Internal Emails Show Harris Corp. Misled The FCC On Stingray Device Usage In Order To Receive Approval

from the support-group-for-Stingray-lies-now-includes-roughly-everybody dept

Tue, Sep 23rd 2014 3:57am — Tim Cushing

Harris Corporation's Stingray cell tower spoofers are swiftly becoming synonymous with government lying. The FBI has specifically instructed law enforcement agencies to lie about the use of these products, which basically puts the agencies in the position of lying to courts when producing evidence or securing warrants.

Law enforcement agencies would probably lie anyway, even without the federal government's nudge. Many chose to read the restrictive non-disclosure agreements Harris includes as meaning they should withhold this information from local courts -- rather than simply seal the documents or redact them.

So, it comes as no surprise that the web of lies also includes lying to other federal agencies. The lies originate from Harris itself.

New documents obtained by the ACLU of Northern California appear to show the Florida-based Harris Corporation misleading the Federal Communications Commission while seeking authorization to sell its line of Stingray cell phone surveillance gear to state and local police. The documents raise the possibility that federal regulatory approval of the technology was based on bad information.

Harris says its devices are FCC-approved, but what it doesn't specify is the very limited approval it has actually received. An email from a Harris representative to FCC employees [pdf link] contains the following paragraph.

Just want to make you aware of the question below we received regarding the application for the Sting Fish. I know many of these questions are generated automatically but it sounds as if there is some confusion about the purpose of the equipment authorization application. As you may recall, the purpose is only to provide state/local law enforcement officials with authority to utilize this equipment in emergency situations.

As the ACLU points out, Stingray (or "Sting Fish") usage had long since surpassed the "emergency use only" restriction -- if that ever existed at all. Routine investigations utilize these devices all the time. Just one of several examples: when the Tallahassee police department's use of Stingrays came to light, the court noted that it had deployed the technology (without a warrant) more than 200 times, with less than 30% of the deployments being for department-labelled "emergencies."

Law enforcement agencies are secretly acquiring and deploying these devices in violation of the limited FCC approval, and have been doing so for years -- well ahead of this 2010 statement. And Harris is telling them that it's OK. The ACLU has written a letter to FCC chairman Tom Wheeler [pdf link] asking him open an investigation into the use of Stingray devices. If Wheeler obliges, the FCC is going to face a united front of zipped lips. The FBI already locks the Dept. of Justice out of its investigations. There's no chance it's going to be more obliging of a tangentially-related federal agency.

Aclu to Fcc Harris (PDF)Aclu to Fcc Harris (Text)

Fcc Foia Harris Emails (PDF)Fcc Foia Harris Emails (Text)

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: approval, cell phones, fcc, law enforcement, police, spectrum, stingray, surveillance
Companies: harris, harris corp.

26 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

That One Guy (profile), 23 Sep 2014 @ 2:21am

Ultimatum time
The FBI already locks the Dept. of Justice out of its investigations. There's no chance it's going to be more obliging of a tangentially-related federal agency.

It would take some pretty hefty guts(so the chance of the FCC doing it is sadly almost zill), but if the deployment/use of the stingray towers requires FCC authorization to be legal, if the FBI refuses to cooperate(assuming Wheeler even bothers to investigate), the FCC should pull out the trump card: Cooperate, give us everything we're asking for, or we'll revoke the authorization, and hence legality, of the devices entirely.

If the FCC had the guts for something like that, were willing to stand their ground, and were willing to follow through with the threat, I get the feeling those involved might suddenly decide to start talking.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- art guerrilla (profile), 23 Sep 2014 @ 4:30am
  
  Re: Ultimatum time
  i might feel the same way, if i thought we lived in an Empire which was actually ruled by law, not (secret) men...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 23 Sep 2014 @ 5:33am
  
  Re: Ultimatum time
  "Cooperate, give us everything we're asking for, or we'll revoke the authorization, and hence legality, of the devices entirely."
  
  FBI: Ummm, so? We'll do what we want anyway.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- ysth (profile), 23 Sep 2014 @ 9:24am
  
  Re: Ultimatum time
  I'm confused by this. Isn't the FBI part of the Department of Justice?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 23 Sep 2014 @ 10:53am
    
    Re: Re: Ultimatum time
    "I'm confused by this. Isn't the FBI part of the Department of Justice?"
    
    Yes. The part that has the guns.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Sep 2014 @ 4:17am

I wonder which logic is used to twist EVERY SINGLE USE as an emergency...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 23 Sep 2014 @ 4:26am
  
  Response to: Anonymous Coward on Sep 23rd, 2014 @ 4:17am
  Terrorism, For the Children.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - David, 23 Sep 2014 @ 11:49am
    
    Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Sep 23rd, 2014 @ 4:17am
    Yeah, the administration just loves to wank off to that childish terror porn.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 23 Sep 2014 @ 5:10am
  
  Re:
  You stupid man, can't you see that DOLLARS are at stake here?
  
