Senator Asks FCC To Explain Its Involvement In The Proliferation Of Stingray Devices
from the let-the-finger-pointing-begin! dept
Despite the feds' best efforts to keep IMSI catchers (Stingray devices, colloquially and almost certainly to the dismay of manufacturer Harris Corporation, as they head to becoming the kleenex of surveillance tech) a secret, there's still enough information leaking out around the edges of the FBI's non-disclosure agreements to provoke public discussion.
The discussion appears to have reached the top of the food chain. Sen. Bill Nelson -- following the lead of Senators Leahy and Grassley -- has sent a letter to FCC chairman Tom Wheeler asking the following:
[image credit: Julian Sanchez]
Dear Chairman Wheeler:Yep, the devices are pretty much everywhere and no one wants to talk about them. When the US Marshals Service isn't stepping in to physically remove Stingray-related documents, local law enforcement agencies are disguising their use of these devices behind vague warrants and subpoenas.
On Feb. 23, The Washington Post published a front-page article “Secrecy around Police Surveillance Equipment Proves a Case’s Undoing.” That article indicated that the Tallahassee Police Department and other law enforcement agencies around the country have been using a device called the StingRay to collect cell phone call information.
That article and previous others concerning the device reveal the StingRay was certified for use by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), contingent upon the conditions that StingRay’s manufacturer sell these devices solely to federal, state, and local public safety and law enforcement; and that state and local law enforcement agencies must coordinate in advance with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) before acquiring or using this equipment. According to the article, these devices now have been purchased by 48 law enforcement agencies in 20 states and the District of Columbia and used in hundreds of cases.
What Sen. Nelson wants to know is what the FCC knows about Stingrays.
What information the FCC may have had about the rationale behind the restrictions placed on the certification of the StingRay, and whether similar restrictions have been put in place for other devices;What we DO know so far about the interplay of Harris, the FBI and the FCC is that the first two parties have been less than forthright with the third. Harris managed to push its devices past the FCC by implying they would only be used in emergencies -- even though it was already clear at the point it made that statement that law enforcement agencies were frequently deploying them in non-emergency situations.
Whether the FCC inquired about what oversight may be in place to make sure that use of the devices complied with the manufacturer’s representations to the FCC at the time of certification; and
A status report on the activities of the “task force” you previously formed to look at questions surrounding the use of the StingRay and similar devices.
The FBI has performed its own obfuscation, implying in a letter to law enforcement agencies that the FCC required the signing off a non-disclosure agreement with the FBI. The FCC has since denied this, and obtained documents indicate it's the FBI that wants to control the flow of information regarding Stingrays, not the other way around.
I imagine the FCC would be compliant with this request, considering its past relationship with the FBI and Harris. But it can expect to run into significant resistance from the DOJ, which still believes that the long-exposed technology should still be afforded NSA-level secrecy -- especially when answers to Sen. Nelson's questions will likely expose its less-than-honest dealings with the FCC.
Sen. Nelson deserves some extra praise for being willing to put himself in an awkward situation. As the ACLU's Chris Soghoian notes, the senator has picked a very public fight with his second biggest campaign contributor.
Somebody needs to provide some answers and, while it's really the FBI that should be talking at this point, the FCC's take on this -- and its dealings with the FBI -- should be enlightening. The FBI's insistence on secrecy is not only screwing defendants during the discovery process, but it's also harming local law enforcement itself, which has shown an alarming willingness to drop cases/charges rather than reveal the use of Stingray devices.
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: bill nelson, doj, fbi, fcc, imsi catcher, imsi catchers, stingray, us marshals
Companies: harris corp.
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Citizen journalism
https://secupwn.github.io/Android-IMSI-Catcher-Detector/
https://opensource.srlabs.de/proj ects/snoopsnitch
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Citizen journalism
Game over.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Citizen journalism
I highly doubt your local PD would have access to that level of NSA tech. If they did they wouldn't be using Stingrays at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Only a phone call away...
Thanks to the articles here I asked him about the stingrays. He had never heard of them so I did my best to explain what they were and how they worked. We chatted for about a half hour and by the time we were done I had given him a list of the articles on TechDirt and some other headlines that popped up elsewhere. He seemed to be very interested and promised to bring it to the senators attention.
No I wasn't the one responsible but don't let anyone ever say your voice won't be heard. I'm sure I wasn't the only one who inquired about stingray use.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Santa Clara Count (Ca) wants one
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The laws don't apply to you, because your a cop now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
stingrays
Since my xhusband has a history of hiring detectives could they be using an stingray?
How much battery time is available to a stingray to work?
Can the stingray be used to mimick calls from a contact list?
Could it be used to record your voice.
A friend let me listen to a voice message that I left but my sentences had been spliced and replaced with words or phrases I had said in other conversations that I had had with other people.
How could that be done?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]