According to newly released records, the U.S. Marshals Service has used cellphone surveillance tools, sometimes known as Stingrays, on the phones of nearly 6,000 suspects. The Marshals Service accidentally confirmed its use of the devices to USA Today during a Freedom of Information Act request for a copy of the agency’s log of cases in which agents had used stingrays.
Truth In Media has written extensively about Stingrays, or cell-site simulators, and how they are being used to track suspected criminals while largely operating without oversight from local, state, or federal authorities. Exactly how the devices operate and what data they collect and/or save has been unknown because of the vast degree of secrecy surrounding the tools.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation describes the Stingray as “a brand name of an IMSI (International Mobile Subscriber Identity) Catcher targeted and sold to law enforcement. A Stingray works by masquerading as a cellphone tower– to which your mobile phone sends signals to every 7 to 15 seconds whether you are on a call or not– and tricks your phone into connecting to it.”
In a response to USA Today’s FOIA request, the Marshals Service included an “almost totally censored”spreadsheet listing its Stingray cases. Although the details of the specific cases were blacked out USA Today was able to count the number of entries the agency had made on its log of Stingray uses. The agency described the log in a letter as “a listing of IMSI catcher use.”
“The Marshals Service’s surveillance log lists 5,975 cases in which the Marshals Service used stingrays. The agency declined to say what time period the log covered, or where the suspects were arrested. It also declined to identify the suspects, to protect their privacy.”
“Just that sheer number is significant,” American Civil Liberties Union lawyer Nathan Wessler told USA Today. “That’s a lot of deployments of a very invasive surveillance tool.”
“The Marshals Service confirmed its use of the devices to USA TODAY only in the process of trying to keep it secret, rejecting a Freedom of Information Act request for a copy of its log of cases in which agents had used stingrays,” USA Today reported.
The new details make it clear that the U.S. Marshals Service has used the devices more than any other agency. It was recently reported that the New York Police Department used Stingrays about 1,000 times since 2008. It was also previously revealed that the Baltimore Police Department used the technology more than 4,300 times.
This is not the first time the public has learned details of the U.S. Marshals’ cellphone surveillance program. In late 2014, the Wall Street Journal revealed a cell-phone monitoring program operated by the U.S. Marshals Service using small planes. The program involved the Marshals using Cessna planes mounted with cell-site simulators similar to stingrays. These so-called “dirt boxes” are supposed to be used for criminal investigations, but they are capable of collecting data from tens of thousands of people on each flight.
In early March of 2015, it was also revealed that the CIA has been working with the Marshals on the program. Over the last ten years, the U.S. Marshal’s Technical Operations Group worked with the CIA’s Office of Technical Collection to develop the technology. The agencies have spent more than $1 million developing the technology. USA Today reports that the Technical Operations Group instructs agents not to reveal “sensitive or classified information or programs” without approval, unless a court orders them to do so.
“For any sensitive technique, method, source or tool, it only makes good sense that law enforcement would not divulge this information,” William Sorukas, a former supervisor of the Marshals Service’s domestic investigations, told USA Today.
The U.S. Marshals Service has not commented on the findings.
In 2015, the Department of Justice ordered federal agents to begin obtaining search warrants before using stingrays. As of February 2016, several federal agencies are known to be using the devices, including the FBI, the NSA, the U.S. Marshals, the CIA, the IRS, and the ATF.
The 7th Circuit federal appellate court will become the first federal appeals court to examine the Fourth Amendment issues related to cell phone surveillance tools known as cell-site simulators or stingrays. The 2013 case, known as United States v. Patrick, involves Milwaukee resident Damian Patrick, his arrest for a probation violation, and the likelihood that the police illegally used a stingray to locate him.
Truth In Media has written extensively about how these devices are being used to track suspected criminals while largely operating without oversight from local, state, or federal authorities. Exactly how the devices operate and what data they collect and/or save has been unknown because of a vast amount of secrecy surrounding the tools.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation describes the Stingray as “a brand name of an IMSI (International Mobile Subscriber Identity) Catcher targeted and sold to law enforcement. A Stingray works by masquerading as a cellphone tower – to which your mobile phone sends signals to every 7 to 15 seconds whether you are on a call or not – and tricks your phone into connecting to it.”
On October 28, 2013, Damian Patrick was arrested while sitting in the passenger seat of a rented white Chevy Malibu in northern Milwaukee. A police report indicates that two Milwaukee Police Department (MPD) officers stopped the vehicle and ordered Damian Patrick and the driver to exit. The officers noticed a gun on the floor of Patrick’s seat and arrested him for an arrest warrant for probation violation.
Patrick was unaware he was being monitored by local police as well as the FBI. Since that time, questions have arose regarding how exactly the police knew Patrick’s location. Ars Technica writes:
“How did the Milwaukee Police Department and the FBI magically descend upon Patrick’s location? The arrest reports are vague, making references only to an ‘unknown source’ and ‘prior knowledge.’ The report says, ‘We [police] obtained information‘ to the fact that Patrick, wanted on a felony probation violation, happened to be in that parking spot.
Less than a month later, Patrick faced one count in violation of federal gun laws. His lawyer filed a motion to suppress the ‘unlawful seizure’ on the grounds that nothing in the tip “was predictive”—the officers couldn’t have known that there was a reasonable suspicion to seize Patrick.”
Patrick caught a break in 2014 when one of the arresting officers, Phillip Ferguson, revealed that a “law enforcement officer” was “tracking” his phone. While court records indicate that the MPD asked the court for a pen register or trap and trace order for Patrick’s phone, it is likely that the MPD and/or the FBI used a stingray to grab the data out of the air.
The use of pen register or trap and trace orders with stingray technology has created a situation where many judges end up approving of technology that they do not quite understand. Law enforcement often seek approval of cell site simulators using outdated pen register, trap and trace orders without fully explaining to the judge the capabilities of the technology.
Patrick’s attorney, Chris Donovan, filed his opening brief in the appeal earlier this month asking the court to overturn the arrest based on violation of Patrick’s Fourth Amendment protections. Since the court did not have a warrant to use a cell site simulator “fruits of this illegal search must be ordered suppressed, specifically that the gun that was found laying at his feet when he was arrested,” Donovan wrote.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) filed an amicus brief in support of Damian Patrick. The ACLU and EFF also note that Wisconsin passed a 2014 state law which requires warrants for stingray technology.
The case is a prime example of the growing dangers of technology in the hands of government with little to no oversight. Despite promises that the tools would only be used in emergency situations, the surveillance devices are becoming increasingly normalized.
As EFF attorney Jennifer Lynch noted, “It looks like the police are using stingrays for pretty minor crimes— crimes that run the gamut.”
The American Civil Liberties Union of California has learned that Anaheim police maintain an inventory of cell phone surveillance devices including surveillance devices designed for Cessna planes.
The Anaheim police possess three different forms of cell phone surveillance tools, according to the newly released documents. These devices are known as cell site simulators or sometimes Stingrays. In 2011, Anaheim police purchased a Stingray and in 2013, Anaheim’s Chief of Police approved an upgrade.
