FBI Hands Over 5000 Pages Of Stingray Info To MuckRock, Redacts Nearly All Of It

from the [NOTHING-TO-SEE-HERE] dept

Fri, May 1st 2015 6:36pm — Tim Cushing

MuckRock has obtained a whole stack of Stingray-related documents from the FBI. As is to be expected, there's not much left unsaid by the agency, which is at least as protective of its own Stingray secrecy as it is with that of law enforcement agencies all over the US.

There's nearly 5,000 pages of "material" here, most of which contains only some intriguing words and phrases surrounded by page after page of redactions.

Want to know [REDACTED]'s thoughts on the possible legal implications of Triggerfish? Just close your eyes and allow your imagination to run free.

Here's a quick reference guide that allows FBI agents to quickly match up their chosen "technique" with the appropriate legal standard and process.

That's not to say there's nothing of interest left intact. A few pages explain the FBI's legal rationale for IMSI catcher deployment -- including the fact that the Patriot Act expanded the reach of pen register orders to include not just numbers dialed, but also the location of the phone itself. This allows the FBI and other law enforcement agencies to route around one of CALEA's (Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act) few limitations related to pen register orders: that service providers not be required to hand over subscriber location info.

In passing CALEA in 1994, Congress required providers to isolate and provide to the government certain information relating to telephone communications. At the same time that it created these obligations, it created an exception: carriers shall not provide law enforcement with "any information that may disclose the physical location of the subscriber" in response to a pen/trap order… By its very terms, this prohibition applies only to information collected by a provider and not to information collected directly by law enforcement authorities. Thus, CALEA does not bar the use of pen/trap orders to authorize the use of cell phone tracking devices used to locate targeted cell phones.

But, for the most part, it's 5000 pages of this:

And this (from a document titled "Stingray for Dummies"):

It's not a complete loss, although it's clear the documents suffer from over-redaction. The FBI clearly doesn't want to discuss methods or technical details, but nothing in the multiple FOIA exemptions deployed justifies covering up its minimization procedures or where the device sits in terms of the Fourth Amendment.

"It does not seem credible to me that they can't release more of those kinds of records," [ACLU attorney Nate] Wessler told me. "Information about ongoing investigations, highly technical details of the devices, how they're put together, those kinds of things, redact them, fair enough. Information about whether they have to get a warrant or not, how they purge or do not purge bystanders data. They're clearly talking about those things."

"There's no conceivable reason why they shouldn't tell the public what their Fourth Amendment rights are protecting when they use these," he added. "The documents are not without value, but what the FBI has released is not adequate."

If nothing else, the documents have given a small, narrow glimpse behind the FBI's veil of secrecy -- as well as some more insight into its Stingray-related legal maneuvering. The FBI has managed to turn a pen register order -- something previously used to collect dialed numbers -- into something that can be deployed to locate an individual, or at least their cellphone. Unsurprisingly, this legal theory traces back to the Patriot Act, one of the largest expansions of intelligence and law enforcement powers ever produced by the US government.

Fbi Stingray (PDF)Fbi Stingray (Text)

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, foia, imsi catcher, redactions, stingray

28 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

M. Alan Thomas II (profile), 1 May 2015 @ 6:37pm

STEP 2
Turn StingRay system on.
What is step 1, "Take it to the site"? "Plug it in"? And that's too sensitive to tell us?!?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Anonymous Coward, 1 May 2015 @ 6:43pm

Re:
No, step one is sign NDA.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hans, 1 May 2015 @ 7:41pm

Privileged
I see they used the "Attorney/Client privileged" dodge to exclude the Cell Phone Location Quick Reference Guide on pages 10-11, so we can't see what the criteria are for using this thing.

Isn't great that a government employee, paid by us, can ask a government lawyer, also paid by us, under what conditions our Constitutional Rights can be violated, and we can't know what those rules are? Kafka would have been proud.

It seems to me that if the government can claim to be a "client" for this purpose, and the government is also "the people", then we the people are also the client and we have every right to see it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 May 2015 @ 8:08pm

Repeal the PAT RIOT Act.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Padpaw (profile), 1 May 2015 @ 8:23pm

well of course its mostly blanked out. Otherwise they would incriminate themselves and the police groups that have knowingly and willfully broken the laws they know will get them arrested and most likely sent to jail for breaking
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Spaceman Spiff (profile), 1 May 2015 @ 8:32pm

And so it goes on, and on, and on...
The FBI could just have easily given them 10 reams of blank paper. It would have said just as much as this!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 May 2015 @ 8:44pm

National security.
It's a good thing the electorate is exactly as stupid as the government needs it to be.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 May 2015 @ 8:59pm

It's going to be interesting if the Patriot Act is allowed to sunset. What justification would the FBI then use for it's continued use?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Padpaw (profile), 1 May 2015 @ 10:51pm

Re:
they just won't tell anyone they are doing illegal things.

