Senators Leahy & Grassley Quiz DOJ & DHS About Secret Fake Phone Towers Intercepting Calls
from the good-for-them dept
We've written plenty about Stingrays and other "IMSI Catcher" devices that allow law enforcement to set up what are effectively fake cell phone towers, designed to intercept calls and locate certain individuals. These devices are deployed in near total secrecy, often by law enforcement who got them from the federal government. There is little to no oversight over how these are used (and abused). The attempts to keep the details a total secret represent really egregious behavior from all involved. As we've covered, police have claimed that non-disclosure agreements with the manufacturers (such as Harris Corp.) prevent them from getting a warrant to use the devices. The DOJ, somewhat famously, had a whole plan for how to mislead judges about the use of these devices, with official documentation telling DOJ officials to be "less than explicit" and "less than forthright" to judges about how the tech was being used. In some cases, the US Marshals have stepped in and seized documents from local police forces to block them from being released in response to FOIA requests.In short, law enforcement really doesn't want how it uses these devices revealed. And yet, reporters and activists keep digging up more information, including the WSJ finding out that the US Marshals (them again!) have been putting airborne versions of these devices, called DRT boxes, on airplanes and flying them over cities, likely scooping up information on tons of innocent people with no warrant.
At least some in our government are concerned about this. Senators Patrick Leahy and Chuck Grassley have been pressing government officials on this, and before the holidays sent a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder and Homeland Security Boss Jeh Johnson demanding answers. One very interesting tidbit is that in response to some of this public disclosure, the FBI now, at least, gets warrants before using the technology -- but the Senators would like more details:
We wrote to FBI Director Comey in June seeking information about law enforcement use of cell-site simulators. Since then, our staff members have participated in two briefings with FBI officials, and at the most recent session they learned that the FBI recently changed its policy with respect to the type of legal process that it typically seeks before employing this type of technology. According to this new policy, the FBI now obtains a search warrant before deploying a cell-site simulator, although the policy contains a number of potentially broad exceptions and we continue to have questions about how it is being implemented in practice. Furthermore, it remains unclear how other agencies within the Department of Justice and Department of Homeland Security make use of cell-site simulators and what policies are in place to govern their use of that technology.But, still, the Senators would like a few more details:
The Judiciary Committee needs a broader understanding of the full range of law enforcement agencies that use this technology, the policies in place to protect the privacy interests of those whose information might be collected using these devices, and the legal process that DOJ and DHS entities seek prior to using them.The specific questions being asked:
For example, we understand that the FBI’s new policy requires FBI agents to obtain a search warrant whenever a cell-site simulator is used as part of a FBI investigation or operation, unless one of several exceptions apply, including (among others): (1) cases that pose an imminent danger to public safety, (2) cases that involve a fugitive, or (3) cases in which the technology is used in public places or other locations at which the FBI deems there is no reasonable expectation of privacy.
We have concerns about the scope of the exceptions. Specifically, we are concerned about whether the FBI and other law enforcement agencies have adequately considered the privacy interests of other individuals who are not the targets of the interception, but whose information is nevertheless being collected when these devices are being used. We understand that the FBI believes that it can address these interests by maintaining that information for a short period of time and purging the information after it has been collected. But there is a question as to whether this sufficiently safeguards privacy interests.
1. Since the effective date of the FBI’s new policy:Anyone taking bets on how few of these questions will actually be answered?a. How many times has the FBI used a cell-site simulator?
b. In how many of these instances was the use of the cell-site simulator authorized by a search warrant?
c. In how many of these instances was the use of the cell-site simulator authorized by some other form of legal process? Please identify the legal process used.
d. In how many of these instances was the cell-site simulator used without any legal process?
e. How many times has each of the exceptions to the search warrant policy, including those listed above, been used by the FBI?
2. From January 1, 2010, to the effective date of the FBI’s new policy:a. How many times did the FBI use a cell-site simulator?3. What is the FBI’s current policy on the retention and destruction of the information collected by cell-site simulators in all cases? How is that policy enforced?
b. In how many of these instances was the use of a cell-site simulator authorized by a search warrant?
c. In how many of these instances was the use of the cell-site simulator authorized by some other form of legal process? Please identify the legal process used.
d. In how many of these instances was the cell-site simulator used without any legal process?
e. In how many of the instances referenced in Question 2(d) did the FBI use a cell-site simulator in a public place or other location in which the FBI deemed there is no reasonable expectation of privacy?
4. What other DOJ and DHS agencies use cell-site simulators?
5. What is the policy of these agencies regarding the legal process needed for use of cell-site simulators?a. Are these agencies seeking search warrants specific to the use of cell-site simulators?6. What is the Department of Justice’s guidance to United States Attorneys’ Offices regarding the legal process required for the use of cell-site simulators?
b. If not, what legal authorities are they using?
c. Do these agencies make use of public place or other exceptions? If so, in what proportion of all instances in which the technology is used are exceptions relied upon?
d. What are these agencies’ policies on the retention and destruction of the information that is collected by cell-site simulators? How are those policies enforced?
7. Across all DOJ and DHS entities, what protections exist to safeguard the privacy interests of individuals who are not the targets of interception, but whose information is nevertheless being collected by cell-site simulators?
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: chuck grassley, drt boxes, imsi catchers, patrick leahy, privacy, stingray, stingrays, us marshals, warrants
Companies: boeing, harris corp.
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Which would be about anywhere they wish to use them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Forgot the final exception
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Really, don't the senators have a budget or something they can use to order that sort of thing, having to go through the FBI to get office supplies like this is just sad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4iEdMMjqdA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It seems the silicon valley ideology of "move fast and break things" is just as attractive inside the Beltway. Except damaged civil liberties can't be fixed with a reboot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Checks and balances, what are they?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm waiting for an enterprising group to defeat this.....