Truth In Media has written extensively about how these devices are being used to track suspected criminals while largely operating without oversight from local, state, or federal authorities. Exactly how the devices operate and what data they collect and/or save has been unknown because of a vast amount of secrecy surrounding the tools.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation describes the Stingray as “a brand name of an IMSI (International Mobile Subscriber Identity) Catcher targeted and sold to law enforcement. A Stingray works by masquerading as a cellphone tower– to which your mobile phone sends signals to every 7 to 15 seconds whether you are on a call or not – and tricks your phone into connecting to it.”
Much of the information has been released through Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests related specifically to the manufacturer of the Stingray – the Harris Corporation. The Harris Corporation has exercised a great amount of secrecy surrounding these tools. Truth In Media previously reported on documents which revealed the Harris Corp. worked with the Federal Communications Commission to maintain a high level of secrecy. Truth In Media has also discussed the fact that Harris Corp. lied to the FCC in their application for the use of cell site simulators.
The documents obtained by the ACLU also reveal that Anaheim police possess another powerful cell site simulator known as a “dirtbox.” The dirtbox is a military-grade surveillance tool made by Digital Receiver Technology Inc., or DRT. In 2009, Anaheim police used a federal grant to purchase a dirtbox. The device is capable of collecting information from thousands of phones at once.
“The sophisticated surveillance equipment, manufactured by Digital Receiver Technology (DRT) Inc., a Maryland company acquired by The Boeing Co. in 2008, provides a more powerful class of cell-site simulator than the more widely used StingRay devices produced by Harris Corp., which require an upgrade to intercept communications and data transmissions. According to Digital Receiver Technology’s documentation, its devices are capable of breaking encryption on communications from 200 cellphones simultaneously across state-of-the-art 4G LTE frequencies used for rapid data transmission by the latest generation of smartphones.”
The documents also highlight how Anaheim police loaned out their surveillance equipment to local police departments outside their jurisdiction. In funding requests, the police wrote that“every city in Orange County has benefited” from their surveillance tools. The Anaheim police make it clear that the surveillance tools are available to other police departments in Orange County and also maintain written procedures for sharing the dirtbox.
The ACLU says the spying program could potentially affect the privacy of Orange County’s 3 million residents and possibly the 16 million people who visit nearby Disneyland every year.
There is also concern over Anaheim police using the surveillance device in planes. An email from Lt. Dave Vangsness, head of the Anaheim Police Department’s Air Support Bureau, contains a memorandum of understanding for the dirtbox.
This would not be the first time that government agencies used planes outfitted with surveillance equipment to monitor the public. In late 2014, the Wall Street Journal revealed the existence of a cell-phone monitoring program being operated by the U.S. Marshals Service using Cessna planes mounted with dirtboxes.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation filed a FOIA request with the Department of Justice and FBI but has yet to receive any additional information. The EFF has now filed suit against the DOJ and FBI.
In early March of 2015, it was revealed that the CIA has been working with the Marshals on the program. Over the last ten years, the U.S. Marshal’s Technical Operations Group worked with the CIA’s Office of Technical Collection to develop the technology. The agencies have spent more than $1 million developing the technology.
In June 2015, it was also revealed that agencies within the U.S. government operate fake, front companies to handle surveillance flights. Some of these flights included monitoring protesters in Baltimore.
In late 2013, Anaheim police also purchased a hand-held cell phone surveillance device manufactured by a company called KEYW. The tool is designed to covertly locate phone and encrypted LTE signals. The ACLU compared the documents with publicly available price quotes and concluded that the Anaheim police bought a device called a Jugular.
“With a lightweight Jugular in hand, individual officers can easily conduct cell phone surveillance around and inside of buildings, including private homes, without alerting bystanders,” the ACLU wrote.
The American Civil Liberties Union and the Tenth Amendment Center have partnered with lawmakers from 16 states to introduce counter-surveillance legislation. On January 20, Anthony D. Romero, executive director of the ACLU, and Michael Boldin, executive director of the Tenth Amendment Center, released an op-ed through Time announcing the new legislation and calling for a partnership between conservatives and progressives.
Boldin and Romero discussed the increase in cell phone surveillance from tools like Stingrays and tracking from automatic license plate readers which track the public’s driving habits. Their concern extends not only to government institutions but corporations who are willing to capture and sell personal data of customers.
The legislation comes from both political parties spread across the United States, including the District of Columbia, Hawaii, North Carolina, Minnesota, Alabama, New Hampshire and New Mexico. The ACLU is supporting the bills as part of their campaign “#TakeCTRL: Nationwide Privacy Push.” The campaign offers a map showing the participating states and explanations of each bill introduced.
The bills deal with personal data privacy, location tracking through Stingray cell site simulators, Automatic License Plate Readers, employee and student social media privacy, and protection for students personal technology on campus. Each bill offers protections that guarantee the right for each individual to be in control of maintaining their private, personal information.
Boldin and Romero wrote, “Americans have grown tired of hearing stories like that of former college hockey player Megan Donahue, who quit her team because she did not want to give her coaches access to her social media accounts, or high school student Blake Robbins, whose school remotely accessed the webcam on the laptop it issued him and took pictures of him while he undressed.”
Another focus of the bills is to force law enforcement agencies to get a warrant if they desire to use new technologies to access someone’s private communications. When it comes to corporate access to Americans’ data, the coalition is calling for corporations to get “clear and express permission to do so.”
As the ACLU and Tenth Amendment Center recognize, the laws have not kept up to pace with technology that is being employed by the military and law enforcement. If every state passed their legislation and enacted privacy protections such as warrants it would still not stop invasions by federal agencies which are also known to have similar technology.
The coalition ends their letter with a call for unity and action.
“We know that this is a fight that will continue, but with conservatives and progressives standing united, it’s a fight we can win.”
US Magistrate Judge Iain Johnston of Illinois recently announced three new requirements for government agencies that wish to deploy cell-site simulators, also known as Stingrays. For the moment, the order only applies to law enforcement agencies under the jurisdiction of Judge Johnston’s court in the Northern District of Illinois.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation describes Stingrays as:
[pull_quote_center]
A brand name of an IMSI (International Mobile Subscriber Identity) Catcher targeted and sold to law enforcement. A Stingray works by masquerading as a cellphone tower – to which your mobile phone sends signals to every 7 to 15 seconds whether you are on a call or not – and tricks your phone into connecting to it.
As a result, the government can figure out who, when and to where you are calling, the precise location of every device within the range, and with some devices, even capture the content of your conversations.
During proceedings for an ongoing drug case, Judge Johnston issued three new requirements for prosecutors to fulfill before he will sign off on the future use of mass surveillance devices. The requirements are aimed at protecting the privacy of innocent individuals who may have their information collected via Stingray during the course of an investigation.
Judge Johnston’s requirements call on government agents to obtain a warrant, and not to make use of the devices when “an inordinate number of innocent third parties’ information will be collected.” This could include any large public event. The judge also requires the government to “immediately destroy” unrelated data within 48 hours and prove to the court the information has been deleted.
Judge Johnston’s final requirement states that officers cannot use the collected data in any way beyond what is necessary to determine the cell phone information of the target. In a powerful condemnation of the Stingray devices, Johnston states:
“A cell-site simulator is simply too powerful of a device to be used and the information captured by it too vast to allow its use without specific authorization from a fully informed court. Minimizing procedures, such as the destruction of private information the United States has no right to keep, are necessary to protect the goals of the Fourth Amendment.”
