Administration Helping Bury Documents Related To Local Law Enforcement Use Of Cell Tower Spoofers

from the widening-the-gap-between-'us'-and-'them' dept

Fri, Jun 13th 2014 2:03pm — Tim Cushing

The recent story about the US Marshals Service stepping in to prevent the ACLU from obtaining documents related to the Sarasota (FL) Police Department's ownership and use of cell tower spoofers is apparently not an isolated instance. According to an AP report, the US government is actively inserting itself into the "discussion" by ensuring no one gets to talk about the controversial devices.

The Obama administration has been quietly advising local police not to disclose details about surveillance technology they are using to sweep up basic cellphone data from entire neighborhoods, The Associated Press has learned.

Citing security reasons, the U.S. has intervened in routine state public records cases and criminal trials regarding use of the technology. This has resulted in police departments withholding materials or heavily censoring documents in rare instances when they disclose any about the purchase and use of such powerful surveillance equipment.

Beyond the obvious negative impact on the much-vaunted "transparency" this administration claims to personify, there's also the new disturbing level of overreach -- the US government actively interfering with state-level Freedom of Information requests. In addition to the restrictive non-disclosure agreements that law enforcement agencies must sign when purchasing Stingray devices (and these agencies' general reluctance to share surveillance equipment info with the public), the government itself is taking an active role in erecting a wall between the public and its public servants.

Interviews, court records and public-records requests show the Obama administration is asking agencies to withhold common information about the equipment, such as how the technology is used and how to turn it on. That pushback has come in the form of FBI affidavits and consultation in local criminal cases.

Harris, the largest manufacturer of cell tower spoofers, specifically directs law enforcement to consult with the FBI during the purchase process, as well as before deploying the devices. The company claims this is all above board because it's "regulated" by its status as a government contractor. That might mean something if it wasn't so closely aligned with these government agencies' desire to keep the technology secret.

And, of course, the government has used its go-to defenses to justify its secrecy efforts. Above, it mentioned "security." A supporting affadavit filed by an FBI agent in a Freedom of Information lawsuit adds another:

A court case challenging the public release of information from the Tucson Police Department includes an affidavit from an FBI special agent, Bradley Morrison, who said the disclosure would "result in the FBI’s inability to protect the public from terrorism and other criminal activity because through public disclosures, this technology has been rendered essentially useless for future investigations."

Morrison said revealing any information about the technology would violate a federal homeland security law about information-sharing and arms-control laws…

Once you strip out all the panicky trappings, the FBI is basically asserting that it, and the law enforcement agencies it's speaking in support of, should be allowed to do what they like with zero accountability. These agencies want to have the ability to collect massive amounts of data without being slowed by warrant requests or minimization processes.

These exposure fears are unfounded, and those using them to justify withholding information know this. This secrecy has been used to seal returned warrants and court orders on closed investigations, giving lie to the claim that these agencies are concerned about damaging current and future investigatons. And, realistically, the only way terrorists or criminals are going to be able to completely avoid Stingray surveillance is to not use or carry cell phones, something that seems highly unlikely. For this to be any use to them, they would have to know in advance where it's being deployed and when.

The real reason behind the collaborative burial of information is the agencies' desire to do what they want without limitations or paper trails. This sort of behavior should be an indicator of a law enforcement agency that's gone rogue, rather than an all-too-common collaborative effort between local and national government agencies.

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: cell phones, cell tower spoofing, doj, federal government, freedom of information, spoofing, stingray, transparency, us marshals
Companies: harris

30 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Name Redacted, 13 Jun 2014 @ 2:08pm

I guess transparency isn't what it used to be.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
rw (profile), 13 Jun 2014 @ 2:09pm

"Once you strip out all the panicky trappings, the FBI is basically asserting that it, and the law enforcement agencies it's speaking in support of, should be allowed to do what they like with zero accountability."

Of course, how else can you get a good police state setup and running if everyone knows all you secrets?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
AricTheRed (profile), 13 Jun 2014 @ 2:23pm

How much longer until
When the Prez walks out somewhere and the Marine Corps Band plays The Imperial March (Darth Vader's Theme)instead of Hail to the Cheif?

www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bzWSJG93P8
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Jun 2014 @ 2:29pm

Re:
"I guess transparency isn't what it used to be."

Well, their true motives are becoming pretty transparent. That's the "new" Obama style transparency he promised everyone. And we just *thought* he lied.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Jun 2014 @ 2:30pm

"...the disclosure would "result in the FBI�s inability to protect the public from terrorism and other criminal activity because through public disclosures, this technology has been rendered essentially useless for future investigations.""

