Federal Bill Introduced To Add A Warrant Requirement To Stingray Deployment
from the reclaiming-the-Fourth,-bit-by-bit dept
House Oversight Committee chairman Jason Chaffetz, along with his Senatorial counterpart Ron Wyden, is tackling something he promised to act on after he was finished excoriating the leaky Office of Personnel Management for ruining the lives of millions of Americans: Stingray devices.
A bipartisan group of House and Senate lawmakers introduced legislation Wednesday requiring police agencies to get a search warrant before they can deploy powerful cellphone surveillance technology known as "stingrays" that sweep up information about the movements of innocent Americans while tracking suspected criminals.
“Owning a smartphone or fitness tracker shouldn’t give the government a blank check to track your movements," said Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee who introduced the bill with Reps. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, and John Conyers, D-Mich. "Law enforcement should be able to use GPS data, but they need to get a warrant. This bill sets out clear rules to make sure our laws keep up with the times."
What the bill would do is codify the DOJ's "Stingray Best Practices" policy, which implemented a warrant requirement for cell site simulator deployment -- albeit one that wasn't really a requirement because it wasn't statutorily-required. This would be the statutory requirement the DOJ's better-late-than-never approach to constitutionality was missing.
But the bill doesn't limit itself to cell tower spoofers. It also would add a layer of protection to data the DOJ has long argued isn't covered by the Fourth Amendment.
The legislation introduced Wednesday, called the Geolocation Privacy and Surveillance (GPS) Act, would require a warrant for all domestic law enforcement agencies to track the location and movements of individual Americans through GPS technology without their knowledge. It also aims to combat high-tech stalking by creating criminal penalties for secretly using an electronic device to track someone's movements.
This legislation is the sort of thing courts are apparently looking for when they kick crucial issues down the road. When outdated statutes present opportunities to redefine the Fourth Amendment's confines, judges are frequently willing to tell plaintiffs and defendants to take it up with Congress if they don't like the answer/non-answer they're presented with.
The Supreme Court is no exception. When it (sort of) found warrants might be a good idea when deploying GPS devices for long-term tracking, it never went quite so far as to say a warrant should be a requirement in all cases. It seemed concerned about the length of the tracking but left it at PROBABLY when all was said and done.
The DOJ has often argued that several outdated statutes should be updated to reflect the changing contours of today's connected, always-online world. But this is not the sort of thing it's ever argued for. It would much prefer to see its power and reach expanded at the expense of Americans' privacy. This bill, if passed, wouldn't necessarily fix what's wrong with past legislation and jurisprudence. But it will at least prevent multiple law enforcement agencies from deploying these invasive devices on a whim, or using them to engage in mass surveillance just because they can.
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: 4th amendment, imsi catcher, jason chaffetz, ron wyden, stingray, warrants
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
I'll offer a minor quibble with Section 2605(d):
Notice that the third item gets two "good-faith" limitations (though the first one is missing the hyphen): "a good faith reliance on a good-faith determination". It seems clear that the "good faith reliance" is on the part of the alleged offender. Who gets to make the "good-faith determination" that an exception applies?
It seems that the statute should be written as allowing a complete defense of "a good-faith belief that the conduct was subject to":
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: A Minor Quibble
For those looking for the actual bill text, it's here.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Sincerity?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Getting it into conmitee, debate, and voted on at all is another issue.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
intelligence agencies (NSA, CIA etc) or the military (Army/Air Force/Coast Guard/Marines/Navy)?
Or non-US citizens inside the US?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
asste forfeiture
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Don't know if it will get through.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Sincerity?
I'm sure he'll think of a clever way to get this onto the statute books.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Unequal enforcement of a law is supposedly unconstitutional, so how is it that ignorance is an excuse -- but only for some people?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Sincerity?
Why? Because under EXISTING laws, interception of an electronic communication is a felony if you don't have a warrant. Unauthorized access of a computer -- and a smartphone has a closer technological relation to a computer with a modem than an old school telephone -- is a felony if you don't have a warrant.
Every time police have deployed a Stingray without a warrant, they have committed at least one felony. By requiring they get a warrant, they are shielded from criminal prosecution if they do so.
[ link to this | view in thread ]