Fed Gov steps in to quash request for Stingray data

So, for those that don't know..

Stingrays are devices that act like a cellphone tower, and basically get information from the phone..... just as a real network would.. in violation of just about everything that makes the 4th amendment, the 4th amendment..

Well, one of the agencies gets sued by the ACLU, wanting to know how/when/why, etc the Stingrays are being used...

So, the US Marshals come in, TAKE the data that was collected from the stingray, and disappear with it.

The judge then rules 'Whoops! It's a federal issue, not a local issue, I can't force them to give you something that doesn't exist, case dismissed'.

You. Have. Got. To. Be. Fucking. Kidding. Me.



'Let them eat cake' - Worked real fucking well for the French aristocracy, didn't it?

You should be more concerned with Dancing with the Stars, the Kardashians, and that Bruce Jenner thing transformation like the rest of 'murica.

Sarcasm.....

So you support the ACLU's efforts?

Deleted.

I don't read in Anzac's post where he took a stance? Are you that itching to troll every post he makes to try and attack him?

I do not see anything in my question being any more or less relevant than the same question being directed in reverse towards another member by Anzac.

However, i have deleted my question. Please edit any posts quoting my question.

I support any effort to bring corruption to light...

Despite their '2nd amendment, what's that?' stance..


MULTIPLE cases involving stingrays have been in courts, and the prosecutors have withdrawn the information gained by the Stingray, so as to not disclose any information about them..

One chick, a getaway driver for a robbery, was caught using a stingray... The defense demanded to know how the information was obtained, including details on the device, and they DROPPED THE CHARGES against the woman, to prevent them from having to disclose the information.

A similar thing happened in Baltimore, where they used the device to find a robbery suspect, they then raided the location he was at, charging him with additional crimes. It went to court, the judge ORDERED them to disclose information about how they found his location, and they withdrew the additional charges that were 'made' with the stingray, focusing only on the original robbery charge, which could be proven without the stingray being involved.


They're hiding the extralegal use of these devices, and if they're QUESTIONED in court, they'll be found to have been used illegally, so they drop the charges to prevent the discovery, use, and operational techniques, of the device. They don't want ANYTHING to be known about them, so they can continue to use them. If it becomes apparent how much they're actually being used, and they're required to give up information, they'll soon be banned.

i am good with it

Some people don't care about the constitution and the law, we know.

No Dan that my job

don't break the law

You mean like 18 USC 242?

Or perhaps you think that violating the rights of individuals isn't 'breaking the law'?

Please explain.

Errrrr... What about the people's data it collects that are not breaking the law? Collateral Damage?

yup and if they want to hear me talking to my wife about whats for dinner so be it.