Texas National Guard Latest Agency To Be Discovered Operating Flying Cell Tower Spoofers
from the sky-spies dept
More evidence of high-flying surveillance has been uncovered by public records requests. The Texas Observer reports it has obtained documents showing local National Guard units are in possession of airborne IMSI catchers.
The Texas National Guard last year spent more than $373,000 to install controversial cellphone eavesdropping devices in secretive surveillance aircraft.
Maryland-based Digital Receiver Technology Inc., or DRT, installed two of its DRT 1301C “portable receiver systems” in National Guard aircraft in partnership with the Drug Enforcement Administration, according to a contract between the Texas National Guard and the company. The contract states that the dirt boxes, as they’re often called after the company’s acronym, are for “investigative case analytical support” in counternarcotics operations and were purchased using state drug-asset forfeiture money.
These aren't the first DRT boxes to be exposed via public records requests. Law enforcement agencies in Chicago and Los Angeles are also deploying these surveillance devices -- with minimal oversight and no public discussion prior to deployment. The same goes for the US Marshals Service, which has been flying its DRT boxes for a few years now with zero transparency or public oversight.
The same goes for the National Guard in Texas. There doesn't seem to be any supporting documentation suggesting any public consultation in any form before acquisition and deployment. Not only that, but there's nothing in the documents obtained that clarifies what legal authority permits National Guard use of flying cell tower spoofers.
[T]he Texas National Guard is a military force under the governor’s command, not law enforcement. It’s unclear under what legal authorities the State Guard would be operating to conduct electronic eavesdropping. In 2015, the Justice Department issued guidelines for federal law enforcement agencies requiring that a probable cause warrant be obtained from a judge before using such technology. The Texas National Guard refused to explain to the Observer what steps, if any, it takes to secure a warrant prior to deploying the devices, or where the dirt boxes are being used.
No one knows what guidance the National Guard is operating under, much less what it does with all the cell phone data it hoovers up. It's a black hole and the National Guard refuses to discuss it. While it's undoubtedly true some law enforcement methods need to be kept under wraps, this doesn't mean agencies -- especially those like the National Guard which only play a supporting role in some law enforcement activities -- should deploy mass surveillance tools without some public discussion. Concerns definitely need to be addressed when a military agency gets into the domestic law enforcement business.
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: cell tower spoof, drt boxes, secrecy, stingray, texas national guard, transparency
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Or possibly outright stolen money.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Assume the worst and you will rarely be disappointed
The Texas National Guard refused to explain to the Observer what steps, if any, it takes to secure a warrant prior to deploying the devices, or where the dirt boxes are being used.
In which case the default assumption should be that they don't take any steps to secure a warrant prior to use, the information collected is shared un-minimized with anyone that comes asking, and the 'dirt boxes' are being used everywhere and as often as physically possible.
They are of course welcome to provide evidence to counter these assumptions, but until that happens it would seem that the safest way forward is to assume the absolute worst and go from there.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
total twerps
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Assume the worst and you will rarely be disappointed
As I understand it, the military isn't subject to civilian law. That's one of the reasons the government likes using them for law enforcement when they can get away with it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
It's military…
That's beyond domestic jurisdiction both legally and physically.
While they're way out there no warrant is needed and as they
track a plane or boat back into shore it's legally a pursuit.
Once they do their thing and suspects touch shore they can
hold on until DEA or local police take over active pursuit.
They don't want to talk about that because smugglers might
learn to shut cell and sat phones off when they start engines.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The irony
But what would a domestic enemy look like? Would it be a 'private' militia that adheres strictly to the Constitution? Or would it be a state National Guard that pretends it does not exist?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Assume the worst and you will rarely be disappointed
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Modern War
If a war ever broke out on US soil I would expect our defenders to be able to locate enemies that might be using the cell network to communicate. Kinda hard for them to do so if they don't have the equipment or training to do so.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Who are Domestic Enemies?
Humpty Dumpty (Donald Trumpty)
With apologies to Charles Lutwidge Dodgson, better known as Lewis Carroll.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Seems fitting..
