Michigan State Police Say It'll Cost $545k To Discover What Info It's Copying Off Mobile Phones During Traffic Stops [Updated]
from the that-sounds-like-extortion dept
Apparently, the state police in Michigan are using devices that allow them to slurp all sorts of data off your mobile phone. Various courts over the years have taken up the question of whether or not it's okay for police to search your mobile phone during a traffic stop without a warrant, and the rulings are quite mixed. What is allowed is for police to search through your physical belongings, but "digital" belongings is a bit more of a gray area, and it seems to depend on the court. Most recently, the California Supreme Court said that such searches are fine.The reason many of us are troubled by this is that, like laptops, the contents on your mobile phone are both a lot more expansive these days than, say, a bag you're carrying -- and can be a lot more private. So it's a bit troubling that at least some courts have said there's really no difference between searching a bag that you're holding and the full contents of your mobile phone at a traffic stop.
The situation in Michigan is potentially more troubling, because the police are apparently using technology that lets them gather all sorts of info off your phone quite quickly -- and can even get around some password protections:
A US Department of Justice test of the CelleBrite UFED used by Michigan police found the device could grab all of the photos and video off of an iPhone within one-and-a-half minutes. The device works with 3000 different phone models and can even defeat password protections.It's not at all clear if the police in Michigan are using the full extent of these tools, and that's what the ACLU was curious about. So, it filed a Freedom of Information Act request on the matter... and was told that it would cost $544,680 to get that information. That doesn't sound like "freedom" of information, now does it? While the folks over at Techland suggest a Kickstarter project, I think the ACLU is hoping that it can pressure the police into changing their position on this without having to resort to such measures.
"Complete extraction of existing, hidden, and deleted phone data, including call history, text messages, contacts, images, and geotags," a CelleBrite brochure explains regarding the device's capabilities. "The Physical Analyzer allows visualization of both existing and deleted locations on Google Earth. In addition, location information from GPS devices and image geotags can be mapped on Google Maps."
Update: The Michigan State Police got in touch (via Twitter, believe it or not) to claim that the story is not accurate. According to them, they only use these devices with a warrant, "or if the person possessing the mobile device gives consent" (which, admittedly, opens up some questions, since under stressful circumstances, faced with a police officer, people may feel pressured to "give consent."). They don't explain the $545k bit, other than to say they've been working with the ACLU to "reduce" the cost.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: freedom of information, michigan, mobile phones, privacy, traffic stops
Companies: aclu
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
F-R-E-E-D-O-M
It's the best freedom money can buy!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
phone snooping
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: phone snooping
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: phone snooping
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: phone snooping
The cops were "only following orders".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: phone snooping
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: phone snooping
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: phone snooping
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: phone snooping
While I don't think it was especially funny or clever or anything, I think you'd have to be pretty stupid to take that line seriously.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: phone snooping
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: phone snooping
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: phone snooping
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: phone snooping
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: phone snooping
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: phone snooping
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: phone snooping
Not that there are many phones that offer full disk encryption . . .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: phone snooping
If it was me, I'd politely tell the officer he could search my phone as soon as I see a warrent. If he forcibly took my phone or arrested me because I wouldn't hand it over, I'd be sure to call the ACLU post haste.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: phone snooping
I have a security clearance and actions as you described would put that in jeopardy.
The officer is *well* within his authority to search your possessions once he has suspicion of something. This is just extended that authority to include a digital device.
Now the password circumvention aspect is interesting as that would violate the DMCA wouldn't it? I certainly don't have to give an officer the combination to a locked container during a stop, so having a device that 'picks the lock' on my digitally protected info would be quite troubling.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: phone snooping
Many people give up their rights because they don't know them.
Here is one of many educational videos that can be found:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqMjMPlXzdA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: phone snooping
I see absolutely no reason why this can't extend to a locked phone in the car.
This does not extend to preventing them from looking into the passenger compartment, nor does this extend to the trunks of SUVs that are open to the passenger compartment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: phone snooping
I'm still unsure of the point of searching a phone is beyond the cops going on a fishing expedition to arrest you for something completely unrelated to the traffic stop.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: phone snooping
No it wouldn't violate DMCA as that is media, it would however violate numerous state passed data breach bills most likely.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: phone snooping
Being arrested does create at least 'interest' on the part of Security Clearances, which I assume you know, don't have to follow 'civil rights' as closely as anything else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: phone snooping
It's certainly not exceptionally intensive but they do ask you about quite a bit of stuff going back 7 years. For TS it's 10 years and much more in depth; those they actually do follow up on all your references.
Secret is more of a computer check, if you don't show up on their searches you pass. Hence why being arrested can make that 'interesting'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: phone snooping
> security clearance. DOD Secret to be exact.
