They're also cheap, easy to use and deployed all over the country by local law enforcement. It isn't just three letter agencies using them, it's your local police department, too. No warrants needed, either.
No warrants? Because they intercept only the phone's identity (and therefore your location?) and not voice/text traffic, presumably.
Not that it's not still egregious but it's described in this thread as an "eavesdropping" device so it would be helpful if we could be explicit.
If my supposition above is accurate then the rationale is likely the fact that you are traveling in public is not considered protected against unreasonable search.
It's because they use the devices for eavesdropping. If they want to use data they collected from eavesdropping in court, then they need a warrant.
For example, if they're spying on a drug dealer, they can determine the right time to pull them over for a traffic violation and also catch them in the act of transporting drugs. If law enforcement doesn't submit evidence obtained from spying, it looks like whoever pulled them over was just in the right place at the right time[1].
Comments
They're also cheap, easy to use and deployed all over the country by local law enforcement. It isn't just three letter agencies using them, it's your local police department, too. No warrants needed, either.
No warrants? Because they intercept only the phone's identity (and therefore your location?) and not voice/text traffic, presumably.
Not that it's not still egregious but it's described in this thread as an "eavesdropping" device so it would be helpful if we could be explicit.
If my supposition above is accurate then the rationale is likely the fact that you are traveling in public is not considered protected against unreasonable search.
It's because they use the devices for eavesdropping. If they want to use data they collected from eavesdropping in court, then they need a warrant.
For example, if they're spying on a drug dealer, they can determine the right time to pull them over for a traffic violation and also catch them in the act of transporting drugs. If law enforcement doesn't submit evidence obtained from spying, it looks like whoever pulled them over was just in the right place at the right time[1].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction
I see. Do newer 3gpp/ETSI standards take this kind of surveillance into account? Surely this must not work for intercepting VoLTE or 5g voice calls?
Can’t they see the content of text messages. If so that blows my mind that they can be used without a warrant.
A warrant would be needed if they wanted to submit evidence in court. Instead, they keep the use of the devices secret and launder the evidence[1].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction