











Taken from the daily beast :
SHE LIED
Exclusive: ‘Hillary Clinton Took Me Through Hell,’ Rape Victim Says
06.20.144:24 AM ET
The woman at the center of the scandal over Hillary Clinton’s defense of an alleged child rapist speaks out in depth for the first time.
Hillary Clinton is known as a champion of women and girls, but one woman who says she was raped as a 12-year-old in Arkansas doesn’t think Hillary deserves that honor. This woman says Hillary smeared her and used dishonest tactics to successfully get her attacker off with a light sentence—even though, she claims, Clinton knew he was guilty.
The victim in the 1975 sexual abuse case that became Clinton’s first criminal defense case as a 27-year-old lawyer has only spoken to the media once since her attack, a contested, short interaction with a reporter in 2008, during Clinton’s last presidential campaign run. Now 52, she wants to speak out after hearing Clinton talk about her case on newly discovered audio recordings from the 1980s, unearthed by the Washington Free Beacon and made public this week.
In a long, emotional interview with The Daily Beast, she accused Clinton of intentionally lying about her in court documents, going to extraordinary lengths to discredit evidence of the rape, and later callously acknowledging and laughing about her attackers’ guilt on the recordings.
“Hillary Clinton took me through Hell,” the victim said. The Daily Beast agreed to withhold her name out of concern for her privacy as a victim of sexual assault.
The victim said if she saw Clinton today, she would call her out for what she sees as the hypocrisy of Clinton’s current campaign to fight for women’s rights compared to her actions regarding this rape case so long ago.
“I would say [to Clinton], ‘You took a case of mine in ’75, you lied on me… I realize the truth now, the heart of what you’ve done to me. And you are supposed to be for women? You call that [being] for women, what you done to me? And I hear you on tape laughing.”
The victim’s allegation that Clinton smeared her following her rape is based on a May 1975 court affidavitwritten by Clinton on behalf of Thomas Alfred Taylor, one of the two alleged attackers, whom Clinton agreed to defend after being asked by the prosecutor. Taylor had specifically requested a female attorney.
“I have been informed that the complainant is emotionally unstable with a tendency to seek out older men and engage in fantasizing,” Clinton, then named Hillary D. Rodham, wrote in the affidavit. “I have also been informed that she has in the past made false accusations about persons, claiming they had attacked her body. Also that she exhibits an unusual stubbornness and temper when she does not get her way.”
Clinton also wrote that a child psychologist told her that children in early adolescence “tend to exaggerate or romanticize sexual experiences,” especially when they come from “disorganized families, such as the complainant.”
The victim vigorously denied Clinton’s accusations and said there has never been any explanation of what Clinton was referring to in that affidavit. She claims she never accused anyone of attacking her before her rape.
“I’ve never said that about anyone. I don’t know why she said that. I have never made false allegations. I know she was lying,” she said. “I definitely didn’t see older men. I don’t know why Hillary put that in there and it makes me plumb mad.”
The victim’s second main grievance with Clinton stems from the newly revealed audio recordings, which were taped in a series of interviews of Clinton with Arkansas reporter Roy Reed, who was researching an article on the Clintons that was ultimately never published. The Free Beacon found the tapes archived at the University of Arkansas in Fayetteville, amidst thousands of pieces of Clinton history that are being periodically released for public consumption
On the tapes, Clinton, who speaks in a Southern drawl, appears to acknowledge that she was aware of her client’s guilt, brags about successfully getting the only piece of physical evidence thrown out of court, and laughs about it all whimsically.
“He took a lie detector test. I had him take a polygraph, which he passed, which forever destroyed my faith in polygraphs,” Clinton says on the recording, failing to hold back some chuckles.
She then describes how she discovered that investigators had cut out and lost a section of the suspect’s underwear that they said contained the victim’s blood. Clinton brought the remaining underwear segment to a Nobel Prize-winning blood expert in Brooklyn, NY, she explained, in order to convince him to lend his heavyweight reputation and influence to her defense case.
“And so the, sort of the story through the grapevine was, if you get him interested in the case, then you know you had the foremost expert in the world willing to testify so that it came out the way you wanted it to come out,” Clinton said.