“As I’m sure you know, applications for court orders for Stingrays have often been fairly misleading, so as not to disclose that the devices being used,” Rachel Levinson-Waldman, an attorney and legal scholar at New York University, told Ars Technica. “So I think this is the first time, or close to it, that a judge has had a chance to address them directly in a published order. That alone is striking.”
Levinson-Waldman also said she believes the judge is using the order to “urge other judges to take the time to understand what stingrays really are.”
The secrecy surrounding the use of these devices has been a contentious topic of debate for several years. However, the use of open records requests and Freedom of Information Act requests has helped paint a clearer picture of how the tools are employed by local, state, and federal agencies.
Truth In Media recently reported that four members of the House Oversight Committee sent letters to 24 federal agencies including the Department of State and the Securities and Exchange Commission, demanding answers regarding policies for using the controversial surveillance technology.
House Oversight Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz, ranking member Elijah Cummings, and Reps. Will Hurd (R-Texas) and Robin Kelly (D-Ill.), members of the committee’s IT subcommittee, issued requests for information related to the potential use of stingrays, also known as cell-site simulators.
Chaffetz also recently introduced the Stingray Privacy Act, which would expand newly established warrant requirements for the Department of Justice and Department of Homeland Security to all federal, state, and local agencies that use the cell-site simulators.
In September, the DHS joined the DOJ by announcing warrant requirements for the use of stingray equipment, but the rule changes have come under fire for possible loopholes which may allow the continued use of surveillance equipment without a warrant.
On Monday, four members of the House Oversight Committee sent letters to 24 federal agencies including the Department of State and the Securities and Exchange Commission, demanding answers regarding policies for using the controversial Stingray surveillance technology.
House Oversight Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz, ranking member Elijah Cummings, and Reps. Will Hurd (R-Texas) and Robin Kelly (D-Ill.), members of the committee’s IT subcommittee, have issued requests for information related to the potential use of stingrays, also known as cell-site simulators.
The Stingray is a brand name of an IMSI (International Mobile Subscriber Identity) Catcher targeted and sold to law enforcement. A Stingray works by masquerading as a cellphone tower – to which your mobile phone sends signals to every 7 to 15 seconds whether you are on a call or not – and tricks your phone into connecting to it.
As a result, the government can figure out who, when and to where you are calling, the precise location of every device within the range, and with some devices, even capture the content of your conversations.
The House Oversight Committee is asking the agencies to provide “policies, guidance, or memoranda” on the use of cell-site simulator technology that may have been used in conjunction with law enforcement operations. The committee is also seeking information related to Stingray use at the state and local levels, as well as copies of the contentious nondisclosure agreements law enforcement must sign in order to operate the equipment. The letters give the agencies a two week deadline to report their findings.
Chaffetz recently introduced the Stingray Privacy Act, which would expand newly established warrant requirements for the Department of Justice and Department of Homeland Security to all federal, state, and local agencies that use the cell-site simulators.
In September, the DHS joined the DOJ by announcing warrant requirements for the use of stingray equipment, but the rule changes have come under fire for possible loopholes which may allow the continued use of surveillance equipment without a warrant.
Shortly after the changes were announced, the New York Observer reported that the rule change may have been written in a way which will allow continued tracking, as well as hinder the defense of individuals who suspect they have been monitored by the Stingrays without a warrant.
Nate Cardozo, a staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, told the Observer that the use of “criminal investigation” only specifies one kind of work the DOJ performs while pursuing criminals. “For instance, when federal agents use cell-site simulators for ‘national security’ purposes, they won’t be required to obtain a warrant by the terms of this policy,” Mr. Cardozo wrote on the EFF blog.
Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), the ranking member on the Senate’s Judiciary Committee, also expressed concerns over the language used in the rules, specifically the exemptions to getting a warrant. According to the District Sentinel, Leahy stated, “I will press the Department to justify them.”
How many agencies are using these tools?
Last month Congress held its first hearing on stingray cellphone surveillance. Officials with the Department of Justice and Department of Homeland Security released new details about the federal government’s use of stingray surveillance, including admissions that the equipment does in fact spy on innocent bystanders’ cellphones.
During the hearing, Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Seth M. Stodder revealed a new policy that allows the Secret Service to use cell site simulators without a warrant if they believe there is a “nonspecific threat to the president or another protected person.”
Stodder stated that under “exceptional circumstances,” exceptions would be made and use of the device would only require approval from“executive-level personnel” at Secret Service headquarters and the U.S. attorney for the relevant jurisdiction. Despite the exemption, Stodder said the Secret Service would not use the devices in routine criminal investigations.
Just days after the congressional hearing, The Guardian revealed the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is also making use of the Stingray devices.
As of November 2015, the American Civil Liberties Union has identified at least 45 different local police departments, state and federal agencies who are using the tools. Known federal agencies employing the technology include the DHS, the DOJ, the IRS, the Secret Service, the NSA, and the FBI.
A recent announcement by the U.S. Department of Justice regarding new rules for federal law enforcement agencies using cellphone tracking technology may not be as effective as originally touted by the DOJ.
“The U.S. Department of Justice announced on Thursday that it will now require U.S. prosecutors and some federal law enforcement agencies to obtain a search warrant in order to use cellphone tracking technology.
In a statement, the DoJ said that the new policy “goes into effect immediately” and will “provide department components with standard guidance for the use of cell-site simulators in the department’s domestic criminal investigations,” and “establish new management controls for the use of the technology.”
Before the change in policy, U.S. government agencies were permitted to use cell-site simulators or “stingray” devices to replicate phone towers in order to track a phone’s location without applying for a warrant or giving probable cause.”
However, shortly after the announcement was published, The New York Observer reported that the rule change may have been written in a way which will allow continued tracking, as well as hinder the defense of individuals who suspect they have been monitored by the Stingrays without a warrant.
The Observer writes:
“The twist in a new Department of Justice guidance on tracking people using their cell phones is tucked in its first footnote. What looks like a positive step in terms of protecting Americans privacy in the ever deepening surveillance state might in fact be a sort of misdirection. The first footnote reads:
This policy applies to cell-site simulator technology inside the United States in furtherance of criminal investigations.”
Nate Cardozo, a staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, told the Observer that the use of “criminal investigation” only specifies one kind of work the DOJ performs while pursuing criminals. “For instance, when federal agents use cell-site simulators for ‘national security’ purposes, they won’t be required to obtain a warrant by the terms of this policy,” Mr. Cardozo wrote on the EFF blog.
Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), the ranking member on the Senate’s Judiciary Committee, also expressed concerns over the language used in the rules, specifically the exemptions to getting a warrant. According to the District Sentinel, Leahy stated,“I will press the Department to justify them.”
The rule change states that in “exigent” and “exceptional” circumstances obtaining a warrant is not necessary. The department described exigent circumstances, including “the need to protect human life or avert serious injury; the prevention of the imminent destruction of evidence; the hot pursuit of a fleeing felon; or the prevention of escape by a suspect or convicted fugitive from justice.”
