New Documents Show FBI Instructing Law Enforcement To Throw Out Cases Rather Than Give Up Info On Stingray Use
from the in-order-to-ensure-the-public's-safety,-we-must-compromise-the-public's dept
Documents obtained by the New York ACLU (via a lawsuit, naturally) provide more details on the FBI's efforts to cover up usage of Stingray devices. Back in February, an FBI memo obtained by the Minnesota Star Tribune stated clearly that the agency required all public records requests for Stingray documents be routed through it.
This agreement between the FBI and the Erie County (NY) Sheriff's Department is even more restrictive. It opens up with the FBI repeating one of its lies in hopes of making the highly-restrictive agreement following it seem less like federal bullying and more like just one of those unfortunate byproducts of pesky regulation.
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 FBI to complete this non-disclosure agreement prior to the acquisition and use of the equipment/technology authorized by the FCC authorization.This paragraph is apparently included in every FBI/Stingray agreement and, according to the FCC, it's all a bunch of BS. The FCC may require coordination with the FBI prior to the purchase of Stingray equipment, but it does NOT require the signing of a non-disclosure agreement. Here's its reply to an FOIA requester seeking the text of this supposed FCC requirement.
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.So, the FBI opens with a lie, and then moves on to instructing law enforcement agencies to lie about their Stingray usage... to damn near everybody.
In order to ensure that such collection equipment/technology continues to be available for use by the law enforcement community, the equipment/technology and any information related to its functions, operation, and use shall be protected from potential compromise by precluding disclosure of this information to the public in any manner including but not limited to: in press releases, in court, during judicial hearings, or during other public forums or proceedings.The government wants law enforcement agencies to lie to the courts -- which includes lying to judges, prosecutors and defendants. Everyone is included. This is made even more explicit a few paragraphs later.
The Erie County Sheriff's Office shall not, in any civil or criminal proceeding, use or provide any information concerning the Harris Corporation wireless collection equipment/technology… beyond the evidentiary results obtained through the use of the equipment/technology including, but not limited to, during pre-trial matters, in search warrants and related affidavits, in discovery, in response to court ordered disclosure, in other affidavits, in grand jury hearings, in the State's case-in-chief, rebuttal, or on appeal, or in testimony in any phase of civil or criminal trial, without the prior written approval of the FBI.In short: parallel construction. The Sheriff's Office can hand over the results of Stingray collections, but not divulge how it arrived at these results. If it's going to deploy a Stingray, it either needs to do it without a warrant, or mislead the judge on its search techniques when applying for one.
When not lying to judges, the Sheriff's Office will need to lie to defendants and their counsel. Most incredibly, the FBI instructs the law enforcement agency to directly disobey court orders, if it would mean turning over Stingray information.
If any of this seems unavoidable, our nation's top law enforcement agency encourages its colleagues to toss out criminal prosecutions rather than risk exposing Harris Technology's equipment.
In addition, the Erie County Sheriff's Office will, at the request of the FBI, seek dismissal of the case in lieu of using, or providing, or allowing others to use or provide, any information concerning the Harris Corporation wireless collection equipment/technology [...] if using or providing such information would potentially or actually compromise the equipment/technology.With one caveat…
This point supposes that the agency has some control or influence over the prosecutorial process.But what a caveat. This is the FBI stating that it assumes any law enforcement agency it enters into this agreement with can easily push prosecutors to drop cases. It naturally follows that this sort of influence would also allow law enforcement agencies to push questionable prosecutions forward, if so inclined.
If the law enforcement agency doesn't have that kind of pull, the FBI suggests they make rogue prosecutors sign on the dotted line as well.