Oopsie. So by extension we might also say:

..disclosures of internet-monitoring would "result in the FBI�s inability to protect the public from terrorism and other criminal activity because through public disclosures, this internet has been rendered essentially useless for future investigations."

No point snooping on the internet then since it's similarly "useless for future investigations".

And let me get this straight: "revealing any information about the technology would violate a federal homeland security law about information-sharing and arms-control laws�": Would he like to be specific which 'federal homeland security' he's talking about or is that too secret to talk about too? But he is trying to insist that a commercially available electronic device falls under 'arms control' legislation because of what? Are not arms control laws about allowing arms to fall into the hands of the 'enemies of the United States'? So how soon before common-or-garden criminals are labelled enemy combatants? Slipper slope getting slippier.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Jun 2014 @ 2:36pm

Re: How much longer until
I get the symbolism but I'm sure lawyers will descend from the heavens to sue everyone for unlawful use of their intellectual property.
Also, it's much too good a theme to be wasted on Obama.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Jun 2014 @ 2:37pm

Transparency is apparently a one-sided mirror where the government gets to look in on everything the public is doing while remaining invisible to those looking in.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Jun 2014 @ 2:37pm

When is the government's mom going to tell them to quit fucking around with their toys, get inside and get washed up for dinner?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Jun 2014 @ 2:40pm

Everyone knows police can wiretap phone calls, yet a warrant is still required in order for it to take place. The public also knows about Stingray tracking devices, so there's no reason why a warrant shouldn't be required for use of these devices too.

A warrant requires a specific person, place, and thing to be specified for a search and seizure. There's no way to square the warrant requirements with scooping up everyone's communications in a 5 square mile radius. There's nothing particular or specific about the way Stingray's operate.

So it basically boils down to Stingray searches failing to meet the legal requirements of a warrant, as outlined in the 4th Amendment.

That's law enforcement refuses to issue any warrants for Stingray use. Such a warrant would be challenged in court, and the White House, DOJ, FBI, and local law enforcement all know a Stingray search will be ruled Unconstitutional due to it's bulk collection of message content and metadata for everyone in a 5 mile square radius.

They're using the phrase "safety and security" to hide the illegal and unconstitutional use of their general warrant technology. Harris Corp lawyers also interpreted US law, and they also know Stingray use would be found illegal. Which is why they require everyone to sign a nondisclosure agreement, saying no warrants will be used.

This is all crystal clear when you take all into account everything that's been happening. I'm sure the EFF and ACLU also know Stingrays won't hold us against the 4th Amendment in a court of law.

The White House, DOJ and FBI are terrified of a warrant being issued, and the Stingray being challenged in court. That's why there's so much coaching going. Especially about using parallel construction techniques after the suspect has been located, to avoid Stingrays ending up in court.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Jun 2014 @ 2:47pm

'but we are the most open administration there has been in the USA to date'. it's just that we have to know everything about everyone, covertly, so keep your mouths shut!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Charles (profile), 13 Jun 2014 @ 2:53pm

I asked a friend of mine why all the apathy? He didn't really have an answer. I am trying to help him realize what is going on. I send him a lot of links from here to get him thinking about these privacy and constitutional issues.

It amazes me that there is no huge public outrage.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
zip, 13 Jun 2014 @ 3:20pm

Re:
Maybe many of us have concluded that resistance to this corrupt police state that we live in is futile. Electing new politicians is pointless. And let's face it - we could not have elected a more pro-transparency, pro-Constitution, anti-police-state President than we elected. That he turned out to be even worse on these important issues than the former president he criticised so harshly ... should teach us all a big lesson.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
orbitalinsertion (profile), 13 Jun 2014 @ 3:26pm

I wonder if you could WarCart their collection towerspoofers
Chances are that that something they want to keep so secret is loaded with vulnerabilities. So, someone could either expose exactly what they can collect, or someone could use it for more widely and directly nefarious purposes than the government.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Jun 2014 @ 3:45pm

Re:
Don't you remember back in the last century (1990's or so) that strong encryption was categorized as a munition?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Jun 2014 @ 3:45pm

Re:
Don't you remember back in the last century (1990's or so) that strong encryption was categorized as a munition?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Anonymous Coward, 13 Jun 2014 @ 4:29pm

Re:
Nicely said, and what I was thinking.

Question, since I don't understand, which is stronger, an NDA or some or all of the following?

