Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Santa Clara County Opts Against Buying Stingray Due To Excessive Secrecy

Posted by samzenpus on from the no-tracking-you dept.

An anonymous reader writes: The Santa Clara County (California) Board of Supervisors voted in February to acquire a Stingray device for the sheriff's office. However, the subsequent negotiations with Harris Corp. required such a level of secrecy that the county announced that it will forego the $500,000 grant and not buy the device. In a memo released Wednesday, the County Executive's Office said "after lengthy negotiations regarding contract terms, including business and legal issues," an agreement could not be reached with the manufacturer, the Harris Corp. As a result, "the system will not be purchased at this time," and the work group focused on drafting a use policy will be disbanded.

39 comments

  1. Good job boys by __aabppq7737 · · Score: 2

    Use your FOI powers and join the Transparency Toolkit.

  2. What they mean is by Captain+Hook · · Score: 5, Interesting

    After a number of high profile cases have been dropped due to prosecutors not being allowed to explain how the device works in court. It's become a very expensive evidence gathering tool which can't be used to collect usable evidence.

    This isn't a blow against secret terms of use, it's a business decision to not buy something which can't be used for it's intended purpose.

    --
    These comments are my personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the other voices in my head.
    1. Re:What they mean is by peragrin · · Score: 1

      No Santa Clara county will just borrow one of the FBI units and not tell people it was used. You aren't being paranoid enough.

      Personally I am waiting for a really high profile case to be dropped because of it. Right now all you have to do is force the police to disclose how they tracked you and they start dropping cases.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    2. Re: What they mean is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They can explain how it works easily. They can't explain how it is legal though. That's why the secrecy matters, because the company is technically illegal equipment seller. They don't have a license for it, it breaks dmca, violates Fcc rules and is harmful to operators normal operation. After all that you still have the actual privacy issues with it.

    3. Re:What they mean is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No Santa Clara county will just borrow one of the FBI units and not tell people it was used. You aren't being paranoid enough.

      As the GP stated, this isn't something that can be used in criminal cases. What it will be used for is illegal spying - you don't need to explain how it works in court for that.

    4. Re:What they mean is by geekmux · · Score: 1

      After a number of high profile cases have been dropped due to prosecutors not being allowed to explain how the device works in court. It's become a very expensive evidence gathering tool which can't be used to collect usable evidence.

      This isn't a blow against secret terms of use, it's a business decision to not buy something which can't be used for it's intended purpose.

      Are you certain dragging innocent citizens into a courtroom and milking them for thousands to fleece the pockets of various members of the legal community isn't in fact the intended purpose?

      It's become a very expensive evidence gathering tool that also happens to generate hundreds of thousands of dollars for the legal system, legal or otherwise. So far this county seemingly doesn't want to play along, but I question the other 99% of the country that has no qualms using it.

    5. Re:What they mean is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      milking them for thousands to fleece the pockets of various members of the legal community

      You do realize "to fleece" mean "to scam" right? ...

    6. Re:What they mean is by Somebody+Is+Using+My · · Score: 3, Interesting

      No Santa Clara county will just borrow one of the FBI units and not tell people it was used.

      That is one of the first things I thought when I read the article too.

      The headline should probably be something more along the lines of "Santa Clara County Opts Against Buying Stingray... decides on competing RingStay brand."

      Because these toys are too useful and make data-collection far far too easy for them to give it up. They'll use some other brand, or a device that works similarly (but not exactly) like Stingrays, or hire outside agencies (who /do/ purchase Stingrays) to do the call-interception for them, but you can be sure that ultimately there won't be any real improvement.

      Instead they will pass on half-truths to placate the public whom they are supposed to serve to hide the fact they are continuing the behavior we find upsetting.

      And then wonder why public trust in them continues to decline.

    7. Re:What they mean is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      After a number of high profile cases have been dropped due to prosecutors not being allowed to explain how the device works in court. It's become a very expensive evidence gathering tool which can't be used to collect usable evidence.

      This isn't a blow against secret terms of use, it's a business decision to not buy something which can't be used for it's intended purpose.

      So it's a big FUCK YOU that they did the right thing because it's hard if you Follow Procedure, aka do the right thing, so they did the right thing?

      No. Fuck you. They're doing the right thing, sorry your tinfoil hat and heart three-sizes-too-small (tm) wants to play shit on the decision. Go back to your mother's basement.

    8. Re:What they mean is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well those are just the cases where they fail to produce convincing evidence of evidence collecting. Once they have something on someone using a StingRay they just need to go watch them long enough to get evidence elsewhere so they can keep StingRay usage secret.

    9. Re: What they mean is by Lenny1791 · · Score: 0

      Last time I checked it is perfectly legal to breach a contract such as a terms of use if it it exposes the type of criminal activity we all suspect is occurring with these devices. In other words, it would be completely legal for a prosecutor to disclose that info at trial, BUT two things would happen: 1) Knowing how the device works would result in the judge suppressing any evidence derived from it, effectively neutering the prosecution's entire case 2) Any LEO org using it would be sued for using it Neither are what the prosecutor wants, so it is not to their advantage to do the right thing and LEGALLY breach the contract. But there WILL come a time when a prosecutor needs another case dropped this way for some reason. All we can do is wait it out.

    10. Re:What they mean is by geekmux · · Score: 1

      milking them for thousands to fleece the pockets of various members of the legal community

      You do realize "to fleece" mean "to scam" right? ...

      You do realize "to fleece the pockets means "to line" right?

  3. Strange times by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    It is news, when the government does the right thing.

    1. Re:Strange times by geekmux · · Score: 1

      It is news, when the government does the right thing.

      Even stranger times when citizens believe them.