Concerns definitely need to be addressed when a military agency gets into the domestic law enforcement business
Seeing as law enforcement is in the military business, I imagine the military wants a little tit for tat.....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
If one uses a digital device one should assume every police and non-police organization in or out of government is actively monitoring, recording, and storing all digital communication.
In short one should that one is speaking not to a cop when using any digital device but to ALL police, prosecutors, and judicial official world among whom there is a small delinquent group that believes it is their moral and sacred to firmly place anyone who post anything they disagree with in a place the sun does not shine or giving them a permanent view of the bottom side of daises.
To do otherwise has the potential to place oneself to be in for a very big rude surprise.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Posse Comitatus
yeah, that's the big issue here -- using the military for domestic policing
American federal/state/local & military "forces" are all morphing into one giant central-government police agency. The Constitution and Bill of Rights were early casualties.
Most credit goes to the inane government Drug War -- which has failed spectacularly, but somehow never enlightens crusading government drug warriors
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: It's military…
Not if they are US Citizens. The Constitution does not establish that a Citizen is only protected by the Constitution if they are within a defined border. All Citizens have constitutional rights when dealing with the US government regardless of their physical location.
It is sad that so many people seem to know so little while they speak as though they are in the know about these things.
If the constitution does not grant a power, then the government does not have it. If the constitution describes a limit then the government is not to trod upon it. Since the citizens are this ignorant, why is everyone acting concerned when the government abuses its authority?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Posse Comitatus
~Madison (unsourced)
Regardless of who said it, this is a fundamental and universal truth. The best way to get people to put the shackles of tyranny on themselves is for a government to tell them that they will protect them from something... enemy nations(military industrial complex), businesses (regulation), criminal elements (direct military/militarized police). The people will freely give away their liberty and those willing to resist will be ridiculed by the majority.
TD = Majority
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Seems fitting..
Return of "DH's Love Child" after THIRTY-THREE months!
445 comments total, but only ONE in 2015, then TWO in 2014, so that's ONE comment average each of last four years.
So I have you listed as RIP, a Resting Internet Personage.
You started out in 2009 using "choirkurt".
But hey, just ignore all such anomalies here at Techdirt! This isn't a news site, it's entertainment.
Anyway, welcome back! Where ya been? Care to 'splain why didn't comment for so long?
Return of "DH's Love Child" after THIRTY-THREE months!
445 comments total, but only ONE in 2015, then TWO in 2014, so that's ONE comment average each of last four years.
So I have you listed as RIP, a Resting Internet Personage.
You started out in 2009 using "choirkurt".
But hey, just ignore all such anomalies here at Techdirt! This isn't a news site, it's entertainment.
Anyway, welcome back! Where ya been? Care to 'splain why didn't comment for so long?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Seems fitting..
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: The irony
There is no such thing, as the Constitution defines the President as commander-in-chief of the US military. If they're operating as a militia outside of the chain of command, they're already not adhering to the Constitution.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Posse Comitatus
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Probably (hopefully) just wasting money and space
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: It's military…
>If the constitution does not grant a power, then the government does not have it.
Pot, this is Kettle. Kettle? Pot.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
A license to do as we fucking well please.
Sure do hope the US population - we call them the "adversary" now - never catches on to the secret new laws that have been in place since 911. It would really cramp our style if law enforcement and the military had to go back to the old pre-911 constitutional laws.
As long as everyone in America is legally considered to be an enemy combatant, we can do just about anything we want to them - shoot 'em, kill their pets, steal their shit - and its all 100% completely legal and penalty-free.
But lets face it, the chances of the US public catching on are slim, and the likelihood of them actually doing anything about it if they did catch on, are now pretty much non-existent, since legally, we can just ignore their bitching.
What a great time to be alive; and be a LEO, in America.
---
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Assume the worst and you will rarely be disappointed
Pretty sure you're wrong on that. They might get exceptions in certain areas, and they might get certain exceptions in time of war, but there's no blanket exemption from the Constitution. That's one reason the NSA, which is military, is only supposed to be spying on foreign entities.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
???!???