Clinton told the judge that the famous expert was willing to testify. Instead of the original charge of first-degree rape, the prosecutors let Taylor plead to a lesser charge: unlawful fondling of a child. According to the Free Beacon, Taylor was sentenced to one year behind bars, with two months reduced for time served. The second attacker was never charged.
“Oh, he plea bargained. Got him off with time served in the county jail, he’d been in the county jail about two months,” Clinton said on the recording, apparently not remembering the sentence accurately.
For the victim, the tapes prove that while Clinton was arguing in the affidavit that the victim could have some culpability in her own attack, she actually believed that her client was guilty. Taylor’s light sentence was a miscarriage of justice, the victim said.
“It’s proven fact, with all the tapes [now revealed], she lied like a dog on me. I think she was trying to do whatever she could do to make herself look good at the time…. She wanted it to look good, she didn’t care if those guys did it or not,” she said. “Them two guys should have got a lot longer time. I do not think justice was served at all.”
The office of Hillary Clinton did not respond to a request for comment. Ina 2008 article in Newsday written by Glenn Thrush, now at Politico, Clinton spokesperson Howard Wolfson defended her conduct in the case.
“As she wrote in her book, ‘Living History,’ Senator Clinton was appointed by the Circuit Court of Washington County, Arkansas to represent Mr. Taylor in this matter,” he said. “As an attorney and an officer of the court, she had an ethical and legal obligation to defend him to the fullest extent of the law. To act otherwise would have constituted a breach of her professional responsibilities.”
In that book, Clinton gave vague details about her actions in the case and said that shortly thereafter, she helped set up Arkansas’s first rape hotline.
According to Thrush’s article, the victim didn’t fault Clinton for her defense of the attacker during their 2008 interview, which took place in the prison where the victim was serving time for drug-related offenses, in the presence of the warden. “I’m sure Hillary was just doing her job,” he quoted the victim as saying. After all, everyone has a right to be defended in court. And 1975 was a lifetime ago.
But the victim now claims she was misquoted. She didn’t even know Clinton was the lawyer who defended her attacker until Thrush showed her Clinton’s book and she had no other information about what had happened behind closed doors in that courtroom when Thrush approached her, she said. Thrush declined to comment.
“If I had known that day what I know now I would have told him exactly what I’m telling y’all today,” she said.
After she was released from prison in 2008, the victim read more about Clinton’s involvement in her case, but she never planned to confront Clinton about it.
“I started seeing where I had really been stomped in the ground. I didn’t really know what to do about it. I just figured life would have to go on and I would have to live with it,” she said.
But after hearing the newly revealed tapes of Clinton boasting about the case, the victim said she couldn’t hold her tongue any longer and wanted to tell her side of the story to the public.
“When I heard that tape I was pretty upset, I went back to the room and was talking to my two cousins and I cried a little bit. I ain’t gonna lie, some of this has got me pretty down,” she said. “But I thought to myself, ‘I’m going to stand up to her. I’m going to stand up for what I’ve got to stand up for, you know?”
In her interview with The Daily Beast, she recounted the details of her attack in 1975 at age 12 and the consequences it had for both her childhood and adult life. A virgin before the assault, she spent five days afterwards in a coma, months recovering from the beating that accompanied the rape, and over 10 years in therapy. The doctors told her she would probably never be able to have children.
The victim was put through several forensic procedures, including a lie detector test. At first, she failed the lie detector test; she said that was because she didn’t understand one of the specific sex-related questions. Once that question was explained to her, she passed, she said. The victim positively identified her two attackers through one-way glass and they were arrested. But that wasn’t the end of her ordeal.
She described being afraid of men for years and dealing with anger issues well into her adulthood. At one point, she turned to drugs, a path that ultimately led her to prison. Now 52, she has never married or had children. She said she has been sober for several years and has achieved a level of stability, although she remains unemployed and living on disability assistance.
“I’m living life in Arkansas, I go to Church sometimes, and I’m doing good… Being on disability I don’t get much income but I’m happy where I’m at. I’m doing really well,” she said. “[Clinton] owes me a big apology, [but] I’ll probably never get anything from her.”
