Given how often police target cameras, an idea I had years ago that seemed paranoid at the time is actually looking sane now.
Put in an obvious data recorder, a second tucked away 'hidden' in a closet somewhere, a third cast into the foundation and a fourth off-site (even if just over the back fence with the neighbor's permission) and possibly a fifth somewhere in another state via internet.
Good cops will subpoena a copy from the first recorder. Bad cops will make the first recorder disappear or destroy it in place, then go looking for a backup.
Unless bad cops literally tear the entire neighborhood apart though, they won't get that fourth recorder.
If using a Stingray does not require a warrant, then using one cannot be a violation of either the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act or an interception of telephone communications.
After all, the only exemption to such violations being a crime REQUIRES a warrant.
So they're not crimes. The nature of the law in the US is that anything not specifically prohibited is legal.
If use of a Stingray without a warrant is not interception of communications, and using one to turn a phone into a bug via a firmware update doesn't require a warrant either, then it would be completely legal to do that to anyone, by anyone.
Why bother with a FOIA request for the head of the FBI's email, when you can simply tap his phone 100% legally?
It would make an interesting legal challenge to enforcement of the 16th amendment, to point out that the court protects the fourth and fifth amendments to a far greater extent than they protect the sixteenth.
So if the fourth and fifth don't apply outside the country...
Makes me wonder about the legality of the old World War I barrage balloons.
Hang a few balloons over your property on lightweight but strong cords hooked to heavier chains. Any propeller-driven aircraft (helicopter or drone) that flies into one gets chains wrapped around its rotors.
Alternately, attach a steel or titanium bar to a small, cheap toy drone and fly it into the propeller of a larger, more expensive drone. The toy gets shredded, the larger drone's propeller shatters on the metal bar, and both crash.
Then obviously all you need to do to avoid kidnapping charges is take your victim outside of the country.
The government is fond of that quote about the Constitution not being a suicide pact, but they tend not to think of the corollary to it -- if the highest law of the land is not a suicide pact, then lesser laws such as mere statutes cannot be either.
This sort of crap proves something I've been saying for a while now -- what good do lawsuits do if, even if you win, you get paid off with your own money and the money of your fellow citizens, with the people you sued never paying a penny?
Any violation of rights you can win a lawsuit under 42 USC 1983 for, is also a criminal act under 18 USC 242. Since most such violations of rights include acts of violence one way or another, perhaps the time has come to apply the laws the police like to hide behind, the ones that don't apply to just those with badges?
Self-defense against a violent criminal is not illegal, even if that criminal is a federal agent. It cannot be illegal, otherwise it would be impossible for the government itself to arrest or prosecute a government agent/employee -- don't forget, handcuffing someone unlawfully is assault.
Granted, one individual against an army is a bad idea generally, but if the only way we can get the justice our Constitution guarantees us is through vigilance committees or militias -- well, if the government is already in a state of rebellion against its own Constitution, it's not treason to put down the rebellion.