US Marshals Service Withholds Publicly-Available Data From Its Stingray Device FOIA Response

Failures

from the open-[secrets] dept

Fri, Mar 20th 2015 8:11am — Tim Cushing

Overclassification and abuse of FOIA exemptions is a given with most of our nation's security/law enforcement agencies. Two agencies -- the DHS and the FBI -- both redacted publicly-available information on drone possession and usage. Why? Because no one will stop them. Public accountability isn't something these agencies embrace. Their real love is secrecy, obfuscation and an allegiance to the eternal protection of "techniques and procedures," even when the information has already been disseminated elsewhere.

MuckRock's Phil Mocek recently received responsive documents from the US Marshals Service on its Stingray usage. The Marshals Service is notoriously secretive about the Stingrays in its law enforcement stable and is equally infamous for the thug-like tactics it has deployed to hide documents from public records requests.

So protective is it of this information that its response to Mocek jumped the secrecy shark. Hidden behind the numerous black redaction bars is information freely available on an official government website.

While it appears the USMS is not under any nondisclosure agreement with the device manufacturer, the agency has withheld a wide range of basic information under an exemption meant to protect law enforcement techniques. However, much of the redacted data is already available online via a federal accounting website…

Particular item names and descriptions are universally redacted throughout the documents. But released invoices and purchase orders indicate that USMS spending on cell site simulators and related services totaled nearly $10 million between September 2009 and April 2014.

As MuckRock's Shawn Musgrave points out, this information deemed too sensitive to be released to a FOIA requester can be found at the General Services Administration's website. The GSA handles a majority of government contracts and, as a government entity, is only allowed to display information deemed suitable for public consumption. The same information withheld by the US Marshals Service has been previously cleared for release on the GSA's site.

An overabundance of caution by the US Marshals Service? Maybe. Or maybe it's just accustomed to throwing plenty of black ink around when fielding FOIA requests. Either way, this withholding of publicly-available data suggests one thing: the USMS's justification for blotting out this info doesn't mean shit.

Extensive redactions throughout the document cache are made under a provision in the federal Freedom of Information Act — exemption (b)(7)(E), for the FOIA nerds — meant to protect law enforcement information.

Specifically, per the Justice Department’s own guidelines, this exemption covers information that "would disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions”, or that “would disclose guidelines for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions if such disclosure could reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of the law."

The trouble is, much of the information blacked out by USMS FOIA officers is already available online to the general public, and hardly qualifies as law enforcement information as defined in this provision.

It's not that the US Marshals Service doesn't understand the correct deployment of FOIA exemptions. It just doesn't care. How a dollar amount can be both publicly-available through the GSA and a too-sensitive-for-the-public "technique or procedure" will never be explained by the wilfully opaque law enforcement agency. At best, it will suggest the redaction was an error. But more likely, it will be happy to stay quiet on the issue and allow the BS exemptions to speak for themselves.

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: foia, imsi catcher, stingray, us marshals

15 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Anonymous Coward, 20 Mar 2015 @ 8:21am

Government in Action
Left Hand: What are you doing?

Right Hand: Need to know, and you don't.

Left Hand: Don't you need two hands for that?

Right Hand: Sources and Methods restriction.

Left Hand: Your going to drop the ball.

Right Hand: What ball?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Mar 2015 @ 8:55am

You're actually making this tactic work.
We know they're up to no good, don't really need details. So long as you run items on mere tactics instead of calling for heads to roll, that's fine with government or corporate criminals: they've successfully diverted from the past crimes and are free to go on with whatever crimes they're doing now.

So stop begging for documents and start demanding removal of the criminal's actual devices.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Atkray (profile), 20 Mar 2015 @ 9:05am

FOIA Ammendment
"To prevent abuse and over redaction, any agency found to have redacted publicly available information will have 24 hours to release the entire document un-redacted, regardless of any security settings on the document."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Mar 2015 @ 10:30am

I've read/seen various sources label the cost of these devices anywhere from 10k to 500k- quite a range there...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Uriel-238 (profile), 20 Mar 2015 @ 10:37am

Re: You're actually making this tactic work.
Sure. Who's going to listen?

