Daum 블로그 4544
http://blog.daum.net/spinekim23/4544
통신비밀보호법등 정산 FBI등 정산 회수 NM
http://m.cnet.com/news/fbi-prepares-to-defend -stingray-cell-phone-tracking/57576690
통신비밀보호법등 정산 FBI등 정산 회수 NM
FBI prepares to defend 'Stingray' cell phone track ing - CNET Mobile http://m.cnet.com/news/fbi-prepares-to-defend -stingray-cell-phone-tracking/57576690
FBI prepares to defend 'Stingray' cell phone track ing March 27, 2013 | Declan McCullagh Privacy groups plan to tell a judge tomorrow that controversial cell phone tracking technology, use d by federal police since at least the mid-1990s, violates Americans' Fourth Amendment rights.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation's secretive " Stingray" surveillance technology that allows poli ce to surreptitiously track the locations of cell ph ones and other mobile devices will itself go on tri al in an Arizona courtroom tomorrow afternoon.
Attorneys representing the U.S. Department of Ju stice are expected to defend warrantless use of s tingray devices, which trick mobile devices into c onnecting to them by impersonating legitimate c ell towers. Prosecutors yesterday filed court doc uments saying stingrays were used in investigati ons in Arizona and Wisconsin going back to 200 8.
In the legal skirmishing leading up to tomorrow's three-hour hearing, federal attorneys have told U. S. District Judge David Campbell that the defend ant in this case, Daniel Rigmaiden, did not have r easonable "privacy expectations" in the whereab outs of his Verizon mobile broadband card and "t hus the agents in this case were not required to o btain a warrant."
One of the so-called stingray cell phone tracking devices, which impersonates a cell tower. Civil libertarians are hoping the Rigmaiden case will be the first in the nation to impose privacy li mits on how police use stingrays, in much the sa me way that previous legal challenges have resul ted in curbs on warrantless use of thermal imagi ng devices and GPS tracking of vehicles through physical bugs.
To the American Civil Liberties Union and the Ele ctronic Frontier Foundation, it's a clear case of s urveillance technology outpacing the law. They s ay that "the government's use of the stingray viol ated the Fourth Amendment." Because stingrays represent a dragnet surveillance technique, capt uring not only the target's electronic identifier but that of anyone else in the vicinity, the technique a mounts to precisely the type of general search w arrant outlawed by the Fourth Amendment, they say.
Another objection they have lodged is that federa l agents did ask a judge to permit them to obtain telephone records from Verizon -- but, crucially, did not divulge that a stingray device was going t o be used against Rigmaiden.
"Had the government candidly told the judge that it intended to use a stingray, he may have denied the application without prejudice to a subsequen t application providing further details about the t echnology," the ACLU and EFF say. That's what h appened last summer in Texas, when a federal m agistrate judge rejected an effort by the Drug Enf orcement Administration to deploy stingrays wit hout obtaining a search warrant backed by proba ble cause.
Linda Lye, a staff attorney at the ACLU of Norther n California who will be arguing in court in Arizon a tomorrow, said this morning that there appears to be a pattern of concealment when police use s tingray devices.
A newly disclosed email (PDF) from Miranda Kan e, the head of the criminal division for the U.S. Att orney's office in the northern district of California, says (WIT refers to stingray devices):
It has recently come to my attention that many a gents are still using WIT technology in the field al though the pen register application does not mak e that explicit. While we continue work on a long term fix for this problem, it is important that we a re consistent and forthright in our pen register re quests to the magistrates... Tomorrow's hearing in the case against Rigmaid en, who faces charges including conspiracy, wire fraud, mail fraud, and aggravated identity theft fo r allegedly filing more than 1,000 bogus tax retur ns, will center on his request to "suppress" data he contends the government acquired in violatio n of the Fourth Amendment. If he wins that argu ment, the so-called exclusionary rule would mak e evidence derived from unconstitutional surveill ance inadmissible in court, but prosecutors coul d still win a conviction if the remainder of the evi dence is sufficient.
