would be too easy to ask how claiming a "confidential source" is better than that. How is it different?
    - deleted 12y ago
bane 12y ago
You know, I guess that speaks well of the independence and low level of corruption of the judiciary.
kelvin0 12y ago
Wow, this story makes me appreciate 'the Wire' even more. In the last 2 seasons the cops are trying to bring down some corrupt officials and their thug cronies, using a shady wire-tap. In the end, they catch them but it backfires because of their 'confidential source' which was also a shady wire-tap setup ...
coldcode 12y ago
In the long run, lying to judges eventually bites you in the ass.
DanielBMarkham 12y ago
So the mailman now remembers every letter you've written, the policeman is able to trick your cell phone into telling you where you are and whom you're calling, the state security service is monitoring all of your electronic correspondence, and the IRS is able to _read_ any of your papers it wants as long as your account has been flagged -- no warrant or judicial action necessary. Remind me where I live again? Because when I grew up, we were the free and open society and the other guys, the bad guys, were the ones in everybody's knickers. (Recommended movie: The Lives Of Others) Of note here is that it was the Assistant State Attorney, not the cops, that had problems with being honest with the court. There's a guy who needs to be disbarred.
- fleitz 12y ago
  Perjury and obstruction of justice. The disbarring should at least follow a minimum sentence, it sure would be sad if the ASA lived in a 3 strikes jurisdiction. Alternatively, throw out the warrant because it is the fruit of fraud, then charge the ASA with conspiracy to computer fraud and abuse (unauthorized access) with one count for each subscriber in the area, and refuse to admit the warrant as evidence because it's null and void.
dicroce 12y ago
Freedom is cyclical... When oligarchs rule, they unknowingly give power to anyone who will appeal to the mob... Whoever picks up that power will claim it's for the "good of the people", and the people will gladly trade their freedoms to be free of the oppressive rich elites... A people without freedom and dependent on their king for everything is a weak people, and eventually their empire will fall to pieces through some combination of internal fighting and weak external threats. Falling apart is hard as the people have no emperor providing free bread anymore and the people must learn to fend for themselves again... from this rises individualism and freedom once again. Cyclical.
Torgo 12y ago
Shouldn't these things be easily detectable? If you can use your GPS and radio in your phone to get a list of nearby towers and one mytseriously shows up, it seems likely this would be one of these devices.
- hga 12y ago
  As noted in another discussion, there are official portable ones regularly used for events, but those don't attempt to hide.

242 points by reirob 12y ago

thisjepisje 12y ago

Do/can they perform an MITM attack with a stingray?

chk 12y ago
From how I interpret the Stingray, it is executing a MITM attack. These types of devices are sometimes refereed to as IMSI-catchers, and sit in between the users phone, and the real network towers. [1] My concern is what exactly is being contained, and collected. The cell phone companies are already collecting the same data, but I would assume that with the Stingray it makes getting access to that data much faster versus having to request it from the cell phone network companies. The article mentions what they are collecting with the Stringray, "When mobile phones—and other wireless communication devices—connect to the stingray, the device can see and record their unique ID numbers and traffic data, as well as information that points to the device’s location. By moving the stingray around, authorities can triangulate the device’s location with greater precision than they can using data obtained from a fixed tower location." This technology could very well advance, and allow them in the future to collect much more maybe. Gathering location seems to be the biggest reasoning behind using the Stingray. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IMSI-catcher https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IMSI-catcher
- chiph 12y ago
  I'm hoping that these devices don't interfere with 911 calls. The Enhanced 911 service uses GPS data from the cellphone (if available) and cell-tower triangulation to locate the caller. If the Stingray device is acting like a tower, and someone calls 911, wouldn't an incorrect (or no) location be reported?
  - thisjepisje 12y ago
    On the other hand, if an accident does occur, the police are already nearby. :P

pstop 12y ago

I'm actually surprised, I would have figured that by this point, there would have been a revolution, or at least mutterings. The federal government is actually circumventing the law and the justice system in order to illegally incarcerate citizens. The American government is the enemy of the American people by the governments own admission. It turns out it wasn't Brave New World or 1984, rather it's both, each enabling the other. I just pray America elects someone who can turn this ship around, rather than doubling down on the stupidity of it all.

joshlegs 12y ago
I don't think electing any one person is going to have an effect. The problem is that at this point, it's systemic corruption at nearly all levels of government.
hvs 12y ago
History shows through numerous examples that people are willing to put up with significantly more egregious activity from their governments before they do anything about it. And in many cases, they still never do.
- r00fus 12y ago
  Do you not think this fear/caution is warranted based on history?
pjc50 12y ago
The American people is the enemy of the American people. By that I mean there are plenty of people who are happy to support this kind of thing so long as they believe it's only being used against people unlike them in skin color, socioeconomic background, religious or political beliefs. America is not strong on solidarity. On the other hand, the ship is turning, slowly. The war on drugs is being de-escalated, which may provide an opportunity to de-escalate the relationship between the public and the police.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]

diafygi 12y ago

Reminder to support the ones fighting this on the front lines: https://www.aclu.org/donate/join-renew-give https://www.aclu.org/donate/join-renew-give

contingencies 12y ago
Yep. Noticing the Wikipedia article on these devices has expanded, I'd also encourage those with documentary skills and technological comprehension to lend their time to increasing the availability of the immediately accessible public record in areas of technology/politics as a means of effective protest. The more facts are out there, and the easier they are for people to discover, the greater the checks and balances on govscale surveillance.

