Boston Police Hiding Administrative Stingray Docs Behind 'Investigatory Materials' Exemption
from the we're-not-gonna-talk-about-Stingray...-in-fact,-we're-gonna-leave-her-ri dept
More Stingray secrecy. MuckRock has been tangling with Boston's police department for several months over the release of Stingray-related documents. So far, the BPD has managed to keep these out of MuckRock's hands.
The first response it offered when denying Mike Katz-Lacabe's request was filled with boilerplate and nearly nonsensical legalese.
The information you have requested is exempt from disclosure by MGL c. 4s. 7(26)(f) and (n). Disclosure of the information contained in these documents would not be in the public interest and would prejudice the possibility of effective law enforcement. More specifically, the protection of such investigatory materials and reports is essential to ensure that the Department can continue to effectively monitor and control criminal activity and thus protect the safety of private citizens.There's a healthy debate to be had about whether Stingray surveillance is in "the public interest," but that debate necessarily includes the public, and the denial of this request cuts the public out of the loop. Arbitrarily deciding whether or not a document is in the "public interest" shouldn't be left entirely in the hands of the agency seeking to withhold information -- any "prejudicing" of "possibly effective law enforcement" notwithstanding.
MuckRock appealed this decision. The state stepped in and told the Boston PD that it couldn't just issue boilerplate without explanation in response to these requests.
Your response states that the Department is withholding the responsive records because disclosure would not be in the public interest and would prejudice the possibility of effective law enforcement. You also state that withholding such information is essential to ensure that the Department can continue to effectively monitor criminal activity. However, this response does not explain how these requested records pertain to an ongoing investigation, confidential investigative techniques, or witness statements and also fails to demonstrate how disclosure of these particular records would prejudice investigative efforts as required by Exemption (f). With regard to Exemption (n), this response merely cites the exemption and does not address the security-related rationale needed to justify withholding records under this exemption.Well, the Boston PD has fulfilled the letter of the state's order, and has provided Mike Katz-Lacabe with a more verbose answer, albeit one that is completely unchanged in terms of results. No documents will be released but, hey, at least the explanation runs an additional half-page!
As a result, the Department has failed to satisfy its burden of proving with specificity why the responsive records may be withheld in their entirety under Exemption (f) and Exemption (n). The statutory exemptions are narrowly construed and are not blanket in nature. See Reinstein v. Police Comm'r of Boston, 378 Mass. 281, 289-90 (1979). Any non-exempt, segregable portion of a public record is subject to mandatory disclosure. G. L. c. 66, § 1O(a). The Department is advised that a records custodian is required to not only cite an exemption, but to specifically explain the applicability of the exemption to the requested records in order to comply with the Public Records Law and Regulations.
Accordingly, the Department is hereby ordered, within ten (10) days of this order, to provide Mr. Katz-Lacabe with the requested records. If the Department maintains that any portion of the responsive records are exempt from disclosure it must, within ten (10) days, provide to Mr. Katz-Lacabe a written explanation, with specificity, how a particular exemption applies to each record.
More specifically, disclosing the existence of and capabilities provided by the type of equipment/technology referenced in your request would reveal sensitive technological capabilities possessed by the Department, and other members of the law enforcement community, and may allow individuals who are the subject of investigation wherein this equipment/technology is used to employ countermeasures to avoid detection by law enforcement. This would not only potentially endanger the lives and physical safety of law enforcement officers and other individuals, but also adversely impact criminal investigations. Additionally, the information contained within the requested documents could be used to construct a map or directory of jurisdictions that possess the investigative capabilities, thereby providing further information for potential suspects that could be used to evade detection.As MuckRock's Shawn Musgrave points out, the BPD has dropped its unexplained (n) exception ("likely to jeopardize public safety") in response to the state's clarification orders, but it still is claiming the documents sought are "investigatory materials," even though they really aren't.
Through public disclosures, the use of this technology will be rendered essentially useless for future investigations. In order to ensure that such and any information related to its functions, operation and use, is protected from potential compromise it is not subject to disclosure as a public record.
Mr. Katz-Lacabe has already filed a subsequent appeal to the state. He contends that his request for fiscal documents and non-disclosure agreements — which all state and local law enforcement agencies are required to sign with the FBI prior to acquiring cell phone tracking devices — do not qualify as investigatory materials.And they aren't. The FBI issues a slightly-tweaked boilerplate itself -- the NDAs it forces local law enforcement agencies to sign. Fiscal documents reveal little about capabilities and, depending on the extent of the redactions -- very little about what, if any, equipment is in the possession of these agencies. None of the requested documents come anywhere close to providing specifics about past or ongoing deployments.
