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."
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?
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?
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.