TE
TechEcho
Home24h TopNewestBestAskShowJobs
GitHubTwitter
Home

TechEcho

A tech news platform built with Next.js, providing global tech news and discussions.

GitHubTwitter

Home

HomeNewestBestAskShowJobs

Resources

HackerNews APIOriginal HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 TechEcho. All rights reserved.

Federal judge puts limits on FBI use of “stingray” cell site simulators

114 pointsby declanover 9 years ago

7 comments

Sniffnoyover 9 years ago
The actual requirements start on page 8. Here&#x27;s my summary:<p>&gt; First, law enforcement officers must make reasonable efforts to minimize the capture of signals emitted from cell phones used by people other than the target of the investigation. [...] Moreover, law enforcement officers must not use a cell-site simulator when, because of the location and time, an inordinate number of innocent third parties’ information will be collected.<p>&gt; Second, law enforcement officers must immediately destroy all data other than the data identifying the cell phone used by the target. The destruction must occur within forty-eight hours after the data is captured. [...] Additionally, the destruction must be evidenced by a verification provided to the Court with the return of the warrant.<p>&gt; Third, law enforcement officers are prohibited from using any data acquired beyond that necessary to determine the cell phone information of the target.
scintill76over 9 years ago
&quot;Cell site simulators&quot; Somehow I don&#x27;t think they&#x27;d call it that if I &quot;simulated a law enforcement officer&quot;, presented a &quot;simulated identification document&quot;, or enticed someone to pay me for a &quot;simulated service&quot;, opening mail addressed to my &quot;simulated persona&quot; but not to me, etc. These devices are fraudulently impersonating users&#x27; cell service carriers. They are fake cell towers.
评论 #10550048 未加载
dogma1138over 9 years ago
This is the actual link <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;law.justia.com&#x2F;cases&#x2F;federal&#x2F;district-courts&#x2F;illinois&#x2F;ilndce&#x2F;3:2015mc00021&#x2F;317964&#x2F;1&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;law.justia.com&#x2F;cases&#x2F;federal&#x2F;district-courts&#x2F;illinois...</a>
评论 #10548111 未加载
omginternetsover 9 years ago
Silly thought experiment:<p>Police dogs are known for being trained to deliver false positives, i.e. saying &quot;drugs&quot; when the are no drugs. Couldn&#x27;t STINGRAY et al be used to the same effect? I.e.: &quot;the suspect showed a pattern predictive of child pornography&quot; being used as a pretext for executing a warrant?<p>Where is this wrong? Is there any evidence in favor of this interpretation?
leeoniyaover 9 years ago
It says the destruction of collected info not pertaining to the target must occur within 48 hours but prior to this it says they frequently need to diff multiple sessions possibly at different locations to pinpoint the target and eliminate others.<p>Does this mean they cannot run sessions separated by &gt; 48 hours, since no diff would be possible afterwards?
评论 #10548468 未加载
distantsoundsover 9 years ago
I wish I were surprised these provisions weren&#x27;t originally penned when drafting laws related to cell site simulators, but my faith in the US government actually looking out for the privacy of its citizens has been less than stellar.
评论 #10549021 未加载
nickysielickiover 9 years ago
Fuck the FCC. We need open source radios.
评论 #10550503 未加载
评论 #10549412 未加载