[rand334]

No, no. The FBI planes have "Stringray" devices on board and pick up people's private calls and their IMSI IDs. They also have FLIR/high-res cameras. This shit is not "public" when they pretend to be a cell-tower to MiTM your phone.

[beeboop]

To be fair, stingrays now require warrants for anything other than immediate life/death situations and national security, and nothing is really private once they have a warrant.

[rand334]

"require"--cute. Even if "required" in all states including federally, who oversees this to ensure that said requirements are being followed? What keeps them from using it anyway?

Also, the very nature of these devices ensure that they capture data that does not belong to the suspect under warrant. Just because a suspect lives in an area near me, does not give them any right whatsoever to collect my data.

[rhino369]

Someone like the CIA might ignore court rulings the FBI, other federal/state/local police don't ignore them as a matter of policy[1]. They'd never be able to introduce evidence from that in a court case, which is what their goal is.

[1] - of course, individual bad actors do break the rules. But as far as that goes, buying and servicing a drone is something that is hard to off the books.

[beeboop]

>They'd never be able to introduce evidence from that in a court case, which is what their goal is.

This is often not true. Many cases have shown evidence of being put together through parallel construction. It's easy to find damning evidence if you know exactly where to look, the phone conversation that leads them to the evidence is not required.