Although the department says the instances in which getting a warrant is “impractical” will be limited, no examples of circumstances that fit the bill were offered.
The American Civil Liberties Union released a statement calling the new rules a step in the right direction, but also commented on problematic areas.
Staff Attorney Nathan Freed Wessler writes:
“Disturbingly, the policy does not apply to other federal agencies or the many state and local police departments that have received federal funds to purchase these devices. In addition, the guidance leaves the door open to warrantless use of Stingrays in undefined ‘exceptional circumstances,’ while permitting retention of innocent bystander data for up to 30 days in certain cases.”
Cardozo also said for defendants who are arrested under evidence obtained in a warrantless use of a cell-site simulator, “You’re out of luck.”
Emily Pierce, a spokesperson for the Department of Justice, responded to The Observer’s questions about the language of the rules. Pierce wrote:
“When acting pursuant to national security authorities, such as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, Justice Department components will be required to make a probable-cause based showing as well as make appropriate disclosures to the court in a manner that is consistent with the Department’s cell-site simulator policy.”
The DOJ’s rules also promise that “the Department must always use the technology in a manner that is consistent with the Constitution and all other legal authorities.”
Despite the DOJ’s promises, privacy advocates are likely not going to be won over by the rules. Truth In Media recently wrote about a report from the Center for Investigative Reporting which revealed that police in Chicago and Los Angeles are using advanced cell site simulators, or Stingray surveillance technology capable of breaking cellphone encryption.
Truth In Media has written extensively about how the devices are being used to track suspected criminals while largely operating without oversight from local, state, or federal authorities. Exactly how the devices operate and what data they collect and/or save has been unknown because of a vast amount of secrecy surrounding the tools.
Most of the available information been released through the efforts of intrepid investigative journalists and Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) activists has related specifically to the manufacturer of the Stingray – the Harris Corporation. The Harris Corporation has exercised a great amount of secrecy surrounding these tools. Truth In Media previously reported on documents which revealed the Harris Corp. worked with the Federal Communications Commission to maintain a high level of secrecy. I have also documented the fact that Harris Corp. lied to the FCC in their application for the use of cell site simulators.
Is the American public expected to believe that the new rules from the DOJ will actually reign in the surveillance state? The new rules do not change the law, so essentially the change amounts to promises from the federal government. Even if Americans take the feds on their word, what about the local police departments who are also using the devices without warrants? How can we ever trust that Big Brother is not watching or listening?
The U.S. Department of Justice announced on Thursday that it will now require U.S. prosecutors and some federal law enforcement agencies to obtain a search warrant in order to use cellphone tracking technology.
In a statement, the DoJ said that the new policy “goes into effect immediately” and will “provide department components with standard guidance for the use of cell-site simulators in the department’s domestic criminal investigations,” and “establish new management controls for the use of the technology.”
Before the change in policy, U.S. government agencies were permitted to use cell-site simulators or “stingray” devices to replicate phone towers in order to track a phone’s location without applying for a warrant or giving probable cause.
Deputy Attorney General Sally Quillian Yates claimed that the stingray devices have been “instrumental in aiding law enforcement in a broad array of investigations, including kidnappings, fugitive investigations and complicated narcotics cases.”
“This new policy ensures our protocols for this technology are consistent, well-managed and respectful of individuals’ privacy and civil liberties,” Yates said.
The DoJ stated that the new policy will establish a set of required practices for dealing with the data collected by the cell-site simulators, which includes deleting all data from a device “as soon as that device is located, and no less than once daily.”
The policy also lays out guidelines for the type of content that may be collected, and it prohibits the collection “contents of any communication in the course of criminal investigations,” such as emails, texts, contact information and pictures.
Cell-site simulator devices have been criticized by privacy advocates such as the American Civil Liberties Union for the frequency in which they are used by law enforcement, the amount of data they pick up on innocent bystanders, and the secrecy surrounding their use.
Reuters noted that the new policy does not apply to agencies outside of the DoJ, including the Department of Homeland Security, the Central Intelligence Agency and the National Security Agency.
A new report from the Center for Investigative Reporting reveals that police in Chicago and Los Angeles are using advanced cell site simulators, or “Stingray” surveillance technology capable of breaking cellphone encryption. Truth In Media has written extensively about how the devices are being used to track suspected criminals while largely operating without oversight from local, state, or federal authorities. Exactly how the devices operate and what data they collect and/or save has been unknown because of a vast amount of secrecy surrounding the tools.
“THE STINGRAY IS A BRAND NAME OF AN IMSI (INTERNATIONAL MOBILE SUBSCRIBER IDENTITY) CATCHER TARGETED AND SOLD TO LAW ENFORCEMENT.
A STINGRAY WORKS BY MASQUERADING AS A CELL PHONE TOWER—TO WHICH YOUR MOBILE PHONE SENDS SIGNALS TO EVERY 7 TO 15 SECONDS WHETHER YOU ARE ON A CALL OR NOT— AND TRICKS YOUR PHONE INTO CONNECTING TO IT. AS A RESULT, THE GOVERNMENT CAN FIGURE OUT WHO, WHEN AND TO WHERE YOU ARE CALLING, THE PRECISE LOCATION OF EVERY DEVICE WITHIN THE RANGE, AND WITH SOME DEVICES, EVEN CAPTURE THE CONTENT OF YOUR CONVERSATIONS.”
Most of the information been released through the efforts of intrepid investigative journalists and Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) activists has related specifically to the manufacturer of the Stingray – the Harris Corporation. The Harris Corporation has exercised a great amount of secrecy surrounding these tools. Truth In Media previously reported on documents which revealed the Harris Corp. worked with the Federal Communications Commission to maintain a high level of secrecy. I have also documented the fact that Harris Corp. lied to the FCC in their application for the use of cell site simulators.
The Harris Corporation needs to be investigated and held accountable, but they are just one of the corporations producing cell site simulators. The devices being used by the Los Angeles and Chicago police departments are known as “dirt boxes”. They operate in the same fashion as the Stingray, however, these new documents reveal they are also capable of jamming transmissions, and breaking encryption. The CIR writes:
“The sophisticated surveillance equipment, manufactured by Digital Receiver Technology (DRT) Inc., a Maryland company acquired by The Boeing Co. in 2008, provides a more powerful class of cell-site simulator than the more widely used StingRay devices produced by Harris Corp., which require an upgrade to intercept communications and data transmissions. According to Digital Receiver Technology’s documentation, its devices are capable of breaking encryption on communications from 200 cellphones simultaneously across state-of-the-art 4G LTE frequencies used for rapid data transmission by the latest generation of smartphones.”
A cell site simulator from DRT
Digital Receiver Technology first did business with the Chicago police in 2005 with the purchase of a cell site simulator. The device was paid for with funds collected from asset forfeiture cases. Meanwhile cops in Los Angeles purchased a package from Digital Receiver Technology using $260,000 in homeland security grant funding. Both departments also use the Harris Corp’s Stingray device as well.