      Let's just say this particular organization has become infamous for saying one thing, and doing another.

  4. "...at this time" by turkeydance · · Score: 1

    baby better come back later next week

  5. They will just borrow one by whoever57 · · Score: 2

    Much of Santa Clara County is in the City of San Jose. What do you want to bet that San Jose has at least one?

    --
    The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    1. Re:They will just borrow one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Huh. Did you even read that before posting? Much of a county is within a city?

  6. See? The free market solution DOES work! by NoNonAlphaCharsHere · · Score: 1

    If companies act like evil fucks, customers will go elsewhere.

  7. Maggots, Michael... by Guy+From+V · · Score: 1

    I have video evidence from the 80s that this town's bureaucrats and law enforcement organizations are controlled by an undead motorcycle gang. This move is obviously meant to manipulate the emotions of their human herd as to engender positive emotions meant to attract more visitors and residents, therefore increasing their food supply.

    Oh, wait...

  8. Excessive secrecy? by Chrisq · · Score: 1

    There are cut-away plans on the web

    1. Re:Excessive secrecy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well played.

  9. bravo! by v1 · · Score: 1

    privacy issues aside, it's refreshing to occasionally see any government group not rubberstamp any expense that they don't have to worry about paying for. "We can't use this, we're not going to buy it." "but, but... it's so SHINY!"

    So now I think we're up to something like... Common Sense: 5 - SNAFU: 885,236

    Grant or no grant, that money doesn't just get tossed in a fire if it's not spent. It'll get repurposed somehow, somewhere, maybe by someone else but for public benefit, and hopefully into something more useful and less harmful to the public.

    (hopefully we don't hear a shout from the grant people, "so... does somebody else want a free Stingray?")

    --
    I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
  10. Seriously? $500,000 for one of these things? by DoctorBonzo · · Score: 2

    What hardware could be worth that amount?

    Must be a pretty big mark-up.

  11. Re:Seriously? $500,000 for one of these things? by geekmux · · Score: 2

    What hardware could be worth that amount?

    Must be a pretty big mark-up.

    Who said government customers give a shit about what that price is? It's not their money.

    And of course there's huge mark-up. That's because Harris knows damn well what kind of legal revenue can be generated from one of these things. I wouldn't be surprised if the ROI on this is less than 6 months.

  12. Harris contract terms ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    1. Deny that you are buying stingray.
    2. Buy stingray.
    3. Use stingray to track innocent people.
    4. Profit.

  13. What would you do with $500,000? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What I want to know is why is the Federal government giving Santa Clara County $500,000 to spy on its own people? Couldn't that be used for, oh, I dunno, fixing the plumbing in a school somewhere, or repairing a dozen potholes, or something actually useful to the people?

    Anyone? Bueller?

  14. Harris is a bunch of clods anyway. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Harris is hard to deal with on a good day. They have monopolies in a lot of areas and their sales team acts accordingly.

  15. The thing I can't stand about Santa Clara by cyberchondriac · · Score: 1

    Is all the damn vampires.

    Okay, okay, actually that was the fictional town of Santa Carla, but that's a mere anagram away.
    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt00...

    --

    Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
  16. Re:Seriously? $500,000 for one of these things? by AHuxley · · Score: 1

    Next gen, no drop to older networking standards. Data out, voice out, mapping playback :)

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  17. There are others by PPH · · Score: 1

    Harris isn't the only vendor. And there are other IMSI catchers available. Some may have different and more user friendly NDAs attached to their sale.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  18. They could just be lying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And who is to say that they didn't really just go ahead and buy it, and the agreement reached with Harris was to deny the very existence of any deal? Not that I'm a cynic or anything...

  19. Re:Are you Implying Harris is a Blood Sucking Vamp by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Stakeout

  20. WTF is with the grant? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ..using a $500,000 federal grant in February..

    The (probable) illegality of Stingray and the general anti-American creepiness of the NDA (interesting stories on their own) aside, what the fuck?

    How can we prevent that $500k, apparently earmarked for Stingray only, from ever being offered again? Who the fuck in DC is getting $1000 worth of blowjobs and cocaine on the Harris expense account, in exchange for selling all of America out on this issue? Let's get them fired, fined, and imprisoned.

  21. Re:Seriously? $500,000 for one of these things? by countSudoku() · · Score: 1

    Smoke and mirrors. It's a fancy butt-set with nmap strapped onto it! Harris is not in possession of anything magical, it's just a bunch of lawyers surrounding what in essence is a jumped-up Sniffer, but if that "secret" got out, who the hell would buy it then?

    --
    This is the NSA, we're gonna geet U h@x0r5! Also, what is a h@x0r5?
  22. Only two uses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cops use stingrays for two reasons:

    1. To assist in the day-to-day operations of their criminal endeavors (drugs, human trafficking, organ trafficking, money laundering, racketeering, etc.)
    2. To track & research members of the opposite gender that interest them.

  23. Re:Seriously? $500,000 for one of these things? by Holi · · Score: 1

    it's $68,479 for the original Stingray and $134,952 for Stingray II. Granted that does not include everything else required, https://publicintelligence.net... shows a nice price list for the accessories.

    --
    Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
  24. FCC issues by slickwillie · · Score: 1

    So how do Stingray users get around the FCC transmitter license?

  25. WTF is the Stingray by crazyvas · · Score: 2

    Thanks editors, for explaining it.

    http://www.mercurynews.com/cri...

    From the link above:
    The technology in question [...] is a suitcase-sized device that mimics a cellphone tower to connect with all phones in a specific area. [...] Sheriff's officials said it will be used purely to locate the subject of an investigation since it can find a phone through walls, even if the owner isn't making a call.