# Feds admit FBI warrantless cellphone tracking ‘very common’



## Brill (Mar 31, 2013)

Holder Gone Wild?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/29/feds-fbi-warrantless-cell-tracking-very-common/

FBI investigators for at least five years have routinely used a sophisticated cellphone tracking tool that can pinpoint callers’ locations and listen to their conversations — all without getting a warrant for it, a federal court was told this week.
The use of the “Stingray,” as the tool is called, “is a very common practice” by federal investigators, Justice Department attorneys told the U.S. District Court for Arizona Thursday, according to the American Civil Liberties Union.
Installed in an unmarked van, Stingray mimics a cellphone tower, so it can pinpoint the precise location of any mobile device in range and intercept conversations and data, said Linda Lye, staff attorney at the ACLU of Northern California in a blog post about the case.


----------



## DA SWO (Mar 31, 2013)

lindy said:


> Holder Gone Wild?
> 
> http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/29/feds-fbi-warrantless-cell-tracking-very-common/
> 
> ...


5 years would indicate Pre-Holder; but Holder could have killed it, so he needs to be held responsible.


----------



## TLDR20 (Mar 31, 2013)

I love how the ACLU are both vaunted Heros and terrible horrible people depending on which side you're on when they bitch.


----------



## AWP (Mar 31, 2013)

Wait a minute, I thought we didn't conduct warrantless wiretaps?

Huh. Learn something every day...


----------



## DA SWO (Mar 31, 2013)

cback0220 said:


> I love how the ACLU are both vaunted Heros and terrible horrible people depending on which side you're on when they bitch.


I rarely agree with the ACLU, they can do good things, but seem to always be looking for a reason to go to court.


----------



## Scotth (Mar 31, 2013)

cback0220 said:


> I love how the ACLU are both vaunted Heros and terrible horrible people depending on which side you're on when they bitch.


 
True story ask Rush!

I suspect a whole lot more capability. It just another example of how one side is against something until they're the one's that have to face the real world and suddenly things become a whole lot more palatable. When the weight of actually protecting the country falls on somebody shoulders it's surprising what they can do. Obama accepted much of what he complained about in Bush's administration and I suspect that the next Republican POTUS will accept much of what Obama does today including his drone policy.


----------



## Kraut783 (Mar 31, 2013)

Mmmm...calling BS on the content of the Washingting Post story.


----------



## policemedic (Mar 31, 2013)

Kraut783 said:


> Mmmm...calling BS on the content of the Washingting Post story.



I'm with you. Shenanigans.


----------



## MilkTruckCoPilot (Mar 31, 2013)

The Washington Post, ACLU and EVERYONE ELSE involved need to STFU.... 

If shit is happening that is not suppose to be then get a handle on your people and discipline them accordingly. What is not needed is a damn story about it.

The ACLU needs to be flogged publicly. They could give "fuck all" about any infractions but simply exist to try and undermine capability.....

My .02


----------



## Ranger Psych (Mar 31, 2013)

Nope, they need to sing from the hills about this shit.

You want it OPSEC then keep it opsec and use it appropriately.

This is neither.


----------



## MilkTruckCoPilot (Mar 31, 2013)

Ranger Psych said:


> Nope, they need to sing from the hills about this shit.
> 
> *You want it OPSEC then keep it opsec and use it appropriately.*
> 
> This is neither.


 
Yes I do. That is what I'm saying. Perhaps I'm biased with this issue but I don't need a detailed story. "There is concern that agents are conducting warrantless wiretapping...blah blah" Nothing more needs to be said.

Also, when someone OTHER than the ACLU is the one forthcoming on this issue then perhaps people should be concerned. I'd bet my left nut that the ACLU doesn't give a damn if some people had their calls listened in on while agents were training ect. What's their real agenda?

This is the same ACLU that was and is continuing to cry about the drone strikes overseas.


----------



## Worldweaver (Mar 31, 2013)

MilkTruckCoPilot said:


> Yes I do. That is what I'm saying. I don't need a detailed story. "There is concern that agents are conducting warrantless wiretapping...blah blah"
> 
> Nothing more needs to be said.


 
"there is concern" without backing it up with solid evidence?  Sounds weak to me.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Mar 31, 2013)

They said they could, they said they did/do. Your point is moot, because if anything about it was opsec than the justice attorney's should have kept quiet about it. Never mind the whole fact that for privacy reasons cellular frequencies are blocked from scanners etc, yet it's perfectly fine for effectively open-air wiretapping to occur with no warrant?

