Cdl core Files 2015-2016 cdl core Files


AC Answers to Crime Disadvantage



Download 1.69 Mb.
Page10/75
Date18.10.2016
Size1.69 Mb.
#2993
1   ...   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   13   ...   75

2AC Answers to Crime Disadvantage



Not only are they used to spy on innocent civilians, StingRay devices allow actual criminals to walk free- law enforcement has been releasing criminals to avoid disclosing secrets about StingRay because of non-disclosure agreements. Banning StingRay devices would allow law enforcement to do their jobs without compromising citizen privacy or safety.
Upriser 2014 (“FBI Lets Criminals Walk to Avoid Revealing This Secret Cell Phone Spying System Used by All Police” Online http://upriser.com/posts/the-fbi-choosing-to-let-criminals-free-rather-than-reveal-stingray-secrets)
FBI just let another criminal walk rather than give details of their cell phone spying system "Stingray" -- a system is used by local police, shockingly to locate and spy on criminal suspects all over the United States. However, they would apparently rather let suspects go free than reveal in court the details of the high tech tracker. This device, called a "Stingray," tricks cell phones into revealing their locations. Closely guarded details about how police Stingrays operate have been threatened this week by a judge's court order. The federal government has been using these devices since at least 1995. Judge Patrick H. NeMoyer in Buffalo, New York, described a 2012 deal between the FBI and the Erie County Sheriff's Office in his court order Tuesday. The judge, who reviewed the deal, said the FBI instructed the police to drop criminal charges instead of revealing "any information concerning the cell site simulator or its use." Erie police had long tried to keep that contract secret, but the judge rejected that idea and ordered that details of the Stingrays be made public. "If that is not an instruction that affects the public, nothing is," NeMoyer wrote. The judge's order also noted that Erie police had used Stingrays to track down several criminal suspects, a suicidal person and four missing people, including an 87-year-old with dementia. Police spokesman Scott Zylka said they're now working with the FBI to appeal the judge's decision and keep the FBI agreement secret. ACLU is demanding details about Stingray use under public records laws. Few people know Stingrays even exist — or that federal agents and police across the country are increasingly using them to arrest people. It's a small device that mimics a cell phone tower, duping nearby cell phones into connecting to it rather than a real phone company tower. There's a growing privacy concern because while police use the Stingrays to track down an individual, they can potentially grab text messages and phone call data on thousands of innocent people. In November, we learned that federal agents regularly fly planes nationwide that spy on Americans' phone calls. We also know police in at least 20 states use Stingrays, according to public records obtained by the American Civil Liberties Union. But everything else is a mystery because police agencies have non-disclosure agreements with the maker of Stingrays: the Harris Corporation based in Melbourne, Florida. They also have similar hush-hush contracts with the FBI. There have been several examples of prosecutors dropping charges to keep quiet about Stingrays. Late last year, Tallahassee police gave a sweet plea deal to a pot dealer who robbed someone with a BB gun. A felony charge with a four-year prison sentence became a misdemeanor with six-months' probation because his defense attorney discovered police used a Stingray to locate him. Hanni Fakhoury, an attorney with the pro-privacy Electronic Frontier Foundation, said Tuesday's court order was the first time it became clear that the use of Stingrays is a nationwide tactic. "We've long suspected that's the policy, but now we know," he said. "It's crazy on a billion legal levels." The lead ACLU attorney on this case, Mariko Hirose, described Stingrays as military grade equipment that has no place being used on unsuspecting American citizens. She also said that the FBI's tactic to stay quiet about Stingrays makes little sense. Erie County spent more than $350,000 to buy two Stingray devices and related training and equipment. "Why are municipalities spending so much money when they might have to drop the charges in the name of secrecy?" she asked. All of this raises the interesting question of won't all criminal lawyers now demand Stingray records on their client as a matter of course? The ACLU put out a pamphlet for defense attorneys for exactly this reason. It seems that if the authorities are obtaining their evidence illegally, then it should be challenged. Another very interesting detail about StingRays also recently came to light. Stingrays make it temporarily impossible for anyone nearby to make a cell phone call. “Its use has the potential to intermittently disrupt cellular service to a small fraction of Sprint's wireless customers within its immediate vicinity,” FBI Special Agent Michael Scimeca wrote in his explanation about the StingRay's capability to a judge. “Any potential service disruption will be brief and minimized by reasonably limiting the scope and duration of the use of the Mobile Equipment.” Until now, authorities have maintained that the StingRay doesn't intercept 911 emergency calls. Yet this disclosure raises the notion that the StingRay prohibits other emergency calls in favor of investigations ranging from murder to minor theft. Additionally, the surveillance device also jams 3G and 4G networks. “Depending on how long the jamming is taking place, there's going to be disruption,” ACLU chief technologist Chris Soghoian told Wired magazine. “When your phone goes down to 2G, your data just goes to hell. So at the very least you will have disruption of Internet connectivity. And if and when the phones are using the StingRay as their only tower, there will likely be an inability to receive or make calls.”