The victim doesn’t remember ever meeting Clinton in 1975; she says her memories from that ordeal are spotty. But she does recall feeling exasperated by the law enforcement and legal proceedings to the point where she told her mother she just wanted it to be over so she could try to resume her childhood.
“I had been through so much stuff I finally told them to do whatever,” she remembered. “They had scared me so bad that I was tired of being put through it all. I finally said I was done… I thought they had both gotten long-term sentences, I didn’t realize they got off with hardly nothing.”
Whether or not Clinton was just doing her duty as a defense lawyer, for the victim, Clinton’s behavior speaks to her character, her ambition, and her suitability to be a role model for women or president of the United States.
“I think she wants to be a role model being who she is, to look good, but I don’t think she’s a role model at all… If she had have been, she would have helped me at the time, being a 12-year-old girl who was raped by two guys,” she said. “She did that to look good and she told lies on that. How many other lies has she told to get where she’s at today? If she becomes president, is she gonna be telling the world the truth? No. She’s going to be telling lies out there, what the world wants to hear.”
The victim is concerned that speaking out will make her a target for attacks, but she no longer feels she is able to stay silent.
“I’m a little scared of her… When this all comes about, I’m a little worried she might try to hurt me, I hope not,” she said. “They can lie all they want, say all they want, I know what’s true.”
Hillary Is ‘Confused About Feminism,’ Bernie Supporters Say
02.07.168:00 PM ET
Just because you might be the first woman president doesn’t make you a real feminist, backers of Sanders insist. You’ve got to support a whole progressive agenda, too.
PORTSMOUTH, New Hampshire — If feminist icons Madeleine Albright and Gloria Steinem had hoped to shame young, female Bernie Sanders supporters into switching allegiance to Hillary Clinton with their comments last week, it didn’t work.
In fact, it might have made it worse.
“[Hillary is] confused about what feminism means, she thinks feminism just means female empowerment only, it means a lot more than that,” said Ainsley-Aude Croteau, 24, of Durham, New Hampshire. “Feminism is gender equality, I think she’s trying to appeal to young women voters by shouting feminism in our faces, but were not one-track-minded people.”
Croteau was one of nearly a dozen women interviewed by The Daily Beast who attended the Sanders rally on Sunday afternoon in a community college gymnasium. They were all genuinely perplexed by the idea that Clinton deserved their support solely based on her gender.
And while they stressed they respected her as a champion of past battles for gender equality, that did not mean she deserves their vote in 2016. Equality to them takes on a more inclusive definition, one that also includes gay rights and economic justice—two issues where they think Sanders is much stronger.
“I’m looking at what kind of candidate is going to be the type of leader that I want to see in this country—for me it’s not about who Bernie is,” said Stephanie Corbin, 31, of Bow, New Hampshire. “It’s not about his age, it’s not about his gender, it’s about where he stands on the issues and it’s about his integrity in terms of being committed truly to social justice.”
Corbin added, “You know, I would love to support Hillary if she felt differently on some of the issues.”
The youth vote has been a problem for Clinton and she’s had a tough time ascertaining why. (After all, it’s not like she’s not running against a 74-year-old, disheveled white man.) Still, Sanders won 70 percent of voters 17-29 in Iowa—and among young women she lost roughly 6 to 1 to Sanders.
As a result, her surrogates have gone into hyper drive.
Former Secretary of State Madeline Albright remarked on Saturday at a Clinton rally that “There’s a special place in hell for women who don’t help each other,” as Clinton stood nearby and clapped. Clinton defended Albright’s remarks on Meet the Press Sunday, saying the comment was a “lighthearted but very pointed remark.”
This followed Gloria Steinem’s jaw-dropping comment on Friday’s Real Time with Bill Maher that young women liked Bernie Sanders because “the boys are with Bernie.” Steinem later apologized, saying she “misspoke” and that she didn’t mean to imply Sanders-supporting women aren’t serious about their politics.
“I was super upset about Gloria Steinem saying that. For someone with as strong a record for standing up for young women and their opinions and their rights, to say something that sexist about young women’s opinion is incredibly disappointing as a young feminist who looks up to her,” said Persephone Bennett, 20.
