SOCNET

Go Back   SOCNET: The Special Operations Community Network > Areas of Expertise > Technology and Communications

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 23 March 2015, 16:25
SATCOM's Avatar
SATCOM SATCOM is offline
Been There Done That
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 5,108
Chicago PD fighting to keep cellphone trackers secret

Other LE agencies have had to lower or dismiss charges rather than discuss the technology involved. Now Shitcago is getting pressure.....

Chicago Police fighting to keep cellphone trackers secret

http://chicago.suntimes.com/news-chi...rackers-secret

The Chicago Police Department is fighting to keep a lid on how, when and where officers have used covert cellphone tracking systems — with an outside law firm billing the city more than $120,000 to battle a lawsuit that seeks those secret details.

Since 2005, the department has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on cell-site simulators manufactured by the Harris Corp. in Melbourne, Florida, records show. The devices — with names like StingRay and KingFish — capture cellphone signals.

Cops can use the technology, originally developed for the military, to locate cellphones. Police agencies in other states have revealed in court that StingRays and similar devices have been used to locate suspects, fugitives and victims in criminal investigations.

Rest of article at above link.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg STINGRAY-CST-032315-2.jpg (59.6 KB, 433 views)
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 23 March 2015, 17:41
CA SGT's Avatar
CA SGT CA SGT is offline
What could possibly go wrong?
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Here and There
Posts: 1,629
Why hide it? The guy hiding out in Russia handed over a whole bunch of SIGINT jewels far greater than a stingray et al.
__________________
This job isn't dangerous enough....I need to start milking rattlesnakes and jerking off tarantulas on my lunch hour.
________________________________
Otatsiihtaissiiststakio piksi makamo ta psswia
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 23 March 2015, 17:50
Tracy's Avatar
Tracy Tracy is offline
Been There Done That
 
Join Date: Feb 1997
Location: West
Posts: 11,158
I agree with the efforts to reveal how and when cell phone tracking was used. I also agree with the concerns about collecting intelligence information of innocent personnel. I don't agree with revealing the source code. I would also hit the Harris Corporation with federal legal action for demanding non-disclosure of their product ownership (and use) by the LEOs.

To me, it's extremely simple:

1. GET A WARRANT TO TRACK THE SPECIFIC CELL PHONES; AND SET A SPECIFIC GEOGRAPHIC SCOPE, START TIME AND END TIME.
2. HAVE A DOCUMENTED PROCEDURE TO DELETE ALL OTHER TRAFFIC NOT ASSOCIATED WITH THE WARRANT OR ITS SCOPE.

WTF is the problem with protecting civil liberties? Hell, if the bad guys have not figured out they're violating OPSEC by talking over ANY electronic device, then they're too stupid to develop countermeasures everyone is so worried about.

This is like watching a (very) bad episode of "America's Got Talent". Bunch of f*cking amateurs.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 23 March 2015, 18:05
MountainBum's Avatar
MountainBum MountainBum is offline
Vivat Fraternitatis
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: OCONUS
Posts: 912
Yeah, I don't understand the cloak-and-dagger act around Harris boxes anymore. 8 years ago? Different story. Now I can drink beer at my house while cracking A5/1 encryption in real time on my Mac. As Tracy said, the free lunch phase is over. Bad guys are going to shift TTPs, time for forward thinkers in these orgs to do so as well.

But that would be hard...
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 23 March 2015, 18:35
Art Brown Art Brown is offline
On the Extract Bird
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Marathon Fl
Posts: 285
Please, real lawyers jump in here for discussion

. I have only taken one single class (about 60 hours on-line with quizzes and tests) and have no standing in this.

This subject also drags in the 2nd, 4th, and 5th Ammenments.

An additional aspect to this issue is that the PDs cannot just grab content from the carriers without getting a warrant but can grab RAS/DRAS Dial- Routing-Addressing-Signal) info with just a subpoena which does not require judicial oversight and that is covered exclusively by the Pen Register Act.

Typically PDs may also use a D Order (hybrid) to bypass being forced to obtain a warrant which does require probable cause and judicial oversight. This is known as Prospective Cellphone Tracking. A wiretap requires a warrant and judicial order and review.

There is no law defining and or describing D Orders. A number of courts, both state and federal have ruled that D Orders are not legal as they provide no recourse nor judicial relief if abused. The instructor indicated his opinion that so far the majority perception when it is taken to USSC D Orders will not be upheld. Again his opinion

Often a subpoena is used then it is piggybacked by the functions of a warrant without getting a warrant by expressing "a reasonable articulable suspicion otherwise known as probable cause" thereby bypassing the judicial oversight otherwise required.

It does not even have to be in writing at time of issue because the PD stand is that this action is covered by a subpoena and would probably have been discovered during service of the subpoena.

However some PDs view is if they use simulators such as Kingfish and then they capture content themselves, they can keep and USE that content against the subject without a subpoena or warrant. The PD can also use any additional info scooped up on any other persons caught up in this trap. Some courts are taking the view that the content is protected under 4th Ammendment.

