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."

Comments

Downtime [Offtopic]

[Soulskill]

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!

Re:Downtime [Offtopic]

[Soulskill]

It was more than a simple hardware failure -- the storage cluster software we're using had an issue that not only obliterated data, but managed to take out its own repair functionality. We had proper backups and didn't lose anything permanently, but had to do a much larger rebuild than if a disk just died.

How is this even necessary?

[generic_screenname]

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?

Re:How is this even necessary?

[Shakrai]

And why does the FBI need to hide this?

I don't find it hard to believe that the FBI would have legitimate national security reasons (i.e., surveilling suspected foreign operatives or hostile non-state actors) for using technology of this nature and for wanting to keep the methods of using said technology close to their chest. It does beg the question of why they're so eager to share this sort of technology with other law enforcement operations though.

It's either critical to national security or it isn't. In the former case why the hell are we pissing it away on trivial shit ranging from drug smuggling to murder? Sooner or later the methods will come out in a court case; you can't share this sort of thing with thousands of law enforcement officers and local/state prosecutors without a few of them eventually deciding to prioritize their own investigations/prosecutions ahead of "national security."

For my money this is another blurring of the traditional line between Federal and State power. The Feds really need to concern themselves with bad actors from aboard and leave the States to do their own thing with mundane domestic criminals.

It's called and end-run

[rahvin112]

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.

Re:It's called and end-run

[skr95062]

According to the FBI they don't need a warrant when using a sting ray, as anyone that they might pick up using it has "No Expectation of Privacy".
That statement was made a few weeks ago by the FBI no less.

Will it become illegal to use non-cellular phone?

[mi]

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.