Bennett said Clinton’s inconsistency on LBGT rights as well as hersupport of foreign wars in the Middle East made her a less than ideal choice.
“It’s disappointing and disingenuous for her to say that she is the candidate for me,” she said.
“I think they have a lot of hope for a female president and they have been waiting a long time. I understand it, I can sympathize, but I don’t empathize.”
Clinton frequently cites her long record of fighting for women’s rights be it as a lawyer in Arkansas, a first lady or as secretary of state. And it’s not that her work and sacrifices have gone unnoticed.
Mary Gibbons, 28, of Manchester, New Hampshire, said she doesn’t discount what Clinton has gone through—but that doesn’t mean she has her vote.
“I mourn the things that Hillary has had to go through as a woman in her role as a politician and the things that she hasn’t been able to do because of her gender,” she said. “I understand that, but to me that doesn’t absolve her of her policy stances. And right now I want to vote for the person whose policies I agree with.”
For Krissie Davis, 20, and Haley Massingham,17, both from Dover, New Hampshire, their embrace of Sanders stemmed from their support for his position on college affordability as well as a distrust of Clinton.
“Those emails are wicked shady, I was for her until that stuff started,” Davis said, referring to Clinton’sprivate email server—and theclassified information that was supposedly kept on that server. “She hides things, it seems. It seems like she needs to talk to five other people to answer a question and Bernie Sanders, he has his own thinking.”
“Coming from a low-income family, he’s working for people like me who want to go to college. It wouldn’t be possible without his ideas,” Massingham added.
In some ways it must be maddening for Clinton, who spent her 2008 campaign largely shying away from gender, only to have the younger generation reject her for making her gender an issue eight years later.
But, for Croteau, it was as much about tone as it was about gender.
“Bernie doesn’t treat us like we’re children, he treats us like we are adults. He doesn’t try to talk down to us with the feminism thing,” she said. “It’s not a girl power thing, it’s a gender equality power thing.”
PROMOTED STORIES
$1 Samsung protection trick that is changing lives across the U.S!TECH ADVICE
You have to read this before buying a Samsung!TECH ADVICE
Don't buy a new Samsung until you've read this!TECH ADVICE
U.S Employees quitting jobs after making money with blog?TECH ADVICE
PrivacyCommunity PolicyTerms & ConditionsCopyright & Trademark© 2016 The Daily Beast Company LLC
0
FORUMITGADGETSBUSINESSSECURITYTECH POLICYAPPLEGAMINGSCIENCECARS
LAW & DISORDER / CIVILIZATION & DISCONTENTS
Meet the machines that steal your phone’s data
Keeping tabs on civilian phones? There's more than one way to skin that cat.
by Ryan Gallagher - Sep 25, 2013 10:00am PDT
Aurich Lawson / HBO
The National Security Agency’s spying tactics are being intensely scrutinized following the recent leaks of secret documents. However, the NSA isn't the only US government agency using controversial surveillance methods.
Advertisement
Monitoring citizens' cell phones without their knowledge is a booming business. From Arizona to California, Florida to Texas, state and federal authorities have been quietly investing millions of dollars acquiring clandestine mobile phone surveillance equipment in the past decade.
Earlier this year, a covert tool called the “Stingray” that can gather data from hundreds of phones over targeted areas attracted international attention. Rights groups alleged that its use could be unlawful. But the same company that exclusively manufacturers the Stingray—Florida-based Harris Corporation—has for years been selling government agencies an entire range of secretive mobile phone surveillance technologies from a catalogue that it conceals from the public on national security grounds.
Details about the devices are not disclosed on the Harris website, and marketing materials come with a warning that anyone distributing them outside law enforcement agencies or telecom firms could be committing a crime punishable by up to five years in jail.
These little-known cousins of the Stingray cannot only track movements—they can also perform denial-of-service attacks on phones and intercept conversations. Since 2004, Harris has earned more than $40 million from spy technology contracts with city, state, and federal authorities in the US, according to procurement records.
In an effort to inform the debate around controversial covert government tactics, Ars has compiled a list of this equipment by scrutinizing publicly available purchasing contracts published on government websites and marketing materials obtained through equipment resellers. Disclosed, in some cases for the first time, are photographs of the Harris spy tools, their cost, names, capabilities, and the agencies known to have purchased them.
