One of the disadvantages of a more connected world — a world where those connections are not just fun, but a critical part of daily life — is that connections make it easier to track you in various ways.
Stingray devices are highly secret tools that effectively simulate cell towers to your phone; once your phone has checked in by coming into range, it can be used to real-time locate and track you. The technology was developed by the Feds, and has slowly trickled out to law enforcement, but on a high confidential basis; the government has often refused to admit that Stingrays exist, or that their tech was used in gathering evidence in certain investigations.
In some cases, though, it’s come out, and the courts — including the DC Appeals Court — have tended to be unhappy with Stingray use without a warrant.
We thus conclude that under ordinary circumstances, the use of a cell-site simulator to locate a person through his or her cellphone invades the person’s actual, legitimate, and reasonable expectation of privacy in his or her location information and is a search. […] We agree with [the defendant] that the government violated the Fourth Amendment when it deployed the cell-site simulator against him without first obtaining a warrant based on probable cause.
Search warrants are not actually all that hard to get, if you have probable cause to think that a particular person has information needed; judges are not usually that difficult to persuade. Searching without a warrant is sloppy, or lazy, or indicates a fishing expedition, whether we’re talking about a Stingray or throwing someone’s apartment — and it leads to cases being dismissed or convictions overturned.
EFF analysis here: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/09/appeals-court-rules-against-warrantless-cell-site-simulator-surveillance
Court rules Stingray use without a warrant violates Fourth Amendment
The ruling could impact how cell-site simulators are used by law enforcement.