If Joe Smith is being surveilled and is caught by a false tower, and say a neighbor Jane Doe on the next block is inadvertently overhead by PD (even though PD is supposedly not listening to content, asking for money to provide sex to J Q Public, Jane and J Q can also both be arrested and prosecuted even though they were not the actual targets of the false tower surveillance and there were no witnesses. Ie, no subpoena nor warrant is required for them to be investigated, arrested, tried and convicted.

Just finished my class on Fed Surviellance Law and this was specifically covered in the class. I am not a lawyer and probably never will be.

An important point with use of cell tower simulators is that they interfere with ALL data devices in the geographic vicinity of the false cell tower.

This includes dropping or delaying calls to and from other people NOT involved in anyway with the serveilled subject. This includes 911 calls and "Wi-Fi hotspots". ComSat phones are not affected by these cell tower simulators. The PD stand is that they can be trusted to not abuse this information collected about anyone scooped up by the simulator.

I can list the 4 major acts governing these issues if wanted.

One way to determine if you are being surveilled is to buy the appropriate electronic equipment then monitor. Another less technical and inexpensive way is to count the number of times you, your neighbors or people calling you or neighbors get dropped or delayed for no reason.

Drive around and look for suspicious unmarked PD vehicles - not all are Crown Vics. Feds like the Chevy Impala and the Caprice. States and local agencies like the Crown Vic and the Ford line of vans.

You can also download free or purchased computer software that tests and determines the performance of your equipment and that of nearby towers, even to telling you where they are and whether they are forwarding your calls and if they interfere with other towers and their signal strength.

Many Many issues here. I am thoroughly awed by the enormity of potential and actual abuse related in social media on this.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 27 March 2015, 18:32
Polypro's Avatar
Polypro Polypro is offline
BTDT
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: A Noisy Bar In Avalon
Posts: 13,080
They're illegal and Un-Constitutional. I'm for exposing anything and everything about them (and have, on this very board). But until there is a USSC case, you'll be tracked, slaves.

P.S. IMO, as the tech exists now, they can *never* be made Constitutional, as they force ALL phones to connect to them.

If you want to beat LE and still communicate your evil plans to put fricken laser-beams on sharks, just get a Wifi only device, spoof the MAC, set up an OSTEL.co account, and use CSIPSimple to make ZRTP VOIP calls.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 3 September 2015, 21:45
SATCOM's Avatar
SATCOM SATCOM is offline
Been There Done That
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 5,108
Lightbulb

This new policy does not apply to local LE use of the technology....

The Feds Need a Warrant to Spy With Stingrays From Now On

http://www.wired.com/2015/09/feds-ne...stingrays-now/

THE GOVERNMENT’S USE of controversial stingray devices just got a little more stringent and transparent—at least at the federal level.

On Thursday the Justice Department announced a new and long-overdue policy requiring the FBI and other federal agents to obtain a search warrant before using stingrays—devices that simulate a cell phone tower in order to track the location of mobile phone users.

Rest of story at above link.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 3 September 2015, 22:12
CV's Avatar
CV CV is offline
Authorized Personnel
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: US
Posts: 7,716
I'm sure the relationship between local and federal won't be abused.
__________________
It's a hipster filter. Keeps your kind out. -Jimbo
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 3 September 2015, 22:14
Purple36's Avatar
Purple36 Purple36 is offline
Swimming Upstream
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: East Coast
Posts: 9,495
Quote:
Originally Posted by MountainBum View Post
Yeah, I don't understand the cloak-and-dagger act around Harris boxes anymore. 8 years ago? Different story. Now I can drink beer at my house while cracking A5/1 encryption in real time on my Mac. As Tracy said, the free lunch phase is over. Bad guys are going to shift TTPs, time for forward thinkers in these orgs to do so as well.

But that would be hard...
time to bring back the TA 312..........
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 3 September 2015, 22:51
EchoFiveMike's Avatar
EchoFiveMike EchoFiveMike is offline
Make a desert and call it peace.
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: back home, IVO chicago
Posts: 8,327
Quote:
Originally Posted by CV View Post
I'm sure the relationship between local and federal won't be abused.
There were a metric shitload of Feds (FBI, ATF, Marshalls) working a truly ridiculous manhunt in Fox Lake IL these past few days after an officer was killed. Complete with massively overloaded gear carriage, scanning with guns, needlessly pointing guns and all the silly shit we've been talking about for the last year plus.

I'm sure they're running down all the cell numbers that happened to be pinging in the area at the time even as I type this. S/F.....Ken M
__________________
"If you remember nothing else about what I’m about to consider here, remember this: the one and only reason politicians, bureaucrats, and policemen want to take your weapons away from you is so that they can do things to you that they couldn’t do if you still had your weapons."— L. Neil Smith
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 4 September 2015, 08:09
Tracy's Avatar
Tracy Tracy is offline
Been There Done That
 
Join Date: Feb 1997
Location: West
Posts: 11,158
Quote:
Originally Posted by SATCOM View Post
This new policy does not apply to local LE use of the technology....

