FCC Denies It Requires Law Enforcement To Sign A Non-Disclosure Agreement With The FBI Before Deploying Stingray Devices
from the another-'agency-said/agency-said'-story dept
We know the FBI doesn't want anyone talking about Stingray cellphone snooping systems. Local law enforcement officials aren't exactly forthcoming about this information either, citing either non-disclosure agreements or the US government itself as justifications for extensive cover-ups. Now, the FCC -- which has been sort of on the sideline during these non-discussions -- has waded into it, releasing a statement that directly contradicts a document released by the Tacoma Police regarding its use of Stingray devices.Last month, Muckrock posted a heavily-redacted (everything but the two opening paragraphs) document it obtained from the Tacoma Police Department. In it, FBI Special Agent Laura Laughlin justified all the black ink that followed by name-dropping the FCC (the same agency Harris misled in order to have its devices approved). [pdf link]
We have been advised by Harris Corporation of the Tacoma Police Department's request for acquisition of certain wireless collection equipment/technology manufactured by Harris Corporation. Consistent with the conditions on the equipment authorization granted to Harris Corporation by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), state and local law enforcement agencies must coordinate with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to complete this non-disclosure agreement prior to the acquisition and use of the equipment/technology authorized by the FCC authorization.The FCC is now saying that this is the first it's heard of being part of the Stingray secrecy process.
We do not require that state and local law enforcement agencies have to complete one or more non-disclosure agreements with the Federal Bureau of Investigation prior to acquisition and/or use of the authorized equipment. We have no documents responsive to your request.But that's not entirely true. There is a requirement that almost exactly matches up with Agent Laughlin's claims -- one that Harris specifically requested and that the FCC granted.
As early as May 2010, Harris Corporation asked that the FCC put restrictions on law enforcement acquisition of its StingRay trackers, documents released to MuckRock by the FCC in response to another FOIA request show. Emails obtained by the ACLU of Northern California indicate that Harris made its request for licensing restrictions based on concerns from the FBI “over the proliferation of surreptitious law enforcement surveillance equipment.”Here's the request:
To further support its request for confidentiality, Harris underscores the need for confidentiality by requesting that the Commission condition the Harris license applications as outlined below to prevent and address concerns regarding the proliferation of surreptitious law enforcement surveillance equipment:This request was granted by the FCC in 2012.
(1) The marketing and sale of these devices shall be limited to federal/state/local public safety and law enforcement officials only; and,
(2) State and local law enforcement agencies must advance coordinate with the FBI the acquisition and use of the equipment authorized under this authorization.
There are only slight differences in what's being said by Laughlin and what was actually granted. The FCC requires (at Harris' request) that local law enforcement coordinate with the FBI before purchase and use of Stingray devices. Laughlin's statement appears to indicate that the FCC requires the signing of an NDA, but that appears to be the FBI's own inserted stipulation. Nothing explicitly states that the lack of an NDA means no Stingray purchase, at least not as far as the FCC is concerned. But it may keep law enforcement agencies from getting the FBI's go-ahead.
So, is the FCC the "good guy" in this Stingray mess? Probably not, or at least not as blameless as it would first appear. Chris Soghoian, the ACLU's principal technologist, points out that the FCC has actively pushed surveillance policies. Even if it hasn't in this case, it's quite obviously deferring to the FBI in this matter, basically stating (when you add the denial and subtract the granted stipulation), "Go ask
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: fbi, fcc, nda, stingray
Companies: harris corp.
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
I can't tell you what I told you
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The question is why does the FBI require a NDA to be signed, forbidding all police agencies from submitting Stingray evidence in court.
The answer is simple. Bulk collecting everyone's location, call, text, and internet data in a 30 mile radius is unconstitutional under the 4th Amendments warrant requirements.
Submitting such unconstitutional means of evidence gathering in a court of law, would allow bulk collection of evidence though Stingray devices to be challenged, and open up Harris Corp. to constitutional lawsuits.
This is why parallel construction exists. Police agencies can gather evidence through unconstitutional means and methods. Then they can falsify whatever parts of their investigation they want to the court. Walk into the court and provide false testimony under oath and never get caught for perjury.
Basically law enforcement is breaking the law so that they can enforce the law. It's a perversion of justice.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Well, there's supposed to be a ship to Mars in a few years...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
This government does not seem to care what we think about their activities, particularly law enforcement and intelligence agency activities, at all.
These guys don't even listen to the US Congress. Think what they will do when the veneer of a representative democracy are gone.
All we can hope for is that the military will protect us from law enforcement. I think the military still takes an oath to defend the constitution. I hope they do or we don't got a chance
[ link to this | view in thread ]