Really, what (legit) purpose is THAT serving?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Assume the worst and you will rarely be disappointed
You never heard of the "war on drugs"?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Assume the worst and you will rarely be disappointed
Civilian law enforcement can't even enter most military installations without permission. If you think your local yokel cops have authority over the military or, for example, can go seize military convoys rolling down the highway (like they can civilians) you are very sadly mistaken.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: It's military…
You might want to stop whining about people abusing authority in regards to a document you never read.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
posse comitatus and martial law
[ link to this | view in thread ]
How hard build?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
It doesn't matter if they are citizens…
out military missions hundreds of miles away from those borders,
and people they find and pursue are not identified as citizens
of any nation until they are arrested and brought into custody.
And no; no time is wasted on identification during an active
pursuit beyond what is necessary to ensure capture and arrest.
It is not legally required and could incur unnecessary risk.
I am in a good position to know, having worn a uniform myself.
Relative jurisdictions of military and civilian law is central to
Basic and General Military Training in all established and legally
mature military organizations. This is especially true for nations
which tend to lead most international peacekeeping missions.
Constitutional law is a foundation, not an absolute ruling.
Reasonable limits apply to all constitutional rights and
all courts are tasked with keeping those limits in order.
Even if suspects later turn out to be American, tracking and
pursuit in international waters during the act of smuggling
remains legal and unassailable in court; partly because
they are not yet identified and mostly because the action
was all during meticulously documented enforcement against
the active commission of felonies and violations of international
maritime law. Show any case that resulted in a smuggler
getting off for surveillance if you claim expertise. ;]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Assume the worst and you will rarely be disappointed
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Assume the worst and you will rarely be disappointed
But the Constitution is not civilian law, and the military is still subject to it -- it cannot be anything other than subject to it, since the Constitution is what confers the authority to have a military at all upon the government.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: It's military…
Federal law extends to anywhere a US citizen is standing, and when a citizen returns to the US they are criminally liable for any violations of US law they committed while outside of the US. The classic example of this is sex-tourism to places like Thailand -- any sex acts committed overseas that are illegal under US law can be prosecuted when the citizen returns home.
Title 18, Section 241 makes it a criminal act for two or more people to violate any statutory, civil or constitutional right under color of law within the borders of the US and its territories. Title 18, Section 242 makes it a crime for an individual to violate rights under color of law.
Sections 241 and 242 were written at the same time by the same people, and 242 has no range limit -- if someone subject to US law commits a color of law rights violation anywhere (on the planet, in orbit, on mars, anywhere) then they have violated Section 242. If the person or persons committing the rights violation do it while in possession of a dangerous weapon -- which does not need to be a firearm, since tasers and batons are also dangerous weapons -- then federal court doctrine considers that to be with use of a dangerous weapon, even if the victim never sees the weapon during the crime.
If the Coast Guard is doing something that requires a warrant without one, then they have committed at least one felony if there is so much as a 3 inch knife on board whatever vehicle they are using.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: The irony
Can a US Navy captain give orders to an Air Force lieutenant when the Air Force officer is not aboard the captain's ship? Different chains of command are different chains of command.
Or are you claiming that the inactive militia isn't REALLY the militia, despite the definitions in the Constitution and the Militia Acts?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: The irony
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Don't forget the jurisdictions involved.
unidentified suspects during the commission of a crime,
and using military equipment designed for precisely that
purpose; warrants are irrelevant because they don't exist
under that legal jurisdiction. It's a military search.
Don't forget that the DRT box is designed for this usage and
no court anywhere in the world has ever challenged field use
of field tech by the U.S. military for military operations.
What you, in effect, are saying is that if the U.S. tracked
and then droned a terrorist while he was shooting at troops
or planting bombs, it would become illegal after the fact if
that corpse is later found to be an American terror tourist.
Like I said earlier; show any court case which takes away
a legitimate use of tracking tech by the Coast Guard on patrol.
It hasn't happened never will because THAT use by THOSE
personnel in THAT jurisdiction for THAT purpose is legal.
You must overcome THOSE and all three THATs to prevail in court,
which is the only venue for balancing law under the Constitution.
Constitutional law is a foundation, NOT AN ABSOLUTE RULING.
Reasonable limits apply to all constitutional rights and
all courts are tasked with keeping those limits in order.
The Constitution exists offshore but does not apply to this.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Correction:
You must overcome THOSE and one of the three THATs to prevail in court,
[ link to this | view in thread ]