I guess if they have a specific warrant with oversight for using it, I don't have a problem with this.
Now if the agent with the hardware can decide to use it on their girlfriend or brother-in-law or something like that without anyone else knowing, well we've got a big problem.
And apparently, we've got a big problem:
Rigmaiden and the American Civil Liberties Union and Electronic Frontier Foundation have argued that the government did not obtain a legitimate warrant to conduct the intrusive surveillance through the stingray. They say it’s indicative of how the government has used stingrays in other cases without proper disclosure to judges about how they work, and have asked the court to suppress evidence gathered through the use of the device.
Now if the agent with the hardware can decide to use it on their girlfriend or brother-in-law or something like that without anyone else knowing, well we've got a big problem.
And apparently, we've got a big problem:
Rigmaiden and the American Civil Liberties Union and Electronic Frontier Foundation have argued that the government did not obtain a legitimate warrant to conduct the intrusive surveillance through the stingray. They say it’s indicative of how the government has used stingrays in other cases without proper disclosure to judges about how they work, and have asked the court to suppress evidence gathered through the use of the device.