Then you need an OPSEC refresher. You're not supposed to be announcing on public forums that you hold a classified clearance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: phone snooping
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: phone snooping
> search your possessions once he has suspicion
> of something.
Not hardly. Merely being suspicious of "something" doesn't come anywhere near satisfying the legal requirements for a warrantless search.
And even when those requirements *are* met, there are places in a car where the cops still can't go without a warrant. Locked containers, the trunk, etc. And much of their latitude for searching comes from safety concerns and the threat of hidden weapons. You're going to have to make one hell of an amazing argument to convince any sane jurist that you had to search that iPhone because you were in fear of your life from the data contained in it.
I honestly can't see any logical reason why a password-protected iPhone is any different legally from a locked container in the trunk of a car.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: phone snooping
But..But..But... He had an iTaser app on his iphone, I had to confiscate it to keep from being tased by the somewhat irate individual who just kept cringing and shouting, "Don't tase me bro!" as I stole, er pirated, er borrowed, er yeah stole his iPhone... like I was supposed to know what that means....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: phone snooping
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: phone snooping
I believe it's the "Shut Up And Do What I Tell You Before I Cave Your Face In With My Baton" act.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: phone snooping
You see decisions like that of the Califrnia Supreme Court make it OK for police to insist on a physical connecton for no reason.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: phone snooping
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And don't forget that you can always refuse a search of your person and vehicle, unless you are placed under arrest, of course.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This FOIA cost is just an excuse to money grab. The City of Detroit has been doing it for years in their court document copy department. Our government has gone from looking under their chair cushions for extra bucks to sticking a vacuum under yours.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If you do not give consent, then anything they find that is not in plain sight is improperly collect evidence. Of course, at that point they can impound your vehicle until they get a warrant.
Wouldn't that apply to your phone also?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
> needed both probable cause and consent to search
> your vehicle during a traffic stop
One or the other. They don't need both.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Same holds true for Android (supposedly available in the next release of the Cellebrite UFED firmware). Blackberries are a bit different, but just as secure, if you have a password.
Moral of the story? Keep your phone locked when driving in MI. Oh, and as usual, don't consent to searches, of your car or your phone. Ask for a warrant.
BTW, USB only works so fast. No way they're gonna D/L a 32G iPhone in 1.5min. It's not possible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Solution here:
http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/security/make-sure-to-encrypt-your-iphone-backups/3885
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The DOJ speed test was probably done on a 4G iPhone. The MSP acquired the UFEDs in 2008 or prior, and may well be basing their statement on a DOJ test from that period.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Locked
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yes, the Constitution is still in effect in the USA
I am not sure what drugs I could hide in a Droid, but looking for data is not looking for drugs.
I would think that the same laws applying to say paper records would apply to electronic date and the police can’t just read everything even if they arrest you. They can of course search you for weapons and drugs if they arrest you.
Even if you are a scumbag IP thief with all sorts of unpaid-for-porn on your computer, short of kiddie porn, I don’t think the police would have any interest in wasting their time reading your files unless you are into something much more illegal.
More likely, it’s just another example of bad, alarmist reporting on TechDirt. Now I think I know why it’s called “Dirt.”
I also see that the police, like the military, have an interest in keeping their capabilities secret (Mike’s not a WikiLeak fool also???).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Yes, the Constitution is still in effect in the USA
You can give the pigs all of your private info if you want. DO NOT assume that I want to give up all of mine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Yes, the Constitution is still in effect in the USA
This is debatable
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Yes, the Constitution is still in effect in the USA
Almost as a god forsaken a hell hole as Texas.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Yes, the Constitution is still in effect in the USA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The cost is an obvious and absurd fabrication...
The actual cost for retrieving such data is more like $200: an hour of someone's time and a 1 TByte USB drive. Start the copy, go home, come back the next day when it's done, unplug, hand it over.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The cost is an obvious and absurd fabrication...OR NOT
For privacy reasons the police are not going to hand over a copy of your phone or computer records to anyone who asks.
They are going to have to pay someone to go through every document and black out half the information.
This would take some clerk one year (about $75K), just for my computer.
Some real reporter should call the ACLU and the police for clarification.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The cost is an obvious and absurd fabrication...OR NOT
For privacy reasons, perhaps the police should not have gathered this information in the first place, then.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The cost is an obvious and absurd fabrication...OR NOT
Society’s interest in catching child molesters overrides the right to privacy with a search warrant. No, you just can’t beat them up like Dirty Harry.
But just because you are a child molester or just a suspect, the police have to protect your privacy from third parties filing freedom of information requests.
