We're far beyond the point of them caring about the laws. Judges are granting temporary residency to immigrants in court proceedings, and then those same people are detained and deported by ICE as soon as they walk out of the courtroom.
>But, isn't intercepting communications using a fake cell tower a wiretap?
The article doesn't actually mention what ICE is actually using the cell site simulators for. It's possible that they're only collecting IMSIs and not text/voice traffic, which might still be wiretapping, but it'd be more difficult to argue in front of a judge.
I wonder if there's an argument that mobile phones are using publicly-owned broadcast spectrum, and therefore, like when walking around in public, there isn't an expectation of privacy. Ham radio rules for example prohibit encryption because they are using public airwaves.
It used to be possible to just set up an analog receiver and you could listen to nearby cell phone calls.
I actually find that a decent argument, but I believe it’s already been shut down. When police used thermal imaging to “observe” a house, without doing anything they thought required a warrant, the Supreme Court decided it was too intrusive ( https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/533/27/#tab-opin... ). But if I understand the ruling correctly, if the police make it well-known that they have the ability to do something intrusive, then they don’t need a warrant.
Intercepting cell phone communications is restricted by law. This was enacted when public officials had their clear AMPS phone calls recorded with legally owned passive radios.
We're far beyond the point of them caring about the laws. Judges are granting temporary residency to immigrants in court proceedings, and then those same people are detained and deported by ICE as soon as they walk out of the courtroom.
Are you familiar with the concept of parallel construction?
If evidence of the wiretap never needs to be entered into the official record, did it really exist in the first place?
>But, isn't intercepting communications using a fake cell tower a wiretap?
The article doesn't actually mention what ICE is actually using the cell site simulators for. It's possible that they're only collecting IMSIs and not text/voice traffic, which might still be wiretapping, but it'd be more difficult to argue in front of a judge.
I wonder if there's an argument that mobile phones are using publicly-owned broadcast spectrum, and therefore, like when walking around in public, there isn't an expectation of privacy. Ham radio rules for example prohibit encryption because they are using public airwaves.
It used to be possible to just set up an analog receiver and you could listen to nearby cell phone calls.
I actually find that a decent argument, but I believe it’s already been shut down. When police used thermal imaging to “observe” a house, without doing anything they thought required a warrant, the Supreme Court decided it was too intrusive ( https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/533/27/#tab-opin... ). But if I understand the ruling correctly, if the police make it well-known that they have the ability to do something intrusive, then they don’t need a warrant.
Intercepting cell phone communications is restricted by law. This was enacted when public officials had their clear AMPS phone calls recorded with legally owned passive radios.
Of course it is. But good luck proving how they got the information.
Assuming there is even a venue where evidence would be provided for the purpose of being looked at