NJSP Cell Phone Surveillance

[PM08203]

Adm move this to whatever forum u think is better...only put it here because it concerns NJSP and Harris:

https://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/inv...l-Phone-Surveillance-Equipment-466854663.html

 

[APX8000]

This is old news as far as what the technology does, how it is used, and why. Back in 2015, U.S. Department of Justice released policy regarding its use:

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-announces-enhanced-policy-use-cell-site-simulators

https://www.justice.gov/opa/file/767321/download

U.S. DHS released its policy (which reads just like the DOJ policy) a month later:

https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/f...the Use of Cell-Site Simulator Technology.pdf

Two years later some reporter finds out NJ spent $850,000 on this SECRET technology? Give me a break. What is even more comical is the ACLU statement "“the police can drive by and find out everybody who is in a building.” OR...ACLU....maybe they are trying to find that fugitive that just killed several people but made a phone call to his girlfriend.....

 

[RadioDitch]

What is even more comical is the ACLU statement "“the police can drive by and find out everybody who is in a building.”

It may be paranoid, but it's not all that comical being it's true. Capturing the IMSI of every cell phone in a structure or in an area does provide the means to identify the owner of said devices, even in an instance of incidental collection. Use of devices like this is where we find ourselves again at that difficult and age old crossroads of liberty vs. security/justice.

It'd be an easier beast to wrestle if individual agencies would release more of their historical usage data for the devices, and their individual SOP's for use.

 

[APX8000]

While I can’t speak for NJSP policy wise, I can say that (per the DHS policy above for example) it is very specific regarding what is to be done with the incidental data captured. I can say that per U.S. Code, the order is very specific and the “exigent circumstances” runs parallel pretty much with other 4th amendment protections. I can also say that in NJ, most of the AG guidelines are stricter than Federal.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[garys]

Didn't SCOTUS grant cert. to a Stingray case? I seem to remember the issue was whether or not a warrant was required to capture data from a phone by spoofing a cell site.

I think there might also be a separate case on whether using a Stingray to collect limited data makes it a "pen register" or wiretap.

While I can’t speak for NJSP policy wise, I can say that (per the DHS policy above for example) it is very specific regarding what is to be done with the incidental data captured. I can say that per U.S. Code, the order is very specific and the “exigent circumstances” runs parallel pretty much with other 4th amendment protections. I can also say that in NJ, most of the AG guidelines are stricter than Federal.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[RadioDitch]

While I can’t speak for NJSP policy wise, I can say that (per the DHS policy above for example) it is very specific regarding what is to be done with the incidental data captured. I can say that per U.S. Code, the order is very specific and the “exigent circumstances” runs parallel pretty much with other 4th amendment protections. I can also say that in NJ, most of the AG guidelines are stricter than Federal.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

However, the difference being that the feds have been pretty damned transparent with their papers on the matter all things considered.