Jump to content


Photo

Police Departments Caught Covering Up Illegal Use Of The Stingray/hailstorm Cell Phone Listening Device


  • Please log in to reply
1 reply to this topic

#1 Pdrt

Pdrt

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 15 posts

Posted 04 March 2014 - 08:47 PM

Police Departments Caught Covering Up Illegal Use of the StingRay/HailStorm Cell Phone listenting Device

Dear Elected Officials:

Reportedly, the StingRay/ HailStorm1 eavesdropping device (Purchased by the Oakland County Sheriff), which police use to monitor citizens without a warrant is illegal and violates the 4th amendment. However, since there is no official oversight, citizens do not know they are being monitored and judges are not told about the illegal use of the device against citizens, we are left with a massive and blatant intrusion into the personal lives of citizens. Elected officials have the power to reign in this overreach by the Oakland County Sheriff.

PRICELESS: Local Oakland County Government Officials tell a reporter that they cannot talk about spy equipment bought with tax payer money to spy on tax payers. The public NEVER consented; therefore this secret spy equipment is ILLEGAL. How many times were the phones of citizens tapped or hacked by the StingRay/HailStorm to build a case, while its use was concealed from the targeted citizen, Oakland County Judge, Prosecutor or defense attorney? How dare they do something so sneaky and unaccountable.

See attached Article (below): “Florida police used a cell phone tracking (StingRay/ HailStorm) device at least 200 times without a warrant because they conspired with the device manufacturer to keep its use a secret, according to the ACLU.”

“This was apparently because they had signed a non-disclosure agreement with the company that gave them the device,” Wessler wrote. “The police seem to have interpreted the agreement to bar them even from revealing their use of stingrays to judges, who we usually rely on to provide oversight of police investigations.”

“Potentially unconstitutional government surveillance on this scale should not remain hidden from the public just because a private corporation desires secrecy,” he added. “And it certainly should not be concealed from judges.”

Kevin Elliot "West End" Article 2: Oakland County Undersheriff Michael McCabe declined to comment on the reports of their department's possible usage of Stingrays. (Due to the Harris corporation nondisclosure agreement)

SHERIFF MICHAEL BOUCHARD ON STINGRAY/HAILSTORM2:
Sheriff Bouchard: "We aren't allowed, even with a court order, to do wiretaps (StingRay/ HailStorm)," he said. "We can't get content wiretaps placed in terms of hard wires or cell phones.” “If we do something outside the law, then the evidence isn't usable.
*Sheriff Bouchard indicated he cannot use phone taps in court, but he never said the Sheriff’s office does not tap phones (Third Party Doctrine loophole?). WHY WOULD SHERIFF BOUCHARD PURCHASE A DEVICE THAT CAN TAP PHONES, IF THEY ARE NOT ALLOWED TO TAP PHONES!?

*The StingRay/ HailStorm can do much more that tap Mobile Phones phones3; Reportedly; Police can “take over” a citizens cell phone; Turn on mobile phone microphone/camera to eavesdrop, can text send messages, utilize internet browser etc.4 THE POTENTIAL FOR GOVERNNMENTAL ABUSE SURREAL (NO ACOUNTABILITY); especially when it is so secret. Why would the Oakland County Sheriff purchase or need god like all knowing power?

Take Care.

1.) Oakland County Purchase Report of the StingRay/ Hailstorm: http://cdn.arstechni...k-hailstorm.pdf

2.) Great article by Kevin Elliot of the “WestEnd”: http://www.westendmo...oken.disearea=1

3.) Tempe Arizona Purchase of the StingRay/ HailStorm Page 6, which verifies Mobile Phone Eavesdropping/ Intercepts: http://info.publicin...risContract.pdf

4.) State of Virginia Chesterfield Police Department Purchase Order of the Stingray/ Hailstorm verifies police can transmit and receive communication signals from targeted cell devices: http://hac.state.va....4/MFCUPart2.pdf

Article:


Police Dept. Covers Up Its NSA-Style, Warrantless Cell Phone Tracking

 

Kit Daniels
Infowars.com
March 3, 2014


Florida police used a cell phone tracking device at least 200 times without a warrant because they conspired with the device manufacturer to keep its use a secret, according to the ACLU.
The stingray cell tracking device works by mimicking a real cell phone tower, tricking phones into connecting to it. Credit: Jovianeye / Wiki


Through a recent motion for public access, the ACLU determined that at least one Florida police department never told judges about its use of the cell phone tracking device, known as a “stingray,” because the department signed a non-disclosure agreement with the stingray’s manufacturer to keep its use from being publicly known.


The manufacturer, which the ACLU said was likely a Florida-based company, also retained ownership of its stingrays and only let the department borrow them, further aiding in its secrecy.
The stingray, also called a “cell tower simulator,” determines the location of a targeted cell phone by impersonating a cell tower, which tricks the targeted phone – and non-targeted cell phones in the same range – into transmitting its precise location and phone records to the stingray.


“When in use, stingrays sweep up information about innocent people and criminal suspects alike,” Nathan Freed Wessler, an ACLU attorney, reported.


The ACLU learned about the department’s use of the stingray through an ongoing court case entitled Florida v. Thomas, in which police used the device to track a stolen cell phone to the suspect’s apartment.


After forcing their way inside the apartment, the police conducted a search of the residence, found the stolen phone and arrested the suspect.


Yet the police never obtained a warrant for the search or for its use of the stingray.


“This was apparently because they had signed a non-disclosure agreement with the company that gave them the device,” Wessler wrote. “The police seem to have interpreted the agreement to bar them even from revealing their use of stingrays to judges, who we usually rely on to provide oversight of police investigations.”


“Potentially unconstitutional government surveillance on this scale should not remain hidden from the public just because a private corporation desires secrecy,” he added. “And it certainly should not be concealed from judges.”


And, according to the ACLU, other police departments are also using stingrays secretly in the same fashion, joining an ever growing list of government entities infringing upon the Fourth Amendment.
Last week it was revealed that officials in Ypsilanti Township, Michigan began working with local police to place surveillance cameras in every neighborhood.


“We are recording images that a police officer would see if he or she were standing in the same place,” the township’s director of the Office of Community Standards, Mike Radzik, said.
And several months prior, a city in New Jersey decided to counter personnel reductions in its police force by placing the public under constant surveillance


Edited by Pdrt, 04 March 2014 - 09:03 PM.


#2 amish4ganja

amish4ganja

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 853 posts

Posted 05 March 2014 - 07:23 AM

I will accept surveillance of the general public if, and only if, law enforcement accepts surveillance of itself.

 

An audio and video record of every interaction between law enforcement and their employer, the general public.


  • Norby likes this




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users