Slog Music

Music, Nightlife,
and Drinks

Friday, June 13, 2014

Obama Administration Reportedly Tells Police Departments: Stay Quiet on Cell Phone Data Collection

Posted by on Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 6:00 AM

The Associated Press:

The Obama administration has been quietly advising local police not to disclose details about surveillance technology they are using to sweep up basic cellphone data from entire neighborhoods, The Associated Press has learned.

Citing security reasons, the U.S. has intervened in routine state public records cases and criminal trials regarding use of the technology. This has resulted in police departments withholding materials or heavily censoring documents in rare instances when they disclose any about the purchase and use of such powerful surveillance equipment.

One of the technologies police departments are being pushed to keep quiet about: Stingray. Here's how it works.


Comments (16) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
Reverse Psychology?

Probably not, right?
Posted by Foonken2 on June 13, 2014 at 6:43 AM · Report this
fletc3her 2
It's sad how much money we're wasting on crap like this while the intelligence community racks up failure after failure to alert us to anything that matters.
Posted by fletc3her on June 13, 2014 at 7:38 AM · Report this
Democrats: "It's not fascism when WE do it."
Posted by delbert on June 13, 2014 at 7:48 AM · Report this
good! we need to be tracking these paranoid anarchists like the two psychos in vegas.
Posted by hateisnotafamilyvalue on June 13, 2014 at 8:10 AM · Report this
TheMisanthrope 5
Bad Obama. Bad!
Posted by TheMisanthrope on June 13, 2014 at 8:50 AM · Report this
Welcome to the world of Watch_Dogs.

Next up: ctOS integration for the whole of the greater Seattle metropolitan area.
Posted by Hacksaw on June 13, 2014 at 9:03 AM · Report this
Will in Seattle 7
Canadian Supreme Court just ruled - today - that it's illegal to collect data on Citizens without an individual warrant - and the US signed a Data Treaty that requires them to abide by that ruling
Posted by Will in Seattle on June 13, 2014 at 10:10 AM · Report this
Joe Szilagyi 8
Eli: Has the Stranger pursued SPD to see if they use Stingray?
Posted by Joe Szilagyi on June 13, 2014 at 10:13 AM · Report this
Will in Seattle 9
@2 the only stuff that works - that has ever worked - is friendly police detective interrogation. The only cell or internet data that has ever been useful was on people in or from Pakistan, Saudi Arabia or Yemen.


Dirty secret of counter-terrorism - they want you to be sheep and live in Fear
Posted by Will in Seattle on June 13, 2014 at 10:14 AM · Report this

Hope and Change.
Posted by Zok on June 13, 2014 at 10:53 AM · Report this
AFinch 11
I pretty much agree with @9, but I'd add this: this domestic spying has never been about getting terrorists, that's just a pretext. It has been pretty successful at setting up a police surveillance state at home.
Posted by AFinch on June 13, 2014 at 11:09 AM · Report this
4th amendment? Seriously we have a fucking constitution for this shit.
Posted by wxPDX on June 13, 2014 at 12:06 PM · Report this
Two notes, the first most important.

This should not be a partisan issue. All Americans should be fighting mad at the systematic dismembering of basic civil liberties, whatever their ideological or political affiliation.

And it's interesting that a post on suspension of the 4th Amendment garners nearly no comments, while one on proposed suspension of the 2nd gets enthusiastic support from many commenting.

Until enough people say a big fuck you to tyrannical government practices, of whatever kind, the loss of our most fundamental civil rights will continue.
Posted by Seattleblues on June 13, 2014 at 1:38 PM · Report this
venomlash 14
@13: Please explain how phone use metadata collection violates the 4th Amendment. You're delusional and execrably badly-informed.
Posted by venomlash on June 13, 2014 at 2:54 PM · Report this

Gee, assuming every single person is a terrorist in a given location doesn't sound like reasonable support for a search to me.

But then, maybe you don't like being free from unreasonable government intrusion into your life.

For the record, biologist, a badly ill informed person would in fact be well informed. Double negative, you see, kiddo.
Posted by Seattleblues on June 13, 2014 at 6:11 PM · Report this
venomlash 16
@15: Gathering metadata regarding phone use doesn't constitute a search of someone's person, home, or other similarly protected category. Rather, the government agency in question is requesting information (information already released by its originator) from a third party: the phone company. Try again.
For the record, construction worker, your grasp of grammar is tenuous at best. "[B]adly ill informed" could mean "bad at being ill informed" or "ill informed in a bad way", and the context should make it obvious which meaning is intended. Nor is that what I wrote previously! What I actually posted was the phrase "execrably badly-informed"; "execrably" means "horribly".
Posted by venomlash on June 13, 2014 at 8:57 PM · Report this

Add a comment


Want great deals and a chance to win tickets to the best shows in Seattle? Join The Stranger Presents email list!

All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
1535 11th Ave (Third Floor), Seattle, WA 98122
Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Takedown Policy