  /s
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Sep 2014 @ 4:22am

I have a non-disclosure agreement too
I signed a non-disclosure agreement that says I can't talke about where I dumped the body. Or the fact that there is a body. Sorry courts, you will just have to let me go, my non-disclosure trumps your justice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Sep 2014 @ 5:00am

anything that can be done, will be done if it gives information on the people to law enforcement. obviously, these towers need taking down because there's no way to trust the police and others when they say that 'from now on, we'll only use them as meant'! there isn't a single agency or operative in any of the security/law enforcement services that can be trusted any more. that is so worrying!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Sep 2014 @ 5:01am

Harris Corp. is operating in violation of the US Constitution. There's no way intercepting everyone's phone calls and text messages in a 20 mile square radius is in compliance with a limited search and seizure under the 4th Amendment.

Just another rogue manufacturer selling to rogue agencies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
John Cressman, 23 Sep 2014 @ 5:22am

I think...
I think 300+ years in prison for all executives of Harris seems appropriate for conspiracy to violate citizen rights. They knowingly and willingly sell and then cover up the sale and usage of these devices which only have one REAL purpose - to violate the Constitution and relieve citizens of their rights. Nevermind what they CLAIM the purpose is... it's quite obvious that it's NOT being used to that purpose.

It's basically like supplying material support to terrorists... but in this case, the people inspiring terror are our own government.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Sep 2014 @ 5:45am

do these tower spoofers just grab data, or do they actually provide cell service? Could you theoretically drop a stingray tower in the middle of Montana and suddenly get service? If so, I'm pretty sure there's some shady anti-govn't activity happening about 35 miles SE of Missoula.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 23 Sep 2014 @ 6:02am
  
  Re:
  "Stingrays spoof a legitimate cell phone tower in order to trick nearby cellphones and other wireless devices into connecting to the fake tower instead of a nearby real one. When devices connect, stingrays can harvest MAC addresses and other unique identifiers and data, as well as location information. To prevent detection, the stingray relays the call itself to a real tower so the pickup is transparent to the caller."
  
  http://wemeantwell.com/blog/tag/stingray/
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 23 Sep 2014 @ 6:05am
  
  Re:
  So long as a stingray has a a real tower in sight, it offers 2Gg service, which enables text messages and phone conversation to be captured, along with phone IDs.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Richard (profile), 23 Sep 2014 @ 7:39am

Hmm
One wonders if any (sorry - how many) of these devices have "leaked" into the underworld...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 23 Sep 2014 @ 7:57am
  
  Re: Hmm
  Nah, we all know how careful the police are with their fancy equipment...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Sep 2014 @ 8:10am

Lets see what road Wheeler decides to take now. My question is If stingray can intercept , can It also be used (with other tools) to send you to a spoofed bank website ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 23 Sep 2014 @ 1:29pm
  
  Re:
  Probably.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - John Fenderson (profile), 23 Sep 2014 @ 2:30pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Agreed. Spoofing WiFi lets you do things like that (and worse!), I imagine it's no different with cell phone traffic.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
That Anonymous Coward (profile), 23 Sep 2014 @ 2:00pm

So what we need is a super police force to police those charged with upholding the law and then it'll be fine.

Or we could, I dunno, bring the weight of the law down upon those who violate it from their office and remind them they HAVE to answer for what they do and breaking the law is a crime with punishment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Paul Renault (profile), 23 Sep 2014 @ 3:31pm

Lying to a federal government official? Isn't that illegal?
Tim or Mike, I'm not a 'Mercan so I'm not sure about the law, but couldn't/shouldn't they be charged?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John Fenderson (profile), 23 Sep 2014 @ 3:38pm
  
  Re: Lying to a federal government official? Isn't that illegal?
  My understanding is that if you aren't under oath or otherwise making a sworn statement then it's not illegal to lie even if you're talking to a government official. However, defrauding people is illegal -- and it seems to me that misrepresenting the legal status of the device in order to sell it would constitute fraud. (This might sound like splitting hairs, and it is to some degree, but it's possible to engage in fraud without speaking a lie.)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 24 Sep 2014 @ 1:33pm
    
    Re: Re: Lying to a federal government official? Isn't that illegal?
    From all the research I've done (y'know, watching 'Bones' and NCIS), that would include lying to a officer, despite not under oath.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - John Fenderson (profile), 24 Sep 2014 @ 8:56pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Lying to a federal government official? Isn't that illegal?
      The question of lying to the police is an interesting one. IANAL, but from what I've read it works something like this: if you aren't under oath, it's not illegal to lie. However, if the police are conducting an investigation and you lie in an attempt to interfere with the investigation, you can be charged with obstruction.
      
      Of course, it's never a good idea to lie to the cops, even when it's legal. Much better to just shut up and let your lawyer talk.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]