The FBI has not disclosed details about its stingr ay devices. In response to an open records reque st from the Electronic Privacy Information Center, the bureau declassified this previously SECRET d ocument but completely redacted it. Click for larg er image. FBI The Justice Department has taken the unusual p osition of agreeing in January that the "the aircar d location operation was a Fourth Amendment se arch and seizure." But, prosecutors say, they nev ertheless intend to argue that the "defendant has no standing to complain" about any possible Fou rth Amendment violations because, in part, he us ed a pseudonym to obtain the wireless device an d rent the apartment: "Defendant's wide-ranging fraudulent and deceptive conduct should not mer it an expectation of privacy that society is prepar ed to recognize as reasonable."
A ruling that the Fourth Amendment requires a w arrant before deploying a stingray device would, i f upheld on appeal, end the FBI's practice of atte mpting to obtain them using less privacy-protect ive procedures intended for recording what numb ers were called on an analog telephone line. But i t wouldn't halt the use of the devices: Agents cou ld still deploy them using a warrant based on pro bable cause that a crime is being committed.
Stingrays aren't exactly new technology. A 1996 Wired article described how an FBI surveillance t eam from Quantico, Va., used one to track Kevin Mitnick: "It could also be used to page Mitnick's cell phone without ringing it, as long as he had th e phone turned on but not in use. The phone wou ld then act as a transmitter that they could home in on with a Triggerfish cellular radio direction-fi nding system that they were using."
Their use has spread far beyond the FBI and the military, which has long employed direction-findi ng gear. LA Weekly reported in January that the F irst Amendment Coalition obtained documents s howing stingrays were used during routine "crimi nal investigations 21 times in a four-month perio d during 2012" by the Los Angeles Police Depart ment. Those included burglary, drug, and murder investigations.
Last month, the Electronic Privacy Information C enter obtained stingray documents (PDF) from th e FBI describing procedures for the "loan" of stin gray cell site simulators to state and local agenci es. A 2009 government procurement document s hows that the U.S. Secret Service paid Harris Cor p., which makes stingray devices, over $25,000 f or training. (Harris secured another Secret Servic e contract last year.)
A trial in Rigmaiden's criminal case is scheduled to start in Phoenix on May 15.
http://blog.daum.net/spinekim23/4544
통신비밀보호법등 정산 FBI등 정산 회수 NM
http://m.cnet.com/news/fbi-prepares-to-defend -stingray-cell-phone-tracking/57576690
통신비밀보호법등 정산 FBI등 정산 회수 NM
FBI prepares to defend 'Stingray' cell phone track ing - CNET Mobile http://m.cnet.com/news/fbi-prepares-to-defend -stingray-cell-phone-tracking/57576690
FBI prepares to defend 'Stingray' cell phone track ing March 27, 2013 | Declan McCullagh Privacy groups plan to tell a judge tomorrow that controversial cell phone tracking technology, use d by federal police since at least the mid-1990s, violates Americans' Fourth Amendment rights.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation's secretive " Stingray" surveillance technology that allows poli ce to surreptitiously track the locations of cell ph ones and other mobile devices will itself go on tri al in an Arizona courtroom tomorrow afternoon.
Attorneys representing the U.S. Department of Ju stice are expected to defend warrantless use of s tingray devices, which trick mobile devices into c onnecting to them by impersonating legitimate c ell towers. Prosecutors yesterday filed court doc uments saying stingrays were used in investigati ons in Arizona and Wisconsin going back to 200 8.
In the legal skirmishing leading up to tomorrow's three-hour hearing, federal attorneys have told U. S. District Judge David Campbell that the defend ant in this case, Daniel Rigmaiden, did not have r easonable "privacy expectations" in the whereab outs of his Verizon mobile broadband card and "t hus the agents in this case were not required to o btain a warrant."
One of the so-called stingray cell phone tracking devices, which impersonates a cell tower. Civil libertarians are hoping the Rigmaiden case will be the first in the nation to impose privacy li mits on how police use stingrays, in much the sa me way that previous legal challenges have resul ted in curbs on warrantless use of thermal imagi ng devices and GPS tracking of vehicles through physical bugs.