Procurement documents obtained by the CIR show that the United States Navy purchased Digital Receiver Technology equipment to mount on drones at its China Lake research and development facility in Southern California. According to the CIR documents the technology is also used by the U.S. Special Operations Command, Drug Enforcement Administration, FBI and U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
The major difference between the Stingray and the DRT boxes is the ability of the more advanced DRT devices to break encryption. A 2011 purchase order for this equipment by the Washington Headquarters Services, a branch of the Pentagon, states the devices can retrieve the encryption session keys for a cellphone “in less than a second with success rates of 50 to 75% (in real world conditions).”
Chicago and Los Angeles police officials will not confirm or deny the use of or possession of the devices.
Freddy Martinez, the activist who sued the Chicago Police Department for records related to cell site simulators, says the potential for spying is unlimited. “With DRT, if you put one of these on an airplane and fly them around, you can find all sorts of info about potentially thousands of people. That includes voice content, who they’re calling, what data they’re sending. It’s like a StingRay on steroids.”
Martinez is not exaggerating. In late 2014, the Wall Street Journal revealed the existence of a cell-phone monitoring program being operated by the U.S. Marshals Service using small planes. The program involved the Marshals using Cessna planes mounted with cell-site simulators.
The so-called Dirtboxes are supposed to be used for criminal investigations, but the ACLU says they can collect data from tens of thousands of people on each flight. The Electronic Frontier Foundation filed a FOIA request with the Department of Justice and FBI but has yet to receive any additional information. The EFF has now filed suit against the DOJ and FBI.
In early March of 2015, it was also revealed that the CIA has been working with the Marshals on the program. Over the last ten years, the U.S. Marshal’s Technical Operations Group worked with the CIA’s Office of Technical Collection to develop the technology. The agencies have spent more than $1 million developing the technology.
In June it was revealed that agencies within the U.S. government operate fake, front companies to handle surveillance flights. Some of these flights included monitoring protesters in Baltimore.
With multiple agencies of the local, state, and federal governments operating devices capable of monitoring and storing your information, as well as cracking encryption, can it truly be said that the people are free? The freedom to have privacy is one of the greatest freedoms that humans have. If we are not free to our own private affairs, we are not free.
Two bills currently making their way through the California legislature would limit the use of “stingray” cell phone surveillance by law enforcement. Both bills (SB178 and SB741) were recently unanimously passed out of Assembly committees.
Senate Bill 178, introduced in February by California Senators Mark Leno (D) and Joel Anderson (R), would “prohibit a government entity from compelling the production of or access to electronic communication information or electronic device information without a search warrant, a wiretap order, or an order for electronic reader records.” The bill would also require a warrant before using a cell site simulator, commonly known as a “Stingray”. Under the bill, information collected without consent must be destroyed within 90 days, and law enforcement cannot gather more information than is necessary to achieve the objective of the search.
“THE STINGRAY IS A BRAND NAME OF AN IMSI (INTERNATIONAL MOBILE SUBSCRIBER IDENTITY) CATCHER TARGETED AND SOLD TO LAW ENFORCEMENT.
A STINGRAY WORKS BY MASQUERADING AS A CELL PHONE TOWER—TO WHICH YOUR MOBILE PHONE SENDS SIGNALS TO EVERY 7 TO 15 SECONDS WHETHER YOU ARE ON A CALL OR NOT— AND TRICKS YOUR PHONE INTO CONNECTING TO IT. AS A RESULT, THE GOVERNMENT CAN FIGURE OUT WHO, WHEN AND TO WHERE YOU ARE CALLING, THE PRECISE LOCATION OF EVERY DEVICE WITHIN THE RANGE, AND WITH SOME DEVICES, EVEN CAPTURE THE CONTENT OF YOUR CONVERSATIONS.”
Police officers can use the devices to track your cellphones signal. Once the signal is located the stingray can provide a general location on the map and police officers can drive around (or in one case, walk door to door) until they get a signal from your phone. This has civil liberties advocates up in arms over the potential for misuse of the tools.
The Tenth Amendment Center reports that “representatives from a number of big tech firms including Facebook. Google, Lyft and Tech Freedom” came to support SB 178. According to the Tenth Amendment Center:
“Sen. Jerry Hill, Sen. Joel Anderson and Sen. Mark Leno introduced SB741 earlier this year. The bill would prohibit a local agency from acquiring or using a stingray device unless “approved by a resolution or ordinance adopted by its legislative body at a regularly scheduled public meeting where the public has a reasonable opportunity to comment.”
The bill also requires the resolution or ordinance to set forth policies on stingray use based on specific guidelines outlined in the legislation.
The Committee on Local Government passed SB741 9-0 on Wednesday. It now moves on to the Committee on Appropriations, where it will be considered after the summer break in mid-August.”
Both bills will be considered by the appropriate committees before facing a full vote in the California State Senate. A similar bill was passed in Washington earlier this year. A number of police departments around the country are now facing questions and criticism as the public has slowly learned about the devices.
For the last decade local police across the nation have been purchasing and training in the use of Stingrays. TruthInMedia has written extensively on how the devices are being used to track suspected criminals while largely operating without oversight from local, state, or federal authorities. Exactly how the devices operate and what data they collect and/or save has been unknown because a vast amount of secrecy surrounding the tools.
Both the Harris Corporation that manufactures the StingRay and the Federal Bureau of Investigations require police to sign non-disclosure agreements related to the use of the devices. Through these NDAs local police departments have become subordinate to Harris and even in court cases in front of a judge, are not allowed to speak on the details of their arrangements.
On Monday, Washington Gov. Jay Inslee signed a bill into law that requires police officers obtain warrants from a judge stating that there is probable cause that the use of a cell site simulator device, or “Stingray,” will lead to evidence of criminal activity.
The News Tribune in Tacoma reported that when police obtain a warrant from a judge to use a stingray device, they must “disclose the use of the device” and must “discard cellphone data from people who are not the specific target of a police investigation.”
Ars Technica noted that while Washington’s law is not the first of its kind in the US, and there are similar laws in Virginia, Minnesota and Utah, Washington’s law may have the most stringent requirements, because it “imposes extra requirements that compel police to describe the technology and its impact in detail to judges.”
As previously reported by Truth in Media’s Derrick Broze, as long as a cellphone is on, it can be tracked by a Stingray device, even if it is not making or receiving a call. Broze noted that police officers are “likely bringing them to large protests to gather data on those in attendance.”
Broze also noted that Stingrays can be handheld or vehicle-based, and that they extract data from cellphones “at full signal, consuming battery faster,” which might mean that a “constantly dying battery could be a sign that you are being tracked.”
In Aug. 2014, The News Tribune revealed that the Tacoma Police Department has had a Stingray device since 2008, and has used it hundreds of times to find criminal suspects, “without telling judges about its capabilities.”
Jared Friend, the director of the Technology and Liberty program at the American Civil Liberties Union’s Washington office, released a statement calling Stingrays “emblematic of the threats to privacy posed by new technologies and expanding government surveillance activities” and saying that with this new law, Washington state has become a “leader in regulating these invasive devices.”
“Around the country, local police departments and the FBI have engaged in a campaign to conceal the use of cell site simulators from judges and from the public,” Friend said. “These devices epitomize the continuing militarization of local law enforcement and should not be free from judicial and public scrutiny.”
A detective’s court testimony Monday revealed that Baltimore law enforcement is spying on residents at an incredible rate without a warrant — and doing their best to hide it.