You might notice a theme with the government in that they do illegal actions all the time and only after they get caught do they try and make excuses or just say national security and cover it up
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mega1987 (profile), 2 May 2015 @ 1:41am

can i even say it's a perfect waste of resources...
to redacts most of that near 5k pages of info?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
avideogameplayer, 2 May 2015 @ 4:51am

Maybe the FBI should just start handling out gift cards for Staples...

At least that'll be useful for something...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
tqk (profile), 2 May 2015 @ 6:19am

Re:
Oh, come on! This's a vast improvement over earlier efforts. They're using blank white boxes now, saving you a fortune on black ink. I guess those replacement printer cartridges are getting really expensive.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
cypherspace (profile), 2 May 2015 @ 6:21am

Mike, I think you need to have some sensitivity towards readers with psychological trauma over cell tower spoofers. You should put a "TRIGGERFISH WARNING" in your title!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
cypherspace (profile), 2 May 2015 @ 6:21am

Re:
Correction: Tim
[ link to this | view in thread ]
cypherspace (profile), 2 May 2015 @ 6:31am

Re: Privileged
#checkyourattorneyclientprivilege
[ link to this | view in thread ]
cypherspace (profile), 2 May 2015 @ 6:36am

Re:
Anyone else notice that the "B5 exemption" reads similarly to "BS exemption?"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Reality bites, 2 May 2015 @ 7:52am

FBI = Rogue agency run by traitors
The entire agency should be shut down and its employee's put in jail awaiting trial and execution. Not one of them worth saving. It was rogue right from the start and hasn't deviated from its planned course even once.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2015 @ 8:01am

not that hard to figure out what stingrays are capable of.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HD1ngJ85vWM&index=38&list=PLwibn_3po6c8nIzgDyWdLpohPWeZ7dIz5

I wish Tim and the other TD authors would spend a few hours with this playlist and take some serious notes- It would improve their reporting on these subjects by orders of magnitude. The info is out there, right in plain sight.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Uriel-238 (profile), 2 May 2015 @ 10:30am

Dear Muckrock: GFY. Thanks, FBI.
That seems to be the whole point of this exercise.

I'd love it to be used as a case example to argue against FOIA redactions, not that our DoJ GaFF.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Bergman (profile), 2 May 2015 @ 11:11am

I wonder...
How would the FBI react to being treated the same way when they issue a subpoena?

"We're sorry, but we don't have any documents responsive to the parameters of your subpoena, have a nice day."

Somehow I suspect it would result in SWAT team deployments.

The FBI typically insists on whole documents, unredacted even when parts of it are not part of the subpoena. I wonder how they'd react to getting a partially redacted document?

Right. SWAT teams.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Despiser, 3 May 2015 @ 11:16am

Transparency in the age of 0bama:

Documents created by public employees with public funds on public time are "secret." Documents created by private individuals and businesses using private funds are required to be publicly disclosed.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Uriel-238 (profile), 3 May 2015 @ 12:28pm

The age of Obama
...is very much a natural progression from the age of Bush + the Post 9/11 era.

I'm pretty sure transparency in the age of Obama looks very much like transparency would in the age of Romney.

Though Obama can be blamed for acknowledging that opacity and overclassificaiton are problems, and promising to do something about it and then not.

I expect the next guy won't even acknowledge it, no matter whether it's Kang or Kodos.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
TMLutas (profile), 3 May 2015 @ 1:08pm

FOIA is the wrong tool
The right tool is to catch them spoofing a cell phone tower, documenting it, and only then asking if law enforcement has done it. When they deny, file a criminal complaint and a national security complaint because if law enforcement didn't do it, it was either criminals or spies.

Then when these complaints pile up without action, use them to defeat the DA that is ignoring them. It's only when people start losing their job that this sort of thing will be handled properly and the weakest point is in the parts of the criminal justice system directly subject to the voter.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 May 2015 @ 3:04pm

haha

The USA is a fucking joke.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dayne, 3 May 2015 @ 3:19pm

I was just thinking I would like to get a hold of a few of these, originals of course, and frame them. I have a feeling they would be great to have around when the great grandchildren start asking questions.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Uriel-238 (profile), 3 May 2015 @ 4:59pm

The joke that is USA
...in contrast to whom?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 4 May 2015 @ 7:42am

Re: The joke that is USA
Saying "x" is a joke isn't a comparative judgement. It can be true even if there are no better alternatives.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
soillodge (profile), 4 May 2015 @ 2:39pm

Worst Mad Lib.
Ever.
[ link to this | view in thread ]