Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

friendly_iconoclast

(15,333 posts)
Wed Feb 18, 2015, 12:43 AM Feb 2015

FBI really doesn’t want anyone to know about “stingray” use by local cops

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/02/fbi-really-doesnt-want-anyone-to-know-about-stingray-use-by-local-cops/

FBI really doesn’t want anyone to know about “stingray” use by local cops
Memo: Cops must tell FBI about all public records requests on fake cell towers.

by Cyrus Farivar - Feb 10, 2015 7:46am EST


If you’ve ever filed a public records request with your local police department to learn more about how cell-site simulators are used in your community—chances are good that the FBI knows about it. And the FBI will attempt to “prevent disclosure” of such information.

Not only can these devices, commonly known as "stingrays," be used to determine a phone’s location, but they can also intercept calls and text messages. During the act of locating a phone, stingrays also sweep up information about nearby phones. Last fall, Ars reported on how a handful of cities across America are currently upgrading to new hardware that can target 4G LTE phones.

The newest revelation about the FBI comes from a June 2012 letter written by the law enforcement agency to the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension. It was first acquired and published by the Minneapolis Star Tribune in December 2014—similar language likely exists between the FBI and other local authorities that use stingrays.

As the letter states:

In the event that the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension receives a request pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (5 USC 552) or an equivalent state or local law, the civil or criminal discovery process, or other judicial, legislative, or administrative process, to disclose information concerning the Harris Corporation [REDACTED] the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension will immediately notify the FBI of any such request telephonically and in writing in order to allow sufficient time for the FBI to seek to prevent disclosure through appropriate channels.




http://www.startribune.com/politics/statelocal/284945781.html


BCA agreed to FBI terms on secret cellphone tracking

Article by: Abby Simons
Star Tribune
December 5, 2014 - 11:02 PM

Minnesota’s top law enforcement agency agreed to terms set by the FBI to resist any attempts by the public to gain information about controversial cellphone-tracking technology, according to documents obtained by the Star Tribune.

The revelation comes after a lengthy attempt to obtain contracts and nondisclosure agreements for the FBI’s cellphone tracking devices, known as StingRay II and KingFish. The state Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA) has long resisted disclosure requests from the public, news media and even the Minnesota Legislature, saying that doing so would violate trade secrets and expose investigative techniques that could be exploited by criminals. The most recent documents were released to the Star Tribune only after the Information Policy Analysis Division, which interprets the state’s open records law, determined they could not be withheld in their entirety...

...In a heavily redacted 2012 contract signed by then-Assistant BCA Superintendent David Bjerga, the agency agreed to “immediately notify the FBI” of any request for information concerning the device’s manufacturer, Florida-based Harris Corp., under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), or under judicial, administrative or legislative requests.

Any court orders directing the BCA to reveal information about Harris Corp. “will immediately be provided to the FBI in order to allow sufficient time for the FBI to intervene to protect the equipment/technology and information from disclosure and potential compromise,” the contract reads.


The aforementioned letter (in .pdf format) can be found at:

http://stmedia.startribune.com/documents/BCA+Cellular+Exploitation+Equipment.pdf
1 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
FBI really doesn’t want anyone to know about “stingray” use by local cops (Original Post) friendly_iconoclast Feb 2015 OP
One bright spot - SCOTUS says "stingray" needs warrants Panich52 Feb 2015 #1

Panich52

(5,829 posts)
1. One bright spot - SCOTUS says "stingray" needs warrants
Wed Feb 18, 2015, 01:21 AM
Feb 2015

Supreme Court vans warrantless cellphone searches; updates privacy laws for the 21st century

www.washingtontimes.com ^ | Updated: 10:37 a.m. on Wednesday, June 25, 2014 | By Stephen Dinan
Posted on Wed Jun 25 10:59:26 2014 by Red Badger

The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that police cannot go snooping through people’s cell phones without a warrant, in a unanimous decision that amounts to a major statement in favor of privacy rights.

Police agencies had argued that searching through the data on cell phones was no different than asking someone to turn out his pockets, but the justices rejected that, saying a cell phone is more fundamental.

The ruling amounts to a 21st century update to legal understanding of privacy rights.

“The fact that technology now allows an individual to carry such information in his hand does not make the information any less worthy of the protection for which the Founders fought,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote for the unanimous court.

“Our answer to the question of what police must do before searching a cell phone seized incident to an arrest is accordingly simple— get a warrant.”

Justices even said police cannot check a cellphone’s call log, saying even those contain more information that just phone numbers, and so perusing them is a violation of privacy that can only be justified with a warrant.

(Excerpt) Read more at http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jun/25/supreme-court-bans-warrantless-cell-phone-searches/

..
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Civil Liberties»FBI really doesn’t want a...