Cdl core Files 2015-2016 cdl core Files



Download 1.69 Mb.
Page4/75
Date18.10.2016
Size1.69 Mb.
#2993
1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   ...   75

Stingray 1AC—Solvency



Contention Four is Solvency:

The FCC Can Withdraw the Authority for Police to Employ Stingray Technology


Benson 2014 (Thor Benson, freelance writer. THE ATLANTIC “The Briefcases that Imitate Cell Phone Towers” http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/09/the-briefcases-that-imitate-cell-phone-towers/380678/
The ACLU, on the other hand, wants to know if local police departments are using Stingrays to monitor citizens in a way that they feel should not be allowed. “At the very least, the FCC should be reevaluating these grants of authority to Harris to make sure that they're actually appropriate, in light of the actual effect,” Wessler told me. If the FCC investigated this possibility and found they were mislead in how the Stingray would be used by police, they could revoke the authorization for police departments using such technology. Whether it be the crimes against minorities committed by police departments, the unprecedented militarization of the police in the past decade or the police acting as appendages of the NSA, it's becoming clear that policies of police forces in the United States are broken. The ACLU and human rights groups around the country are pleading for more information on what these authorities are doing in their day-to-day work, but they are forced to file information requests that only result in being given parts of the greater picture. Instead of a few emails between Harris and the FCC, the ACLU wants a copy of the actual application that was sent. But for now, they are limited to what the government is willing to give them—a string of emails between Harris employees and the FCC regulators who reviewed Harris's application. And from what they can tell based on those emails, today’s use of Stingrays lies in sharp contrast with how they were approved.

2AC Inherency—Stingray Now



New Stingray reforms have multiple loopholes and don’t apply to federal agents
Mint Press News, 2015 (http://www.mintpressnews.com/justice-departments-new-stingray-surveillance-policy-has-major-loophole/209338/, Sept 8)

The new policy [PDF] states “law enforcement agencies must now obtain a search warrant supported by probable cause.” It proceeds to outline two exceptions: (1) “exigent circumstances” and (2) “exceptional circumstances where the law does not require a warrant.”

The very existence of this categorical exception seems to entirely undermine the stated intention of the policy.

Several examples of “exigent circumstances” are outlined as justifications for not getting a warrant—to protect human life or avert serious injury, to prevent imminent destruction destruction of evidence, to pursue a fleeing felon, to prevent the escape of a suspect or convicted fugitive.



These are standard examples of situations, which have typically given law enforcement the authority to waive warrant requirements. Yet, in privacy law, there is no “exceptional circumstances where the law does not require a warrant” category of accepted exemptions to the Fourth Amendment.

As the policy outlines, “There may also be other circumstances in which, although exigent circumstances do not exist, the law does not require a search warrant and circumstances make obtaining a search warrant impracticable.”



The Justice Department claims “such cases” will be “very limited” but does not bother to provide a single example of a situation where human life would not be in danger, a fugitive would not be on the loose, evidence would be near destruction, but law enforcement would be in circumstances that would make not getting a warrant acceptable.

Essentially, the Justice Department seeks to establish a “We Won’t Get a Warrant If We Don’t Feel Like It” loophole in government policy.

Nate Freed Wessler, staff attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union, asserted, “The guidance leaves the door open to warrantless use of Stingrays in undefined ‘exceptional circumstances,’ while permitting retention of innocent bystander data for up to 30 days in certain cases.”

“The second exception listed in today’s policy for undefined ‘exceptional circumstances’ is potentially problematic,” EFF stated. “We have no idea what that means, so we’re waiting to see if and how the exception will be used.”



Another problem with the new policy is that it does not apply to federal agents, who use Stingray surveillance in “national security” investigations.

The policy applies only to state and local law enforcement agencies, which have partnered with federal agencies which are part of the Justice Department. State and local law enforcement could choose not to be partners and continue to follow their own rules for Stingray surveillance. It also is a policy, not law, which according to EFF means people have their privacy violated cannot seek a remedy if law enforcement abuses these guidelines.


Recent Department of Justice Stingray reforms don’t go nearly far enough

US News and World Report, 2015

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/09/04/police-use-of-stingrays-that-gobble-phone-data-unaffected-by-new-federal-warrant-rule, Sept 4

The Justice Department is reining in federal agents’ use of cell-site simulators that collect in bulk information on cellphone users in a specific geographic area, but privacy advocates aren't satisfied with initial steps toward shielding location data of innocent Americans from warrantless collection.

Federal and local officials' use of the devices, the best-known being Stingrays made by Harris Corp., is cloaked in secrecy, but appears often done without warrants and at times is concealed from courts, with police citing nondisclosure agreements they signed with the FBI.

