At this point, we need more details than that to have any idea what happened. You don't get to use "times" as a word in this context anymore when one "time" can include getting an email service to provide an entire database dump for all customers.<p>"46 times" could well mean "Set up 46 separate devices throughout the county and collected all calls for four years", or perhaps "Left one device running for 46 contiguous months in the center of town", with the way these people work.
As a couple commenters on a related Ars article[1] point out, it seems weird that police would drop cases rather than reveal stingray details if it were just a matter of scooping up voice, text, and location data using a fake transmitter. Those things are pretty obvious, so why all the secrecy?<p>[1] <a href="http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/04/fbi-would-rather-prosecutors-drop-cases-than-disclose-stingray-details/" rel="nofollow">http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/04/fbi-would-rather-...</a>
<p><pre><code> Spidey is an Android-based stingray (IMSI
catcher) detector that uses machine learning
to detect the presence of stingray devices
which can be used to eavesdrop on cellular
communication.
</code></pre>
<a href="http://signup.spideyapp.com/" rel="nofollow">http://signup.spideyapp.com/</a><p>Also see <a href="http://codesign.mit.edu/category/macluguardian-project/" rel="nofollow">http://codesign.mit.edu/category/macluguardian-project/</a>
46 times in 51 months ... 1 time (at the end of the data collection period) with slightly less than a warrant. Not much 'judicial review' here.
It seems to me a Stingray is designed <i>specifically</i> to get around the need for a court order. OTW they would just subpoena the records of a cell carrier to get the information on a target they suspect.
The most insane part of all of this: there is <i></i>already a way to get this data<i></i>. All the police need to do is show probable cause. Which, for any reasonable application, is straightforward.<p>I don't know if they are lazy, authoritarian, or both.
This isn't state wide data, just one county in NY, with a population under 1MM. When you start to extrapolate the data it starts to get a little interesting...
Seems we have an amount of falsifying documents, lying to judges, illegal surveillance, and more potentially illegal activity going on. I'm sure we'll here about the upcoming investigation into these acts by the justice department any day now. I mean, there has to be court cases of some sort to be able to get a court to determine the legality of such activity, right?<p>Except that the department of justice is involved and they do their best to avoid such court cases that could determine legality of these activities.
So the lesson learned here is that the police should not keep any records at all. The fact that this particular department ended up recording use could in some sense be considered an error. Law enforcement has been doing secret surveillance since before ever. The Stingray stuff is just an attempt to continue doing what they have always done in the face of encryption.<p>It's probably time for society to have a discussion about this issue. Law enforcement can not protect us from ourselves if they don't know what we are doing. The War on Drugs pretty much mandates the use of secret surveillance for example. It's like asking a friend to help with your diet but at the same time forbidding them from looking in the cupboards or the fridge. If we don't like law enforcement snooping in our affairs then we should stop asking them to do so.