What follows is the most comprehensive picture to date of the mobile phone surveillance technology that has been deployed in the US over the past decade.
“Stingray”
The Stingray has become the most widely known and contentious spy tool used by government agencies to track mobile phones, in part due to an Arizona court case that called the legality of its use into question. It’s a box-shaped portable device, sometimes described as an “IMSI catcher,” that gathers information from phones by sending out a signal that tricks them into connecting to it. The Stingray can be covertly set up virtually anywhere—in the back of a vehicle, for instance—and can be used over a targeted radius to collect hundreds of unique phone identifying codes, such as the International Mobile Subscriber Number (IMSI) and the Electronic Serial Number (ESM). The authorities can then hone in on specific phones of interest to monitor the location of the user in real time or use the spy tool to log a record of all phones in a targeted area at a particular time.
The FBI uses the Stingray to track suspects and says that it does not use the tool to intercept the content of communications. However, this capability does exist. Procurement documents indicate that the Stingray can also be used with software called “FishHawk,” (PDF) which boosts the device’s capabilities by allowing authorities to eavesdrop on conversations. Other similar Harris software includes “Porpoise,” which is sold on a USB drive and is designed to be installed on a laptop and used in conjunction with transceivers—possibly including the Stingray—for surveillance of text messages.
Similar devices are sold by other government spy technology suppliers, but US authorities appear to use Harris equipment exclusively. They've awarded the company “sole source” contracts because its spy tools provide capabilities that authorities claim other companies do not offer. The Stingray has become so popular, in fact, that “Stingray” has become a generic name used informally to describe all kinds of IMSI catcher-style devices.
First used: Trademark records show that a registration for the Stingray was first filed in August 2001. Earlier versions of the technology—sometimes described as “digital analyzers” or “cell site simulators” by the FBI—were being deployed in the mid-1990s. An upgraded version of the Stingray, named the “Stingray II,” was introduced to the spy tech market by Harris Corp. between 2007 and 2008. Photographs filed with the US Patent and Trademark Office depict the Stingray II as a more sophisticated device, with many additional USB inputs and a switch for a “GPS antenna,” which is likely used to assist in location tracking.
Cost: $68,479 for the original Stingray; $134,952 for Stingray II.
Agencies: Federal authorities have spent more than $30 million on Stingrays and related equipment and training since 2004, according to procurement records. Purchasing agencies include the FBI, DEA, Secret Service, US Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the Internal Revenue Service, the Army, and the Navy. Cops in Arizona, Maryland, Florida, North Carolina, Texas, and California have also either purchased or considered purchasing the devices, according to public records. In one case, procurement records (PDF) show cops in Miami obtained a Stingray to monitor phones at a free trade conference held in Miami in 2003.
“Gossamer”
The Gossamer is a small portable device that can be used to secretly gather data on mobile phones operating in a target area. It sends out a covert signal that tricks phones into handing over their unique codes—such as the IMSI and TMSI—which can be used to identify users and home in on specific devices of interest. What makes it different from the Stingray? Not only is the Gossamer much smaller, but it can also be used to perform a denial-of-service attack on phone users, blocking targeted people from making or receiving calls, according to marketing materials (PDF) published by a Brazilian reseller of the Harris equipment. The Gossamer has the appearance of a clunky-looking handheld transceiver. One photograph filed with the US Patent and Trademark Office shows it displaying an option for "mobile interrogation" on its small LCD screen, which sits above a telephone-style keypad.
First used: Trademark records show that a registration for the Gossamer was first filed in October 2001.
Cost: $19,696.
Agencies: Between 2005 and 2009, the FBI, Special Operations Command, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement spent more than $1.3 million purchasing Harris’ Gossamer technology and upgrading existing Gossamer units, according to procurement records. Most of the $1.3 million was spent by the FBI as part of a large contract in 2005.
ShareTweetEmailGoogleReddit ← OLDER STORYNEWER STORY →
SPONSORED STORIES POWERED BY OUTBRAIN
TECH ADVICE
Don't purchase a new Samsung Galaxy until you've read this!