*** Stingray Negative

1NC ANSWERS TO: Inherency—Status Quo Solves



The Department of Justice now requires warrants for use of Stingray devices
Ars Technica, 2015 http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/09/fbi-dea-and-others-will-now-have-to-get-a-warrant-to-use-stingrays/, September 3
The Department of Justice (DOJ) announced sweeping new rules Thursday concerning the use of cell-site simulators, often called stingrays, mandating that federal agents must now obtain a warrant in most circumstances.
The policy, which takes effect immediately, applies to its agencies, including the FBI, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF), the Drug Enforcement Administration, and the United States Marshals Service, among others.
"Cell-site simulator technology has been instrumental in aiding law enforcement in a broad array of investigations, including kidnappings, fugitive investigations and complicated narcotics cases," Deputy Attorney General Sally Quillian Yates said in a statement. "This new policy ensures our protocols for this technology are consistent, well-managed and respectful of individuals’ privacy and civil liberties."
The move comes after federal agencies, most notably the FBI, have tried to tightly control information about stingrays for years. The FBI and the Harris Corporation, one of the primary manufacturers of the devices, have refused to answer specifics questions from Ars.

Not only can stingrays be used to determine location by spoofing a cell tower, but they can also be used to intercept calls and text messages. Once deployed, the devices intercept data from a target phone as well as information from other phones within the vicinity. For years, federal and local law enforcement have tried to keep their existence a secret while simultaneously upgrading their capabilities. Over the last year, as the devices have come under increased scrutiny, new information about the secretive devices has come to light.


Ars has previously reported that while stingrays have been used at the local level for serious violent crimes, they have also been used to investigate ATM robberies, and 911 hangups.

In 2015, federal authorities have shown a willingness to open up a little about the technology, although the FBI declared in January that it has a right to use the devices in public without a warrant.



Moving forward
In addition to imposing a new warrant requirement, the new seven-page document also requires that DOJ officials are to delete data of non-target phones that is collected by accident, and annually report how often stingrays are used.
The plan is not needed because the FBI is already starting to address possible Stingray abuses
Barrett 2015 (Devlin Barrett is a staff reporter for the Wall Street Journal http://www.wsj.com/article_email/u-s-will-change-stance-on-secret-phone-tracking-1430696796-lMyQjAxMTI1NDA0MzEwNjMzWj)
The Justice Department will start revealing more about the government’s use of secret cellphone tracking devices and has launched a wide-ranging review into how law-enforcement agencies deploy the technology, according to Justice officials. In recent months, the Federal Bureau of Investigation has begun getting search warrants from judges to use the devices, which hunt criminal suspects by locating their cellphones, the officials said. For years, FBI agents didn’t get warrants to use the tracking devices. Senior officials have also decided they must be more forthcoming about how and why the devices are used—although there isn’t yet agreement within the Justice Department about how much to reveal or how quickly.

The plan is not needed because courts are already starting to address possible Stingray abuses
Supreme Court of Florida 2014 (Written decision in Shawn Alvin Tracey v. State of Florida, 10/16/14, pages 44-45. http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/decisions/2014/sc11-2254.pdf
For all the foregoing reasons, we conclude that Tracey had a subjective expectation of privacy in the location signals transmitted solely to enable the private and personal use of his cell phone, even on public roads, and that he did not voluntarily convey that information to the service provider for any purpose other than to enable use of his cell phone for its intended purpose. We arrive at this conclusion in part by engaging in the “normative inquiry” envisioned in Smith. See Smith, 442 U.S. at 740 n.5. There, the Supreme Court cautioned that where an individual’s subjective expectations have been “conditioned” by influences alien to the well-recognized Fourth Amendment freedoms, a normative inquiry may be necessary to align the individual’s expectations with the protections guaranteed in the Fourth Amendment. Moreover, we conclude that such a subjective expectation of privacy of location as signaled by one’s cell phone—even on public roads—is an expectation of privacy that society is now prepared to recognize as objectively reasonable under the Katz “reasonable expectation of privacy” test. See Katz, 389 U.S. at 361 (Harlan, J., concurring) (establishing the two-pronged “reasonable expectation of privacy” test). Therefore, we hold that regardless of Tracey’s location on public roads, the use of his cell site location information emanating from his cell phone in order to track him in real time was a search within the purview of the Fourth Amendment for which probable cause was required. Because probable cause did not support the search in this case, and no warrant based on probable cause authorized the use of Tracey’s real time cell site location information to track him, the evidence obtained as a result of that search was subject to suppression.

States are Doing the Plan Now


Ars Technica, 2015 “FBI says search warrants not needed to use “stingrays” in public places,” January 5th, 2015 (http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/01/fbi-says-search-warrants-not-needed-to-use-stringrays-in-public-places/)
Hanni Fakhoury, an attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, said some states and judges are pushing back against stingrays.

"In Tacoma, judges now require police (to) specifically note they plan to use an IMSI catcher and promise not to store data collected from people who are not investigation targets," he said. "The Floridaand Massachusetts state supreme courts ruled warrants were necessary for real-time cell phone tracking. Nine states—Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, Minnesota, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, andWisconsin—passed laws specifically requiring police to use a warrant to track a cell phone in real time."






Download 1.69 Mb.

Share with your friends:
1   ...   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   13   ...   75



The database is protected by copyright ©ininet.org 2024
send message
    Main page
Guide
Instructions
Report
Request
Review