1. The Constitution
2. Federal Procedure Rules
3. State Procedure Rules
4. HLS "Laws" (I am so unaware that enforcement agencies could 'make' law)
5. A subpoena
6. A warrant should they actually make some effort
7. Something I am missing
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Jun 2014 @ 4:53pm

Somehow, I feel the feds try to hide some skeletons in Sarasota case. It may be, ACLU stubmled upon evidence laundering, and the feds sent to prison an innocent man using Sarasota cops.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Jun 2014 @ 5:05pm

Re:
".... arms-control laws�"

The only thing that I can think of is ITAR but that's to do with International selling/trafficking/trade.
Maybe agent Morrison is a bit confused here.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Matthew Cline (profile), 13 Jun 2014 @ 6:10pm

Intervening in criminal trials
Citing security reasons, the U.S. has intervened in routine state public records cases and criminal trials regarding use of the technology.
The linked article didn't have much details on this. Did a defense attorney attempt to challenge the use of the cell tower spoofer, but to do so would need details about the spoofer, and the DA refused to hand over the info on grounds of national security?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jerrymiah, 13 Jun 2014 @ 6:15pm

Re: Re: How much longer until
I think that the Furher Entrance March will be more appropriate. Heil Barck, along with the nazi salute.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Jun 2014 @ 6:18pm

Re: Re:
Yes, this was not policy previously - as everything was totally transparent. I am shocked and dismayed that the present administration has covered up so many conspiracies. Just read the totally truthful accounts of everything on Alex Jones website.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Jun 2014 @ 6:39pm

Re:
Am I not making myself perfectly clear to you?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Coyne Tibbets (profile), 13 Jun 2014 @ 7:19pm

Think it is secret? Wrong.
This is my estimation of what the cellphone sniffers do. It is based on reasoning, both on the basis of what is technically likely, combined with their rabid determination to keep its capabilities secret, which means that (in every case!) the worst truth is true.

Capabilities:

1) The sniffer can be set up anywhere.
2) Every cell phone in the area will connect to the sniffer, in preference to any other cell tower.
3) They can record the metadata of every phone call.
4) They can determine the phone type.
5) They can break the encryption capabilities of the cellphone and record voice for every call.
6) They can deploy exploits to a phone from a library containing exploits for every device type. This allows them to...
7) They can inspect anything on the connected cellphone including but not limited to: Contact lists, apps, pictures, instant messages, voice mail, call history and encryption keys.
8) They can turn the cellphone into a passive listening device.
9) They can prevent you from turning the cell phone off.
10) They can have the phone transmit its GPS location.
11) They can triangulate the physical location of a non-GPS phone to within 20 feet or so.

Usage:

1) They use the sniffer at any time without warrants.
2) It gives them enormous amounts of evidence to launder.
3) Wherever it is set up, they always capture all cell phones in the vicinity, regardless of cause or suspicion.
4) All phones so connected are permanently exploited, even after they return to normal cell service towers.

Assume this is true because it explains why they are so concerned about leaks. Then you won't be surprised when you find out the real truth.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
David, 13 Jun 2014 @ 10:13pm

Same old, same old
"Your honor, we aren't as effective when staying with the constitution."

Guess what: things like the Fourth Amendment have been written exactly in order to limit the effectiveness of the government invading the public's privacy.

It's like fishermen complaining that they cannot guarantee the nation's continued sustenance if they are not allowed to fish with dynamite, the most effective and thorough way of fishing imaginable.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Jun 2014 @ 10:19am

What is needed is a published list of carrier cell towers and their GPS coordinates and the ability in the phone to limit attempts to connect thru a whitelist in the same way WiFi is handled. That would solve the problem.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
bgmcb (profile), 15 Jun 2014 @ 9:18am

Re:
I think your looking for this
The project Spidey [mit.edu]

http://codesign.mit.edu/2014/05/aclu-the-guardian-project-final-project/
Goes live notifier
http://signup.spideyapp.com/
Source

https://github.com/jtwarren/spidey

Using data from
http://opencellid.org/

From Slashdot (Bob9113)
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/14/06/12/2128255/us-pushing-local-police-to-keep-quiet-on-cel l-phone-surveillance-technology
[ link to this | view in thread ]
David, 15 Jun 2014 @ 11:51am

Re: Re:
So what are you going to do? Wait for E-day?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Jun 2014 @ 7:25pm

Re: Re:
Awesome! A Stingray tracking detection App for Android! Thanks for sharing this information with Techdirt readers.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Jun 2014 @ 10:42pm

I think its about time that the public started to track the movements and record the communications of everyone known to be a part of the federal government or its agencies. We have the technology and we have a damn good reason for needing to know what these legalised criminals are up to, 24/7. It would also go far towards letting the spies know exactly what it feels like to be spied upon by people who do not have their best interests at heart.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Infamous Joe (profile), 16 Jun 2014 @ 10:54am

Re: Re: Re: How much longer until
Entry of the Gladiators seems more appropriate.
[ link to this | view in thread ]