Hacker News Reader

Comment by JumpCrisscross | Hacker News Reader

> Why aren't they using the official lawful interception interfaces?

They may not want to leave a paper trail.

“To obtain a [legal] wiretap order, law enforcement must demonstrate probable cause to a judge” [1]. Given ICE has been arresting Americans, they probably aren’t bothering with cause. Legal intercepts also require “minimization procedures to limit the interception of conversations unrelated to the investigation,” which ICE may not want to do. And perhaps most importantly, “violations of 18 U.S.C. § 2511 are considered federal felonies,” with those convicted facing criminal penalties and being subject to civil liability.

I hate to make this analogy, but it’s akin to the Gestapo’s NBH obsession. They knew they were acting illegally, and didn’t want to leave the evidence that would convict them.

[1] https://legalclarity.org/what-is-wiretapping-and-when-is-it-...

View on HN

> They may not want to leave a paper trail.

This makes sense, considering the regime is hiring Jan 6th insurrectionists like Jared Wise. Legality has gone out the window.

But, isn't intercepting communications using a fake cell tower a wiretap?

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

>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.

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?

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com