Boston PD Finally Confirms It Has A Stingray Device In Its Possession
from the so-many-months,-so-few-disclosures dept
The Boston Police Department has been fighting two FOIA requests -- one from Mike Katz-Lacabe and one from Shawn Musgrave -- for months. We covered Katz-Lacabe's battle back in June. In that one, the BPD denied the release of documents related to Stingray devices on the questionable grounds that they were covered under the "investigative materials" exemption.
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.Whatever the BPD might have imagined about the documents' release "prejudicing the possibility of effective law enforcement," it certainly had no basis to claim the public had no interest in the contents of the withheld documents.
To date, it is still withholding the fiscal and policy documents Katz-Lacabe requested. It has, however, as Shawn Musgrave reports for the New England Center for Investigative Reporting, finally handed over its non-disclosure agreement with the FBI.
Boston police have confirmed that they deploy devices capable of secretly locating cell phones in real time, a controversial practice that critics say impinges on the public's privacy and constitutional rights.The agreement is one we've seen before in the hands of other law enforcement agencies, containing the FBI's instructions that all public records requests must be submitted to it first ("to prevent disclosure") and that cases should be dropped if the exposure of Stingray technology/capabilities seems inevitable. The document is signed by the police commissioner, a handful of detectives and a member of the Massachusetts State Police, who apparently also has access to the device.
Former Boston police commissioner Edward Davis signed an agreement with the FBI in 2013 to obtain the cell phone tracking systems, documents released to a privacy activist yesterday in response to a public records request reveal.
This is the first official confirmation that BPD is one of dozens of law enforcement agencies nationwide that deploy the controversial technology.
That last signature seemingly makes this statement made last year by the state police technically correct.
In June 2014, the Massachusetts State Police told the ACLU of Massachusetts that it does not own any cell site simulators."Own?" No. But it still has one it can use.
Katz-Lacabe received the long-disputed document November 6th. Musgrave has yet to receive a response to his similar request, which dates back to April of this year. And neither requester has received the fiscal and policy documents they've asked for, so unanswered questions remain about the process used to procure the cell tower spoofer as well as the BPD's rules governing its use.
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
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
It IS detrimental
And the cops just can't have that, because then they'd have to actually do their jobs the right way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What can you do about it?
https://opensource.srlabs.de/projects/snoopsnitch
https://secupwn.github.io/Android-IMSI-Cat cher-Detector/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sousveillance
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mutual aid in action
In my area many, if not all, police agencies have mutual aid agreements to lend assistance to one another, including combining their forces for major incidents. It's not unusual to see a police helicopter owned by (the large city) over (neighboring small town) helping out that police force. It's not unusual to see an officer from one town backing up an officer from the neighboring town simply because they were the closest backup. And if a 999 call goes out ("officer needs emergency assistance") everybody responds until called off, including county and state officers.
So one department owns a device that merits criticism. That department will take the heat while all the other departments that have any aid agreement with the owner can also use the equipment if available and avoid criticism. If anything the owner can simply not use it and be truthful in stating that they haven't used it while other departments can use it and truthfully say they don't own any such equipment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mutual aid in action
PDs could even start a round-robin 'loan' program and nest agreements, each with its own NDA, until they'd have hidden any mention of IMSI catchers under dozens of layers of stonewalled FOIA requests and lawsuits.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Secrecy Above All
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Secrecy Above All
Which nicely demonstrates their real sense of priorities. Given they are willing to drop cases rather than admit to using the devices, or even admitting to have them, it makes it abundantly clear that 'Stopping criminals' is considered at most a secondary priority, with 'Maintaining the ability to engage in mass spying' their number one concern.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Secrecy Above All
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Perhaps, but my money's still on the War On Drugs And Minorities, Especially Blacks And Chicanos.
Would we have SWAT teams with MRAPs in one horse towns without the War On Drugs? Not to mention full prisons, civil forfeiture, prosecutorial overreach, and every cop in existence apparently terrified of cell-phones? I doubt it.
The WOD is where the money is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In the merchant's kingdom...
Pretty soon, American criminals of all stripes will be taking to the streets, protesting the lack of available victims, due to the federal government's unfair, mass, legalized, draconian exploitation of the general public.
---
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: In the merchant's kingdom...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: In the merchant's kingdom...
Sadly, this is too absolutely true.
However, as we have all seen repeatedly here on techdirt, there is a vast horde of utterly moronic crooks out there desperately trying to be counted too.
It is those millions upon millions of untalented petty criminals, stupid phone scammers and ass-dialing wannabe gangsters, that will be parading down US streets; banners held high, demanding their cut of the action.
Happily, there is no loyalty among thieves.
Perhaps the smarter ones will send out the smart ones to arrest the stupid ones.
----
[ link to this | view in chronology ]