Detective Michael Dressel testified that Baltimore law enforcement have used “sting rays”–devices that track personal cell phone data and location–more than 4,300 times with court orders and an undocumented number of times without them, The Baltimore Sun reports.
“This is scandalous,” Tim Lynch, the Cato Institute’s Director for the Project on Criminal Justice, told The Daily Caller News Foundation. “Police agencies have misled the public about how the stingray devices have been used and how often. We need to find out what has been happening in other cities around the country. FBI officials and police chiefs need to come clean about this.”
The testimony came in a murder case where law enforcement used sting rays to find a phone involved in the alleged murder. Sting rays are devices used by authorities that act like cell phone towers, intercepting cell phone signals that would normally go to cellular towers. This allows authorities to track where you are, usually without a warrant and often even without a court order. Some sting rays can even detect information about your texts, calls and emails.
Local police departments obtain these devices from federal agencies but only on the condition that they keep the entire project entirely hidden from the public. In fact, police often drop charges or offer plea bargains in cases related to sting rays when pressured by defense lawyers or judges to reveal how they work.
In one Florida case, prosecutors who had what seemed an open and shut robbery case offered the defendant a plea bargain when pressured on police’s use of sting rays.
They would rather drop the charge than expose the practice. Because of this, how the devices work and how often they are used is one of law enforcement’s best kept secrets.
This latest report in Baltimore is important not just because it reveals how widespread the use of stingrays is, but also because since we know so little about the practice, any tidbit of information is an important window into this widely used and little understood surveillance technology.
Update: An earlier version of this article used inaccurate numbers for the number of times Baltimore police employed the sting ray device.
Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contactlicensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.<
A heavily redacted edition of a 2010 manual for the StingRay cellphone surveillance devices has been released.
The manual was released through Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests sent to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) by The Blot Magazine. This marks the first public release of the user manual which covers the Harris Corporation’s StingRay, StingRay II, and Kingfish devices.
StingRays are the name of a brand of cell-site simulators, a tool which allows law enforcement to trick a phone into sending it’s cell signal (and associated data) to the device rather than a cell tower. Depending on the model, authorities are able to gather location, numbers dialed, length of calls, and in newer models, the actual contents of conversations and texts.
The Blot reports that an FCC official said an additional government agency was recruited to help with redactions related to the manuals before they could be released. The agency was not named but with the amount of secrecy the Federal Bureau of Investigation has employed around the devices it would come as no surprise to find out it was the bureau. At the same time, we know that the NSA and the US Marshals also have an interest in keeping StingRays private.
The Blot first filed a FOIA request with the FCC in September 2014.The documents were finally turned over to The Blot last week and now reveal that Harris Corp attempted to block the release of the documents. By October a Harris executive had told the FCC they believed the documents could remain secret under certain FOIA exemptions that protects the release of trade secrets, and law enforcement strategies. Harris also attempted to block the release based on previous court cases which have kept the details hidden.
The StingRays have received an increasing amount of attention from civil liberties and privacy advocates throughout 2014 and the beginning of 2015. Several lawsuits have been launched and judges in Florida; Charlotte, North Carolina; and Erie County, New York have ordered details be revealed. Several Senators have even begun questioning the FCC, and the Department of Justice on the tools.
It has been known for some time that the technology is the latest in a long line of tools that were developed for the military and passed down to local law enforcement. The new records reviewed by The Blot provide further detail. A contract shows the U.S. Navy was one of the first to purchase the equipment from Harris. The Blot suggests this might have something to do with the aquatic nicknames.
The Blot reports:
Sources familiar with Harris’ 2010 application told The Blot that the company had received authorization from the FCC several years before to manufacture and sell the devices specifically as an anti-terrorism tool, and that its application to the FCC’s Office of Engineering and Technology (OET) was intended to expand that authorization so that police could use legally use the devices beyond terrorism investigations.
The definition of what constituted an “emergency” was intentionally left vague so that the authorization would cover law enforcement in a wide range of criminal investigations, the source said.
The manual also shows the StingRays and Kingfish technology was sold as part of a surveillance kit with third-party software and laptops. The laptops are manufactured by Dell and Panasonic and the software designed by a cellphone forensics company called Pen-Link. The manual is filled with warnings and reminders that the information is “confidential,” and “not for public inspection”.
These latest documents provide a view into how the technology operates and highlights the level of secrecy Harris Corp and government agencies are using. Past documents have shown that most police departments have been granting themselves authorization without first getting a warrant based on probable cause. When the departments do pursue a warrant through a judge, they often do not specifically mention the Stingray specifically but rather use vague and generic terms.
In Houston I have worked to expose the Houston Police Department’s use of the StingRays. I have asked HPD Chief three times (one, two) about the use of the tools and he continues to remain quiet despite documentation that the department is using the tools. His behavior is indicative of departments and chiefs around the country. Only by challenging the power structures in government, corporations, and the secrecy they thrive in will we set this nation and this world FREE.
Speaking from the Senate floor, Senator Bill Nelson of Florida discussed how the technology “poses a grave threat to consumers’ cellphone and Internet privacy.” Nelson sent a letter to FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler, asking why the company behind the StingRay has been able to secure special restrictions on who has access to details of the devices.
[pull_quote_center]It’s time for us to stand up for the individual citizen of this country and their right to privacy. – Senator Nelson[/pull_quote_center]
“The Stingray is a brand name of an IMSI (International Mobile Subscriber Identity) catcher targeted and sold to law enforcement. A Stingray works by masquerading as a cell phone tower—to which your mobile phone sends signals to every 7 to 15 seconds whether you are on a call or not— and tricks your phone into connecting to it. As a result, the government can figure out who, when and to where you are calling, the precise location of every device within the range, and with some devices, even capture the content of your conversations.”
Police officers can use the devices to track your cellphone’s signal. Once the signal is located the stingray can provide a general location on the map and police officers can drive around (or in one case, walk door to door) until they get a signal from your phone. This has civil liberties advocates up in arms over the potential for misuse of the tools.
Senator Nelson is seeking answers on whether or not the FCC sought oversight to make sure the devices are being used in the way Harris Corp, the manufacturer of the devices, claimed they would. The Senator also asked for an update from a “task force” formed by the FCC that was supposed to look into the many questions surrounding the use of StingRays and similar devices.
[pull_quote_center]When this device is turned over to local law enforcement, are they being adequately trained on…judicial protections?[/pull_quote_center]
Senator Nelson is the first to discuss the technology on the Senate floor but not the first Senator to seek answers on how the devices are being used. In early January leaders of the Senate Judiciary Committee announced that they were seeking details from the Obama administration regarding federal law enforcement’s use of cell phone surveillance technology. In a bi-partisan letter to the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security, Senators Patrick Leahy and Chuck Grassley requested more information about a recent policy change by the FBI regarding how surveillance equipment is used.
