3. This is a valuable tool for police, and the police worry about criminal countermeasures once it becomes public.

My money is on a combination of 2 & 3.

A tool so valuable that both local police, plus the Federal government, will break numerous laws and trample on the rights of citizens to protect the secret of its existence. An existence so secret that the only people to understand the possibility of its existence is anyone who's been paying attention the last decade. So secret in fact, that the Wikipedia page is only about three years old.

I don't care how valuable it is. If it is used by government agencies in a manner that breaks the law, wait, numerous laws and rights, then that implies those agencies feel they are above the law. Once such agencies that enforce the law are no longer beholden to it, things tend to fall apart.

First, I agree with everything you said whole-heartedly.

I don't believe that most cops out there actually have an intent to do evil, or to trample your rights though. They deal with criminal after criminal after criminal, I think their perspective is more likely that these tools and methods help solve cases quicker and there-for save taxpayer money and that us civilians aren't able to see that perspective.

I think that they aren't aware of the long term implications of what they're doing and that they should stop, but also that it's important not to think of them as evil if you want to have a dialogue with them about change.

Ignorance of the law (and Constitution, in DoJ and DA's cases) is no excuse. I think you're cutting them undeserved slack. If any company in the USA used the "it saves money!" excuse to do illegal things, we'd show them no mercy.

Evil is a road paved with good intentions, or it goes something like that.

There's no nothing wrong with starting a dialogue with "hey! this thing you are doing is wrong!" and I will continue to do so. I try not to judge too harshly on just that though. I hold back the anger in reserve to see how they react once it starts coming to light. Covering up the existence of potential wrongdoing, keep in mind the courts could likely say the tactic is legal, does not bode well for appearances.

It has no value if they have to ignore the Constitution and creep around like criminals themselves.

Don't be facetious, just because the Constitution says "don't do X" doesn't mean X is worthless.

There is value to freedom of association, but it shouldn't be assumed that it's valuable because the Constitution says so. The same logic can be applied reversely -- there is value to curtailing freedom of association.

"It's only illegal if you get caught" seems to be the mantra of the DoJ in this case -- stonewall and distract rather than address the legality of illegal activities.

This country was founded on open courts and due process, neither of which this "useful tool" falls under. My point is you can't "save the village by destroying it," not that things derive their value from their legal status.

The wonderful thing we mostly have going in the USA is destroyed by these individuals who pretend to be protecting it. The ends do not justify the means.

I'm not at all saying the ends justify the means, just that their argument that these tools are useful is valid, and we will need to help them realize that they are damaging us far more than they are helping us.

So far, nobody has really said what value comes from the (presumably illegal, and hence cover-up required) use of IMSI catchers. We've all speculated ("easier to find criminals!", "cheaper to find criminals!"), but what, exactly, is the value to law enforcement? The citizens of the USA are supposed to decide (through their representatives, of course) about what to do and how to do it. Perhaps the tools aren't useful, perhaps they are. Without some knowledge we don't know. The feds need to open up about IMSI catchers.