The BPD's extreme reluctance to release these documents could very well trace back to the non-disclosure agreement it won't release. It may also be concerned that fulfilling this request could result in the release of actual investigatory materials by mistake -- a concern many agencies share after FOIA requests have resulted in "oversharing" by inexperienced FOIA response staff. No matter what the rationale for the full non-disclosure, the BPD's reliance on these exemptions for these specific documents is clearly bogus.
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: boston, foia, investigatory materials, stingrays
Reader Comments
The First Word
“The Public Interest
"Disclosure of the information contained in these documents would not be in the public interest"The public interest *is* in the disclosure of what those who are entrusted and empowered with law enforcement are doing with what is given to them.
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
I wonder how much control they have over it... Maybe they are hiding a huge conspiracy and the whole "crime" thing in Boston is just a bunch of cops afternoon theatre play.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
As good as confirmation
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Come again?
Are they running a crime syndicate and protection racket or law enforcement here? They are not supposed to monitor and control criminal activity. They are supposed to stop it.
Are they delivering "criminals on demand" to DA and prison?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
sensitive technological capabilities
The stonewalling doesn't really make sense for any other reason at this point. It's not like they're going to stop using it, no matter what a court tells them to do.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Batteries
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Therefore the only people who will incriminate themselves by their mobile phone use will continue to do so, regardless of whether the capabilities, up to and including the ability to intercept phone calls, text message and emails is revealed or not, as such capabilities can be assumed. It can also be assumed that stingray intercepts all phones that it can convince to connect to it, so its surveillance is not targeted on specific phones. Therefore the question must be what else is stingray capable of, and especially what sort of spyware is it is capable of injecting into mobile phones.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: sensitive technological capabilities
[ link to this | view in thread ]
In other words...people may turn off their phones? Why do I get the feeling that within a year or two, someone in gov't is going to float the idea that it should be illegal to turn off a cellphone? I mean, if you can be thrown in prison for clearing your browser cache...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
namely abuse their access to guns to abuse the rights of others.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Public Interest
The public interest *is* in the disclosure of what those who are entrusted and empowered with law enforcement are doing with what is given to them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: The Public Interest
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: sensitive technological capabilities
At least one of the "privacy phones" you can buy will do this out of the box, and I assume that apps have been created to let other phones do it. I've never sought them out because I cobbled together my own solution.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Batteries
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: The Public Interest
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The lack of proper warrants show a second violation of Constitution.
The then failure of "DUE PROCESS" a third violation of Constitution.
The only fair acts by the courts should be throwing out all evidence in all court cases as the courts do not know when the evidence came from a stingray and/or if the stingrays exist in the courts domain. A fourth violation of Constitution.
UN-Constitutional law enforcement with UN-Constitutional acts by courts of the USA is not what the Constitution requires.
A Police state exists and the courts are preventing the citizens right to correct the violation of the Constitution!
With the UN-Constitutional laws passed by the congress used as justification that We the these UN-Constitutional acts are legal!
"We The People" are now governed by a terrorist police state not a democracy!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Batteries
OK, so which model did you choose?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Cell phones can still be tracked even when turned off. That's why people remove the batteries.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Batteries
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Batteries
Must not be the new version, as it no longer has a removable battery.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Prevent dropping to 2G
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Batteries
Since having a removable battery doesn't increase the size or weight of a phone, and there is a demand for them, there will likely be models that support this for some time to come.
As a point of slight interest, the lack of a removable battery was the reason why, when I got my first smartphone, I didn't get an iPhone.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: sensitive technological capabilities
What if you have wireless data turned off completely?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: sensitive technological capabilities
There are plenty of caveats, though, so this is more like a rule-of-thumb thing than an ironclad rule.
4G, however, simplifies the entire deal. With 4G, voice calls are really VoIP that get sent over the data network. From a security point of view, the current ideal would be to lock your phone to the 4G protocols, period.
The tradeoff, of course, is that phones fall back to earlier technologies for a reason: the newer techs do not work everywhere under every circumstance, so your phone falls back to ensure that you can still use it when that happens. If you prevent fallback, then it increases chances that you can't make/receive phone calls.
[ link to this | view in thread ]