Secrecy Around Stingrays
Although the technology has been growing in use, the public’s knowledge has not increased. A heavy veil of secrecy exists between the FBI, the FCC, and Harris Corp. While a small number of journalists and privacy advocates have been researching and filing open records requests, the authorities have continued to stonewall all requests, ensuring that very little information is released to the public.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) released a report detailing how law enforcement agencies around the United States are actively working to keep the public in the dark about the use of Stingray cellphone surveillance technology. The EFF reviewed a year’s worth of public record requests from various media organizations, and court records related to the government’s use of the tools also known as cell site simulators. The advocacy organization said they were “not just worried about how invasive these devices can be, but also that the government has been less than forthright with judges about how and when they use” stingrays.
In September, the American Civil Liberties Union asked the Federal Communications Commission to investigate the maker of the Stingray for allegedly misrepresenting information regarding data collection capabilities. According to documents obtained during a Freedom of Information Request by the ACLU of Northern California, Florida-based Harris Corporation misled the FCC about the frequency of use for the Stingray.
In an email from June 24, 2010, an employee with Harris told the FCC that the devices (Stingfish in this case) “purpose is only to provide state/local law enforcement officials with authority to utilize this equipment in emergency situations.” However, the ACLU reports, “records released by the Tallahassee, Florida, Police Department explain that in nearly 200 cases since 2007 where the department used a StingRay, only 29 percent involved emergencies; most of the rest involved criminal investigations in which there was ample time to seek some sort of authorization from a judge.”
There has also been at least once instance where the FBI stepped in to demand that local police departments notify the federal agency when open records requests are filed in relation to the technology. Documents released to the Minnesota Star Tribune show that the state’s Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA) agreed to “immediately notify the FBI” if information was requested via Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), or other information requests. The 2012 contract shows that Assistant BCA Superintendent David Bjerga agreed the agency “will immediately be provided to the FBI in order to allow sufficient time for the FBI to intervene to protect the equipment/technology and information from disclosure and potential compromise.”
In an incredible exercise over federal authority, the US Marshals intervened in a public records request to the Sarasota Police Department. The ACLU of Florida was seeking information on the technology when they received a letter claiming that the records were now the Marshals and could not be released.
Even courts have been unwilling or unable to force the release of information. In December a judge in Arizona ruled that the state’s public records law do not require the Tucson Police Department (TPD) to release records related to stingrays, or cell-site simulators.
Another point of contention is the use of non-disclosure agreements by Harris Corp. The corporation and police departments around the nation have been criticized for signing the agreements which allow them to keep quiet on the devices. Local police departments have become subordinate to Harris and, even in court cases in front of a judge, are not allowed to speak on the details of their arrangements.
We do know that the technology has made it into the hands of at least 47 agencies in 19 states, according to the ACLU. At least 12 federal agencies are known to use the devices. (Check out this helpful map to find out if your state has them.)
The Houston Police Department has received attention recently after multiple reports (here and here) on the departments use of the tools. The HPD has been using some form of surveillance hardware since at least 2007, according to records obtained by Truthout. However, much like other cities, when HPD Chief Charles McClelland is questioned on Stingrays he refuses to confirm or deny their existence, yet expects the public to accept this reassurances that the department takes proper constitutional protections when using surveillance technology.
There has been some resistance to the secrecy, however. At least one judge has now begun requiring law enforcement agencies to specifically ask for permission when using the technology. The Tacoma News Tribunereports that Pierce County’s 22 Superior Court judges “now require language in pen register applications that spells out police intend to use the device.” Police departments have also begun requesting updated equipment that will upgrade “the Stingray system to track 4G LTE Phones”, as AT&T and other cellular providers prepare to shutdown their 2G networks.
Just last month the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department announced that they would reveal details on how they are using the tools. The news came after an investigation by The Charlotte Observer and pressure from defense attorneys and privacy advocates who feared the police were unfairly targeting innocent bystanders with the technology. The CMPD will also make changes to its program, including disclosing to judges exactly how they track cellphones and allowing those accused of crimes to learn if police used a stingray to arrest them. The Mecklenburg County District Attorney’s Office will also be releasing the results of a review of hundreds of criminal cases.
Just last week the ACLU in Florida released damning evidence showing that Florida law enforcement agencies have been granting themselves authorization without first getting a warrant based on probable cause. When the departments do pursue a warrant through a judge, they often do not specifically mention the Stingray, or cell site simulator, but rather use vague and generic terms. The Florida Department of Law Enforcement has spent more than $3 million on Stingrays since 2008.
Until Americans are properly informed on the existence of cell site simulators, how the technology works, and in what capacity law enforcement are using the tools, we cannot have an informed discussion on the legality of such surveillance. At this point it is imperative that free minds around the country investigate and expose agencies that refuse to honor their constitutional oaths, and commitment to the public. Only from a place of awareness can we empower ourselves and those in our communities.
The FBI has reportedly told various police departments throughout the U.S. to keep their use of “stingray” cellphone trackers quiet and to not inform the public of their use.
A “stingray” is a cellphone signal interception device which, according to the Daily Caller, may appear to citizens as regular cellphone towers. These trackers trick cellphones and similar devices into connecting with the tracker and once connected, whoever controls the “stingray” can access the device’s call records, texts, location, and other metadata.
Originally, the trackers were developed by the Harris Corporation for use in anti-terrorism operations throughout the U.S. in conjunction with the FBI. However, these trackers have been reportedly used in routine police work in recent years, often without a warrant. The Harris Corporation and FBI have remained silent about the full extent of the technology’s capabilities.
In order to keep the technology’s capabilities quiet, the U.S. marshals have been sent to seize physical documentation from a Florida police station which reportedly detailed the use of the trackers by the police department.
The FBI also sent a letter in 2012 to Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension which tells the agents in the department how to handle any Freedom of Information Act requests with concern to the technology.
The letter says, if a FOIA is filed, the bureau should “immediately notify the FBI of any such request telephonically and in writing in order to allow sufficient time for the FBI to seek to prevent disclosure through appropriate channels.”
ARS Technica attempted to contact the FBI about the letter and their desire to keep the tracker’s technology a secret, but the FBI would not respond. Hanni Fakhoury, a lawyer with the Electronic Freedom Foundation, did say, “It’s remarkable to see collusion by state and federal agencies to undermine public records requests, which are clearly aimed at keeping the public in the dark about the use of Stingray technology.”
“The notion that the federal government would work to actively block disclosure of records,” says Fakhoury, “seems clearly to have a chilling effect on obtaining information about this controversial surveillance tool.”
Nathan Wessler, an American Civil Liberties Union attorney, also said in order for a police department to begin to use “stingray” trackers, they have to go through the FBI, but when the press or public “seek basic information about how people in local communities are being surveilled, the FBI invokes these very serious national security concerns to try to keep that information private.”
What exactly is a “Stingray”? How is it being used to track you? Find out more about this cellphone surveillance technology.
Local police departments and federal agencies around the United States have been making use of cellphone tracking tools for years without warrants. This has been happening since before whistleblower Edward Snowden released his documents to The Guardian and exposed the massive surveillance state that exists around the globe. One of these tools is popularly known as a “Stingray”.
The Stingray is a brand name of an IMSI (International Mobile Subscriber Identity) catcher targeted and sold to law enforcement. A Stingray works by masquerading as a cell phone tower—to which your mobile phone sends signals to every 7 to 15 seconds whether you are on a call or not— and tricks your phone into connecting to it.
As a result, the government can figure out who, when and to where you are calling, the precise location of every device within the range, and with some devices, even capture the content of your conversations.
[/pull_quote_center]
Police officers can use the devices to track your cellphones signal. Once the signal is located the stingray can provide a general location on the map and police officers can drive around (or in one case, walk door to door) until they get a signal from your phone. This has civil liberties advocates up in arms over the potential for misuse of the tools.
In September, the American Civil Liberties Union asked the Federal Communications Commission to investigate the maker of the Stingray for allegedly misrepresenting information regarding data collection capabilities. According to documents obtained during a Freedom of Information Request by the ACLU of Northern California, Florida-based Harris Corporation misled the FCC about the frequency of use for the Stingray.
In an email from June 24, 2010, an employee with Harris told the FCC that the devices (Stingfish in this case) “purpose is only to provide state/local law enforcement officials with authority to utilize this equipment in emergency situations.” However, the ACLU reports, “records released by the Tallahassee, Florida, Police Department explain that in nearly 200 cases since 2007 where the department used a StingRay, only 29 percent involved emergencies; most of the rest involved criminal investigations in which there was ample time to seek some sort of authorization from a judge.”
Another point of contention is the use of non-disclosure agreements by the Harris Corporation. The corporation and police departments around the nation have been criticized for signing the agreements. Local police departments have become subordinate to Harris and, even in court cases in front of a judge, are not allowed to speak on the details of their arrangements.
The technology has made it into the hands of at least 47 agencies in 19 states, according to the ACLU. At least 12 federal agencies are known to use the devices. (Check out this helpful map to find out if your state has them.) The Houston Police Department has received attention recently after multiple reports (here and here) on the departments use of the tools. The HPD has been using some form of surveillance hardware since at least 2007, according to records obtained by Truthout.
At least one judge has now begun requiring law enforcement agencies to specifically ask for permission when using the technology. The Tacoma News Tribunereports that Pierce County’s 22 Superior Court judges “now require language in pen register applications that spells out police intend to use the device.” Police departments have also begun requesting updated equipment that will upgrade “the Stingray system to track 4G LTE Phones”, as AT&T and other cellular providers prepare to shutdown their 2G networks.
In June of this year a Florida judge ruled in favor of the American Civil Liberties Union, forcing the release of new documents related to police use of stingray technology. The ruling deals with a case where Tallahassee police used stingray to locate a suspected rapist’s apartment without first getting a warrant.
When the police officer involved in tracking the suspect testified in court, the federal government stepped in to demand secrecy, the court obliged, closed the hearing and sealed the transcript. After the ACLU asked the judge to unseal the court transcript based on constitutional First Amendment access to court proceedings, the government attempted to invoke national security privilege by invoking the Homeland Security Act.
The ACLU was able to convince the judge to release the transcript. The documents provide some insight into how the machines work. The use of the technology is still a legal gray area. Some courts have stated that warrants are not required, while other states have yet to rule on the topic.
Here is a short list of known attributes and capabilities of the Stingrays and other IMSI catchers. Please continue to do your own research and learn to protect and encrypt your information. If we do not have a right to privacy, are we truly free?
– As long as your phone is on, the Stingray can find you
– You do not have to be making or receiving a call for your phone to be tracked
– The stingrays force cell phones to send data to the device “at full signal, consuming battery faster.” A constantly dying battery could be a sign that you are being tracked
– Stingrays can be handheld, or vehicle-based.
– Officers are likely bringing them to large protests to gather data on those in attendance
–They are already being used on planes. A version of the cell site simulators, known as DRT boxes, have been used on aircraft by the U.S. Marshals Service. The so called “Dirtboxes” are supposed to be used for criminal investigations but the ACLU says they can collect data from tens of thousands of people on each flight. The civil liberties group has filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request regarding the recently exposed program that uses aircraft to gather cell phone data.
Take Action!
The ACLU of California has released a guide for communities to understand law enforcement and government surveillance. “Making Smart Decisions About Surveillance: A Guide for Communities” is designed to make it easier for communities to understand what type of surveillance technology is used in their neighborhoods. Although the guide focuses on California, it offers a variety of tips “for grassroots activists across the country who are concerned about the proliferation of drones, automated license plate readers, facial recognition, and more in their community.”
According to a new report from the Wall Street Journal, the Justice Department has been operating a surveillance program that uses fake cell phone towers placed on airplanes to collect identifying data from a vast number of cell phones.
In this program, Cessna aircraft operated by the US Marshals Service fly over most of the United States, embedded with small devices called “dirtboxes” by insider sources familiar with the program. The dirtboxes mimic cell phone towers which prompt cell phones to reveal their identifying information and location, including phones with encryption technology. The program has been utilized by the Justice Department and US Marshals Service since 2007.
In September, Benswann.com reported that fake cell phone towers, or “interceptors,” had been discovered near military bases throughout the United States.
The program insiders have said that this program is in place for the purpose of “locating cellphones linked to individuals under investigation by the government, including fugitives and drug dealers, but it collects information on cellphones belonging to people who aren’t criminal suspects.” The individuals providing information about the program said that data from tens of thousands of phones can be collected after one flight.
The sources claimed that the dirtboxes are able to determine which phones belong to suspects, but did not disclose whether or not the data belonging to unsuspected individuals is stored.
These devices bypass requests for location and identifying data from phone companies such as Verizon and AT&T by gathering the information themselves. A spokesman for Verizon said the company was unaware of such an operation, while AT&T and Sprint declined to comment.
Tallahassee, Florida – On June 3 a Florida judge ruled in favor of the American Civil Liberties Union, forcing the release of new documents related to police use of “stingray” cell phone tracking technology.
The ruling deals with a case where Tallahassee police used stingray to locate a suspected rapist’s apartment without first getting a warrant. When the police officer involved in tracking the suspect testified in court, the federal government stepped in to demand secrecy, the court obliged, closed the hearing and sealed the transcript. After the ACLU asked the judge to unseal the court transcript based on constitutional First Amendment access to court proceedings, the government attempted to invoke national security privilege by invoking the Homeland Security Act.
The ACLU was able to convince the judge to release the transcript, providing more details about the law enforcement tool that was first revealed last Summer by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden. The Stingrays work by mimicking a cellphone tower and tricking cell phones into registering their location and other identifying information with the device rather than cell phone towers in the area.
The new documents confirm that cell phones can be tracked as long as the phone is on, whether or not you are making or receiving calls. Also, the stingrays force cell phones to send data to the device “at full signal, consuming battery faster.” For an activist or journalist a constantly dying battery could be a sign that you are being tracked.
The court transcript also reveals a case where the police drove around with a vehicle-based stingray until they located the apartment complex where their suspect was staying. Upon locating the complex the officers switched to a handheld device and went to “every door and every window in that complex” until the phone transmitting the signal was located. A police officer testified that as far back as 2007 the device were being used. He estimated between Spring of 2007 and August 2010 the police used the stingrays around “200 or more times.”
These latest details fill in the gaps regarding the United States’ governments growing obsession with spying on it’s own citizens. With the revival of the Domestic Extremism Task Force and the news that the Obama Administration is fighting the release of information about Stingrays, it is obvious the government views it’s citizens as worthy of constant surveillance and scrutiny.
