Slashdot Mirror
FBI Attempts To Prevent Disclosure of Stingray Use By Local Cops
Ever since the public became aware that law enforcement is making use of StingRay devices — hardware that imitates a cellular tower so that nearby mobile
devices connect to it — transparency advocates have been filing Freedom of Information Act requests to see just how these devices are being used. But these
advocates have now found that such requests relating to local police are being shunted to the FBI, who then acts to prevent disclosure.
ACLU lawyer Nathan Wessler says, "What is most egregious about this is that, in order for local police to use and purchase stingrays, they have to get approval from the FBI, then the FBI knows that dozens of police departments are using them around the country. And yet when members of the press or the 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."
ACLU lawyer Nathan Wessler says, "What is most egregious about this is that, in order for local police to use and purchase stingrays, they have to get approval from the FBI, then the FBI knows that dozens of police departments are using them around the country. And yet when members of the press or the 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."
Before anyone asks: we've been down most of the day because of a disk that went bad in one of our servers. Siteops has been slaving away at a lengthy restore, and hopefully we're good to go, now. Apologies!
when it matters and they are being used when the people protest, we know when and where they are. that was proven during the ferguson protests. and that information is spread instantly across the information networks, they cant hide this from us. and if it comes down to it we can take them out, too, whether by jamming or more destructive means.
Law enforcement has access to this information *anyway* via the phone company. Many, probably most carriers are complying with warrantless wiretaps *anyway* - Verizon and ATT are known to do so. Is it really that goddamn hard for the police to ask for this data? And why does the FBI need to hide this?
Documentation complete.
The FBI provides a grant for the local police department to buy these because it's a legal grey area. The department purchases and runs them at the request of the FBI who reimburse the expenses. The FBI gets a copy of the data. The FBI is likely required by law to get a warrant to use these, where the locals aren't. So the FBI gets the locals to run the stuff then collects the data from the locals in normal legal data sharing agreements. (this is where the FOI requests fall flat, they should be requesting the financial agreement data between the FBI and locals to show that the FBI not only purchased the stingrays but pays the locals to run them).
This end runs around the FBI's restriction. The FOI requests are a serious threat to the program by exposing the FBI deliberately breaking the law so the FBI declares national security and covers it up even though the vast majority (and likely all) of the times these are used is against drug crime, not terrorism.
Declaring national security to avoid disclosing information is an end run around open government and allows people in government to break the law and violate peoples rights without the fear of disclosure. Every time embarrassing information or evidence of crime lays in data that should be public someone in government will declare it secret on national security grounds.
Imagine everything you could get away with.
"Do you know how fast you were going?" "National security"
"Why are you home so late?" "National security"
"Why did I find a camera in the toiler?" "National Security"
"Why does my television record everything I say?" "National Security"
"Why does windows bluescreen?" "National Security"
If the FOIA request is being made under the applicable state law, what does the FBI do about it? Is there a federal statute somewhere to the effect that 'no state public records law shall be construed as to release anything that might make the terrorists win and so on'? Do they have no official recourse; but a suitable amount of knowledge about how to throw a spanner in the process in a given state?
It would seem that, if they are farming out the operation to a bunch of local cops who aren't cleared to do much beyond write traffic tickets, the data can't be too seriously 'national security' imperiling, nor would the mere interaction with the FBI change the fact that state agents are operating under the open records laws of their state, so how does this work?
I assume that gathering all the names and adding them to an enemies list is an end in itself for the FBI, they get off on that kind of thing; but do they have any other ability to use the data?
A box with raid can still die, if the RAID controller isn't the best.
But even then, you should be able to blow up a whole rack and stay online. Redundancy isn't just a buzzword.
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
The FBI is SO desperate to keep information about Stingray use secret tells me that they KNOW what they are doing is illegal.
In order to have access to information about the FBI's Stingray program, you must already know the details of what you want to know about the Stingray program. Otherwise, you clearly have no need to know or you would already know. Move along before I run you in.
They are responsible for national security on a regular basis?
... and the failover was a Raspberry Pi model A. Ample :)
Serious, this is the first prime-time multi-hour outage I can recall in 17 years. Far better than most sites!
Today, if you deposit cash into your bank account in portions under $10000, the IRS may decide, you are doing it with the intent to avoid having to report the deposit to them and seize all your money — no judge, no jury. The current nominee for Attorney General is particularly infamous for expanding this practice (and for distancing herself from it to win the nomination).
How soon before the FBI and lesser police start treating use of wired telephones — to eavesdrop on which the police still need these pesky Judiciary's approval — with similar suspicion? Following IRS' example, they might then start prosecuting people simply for making non-cellular calls with the intent to avoid eavesdropping.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Is my device connects to one of these, can I at least get some free minutes or free data? They can even throw in some banner ads.
When the original was published, hiding spy device information was not the meaning.
there is a open source solution
https://github.com/SecUpwN/Android-IMSI-Catcher-Detector
They collect worldwide data on local cell towers and local wifi and GPS information. The periods of cell tower replacement should show up as abnormalities in their historical records.
Every time embarrassing information or evidence of crime lays in data that should be public someone in government will declare it secret on national security grounds.
So get/sponsor someone with proper security clearance to ask the questions then. "National security" will no longer be an obstacle to hide behind, when such a person is asking.
..early and often.
Surely Google, Facebook, Twatter and other NSA-frontends wont like this. But who cares ?
Do we really need to have an NSA-/FBI-Tracker turned on 100% of time ? It is sufficiently bad they get some data points then and now (lets say three times a day) when you check your mailboxes.
Erich Fellgiebel: Funken ist Landesverrat.
ALWAYS remember this when you carry a powered Tracker.
"using wireless is treason"
A secret court with secret jury will classify this as top secret information and deny your idea.
Welcome to Anglosaxon Freedom - based on secret courts, secret police and secret kidnapping and secret torture.
Funny.
Since you are replying, I have a question: Isn't Dice top management rather ignorant about technology?
Slashdot is important. Dice top management doesn't seem to understand or value Slashdot.