The Feds Need a Warrant to Spy With Stingrays From Now On

http://www.wired.com/2015/09/feds-ne...stingrays-now/

THE GOVERNMENT’S USE of controversial stingray devices just got a little more stringent and transparent—at least at the federal level.

On Thursday the Justice Department announced a new and long-overdue policy requiring the FBI and other federal agents to obtain a search warrant before using stingrays—devices that simulate a cell phone tower in order to track the location of mobile phone users.

Rest of story at above link.
Wow. It's like the DoJ read this thread and implemented the changes I outlined above. That's a real good start.

Pardon me while I try to change water into Gatorade...
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 17 September 2015, 04:39
Polypro's Avatar
Polypro Polypro is offline
BTDT
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: A Noisy Bar In Avalon
Posts: 13,080
Still unConstitutional - you can't make just one phone connect. USSC needs a case.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 22 June 2018, 12:33
IronCross's Avatar
IronCross IronCross is offline
Supporterator
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Dallas
Posts: 815
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinion...6-402_h315.pdf

Supremes voted down cell tracking for police depts.

Interesting that the conservatives on the court, to include Gorsuch, voted against.
__________________
Keep your mouth shut and listen. That is the best piece of advice I have been given.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 22 June 2018, 13:36
Sharky's Avatar
Sharky Sharky is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: SOCNET
Posts: 19,657
Quote:
Originally Posted by IronCross View Post
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinion...6-402_h315.pdf

Supremes voted down cell tracking for police depts.

Interesting that the conservatives on the court, to include Gorsuch, voted against.

I think this was the right call. It doesn't say that they can't do it anymore, it just requires them to get a warrant based on probable cause before they can do it. Seems reasonable to me.
__________________
I was born my papa's son
When I hit the ground I was on the run
I had one glad hand and the other behind
You can have yours, just give me mine
When the hound dog barkin' in the black of the night
Stick my hand in my pocket, everything's all right

-ZZ Top
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 22 June 2018, 22:33
ExSquid ExSquid is offline
Confirmed User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: CONUS
Posts: 380
Personally I am disappointed it was not a unanimous vote. I am all for PD's leveraging technology to fight crime but filing for a warrant is not that arduous of a requirement.

x/S
__________________
"Rule # 76; no excuses, play like a champion."
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 22 June 2018, 22:35
Sigi's Avatar
Sigi Sigi is offline
Life is simple, not easy.
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 4,224
Quick question: where did SATCOM go?
__________________
.
bravodelta: "If they start taxing lapdances, I think I'll call it quits and become a chaplain."
Chaplain: "God moves in mysterious ways...", but ... well.... uhh... welcome aboard!
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 23 June 2018, 08:14
Tracy's Avatar
Tracy Tracy is offline
Been There Done That
 
Join Date: Feb 1997
Location: West
Posts: 11,158
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharky View Post
I think this was the right call. It doesn't say that they can't do it anymore, it just requires them to get a warrant based on probable cause before they can do it. Seems reasonable to me.

Agreed. Locational data is Fourth Amendment stuff. Get a warrant.

Actually, I'm glad the LEOs decided to pull the CSLI data on Carpenter; even though they had a pretty solid case against him prior to that. They went for extra credit and got called out by Carpenter and his lawyer.

At least now we have a ruling from the USSC. Technology made LEOs and Criminals lazy; so rulings like this will tighten up their TTPs. HUMINT still works, just sayin'...
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 23 June 2018, 09:00
Purple36's Avatar
Purple36 Purple36 is offline
Swimming Upstream
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: East Coast
Posts: 9,495
This still doesn't address subscriptions to big data companies that sell Geo Location data pulled from apps on phones and for 10-20K allow subscribers to put a geo fence around the area and see what's pinging and then see that individual's POL...but I would be willing to put a few dollars down that SCOTUS is not aware of this growing invasion of privacy. (Well, in my mind it's a privacy and personal security issue anyway).
__________________
- Faith involves believing in the veracity of the unprovable and unobservable, whether that consists of religion or theoretical physics, which at the very subatomic level start looking rather similar. -ET1/SS Nuke
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 23 June 2018, 09:01
Polypro's Avatar
Polypro Polypro is offline
BTDT
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: A Noisy Bar In Avalon
Posts: 13,080
Yeah, but look at the court's split and the (total) 120 pages of dissent - why do the conservative justices love .gov so much? Limited and minimally intrusive is supposed to be the rallying cry. Now don't get your panties in a bunch - gun control issues usually go the other way - which I also like, so it's just frustrating being a (making my own thing up here) moderate, independent, libertarian. I think the dead guy would have voted with the majority though, so... Ah well, color me happy as long as it doesn't turn into another "rubber stamp, 'dial-a-warrant'" type thing. And as is usually the case, us good people gain protection, based on an absolute scumbag/s activity.

Hopefully L-Site/SEP, VSAT/LERT, Hemisphere etc... got a whole lot more difficult to use. Now to go after ALPR...

Last edited by Polypro; 23 June 2018 at 09:16.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Our new posting rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:33.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Socnet.com All Rights Reserved
© SOCNET 1996-2018