If the use of sting rays were known and suddenly half of the cell phones is area being serviced by a sting ray went dark, we could render them useless against all but the dumbest criminals.
Why wait for congress or the courts, let's just make the technology useless.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'm waiting for an enterprising group to defeat this.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'm waiting for an enterprising group to defeat this.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'm waiting for an enterprising group to defeat this.....
AIMSICD
https://secupwn.github.io/Android-IMSI-Catcher-Detector/
Snoopsnitch
https://opensource. srlabs.de/projects/snoopsnitch
Spidey (WIP)
http://signup.spideyapp.com/
Of course they're all Android only because Apple doesn't let you do anything interesting with iOS.
Ultimately, any technological countermeasure is still merely a reactionary effort that will always be behind the curve. Strong privacy protections can't be downloaded in an app, they need a robust legal defense enshrined in law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I'm waiting for an enterprising group to defeat this.....
At this point technological defenses are indeed the best bet to protect yourself, as the courts have shown little interest in doing so. Now it would be great if that were no longer the case, but until that impossibility occurs, and the government decides to stop treating it's own citizens and their rights as enemies, if the people want to protect their rights, it's up to them to do so on their own.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No, because betting is only taken on real integers, not imaginary or complex numbers. And sure enough, the reply will include "it's complex", and require imagination to see the truth through the obfuscation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hello... hello?
We are looking for a little spot light, give us a moment while we feign some concern for our dear peasantry. Yes, that's right... if you have not voted us out yet we are now just seeing what else we can pull. We mean, its not like you know any better, here take some freebies that are really just crumbs from our tables... enjoy peasants and see us for the great people that we are. Thank you! Thank you!
*as they walk away*
Fools... the lot of'em... put on a good show and those sycophants will just clap and praise anything. Sad lot really, would almost feel sorry for them if I did not reap so much standing upon their backs!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The ones necessary to keep you in YOUR place, peasant!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How about some judicial activism?
These two points should have judges absolutely apoplectic and gunning for any prosecutors who they suspect of using evidence gained by a Stingray device.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How about some judicial activism?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
These are becoming common. .
I am fairly certain my cell phone was intercepted at least once, indicated by the phone vibrating(meaning other party answered) and call timer started almost immediately after dialing, yet it was still ringing and when the person i called did answer there was no vibration to indicate it and call timer was already 15 second into the call.
Am i reading that right or should i replace my tinfoil hat?
I can only assume it was someone playing with a new toy!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Here's my bet
Well, judging from past performance, the DOJ will narrow this down to about three questions.
It will then create three superficially similar questions it will then proceed to answer these self-created questions in a manner where only one of the three answers is technically a straightforward lie and will be chalked off to a misunderstanding of their own question.
That's of course for the public charade. The lies and evasions in classified meetings will be quite different, with some lies more specific that would be easier to uncover by public research than by "trust us, dear senators, we're the good guys" officials. Because of the classification, however, the discrepancies can't be brought to light.
In short, I expect bullshit as usual. And until Holder and the whole corrupt top administration of the Department of Justice are serving time for their perversion of the U.S. justice system, there will be continuity in the DOJ and it will continue being the largest organized crime syndicate in the U.S.A.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But isn't the rule
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: But isn't the rule
Because who do you trust to treat you right: some old constitution-writing geezers rotting in their graves without a clue of modern life, or the officers next door?
To quote the last president G. W. Bush: "Our enemies are resourceful and innovative, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: But isn't the rule
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/01/fbi-says-search-warrants-not-needed-to-use-st ringrays-in-public-places/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Questions they should've asked, but didn't
What type of access controls does the FBI employ to ensure that simulators are only accessible to properly trained agents and only for approved purposes? How readily could an agent or group of agents temporarily or permanently procure unapproved and undetected access to a simulator? In general, are simulators stored in secured areas with limited access, similar to the storage of restricted weapons and seized evidence or are they stored in areas accessible to all agents?
What protections exist to safeguard the privacy interests of investigatory targets, when the collected information exceeds information required for legitimate law enforcement purposes?
What is the FBI's policy on information submitted when seeking judicial approval for use of a cell-site simulator? Would a reasonable judge, not versed in the particular details of the requested technology, understand from the application and its supporting materials the extent of the search being requested, particularly with respect to its impact on innocent bystanders? Are judges typically informed of the area covered, duration used, and negative impacts on innocent users? When judges are informed of these parameters, are those parameters incorporated into the approval in a way that encourages or requires agents to abide by them?
What is the FBI's policy on information submitted to the court when the collected information is used in a criminal case? Would a reasonable judge and reasonable defense lawyer, neither being versed in the particular details of the technology, understand the use sufficiently to form a meaningful opinion on whether the defendant's Constitutional rights were respected?
In cases where the FBI determines that information was not collected in strict accordance with Constitutional requirements, how does the FBI handle that information with respect to criminal proceedings? Is it disclosed to the defense and then suppressed voluntarily, disclosed to the defense so that the defense can move to suppress, or some other procedure? If some other procedure, please specify.
When legal approval was sought and granted, how many times did agents exceed the parameters described in the approval request? How many of those times were "good faith" mistakes such as accidentally exceeding the parameter by a margin of a few percent? How many times did the agents exceed the parameters in a material manner, such as using the device for hours or days outside the approved period or operating in an area the judge would not reasonably expect?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Police States Grow Until They Collapse From Within
We are sorry but divulging that information would detrimentally affect both on-going and future investigations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]