You're completely in the wrong about the "keep quiet" bit, just as much as every fucking agent who's operated this equipment in other than training, without a warrant. I have no problem with the government having all these tools at their disposal. I liked SIGINT, it was awesome. The fact is, ESPECIALLY within the borders of the USA, there's these things called Laws and the Bill of Rights that you need to follow.

Edited to fix spelling headspace and timing


----------



## Worldweaver (Mar 31, 2013)

Ranger Psych said:


> there's these things called Laws and the Bill of Rights that you need to follow.


 
x 1,000


----------



## Brill (Apr 1, 2013)

DOJ is the law!  Who else can be found in contempt of Congress but suffer ZERO reprocussions?

I'm not a fan of the ACLU but agree with them on the above as well as the drone issue. Our gov is drunk on power and cash.


----------



## DA SWO (Apr 1, 2013)

MilkTruckCoPilot said:


> The Washington Post, ACLU and EVERYONE ELSE involved need to STFU....
> 
> If shit is happening that is not suppose to be then get a handle on your people and discipline them accordingly. What is not needed is a damn story about it.
> 
> ...


They have had 5 years to discipline accordingly, that's enough time.
My guess is the original leak came from someone who tried to stop it and was rebuked/punished.

Now, every Defense Attorney will be demanding to see cell wire-tap records, convictions may get overthrown.

They had a chance to operate legally and blew it.


----------



## Dame (Apr 1, 2013)

SOWT said:


> They have had 5 years to discipline accordingly, that's enough time.
> My guess is the original leak came from someone who tried to stop it and was rebuked/punished.
> Now, every Defense Attorney will be demanding to see cell wire-tap records, convictions may get overthrown.
> They had a chance to operate legally and blew it.


 
Agreed. The actions of "rogue" employees become the responsibility of the organization. If the practice is not halted nor addressed and becomes fairly common the company is condoning it. After 5 years? It looks like an unwritten SOP.


----------



## Kraut783 (Apr 1, 2013)

The FBI does not do Jack sh&$ without an AUSA looking at it and approving it.  There has got to be more to this story.....


----------



## pardus (Apr 2, 2013)

Kraut783 said:


> The FBI does not do Jack sh&$ without an AUSA looking at it and approving it. There has got to be more to this story.....


 
Did they approve the kill everyone on sight policy at Ruby Ridge?


----------



## Kraut783 (Apr 2, 2013)

I'm just talking about the SIGINT collection topic.


----------



## 0699 (Apr 2, 2013)

pardus said:


> Did they approve the kill everyone on sight policy at Ruby Ridge?


 
According to Coulson's book, the deadly force policy was approved up the Bureau chain of command.  I don't remember any mention in his book of the US Attorney's Office.


----------



## Brill (Apr 4, 2013)

Kraut783 said:


> I'm just talking about the SIGINT collection topic.



Whoa there! They are authorized to conduct operations that support law enforcement cases ONLY. SIGINT isn't conducted domestically...or it hasn't since Nixon...and possibly Clinton...or possibly Obama.

Possibly


----------



## Kraut783 (Apr 4, 2013)

hehe...sorry Lindy bad choice of words, meant just talking about the topic, didn't want to get off in the weeds about ruby ridge.


----------



## Brill (Jan 3, 2015)

This shit just won't go away.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...er-about-fake-cell-towers-other-devices-that/


----------



## BloodStripe (Jan 3, 2015)

lindy said:


> This shit just won't go away.
> 
> http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...er-about-fake-cell-towers-other-devices-that/


I posted a similar topic in GD a few months ago about at least 9 fake towers found in the US.


----------



## parallel (Jan 3, 2015)

That's impossible... POTUS said it isn't so...


----------



## pardus (Jan 3, 2015)

Just one more reason why I don't want a smart phone.


----------



## busdriver (Jan 3, 2015)

Smart phone has nothing to do with it.  The jurisdiction I'm aware of this stuff being used requires a warrant to actually listen in on anything that's being said/transmitted.


----------



## pardus (Jan 3, 2015)

busdriver said:


> Smart phone has nothing to do with it.  The jurisdiction I'm aware of this stuff being used requires a warrant to actually listen in on anything that's being said/transmitted.



Smart phones transmit a huge amount of your personal info when you use it to third parties. This particular stuff may not target them specifically but won't help the loss of privacy I'm sure.


----------



## SpaceshipDoorGunner (Jan 5, 2015)

And all the SIGINTers just had heart attacks lol. But really....:wall: The whole thing just::wall:


----------



## The Ohio Reaper (Jul 17, 2015)

To be honest.. Old I know. They are allowed to tap phones whenever and wherever. Bugging phones covertly via a mole is preferred. But, you still are allowed to tap phones whenever the need arises. Plausible deniability should be utilized by these idiots in the DOJ. Electronic surveillance is a huge tool in fighting terrorism.


