Speakeasy forum

General discussion

The Rigmaiden Case

by James Denison / January 24, 2013 8:18 PM PST
Great tool for law enforcement, or trampling the Constitution?

"On Friday, EFF and the ACLU submitted an amicus brief in United States v. Rigmaiden, a closely-followed case that has enormous consequences for individuals' Fourth Amendment rights in their home and on their cell phone. As the Wall Street Journal explained today,
the technology at the heart of the case invades the privacy of
countless innocent people that have never even been suspected of a
Rigmaiden centers around a secretive device that federal law enforcement and local police have been using with increased frequency: an International Mobile Subscriber Identity
locator, or "IMSI catcher." These devices allows the government to
electronically search large areas for a particular cell phone's
signal—sucking down data on potentially thousands of innocent people
along the way—while attempting to avoid many of the traditional
limitations set forth in the Constitution."

Post a reply
Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: The Rigmaiden Case
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: The Rigmaiden Case
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Collapse -
I'd suggest that proving Trampling the Constitution would
by Ziks511 / January 27, 2013 9:47 PM PST
In reply to: The Rigmaiden Case

require intent. It strikes me that as a tool IMSI is both needed and necessary to law enforcement, providing as it can, locations of cell transmissions from "burn phones" available at corner stores and used by criminals and terrorists. The alternative would be to forbid the sale of "burn phones" which would only increase the theft of cell phones. Except in the area of Traffic Code enforcement, the Police don't go on net trawls of vast amounts of information because they don't have the manpower to do it.

And exactly how does searching for a particular cell phone signal "suck down" vast amounts of data. It may sweep over, and even identify the source of vast numbers of cell phones, but to "suck down" data it would have to record and store the information on all the cell phones in the area. I can't see that happening because storage capacity is always finite, and the manpower issue to screen all those cell phone addresses would be huge.

It is also right in line with, and may be a product of, Bush's Executive Order allowing warrantless wiretaps, internet surveillance and other Constitutional violations which have been so warmly embraced here.
Clearly the perception of egregious, profligate and unconstitutional use of Presidential EO's is in the eyes of the beholder, not necessarily in the intent of the signer.

Collapse -
It might be compared to
by James Denison / January 27, 2013 11:42 PM PST

police cruising an area checking car tags to see if someone might be in the area. The problem is if it runs afoul of wiretapping laws. If it's just searching for a particular signal and not recording anything till that signal is found and it's location discovered, I don't see such a problem with it.

Collapse -
I've wonder why burn phones havn't already provoke laws
by Roger NC / January 28, 2013 7:23 AM PST

that you had to show ID and the sell registered.

Collapse -
Registered talking?
by James Denison / January 28, 2013 3:08 PM PST

A telephone is just an extension of talking, or yelling across a fence or valley. Should that have been registered? What's next? Home intercom systems? Interoffice communications?

Tele = far off,distant

Phone = noise or voice.

Collapse -
I didn't argue for it, I'm just surprised it hasn't been
by Roger NC / January 29, 2013 6:51 AM PST
In reply to: Registered talking?


Besides, it may be talking, but it's regulated already in the sense of telecommunications are regulated.

Frequencies, power in a cell phone, interference sheilding, etc.

Can't use a cell phone on an airplane, have to have them checked entering some secure areas, I suspect a few places you're not even allowed to carry them.

So the simplisitic answer you don't regulate talking is already not true.

Collapse -
Did you revise this post?
by James Denison / January 29, 2013 7:34 AM PST

I read it earlier and it was different.

Collapse -
had an NT that wasn't suppose to be an NT
by Roger NC / January 29, 2013 7:47 AM PST

so yes, I did remove it and repace it with this one.

The subject line is different? thought I had it the same.

Popular Forums
Computer Help 49,613 discussions
Computer Newbies 10,349 discussions
Laptops 19,436 discussions
Security 30,426 discussions
TVs & Home Theaters 20,308 discussions
Windows 10 360 discussions
Phones 15,802 discussions
Windows 7 7,351 discussions
Networking & Wireless 14,641 discussions


CNET bought a house!

Take a look inside the house where we will be testing connected locks, thermostats and other smart home products so we can tell a complete story.