More Stingray cell site simulator stories

Ars Technica reported about yet another case where prosecutors dropped charges against 4 suspects who robbed 7 people, including one who needed 18 stitches, rather than disclose information about the use of a Harris Stingray.

Or at least that’s what we think.  The cops told the press that is was not related to “technology” (preferring not to admit that Stingrays exist), but they did not say what magic event occurred on the eve of a police officer being deposed about Stingray use in the case to cause them to drop the case.

The D.A. also did not tell the victims, who were not too happy, why they dropped the case, other than to say legal issues had developed.

A copy of an unredacted Harris NDA has surfaced here, which includes language that says that prosecutors will drop charges rather than talk about the Stingray.

In St. Louis, search warrants do not say they are using a cell site simulator but rather say this:

“Twenty-four hour a day assistance to include switch based solutions including precision location pursuant to probable cause based information queries and all reasonable assistance to permit the aforementioned Agencies to triangulate target location, including but not limited to terminating interfering service on the target telephone.”

I am not sure I understand that.

It’s all very interesting.  Likely not illegal.  But interesting.

The article also pointed out that this is an example of why businesses are leery of the new information sharing laws that have been making their way in Congress (there are a half dozen floating around this year alone).  Businesses think that the government will be happy to TAKE your information but less likely to give anything in return.

by