HEWLETT PACKARD ENTERPRISE
Because Every Business Wants Hyper-Converged Infrastructure to Be Simple
HEWLETT PACKARD ENTERPRISE
See What Developers Are Discovering About Holding a User's Attention
TECH ADVICE
Don't order a new Samsung Galaxy S6 until you've read this!
TECH ADVICE
Customers swarm to protect latest Samsung S6 for only $1!
HEWLETT PACKARD ENTERPRISE
The One Thing Businesses Should Do before “Cloudifying” Data Centers
YOU MAY ALSO LIKE
© 2016 Condé Nast. All rights reserved
Use of this Site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement (effective 1/2/14) and Privacy Policy (effective 1/2/14), andArs Technica Addendum (effective 5/17/2012)
Your California Privacy Rights
The material on this site may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, cached or otherwise used, except with the prior written permission of Condé Nast.
Skip to: Start of articleVisually Open Nav.Go to Wired Home Page.
SUBSCRIBE
Search
BUSINESSCULTUREDESIGNGEARSCIENCESECURITYTRANSPORTATIONPHOTOVIDEO
Advertisement.
Skip Article Header. Skip to: Start of Article.AUTHOR: KIM ZETTER.KIM ZETTER SECURITY DATE OF PUBLICATION: 01.27.16.01.27.16 TIME OF PUBLICATION: 6:28 PM.6:28 PM
CALIFORNIA POLICE USED STINGRAYS IN PLANES TO SPY ON PHONES
THE GOVERNMENT’S USE of a controversial invasive technology for tracking phones just got a little more controversial.
The Anaheim Police Department has acknowledged in new documents that it uses surveillance devices known as Dirtboxes—plane-mounted stingrays—on aircraft flying above the Southern California city that is home to Disneyland, one of the most popular tourist destinations in the world.
According to documents obtained by the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California, the Anaheim Police Department have owned the Dirtbox since 2009 and a ground-based stingray since 2011, and may have loaned out the equipment to other cities across Orange County in the nearly seven years it has possessed the equipment.
“This cell phone spying program—which potentially affects the privacy of everyone from Orange County’s 3 million residents to the 16 million people who visit Disneyland every year—shows the dangers of allowing law enforcement to secretly acquire surveillance technology,” Matt Cagle, technology and civil liberties policy attorney for ACLU-NC, wrote in a blog postabout the new documents.
Stingrays and Dirtboxes are mobile surveillance systems that impersonate a legitimate cell phone tower in order to trick mobile phones and other mobile devices in their vicinity into connecting to them and revealing their unique ID and location. Stingrays emit a signal that is stronger than that of other cell towers in the vicinity in order to force devices to establish a connection with them. Stingrays don’t just pick up the IDs of targeted devices, however. Every phone within range will contact the system, revealing their ID.
They not only pick up trackable data from phones; Stingrays and Dirtboxes also can disrupt phone service for anyone in their vicinity whose phone connects to the devices. This means that potentially millions of people in Orange County had their phones unknowingly connected to government surveillance devices and may have experienced service disruption as a result. Last year an FBI agent admitted the disruption capability for the first time in a court case involving a Sprint customer.
“Because of the way the Mobile Equipment sometimes operates,” FBI Special Agent Michael A. Scimeca disclosed to a judge, “its use has the potential to intermittently disrupt cellular service to a small fraction of Sprint’s wireless customers within its immediate vicinity. Any potential service disruption will be brief and minimized by reasonably limiting the scope and duration of the use of the Mobile Equipment.”
Although stingrays are designed to recognize 911 calls and let them pass to legitimate cell towers without connecting to the surveillance device, the revelation from the FBI agent raises the possibility that other kinds of emergency calls not made to 911 may not get through.
Anaheim police have not disclosed how they use their stingray and Dirtbox devices or whether they take any steps to minimize service disruption.
The use of stingrays by local law enforcement agencies has been widespread for many years. But the use of the more invasive Dirtboxes has largely been limited to federal law enforcement, though at least two large cities were known before to be using them. In 2014, for example, the Wall Street Journal reported that the US Marshals Service was operating Cessna aircraft with Dirtboxes installed on them from at least five metropolitan-area airports. The locations of these airports provided authorities with a wide-sweeping flying range that covers cell phones used by most of the US population.