Do you feel like starting a partisan sabotage campaign?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Uriel-238 (profile), 20 Mar 2015 @ 10:38am

Re: FOIA Ammendment
A clause to save for the next regime?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Michael, 20 Mar 2015 @ 11:03am

Re:
The $10k one just lets you capture phone calls. The $500k one also includes a private-sector job when you retire from public service.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Coyne Tibbets (profile), 20 Mar 2015 @ 12:46pm

All this intense resistance can only mean one thing: The capabilities of the Stingray are far beyond what has been hinted and will create a firestorm if exposed.

The capability most likely being concealed is that Stingray permits recording of all voice calls, without a warrant.

Possible other capabilities: Take over any phone, turn on any phone microphone, download software onto any phone, more?

Make up your own. The point is: they are concealing something that will raise alarms with everyone. There's no other reasonable explanation for this fight-to-the-death protection of the secrets of Stingray.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Joe, 20 Mar 2015 @ 12:54pm

Stingray
IMSI catcher devices like Stingray (Harris corp) and from other companies such as PKI, Septier and others are capable of locating and tapping cell phones. The problem is that this technology is not only available to law enforcement. A hacker has even made one in 2010 http://www.engadget.com/2010/07/31/hacker-intercepts-phone-calls-with-homebuilt-1-500-imsi-catcher/

T he same is true for cell phone spying software. Anyone can buy this software. A google search for cell phone spyware gives numerous sellers of this software.

A cell phone can be stopped from tracking and tapping if it is placed in a Faraday Cage. A Faraday cage is a metal or conductive envelope that completely surrounds the electronic device and stops signals from going into or out of the cage.This can be accomplished by making a pouch out of a metallized ie conductive fabric. Search youtube for detracktor for a demonstration.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Uriel-238 (profile), 20 Mar 2015 @ 1:04pm

Maybe our tendency towards moral panics can work in our favor.
If someone with some credibility were to published a report of what stingray devices probably can do based on circumstantial evidence and reports of what can be done with non-stingray devices, we might be able to spark a moral panic towards them, and towards police who use them without warrants, since its already evident that they're not only using these devices for non-emergency use, but are using them for personal reasons (as is typical of any institutionalized spying device, such as cameras on school-issued laptops in female student bedrooms).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Guy, 20 Mar 2015 @ 5:42pm

http://wh.gov/iWPsK
Feel free to sign.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Coyne Tibbets (profile), 20 Mar 2015 @ 10:22pm

Re: Stingray
"A cell phone can be stopped from tracking and tapping if it is placed in a Faraday Cage."

Absolutely. But then the cellphone is kind of a boat anchor, isn't it?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Mar 2015 @ 1:32pm

search youtube- blackhat baseband exploitation

the info is public- you can put 2+2 together yourself.
It's much worse then most people understand. No one with any credibility wants the kind of target publishing about this would place on them.

Saying cellphones are backdoored- is kinda like saying cars are killing machines. technically true..but semantics...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rekrul, 23 Mar 2015 @ 4:20am

Will the federal accounting website now be charged with violations of the espionage act for revealing classified information?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
jaack65 (profile), 25 Sep 2016 @ 7:06am

Re: FOIA Ammendment
Why does the US Marshals Service care about the LAWS they are BOUND to obey? US Marshall's Service of all government agencies should act even more secretive than Russian KGB or GRU. Stingray devices VIOLATE FCC law by interfering with vast areas of Cell Phone service when deploying the Harris Corp.'s Stingray device they acquired but deny having. Co-opting communications & illegal collection of cellular information of persons and corporations not under investigation by US Marshals Service are wholly illegal acts. The US Marshals Service flaunts the laws with tacit impunity of Department of Justice and the FCC. US Marshals Service shame all American law enforcement who do obey the laws they are charged to enforce on others and DO obey themselves.
[ link to this | view in thread ]