Where such is not the case, or is limited so as to be inconsequential, it is the FBI's expectation that the law enforcement agency identify the applicable prosecuting agency, or agencies, for inclusion in this agreement.And the lies being told by the Erie County Sheriff's Department have already been numerous. As the NYCLU points out, a court order for the deployment of the devices was obtained only once in the 47 incident reports returned as responsive documents -- which isn't what Sheriff Howard said when (mostly not) answering questions about his office's Stingray use last May:
Howard said the machines are used under "judicial review" in all criminal matters.Well, obviously not. And for that matter, the Sheriff's Office isn't performing much oversight on its own. The NYCLU requested several more Stingray-related documents, including department policies, warrant applications, agreements with communications providers and records concerning the technology's use in investigations. None of these requested documents were withheld. They simply did not exist. The NYCLU sees this as extremely odd:
This leaves us puzzled. Either the $200,000 device is just sitting around somewhere without being used or the agency is using the device without creating and maintaining records.The latter is more probable, especially in light of the FBI's restrictive non-disclosure agreement. There's no better way to avoid violating that agreement than simply not creating any records that might somehow find their way to the many venues the FBI has listed as off-limits.
What it all boils down to is this: the FBI believes it is more important to protect law enforcement technology than protect the public. It says toss out prosecutions if it might compromise Stingray specifics and actively withhold information from every other participant in the justice system -- from defendants seeking information in discovery all the way up to every judge, at every level, presiding over these cases. The first potentially puts dangerous criminals right back out on the street. The latter guts the protections built into the system. Neither of these are done in the public's interest, and as far as these documents go, the public is way, way down on the FBI's list of priorities. The same goes for law enforcement agencies that willingly sign these agreements.
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: doj, erie county, erie county sheriff's department, fbi, secrecy, stingray
Companies: aclu
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Innocent until proven guilty
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What are they saying?
Are they actually making a claim that they know it would be taken away from them if anyone found out how it actually functions?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What are they saying?
Ted Striker: My orders came through. My squadron ships out tomorrow. We're bombing the storage depots at Daiquiri at 1800 hours. We're coming in from the north, below their radar.
Elaine Dickinson: When will you be back?
Ted Striker: I can't tell you that. It's classified.
- Airplane!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What are they saying?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What are they saying?
Sounds like the act of using stingrays to catch the baddies has become sport fishing - catch and release... fucking brilliant!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What are they saying?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What are they saying?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What are they saying?
That suggests that there may be even more to Stingray than we suspect.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Has the US Gov really sunk so low?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Has the US Gov really sunk so low?
No disrespect, but I think your assumption that there is a difference is more than slightly wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Has the US Gov really sunk so low?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/NiceJobBreakingItHero
'Nuff said.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If that includes presenting evidence and not letting the defense know where and how it was collected, well, that's the price to pay for security right, abolishing the rights of the public?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Certainly things were much more unpleasant in other places and times, but that has nothing to do with anything -- unless you're asserting that things are just fine as long as they aren't as bad as they could possibly be. I hope not, because that is a recipe for the acceptance of tyranny right there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hyperion wishes to remind you that it could be much worse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hyperion wishes to remind you that it could be much worse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I thought it was when the police are allowed to pretty much to whatever they want with next to zero accountability for their criminal actions
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Ironically, "police state" originally meant a government that was controlled by civil authorities (as opposed to military), and was not a derogatory thing at all. Under that definition, all modern democracies are in fact police states. The definition changed to its current meaning in the early 20th century.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It is a surveillance state. This is a step towards a police state. It is necessary to have intelligence to stop any organized opposition.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
they know the feces will come in contact with the air circulation device
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: they know the feces will come in contact with the air circulation device
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: they know the feces will come in contact with the air circulation device
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Isn't that how it's supposed to work ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not a police state
"But it's not a police state. Worse things were done in Eastern Europe in the last century."
Perhaps my irony detector has malfunctioned.
Why would I want to compare my society with those of Eastern Europe of the last century? Did they have a monopoly on police statism?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Down the rabbit hole. .
It's about preventing any legal examination of tactic's which almost certainly would be ruled illegal/unconstitutional. But as long as they can prevent such a ruling, they can continue to claim legality, based solely on the opinion of there own in house counsel.
If they took an oath to 'protect and defend the constitution', the have failed completely!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Joseph Goebels
If you don't know who Joseph Goebels is, he was Hitler's Minister of Propaganda.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
> people will eventually . . . .
Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away.
Elvis Presley
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
We all know how important successful suits turn out in the career of a district attorney, so this does not seem like a smart move. I doubt your mistress would approve.
I know of some attorneys entertaining similar ideas just to find out on the eve of the trial that they did not, in fact, have all the evidence they thought they did. And it turned out that there was irrefutable proof that the evidence they had was forged, and there were glaring inconsistencies in the evidence they handed in that had escaped their previous notice. What a setback. We certainly would not wish anything like that on anybody.
By the way, don't you think that you drive to Heidelberg too frequently?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The real problem is the courts
This case is one of the few where the courts have stood up and done their job. From the supreme court on down we have been failed by the system designed to protect us from this kind of tyranny. I honestly haven't the slight idea how to fix this within the confines of the system since the system itself has failed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
More than enough blame to go around
Both sides are quite guilty, it's not just one or the other.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Because ambiguously legal toys are so much fun.
I have a pair because they're not illegal because to make them illegal would be to inform the public that such things exist.
They're leather gloves with pockets of iron shot atop the fingers from the first-to-the-second knuckles. They're very big with the police.
Brass knuckles are still illegal. Even police officers are not allowed to use them. But sap gloves are.
Think about that the next time you see a cop pugilizing an old woman.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Comey's a bad boy
You and your people are advising that criminal cases be dropped in order to protect the 4th amendment violating uses of your idol namned Stingray?
Shame on you Comey. Do the right thing and turn yourself in Comey. You're a criminal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Comey's a bad boy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This might present a means of actively defending against "classified" sources
It'd work if the judges and juries weren't completely eager to slap a guilty plea whenever a police officer told a colorful enough yarn in his testimony.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stingray Blockers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Must be nice to have such a bunch of criminals acting as police with zero oversight or accountability most of the time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So it's been throughout most of history.
It worked out poorly for their vassals a lot of the time when they failed to recognize the value of the rabble.
That's why we got into this newfangled idea of government by collaboration, or requiring even administrators to follow the law.
Seems like our first version has some bugs in it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Here's a case in Baltimore
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
When/if the word gets out, you'll start to hear large crowds of people around you shout "2G!" when they're being used near you. Which is what they do. They force all phones in their vicinity to fall back to 2G which is hackable by anyone who can, including the fibbies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I don't think the phone can tell where the tower is. Maybe over time as it moved around it could guess based on signal strength, but that would be pretty unreliable and by that time the Stingray has been snooping on you for a while anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
https://secupwn.github.io/Android-IMSI-Catcher-Detector/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Good! Though it works by other means than determining where the tower is:
https://github.com/SecUpwN/Android-IMSI-Catcher-Detector#what-it-does
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
This appears to be able to locally calculate the location.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That'd be a nice feature then.
Of course, I suspect that's only a temporary solution, as they're probably building better phone spoofing technology as we speak.
Still, I'd buy that for a dollar.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'd still like to add that a sabotage campaign against spoofing towers...
If anyone out there is looking to start practicing for the revolution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'd still like to add that a sabotage campaign against spoofing towers...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Adversary R U
Oh I don't know about that.
Looks to me like the public is number one on their list of priorities actually.
After all, its the public that is being spied on by these devices, and its the public that the Feds are doing their criminal best to keep out of the loop concerning the potential and popular uses of these devices.
Nope. I'd say that John Q. Public is absolutely the first one on the priorities list - of suspects and criminals soon to be prosecuted, who must at all costs be kept ignorant of the tools being used against them.
Looks more and more apparent every day, that the Public really is being seriously considered as the enemy - the Adversary - by all branches of the Federal US Government.
When you declare war on Terrorists, you have no choice but to include your own public, as terrorists are nothing more than angry civilians - the public - and the Federal Government intends to make almost all US citizens without 6 to 8 figure incomes, very, very miserable in the very near future. :)
---
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Coordinates: 31.1100, -97.7800 Dates: October 2014 – December 2014
Coordinates: 28.0190, -82.6990 Dates: October 2014 - Present
[ link to this | view in chronology ]