To the American Civil Liberties Union and the Ele ctronic Frontier Foundation, it's a clear case of s urveillance technology outpacing the law. They s ay that "the government's use of the stingray viol ated the Fourth Amendment." Because stingrays represent a dragnet surveillance technique, capt uring not only the target's electronic identifier but that of anyone else in the vicinity, the technique a mounts to precisely the type of general search w arrant outlawed by the Fourth Amendment, they say.
Another objection they have lodged is that federa l agents did ask a judge to permit them to obtain telephone records from Verizon -- but, crucially, did not divulge that a stingray device was going t o be used against Rigmaiden.
"Had the government candidly told the judge that it intended to use a stingray, he may have denied the application without prejudice to a subsequen t application providing further details about the t echnology," the ACLU and EFF say. That's what h appened last summer in Texas, when a federal m agistrate judge rejected an effort by the Drug Enf orcement Administration to deploy stingrays wit hout obtaining a search warrant backed by proba ble cause.
Linda Lye, a staff attorney at the ACLU of Norther n California who will be arguing in court in Arizon a tomorrow, said this morning that there appears to be a pattern of concealment when police use s tingray devices.
A newly disclosed email (PDF) from Miranda Kan e, the head of the criminal division for the U.S. Att orney's office in the northern district of California, says (WIT refers to stingray devices):
It has recently come to my attention that many a gents are still using WIT technology in the field al though the pen register application does not mak e that explicit. While we continue work on a long term fix for this problem, it is important that we a re consistent and forthright in our pen register re quests to the magistrates... Tomorrow's hearing in the case against Rigmaid en, who faces charges including conspiracy, wire fraud, mail fraud, and aggravated identity theft fo r allegedly filing more than 1,000 bogus tax retur ns, will center on his request to "suppress" data he contends the government acquired in violatio n of the Fourth Amendment. If he wins that argu ment, the so-called exclusionary rule would mak e evidence derived from unconstitutional surveill ance inadmissible in court, but prosecutors coul d still win a conviction if the remainder of the evi dence is sufficient.
The FBI has not disclosed details about its stingr ay devices. In response to an open records reque st from the Electronic Privacy Information Center, the bureau declassified this previously SECRET d ocument but completely redacted it. Click for larg er image. FBI The Justice Department has taken the unusual p osition of agreeing in January that the "the aircar d location operation was a Fourth Amendment se arch and seizure." But, prosecutors say, they nev ertheless intend to argue that the "defendant has no standing to complain" about any possible Fou rth Amendment violations because, in part, he us ed a pseudonym to obtain the wireless device an d rent the apartment: "Defendant's wide-ranging fraudulent and deceptive conduct should not mer it an expectation of privacy that society is prepar ed to recognize as reasonable."
A ruling that the Fourth Amendment requires a w arrant before deploying a stingray device would, i f upheld on appeal, end the FBI's practice of atte mpting to obtain them using less privacy-protect ive procedures intended for recording what numb ers were called on an analog telephone line. But i t wouldn't halt the use of the devices: Agents cou ld still deploy them using a warrant based on pro bable cause that a crime is being committed.
Stingrays aren't exactly new technology. A 1996 Wired article described how an FBI surveillance t eam from Quantico, Va., used one to track Kevin Mitnick: "It could also be used to page Mitnick's cell phone without ringing it, as long as he had th e phone turned on but not in use. The phone wou ld then act as a transmitter that they could home in on with a Triggerfish cellular radio direction-fi nding system that they were using."
Their use has spread far beyond the FBI and the military, which has long employed direction-findi ng gear. LA Weekly reported in January that the F irst Amendment Coalition obtained documents s howing stingrays were used during routine "crimi nal investigations 21 times in a four-month perio d during 2012" by the Los Angeles Police Depart ment. Those included burglary, drug, and murder investigations.
Last month, the Electronic Privacy Information C enter obtained stingray documents (PDF) from th e FBI describing procedures for the "loan" of stin gray cell site simulators to state and local agenci es. A 2009 government procurement document s hows that the U.S. Secret Service paid Harris Cor p., which makes stingray devices, over $25,000 f or training. (Harris secured another Secret Servic e contract last year.)
A trial in Rigmaiden's criminal case is scheduled to start in Phoenix on May 15.
posted from Bloggeroid
댓글 없음:
댓글 쓰기