Now, the Justice Department announced Thursday, its employees and agents working under its umbrella in agencies such as the FBI, the U.S. Marshals Service and Drug Enforcement Agency, must generally get a warrant to use cell-site simulators.

But the policy, which retains loopholes for exigent circumstances such as "hot pursuit of a fleeing felon" or to spare someone from death or serious injury and for "very limited" exceptional circumstances, isn’t as far-reaching as privacy advocates would like, and it doesn’t affect local law enforcement agencies when they are not working with federal authorities.


Department of Justice Stingray reforms have limited power – we need the Aff plan

US News and World Report, 2015

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/09/04/police-use-of-stingrays-that-gobble-phone-data-unaffected-by-new-federal-warrant-rule, Sept 4


American Civil Liberties Union attorney Nathan Freed Wessler, one of the most prominent advocates of privacy protections against Stingray use, says the effect of the new policy on state and local authorities appears limited.
“Disturbingly," he said in a statement, "the policy does not apply to other federal agencies or the many state and local police departments that have received federal funds to purchase these devices."

Justice Department spokesman Patrick Rodenbush confirms the rules do no constrain law enforcement when they are not working with the department's authorities
Recent Department of Justice policies on StingRay devices allow exceptions and don’t stop their use
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
Civil liberties advocates generally applauded the DOJ’s move, but felt that more could be done.

"It’s a welcome and overdue first step, but it is just a first step," Linda Lye, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Northern California, told Ars. "It doesn’t cover non-DOJ entities and it doesn’t cover the locals."

Earlier this year Washington State joined Virginia, Minnesota and Utah in imposing a warrant requirement at the state level.

She also pointed out that the new policy grants a non-warrant exception for well-understood "exigent circumstances"—a situation Ars detailed recently—it also creates a new category of "exceptional circumstances."

As the document states:

There may also be other circumstances in which, although exigent circumstances do not exist, the law does not require a search warrant and circumstances make obtaining a search warrant impracticable. In such cases, which we expect to be very limited, agents must first obtain approval from executive-level personnel at the agency's headquarters and the relevant U.S. Attorney, and then from a Criminal Division [Deputy Assistant Attorney General]. The Criminal Division shall keep track of the number of times the use of a cell-site simulator is approved under this subsection, as well as the circumstances underlying each such use.



The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), for example, would be able to continue using stingrays absent a warrant for now. However, Yates told reporters that DHS was working on its own policy, which is likely to be similar.
Nathan Freed Wessler, an ACLU attorney, noted that the new policy also does not include any sort of mandate that the states change their practices through its grant-issuing power. In many cases, state and local law enforcement obtain the surveillance tools through federal grant money.

"One thing that DOJ would have in its power to do, and DHS could do this, is to tie its grant funding to this policy," he said.


Warrantless Stingray surveillance is becoming more common in the status quo
Klonick 2014 (Kate Klonik, lawyer and writer, currently a resident fellow at Yale Law School’s Information Society Project, http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2014/11/stingrays_imsi_catchers_how_local_law_enforcement_uses_an_invasive_surveillance.html)
One of the tools making it possible for Chief Wiggum to gather all your deets is known colloquially as a Stingray, a portable gadget about the size of a box of doughnuts. They’re also known as “cell-site simulators,” because, well, that’s exactly what they do: A Stingray mimics a cellphone tower and forces all nearby mobile phones or devices to connect to it. Every phone that connects to the Stingray reports its number, GPS location, and the numbers of all outgoing calls and texts. That’s every location and outgoing call and text log of every phone within a certain radius—up to several kilometers—of the Stingray, and that’s all without a warrant. It’s probably not a huge surprise to most people in America today that the federal government has incredible surveillance technology that it uses occasionally on its own citizens. (Hi, NSA!) But polling shows that only 27 percent of people think that this technology is focused on them, and even if not, half of Americans surveyed say that there might be a margin of federal surveillance they’re willing to endure in the name of homeland security or fighting terrorism. But that logic is a much harder sell when it comes to local police, who have been acquiring Stingrays in increasing numbers. At least 46 state and local police departments, from Sunrise, Florida, to Hennepin, Minnesota, have gotten cell-site simulators, which range widely in price from $16,000 to more than $125,000 a pop. And like the federal government, local police are using this technology without any judicial oversight. That means Barney Fife—or, if you’re looking for a more sinister example, think Denzel in Training Day—can walk into your neighborhood with a Stingray, fire it up, and collect all the numbers, GPS, and call logs of every cellphone in the area. If they’re looking for a specific number (hopefully, it’s not you), they can also use a Stingray to trick your phone into being a personal GPS tracker and then use that warrantless cellphone tracking to enter your home and arrest you—again without a warrant.



Download 1.69 Mb.

Share with your friends:
1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   ...   75



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