----------



## Brill (Jul 17, 2015)

The Ohio Reaper said:


> To be honest.. Old I know. They are allowed to tap phones whenever and wherever. Bugging phones covertly via a mole is preferred. But, you still are allowed to tap phones whenever the need arises. Plausible deniability should be utilized by these idiots in the DOJ. Electronic surveillance is a huge tool in fighting terrorism.



Maybe in Soviet Russia but not so much here.


----------



## The Ohio Reaper (Jul 17, 2015)

lindy said:


> Maybe in Soviet Russia but not so much here.


The Patriot Acts I and II allow the NSA to eavesdrop on electronic communication without a warrant. Furthermore, your right to privacy is precluded if you are communicating abroad. Executive Branch directives or orders have the force of law. GWB and Obama understood that we needed more stringent intelligence gathering methods to catch terrorists. Soviet Russia did this to exert control over every aspect of society. The UK has CCTV everywhere. Audio and video observation.


----------



## The Ohio Reaper (Jul 17, 2015)

Personally if they want to read this or that screw it. I have nothing to hide.  They are doing their jobs.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Jul 17, 2015)

So what's your address? Who's your latest squeeze?

The second that's a real statement is the same second you should send ALL your mail on postcards in lieu of using envelopes.  Think about that for a minute, and the brilliance of that kind of statement.


----------



## Dame (Jul 17, 2015)

And what good did it do? Spy on everyone and someone not even on a watchlist kills four Marines.


----------



## Dienekes (Jul 17, 2015)

The Ohio Reaper said:


> The Patriot Acts I and II allow the NSA to eavesdrop on electronic communication without a warrant.



This came about before I was old enough to understand, so I don't know much about the powers granted. I also don't know much about counterterrorism and the SIGINT capabilities required to prevent it domestically. However, I am largely skeptical of any domestic surveillance program that does not require a warrant. Maybe 30 years from now or much further down the line, after many incremental reforms instituted because the gov has instilled a fear in a society that they relinquish liberty for security, the govt turns into a communist sort of Big Brother, and a form of the Soviet Union or worse. Of course, this is an extreme example, but it is not in the realm of impossible.

I like the fact that the founding fathers put forth in the Declaration of Independence the right of the people to throw off a tyrannical government.

[QUOTE-That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government][/QUOTE]



> But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security



I am definitely not a revolutionary, but I fully appreciate the existence of that right. To me patriotism is loving your country always, and telling your government when it is wrong.


----------



## AWP (Jul 18, 2015)

The easiest way to take all of someone else's  salami is one slice at a time.

People think the gov't planned and executed 9/11 and those people are idiots, but take advantage of 9/11? That's well within a large organization's control.

We allowed them to take a large slice and now we're on our way to eating mayonnaise sandwiches. 'Merica


----------



## Brill (Jul 18, 2015)

The Ohio Reaper said:


> The Patriot Acts I and II allow the NSA to eavesdrop on electronic communication without a warrant. Furthermore, your right to privacy is precluded if you are communicating abroad.



"Well, well, well.
If it isn't Mr. Bullshit and Dr. I'm-full-of-shit.
In what way are we full of shit?
Which one of us has the Ph. D?"- Role Models (2008)

You are aware that PAA, and it's extension, expired this summer?  But let's ignore that for now.  Please cite the exact part of PAA section 215 that includes "evesdropping".

You may want to actually read The USA Freedom Act.


----------



## policemedic (Jul 18, 2015)

The Ohio Reaper said:


> Personally if they want to read this or that screw it. I have nothing to hide.  They are doing their jobs.



You don't want me or any of my brethren pawing through your life.  You _really_ don't.  Trust me, I'm from the government and I'm here to help you.



Ranger Psych said:


> So what's your address? Who's your latest squeeze?
> 
> The second that's a real statement is the same second you should send ALL your mail on postcards in lieu of using envelopes.  Think about that for a minute, and the brilliance of that kind of statement.



^
^
What the freakishly large Ranger said.


----------



## radio-chaser (Aug 13, 2015)

I am sure that my statement will not apply to a few on this forum. 

I occasionally tell people that their "cell phones" are not telephones, but are radio communication devices.  Most are surprised to find out.  

Allegedly, sheriff, state, and local police departments are also using "Stingray", after accepting a  non disclosure agreement prohibiting them from sharing information with the public, before the  FBI loans it to the law enforcement agencies.


----------