Maybe we should call illegal searches “privacy infringers” or “info-sharing” so that criminal cops look better. LOL. Dirty Harry was a privacy infringer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: The cost is an obvious and absurd fabrication...OR NOT
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: The cost is an obvious and absurd fabrication...OR NOT
> overrides the right to privacy with a search
> warrant.
Absolute bullshit.
There is not now, nor has there ever been, a "we're searching for child molesters" exception to the 4th Amendment warrant requirement.
If you think there is, feel free to cite the case that established such a thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: The cost is an obvious and absurd fabrication...OR NOT
and yet the TSA is just doing their job - amirite?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
iphone?
http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2011/04/iphone-tracks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They're just cops
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: They're just cops
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: They're just cops
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Perfect way to stop it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Where's the RIAA, MPAA they are usually the first to scream bloody murder that ALL copying of digital files equates to a lost sale!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And more misuse of words - A Parody of Mike
And gang-rapist sounds too harsh, so we would should call gang-rapists "woman sharers" who claim women should be free (to be raped). Anyone who claims that a woman has a right not to be raped is a "monopolist" who wants to give a woman monopoly rights to her body.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: And more misuse of words - A Parody of Mike
I don't know about any of that - but it's clear that some commenters should be labeled as "unintelligent miscreants".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Complete GPS history?
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2011/04/20/135570632/researchers-apples-iphone-keeps-tr ack-of-every-little-place-you-go
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Incredible
BTW it seems that UFED device must be connected to the target
phone by USB cable for maximum efficiency.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Here's a cheaper way to get all the info
And it (the corpus of data) has value to third parties. There are endless possibilities for extortion, blackmail, sale, etc. So SOMEONE, more like multiple someones, is going to try to steal it and then sell it on the open market (see: Russian Business Network).
It should be available at a fraction of the price there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
HIPAA
This is a clear violation of the 4th amendment and probably the worst form of over-reaching that I've read in recent months. Even if its nothing more than enflammatory media reporting by the Dirt.....the fact that someone in Michigan would even consider it is scary enough. No wonder they have the highest unemployment rate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A solution is just around the corner
Of course, this will do nothing to fix the situation wherein a government charged with protecting its citizens' rights stands at the forefront of violating those rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I wonder if it is also ok for the cops to delete files ... oh like maybe video of a perp getting stopmed to the curb.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ACLU letter to MSP
http://www.aclumich.org/sites/default/files/CellebriteLettertoMSP.pdf
if we are to trust MSPs response to this letter on their web-site, there really is nothing to worry about. 4th amendment protections are being completely respected. Why all the big fuss?
"The MSP only uses the DEDs if a search warrant is obtained or if the person possessing the mobile device gives consent. The department*s internal directive is that the DEDs only be used by MSP specialty teams on criminal cases, such as crimes against children."
If that's the case, MSP, why all the stonewalling?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Michigan - the leading outpost for the fascist takover apparently
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Michigan - the leading outpost for the fascist takover apparently
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Michigan - the leading outpost for the fascist takover apparently
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Michigan
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A good place for this equipment use-
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
cellphones
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
iphone
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Does the TSA know about these devices?
So while the Michigan State Police might not be able to do this leagaly I am pretty sure the TSA would be okay with it. Good bye privacy, we will miss you.
... and how soon until the laptop cloner device comes out?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just part of the path..
I start to wonder if there are any honest cops anymore.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
April 20, 2011 - Official Statement (from police): Use of Cell Phone Data Extraction Devices
To be clear, there have not been any allegations of wrongdoing by the MSP in the use of DEDs.
The MSP only uses the DEDs if a search warrant is obtained or if the person possessing the mobile device gives consent. The department*s internal directive is that the DEDs only be used by MSP specialty teams on criminal cases, such as crimes against children.
The DEDs are not being used to extract citizens' personal information during routine traffic stops.
The MSP does not possess DEDs that can extract data without the officer actually possessing the owner's mobile device. The DEDs utilized by the MSP cannot obtain information from mobile devices without the mobile device owner knowing.
Data extraction devices are commercially available and are routinely utilized by mobile communication device vendors nationwide to transmit data from one device to another when customers upgrade their mobile devices.
These DEDs have been adapted for law enforcement use due to the ever-increasing use of mobile communication devices by criminals to further their criminal activity and have become a powerful investigative tool used to obtain critical information from criminals.
Since 2008, the MSP has worked with the ACLU to narrow the focus, and thus reducing the cost, of its initial Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. To date, the MSP has fulfilled at least one ACLU FOIA request on this issue and has several far-lower cost requests awaiting payment to begin processing. The MSP provides information in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act. As with any request, there may be a processing fee to search for, retrieve, review, examine, and separate exempt material, if any.
The implication by the ACLU that the MSP uses these devices "quietly to bypass Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches" is untrue, and this divisive tactic unjustly harms police and community relations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]