EGreg 12y ago

I wonder what the specifics are of the "I signed an NDA so I am not able to tell the court anything, even with a subpoena" defense. Struck me as odd.

michaelfeathers 12y ago
I'm assuming a judge can put them under contempt. If they lie, it's perjury. The thing that is more interesting is the dynamic where neither happens because judges are unwilling to tip the apple cart. I hope that someone is doing a review of transcripts now to see if police in those courtrooms have perjured themselves.
malka 12y ago
My drug dealer made me sign a NDA :/ cant tell you anything cops, sorry !

cowardlydragon 12y ago

Stronger... grows the shadow.

graylights 12y ago

So the problem is they claimed "Confidential Source" and the presumption was that it was an informant? To me secret surveillance fits the definition of "Confidential Source". I don't see any deception there. (EDIT: I've been corrected, apparently legal definition defines source as person) The real question is why can the magic words "confidential source" be used as justification for a warrant without more clarification. Well also the part about using the devices in the first place without warrant.

probably_wrong 12y ago
According to this[1] definition, a confidential source is a PERSON who provides information. If this is so, then the judge that approved the warrant was actually tricked: a person providing information implies that the information may be volatile (the witness may have seen something by pure luck), and on top of that it also means that the information was obtained through a legally sanctioned way (ie, a witness and/or a confession). If they used a word that defines a person to identify something that was not a person, then yeah, there was some deception involved. If I read the article correctly, what happened is that the police obtained information in ways they apparently weren't allowed to use (unconstitutional surveillance), and then hid this fact under the pretense of a supposed person giving that information. This is all kinds of wrong and, among other things, voids those warrants. [1] http://definitions.uslegal.com/c/confidential-source%20/ http://definitions.uslegal.com/c/confidential-source%20/
- thaumasiotes 12y ago
  There's a much bigger problem going on here. Why is it acceptable to say that your information comes from a "confidential source" at all? The nature of the claim is that it can't be verified; a confidential source cannot be distinguished by any means from a fevered imagination. I assume you can't get a warrant to search someone's house for drugs by saying "he looks like a junkie to me". It would be too easy to ask how claiming a "confidential source" is better than that. How is it different?
  - deleted 12y ago

bane 12y ago

You know, I guess that speaks well of the independence and low level of corruption of the judiciary.

kelvin0 12y ago

Wow, this story makes me appreciate 'the Wire' even more. In the last 2 seasons the cops are trying to bring down some corrupt officials and their thug cronies, using a shady wire-tap. In the end, they catch them but it backfires because of their 'confidential source' which was also a shady wire-tap setup ...

coldcode 12y ago

In the long run, lying to judges eventually bites you in the ass.

DanielBMarkham 12y ago

So the mailman now remembers every letter you've written, the policeman is able to trick your cell phone into telling you where you are and whom you're calling, the state security service is monitoring all of your electronic correspondence, and the IRS is able to _read_ any of your papers it wants as long as your account has been flagged -- no warrant or judicial action necessary. Remind me where I live again? Because when I grew up, we were the free and open society and the other guys, the bad guys, were the ones in everybody's knickers. (Recommended movie: The Lives Of Others) Of note here is that it was the Assistant State Attorney, not the cops, that had problems with being honest with the court. There's a guy who needs to be disbarred.

fleitz 12y ago
Perjury and obstruction of justice. The disbarring should at least follow a minimum sentence, it sure would be sad if the ASA lived in a 3 strikes jurisdiction. Alternatively, throw out the warrant because it is the fruit of fraud, then charge the ASA with conspiracy to computer fraud and abuse (unauthorized access) with one count for each subscriber in the area, and refuse to admit the warrant as evidence because it's null and void.

dicroce 12y ago

Freedom is cyclical... When oligarchs rule, they unknowingly give power to anyone who will appeal to the mob... Whoever picks up that power will claim it's for the "good of the people", and the people will gladly trade their freedoms to be free of the oppressive rich elites... A people without freedom and dependent on their king for everything is a weak people, and eventually their empire will fall to pieces through some combination of internal fighting and weak external threats. Falling apart is hard as the people have no emperor providing free bread anymore and the people must learn to fend for themselves again... from this rises individualism and freedom once again. Cyclical.

Torgo 12y ago

Shouldn't these things be easily detectable? If you can use your GPS and radio in your phone to get a list of nearby towers and one mytseriously shows up, it seems likely this would be one of these devices.

hga 12y ago
As noted in another discussion, there are official portable ones regularly used for events, but those don't attempt to hide.