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.

7 of 39 comments (clear)

  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 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.

  3. 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!
  4. 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.

  5. 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.

  6. 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.