Subsequent news reports revealed that Los Angeles and Chicago local police departments possessed Dirtboxes as well. Anaheim is the smallest city known to have one.
“If a city of this size possesses a Dirtbox it really begs the question what other cities smaller than Los Angeles and Chicago were able to buy these devices in the six years since it has had one,” says Cagle.
It’s not clear to what extent Anaheim police use their stingray and the plane-mounted Dirtbox. Two years after buying the Dirtbox in 2009, the police department purchased its stingray. In 2013, the Chief of Police approved an upgrade to the stingray that the ACLU believes gave it the capability to monitor modern LTE cellular networks, which are used by millions of smartphones.
“In other words, as cell carriers upgraded their networks to LTE, Anaheim police took steps to exploit that very network which millions of customers would entrust with their private communications,” wrote Cagle.
Last year the Justice Department issued a policy asserting that any federal agency using a stingray or Dirtbox must obtain a warrant. That policy, however, left a loophole for local law enforcement agencies to continue using them without a court order. But California lawmakers passed state legislation last year closing that loophole at least for police and other local law enforcement agencies in that state. That so-called CalECPA law requires, as of January this year, that these local agencies alsoobtain a warrant. Another bill passed by California lawmakers requires any law enforcement agency in the state using such equipment to have established a usage policy for it and to make that policy publicly available.
“Without more transparency and an enforceable set of rules, we really don’t know whether these devices are used from the sky to investigate routine crimes or pursuant to a warrant as CalECPA now requires,” Cagle told WIRED. “We look forward to seeing jurisdictions releasing publicly available use policies with a warrant requirement.”
Go Back to Top. Skip To: Start of Article.ACLUDIRTBOXDISNEYLANDGOVERNMENT SURVEILLANCESPYINGSTINGRAY
Skip Comments. Skip to: Footer.VIEW COMMENTS
SPONSORED STORIES
*QUALIFIED STUDENTS – CLASSESUSA
Why Aren't People Taking Advantage of Grants To Go Back To School?
GILD INC.
Why Your CEO Doesn't Care About Talent Acquisition
HEWLETT PACKARD ENTERPRISE
Increasing Cloud Computing Potential with Hyper-Convergence
AETNA ON TUMBLR
What is Mindfulness and How to Practice it Everyday
HEWLETT PACKARD ENTERPRISE
Facebook Stores Its Data Where?!
POWERED BY OUTBRAIN
MORE SECURITY
SECURITY
NSA Hacker Chief Explains How to Keep Him Out of Your System
3 HOURS
SECURITY
NYC Launches Investigation Into Hackable Baby Monitors
22 HOURS
EXPLAINED
Answers to Your Burning Questions on the Ashley Madison Hack
08.21.15
SECURITY
Proposed State Bans on Phone Encryption Make Zero Sense
1 DAY
SECURITY
Hack Brief: Don't Be Trolled by This iPhone-Crashing Link Meme
01.25.16
WE RECOMMEND
APRIL GLASER
Don't Toss Your Busted Headphones. Here's How to Fix Them
BRIAN RAFTERY
Definitely Real Texts Show What El Chapo Thinks of Sean Penn
DAVID PIERCE
24 Gifts For the Kitchen That Are Good but Don't Cost Too Much Money Except For a Few Of Them
KLINT FINLEY
I Turned Off JavaScript in My Web Browser for a Whole Week and It Was Glorious
HEWLETT PACKARD ENTERPRISE
Top 10 Things You Need to Consider When Buying a Hyper-converged Infrastructure (Expert Guide)
POWERED BY OUTBRAIN
FOLLOW US
ON FACEBOOK
Don't miss our latest news, features and videos.
Wired FacebookWired TwitterWired PinterestWired YoutubeWired TumblrWired InstagramSUBSCRIBEADVERTISESITE MAPPRESS CENTERFAQCUSTOMER CARECONTACT USNEWSLETTERWIRED STAFFJOBSRSS
Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our user agreement (effective 3/21/12) andprivacy policy (effective 3/21/12). Affiliate link policy. Your California privacy rights. The material on this site may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, cached or otherwise used, except with the prior written permission of Condé Nast.