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.

Filed Under: cell tower spoof, drt boxes, secrecy, stingray, texas national guard, transparency

Chicago, Los Angeles Police Departments Have Been Using 'Stingrays On Steroids' For Over A Decade

from the all-up-in-your-everything dept

More evidence has surfaced showing local law enforcement agencies are using high-powered surveillance equipment -- equipment originally designed for the military and highly-recommended by the NSA. Ali Winston and the Center for Investigative Reporting have obtained documents showing both Chicago and Los Angeles have used "dirt boxes" (DRT -- Digital Receiver Technology "boxes:" high-powered cell site simulators) since 2005.

In Chicago, the Digital Receiver Technology equipment was purchased in 2005 with funds collected in asset forfeiture cases. In Los Angeles, the police department purchased a package of Digital Receiver Technology equipment with $260,000 in homeland security grant funding. The sole-source purchase was approved unanimously by the Los Angeles City Council in 2005. Both departments also use StingRays, a more commonly known cell-site simulator manufactured by the Florida-based Harris Corp.

As usual, the agencies remain close-lipped about their DRTbox deployment. In fact, the LAPD simply refused to release responsive documents about its DRT equipment, in violation of the state's FOI laws. Boeing, which purchased DRT in 2008, has also refused to comment.

The LAPD's refusal to hand over documents didn't stop the Center for Investigative Reporting from uncovering its DRTbox purchase, however. It found confirmation of the department's DHS grant-supported purchase in the city's public records.

While much of what's been uncovered about Stingrays and other cell tower spoofers tends to focus on the collection of phone and location data, the devices are also used to intercept communications.

Documents from Digital Receiver Technology clearly spell out these interception capabilities.

The DRT1000 System Software is a suite of applications that includes the software that runs on the DRT system, Alaska (GUI), Applause (Audio Playback), DF and Geolocation (with DRTview), and Yukon (IP Configuration utility). The DRT1000 system may be used to: identify and collect audio, data and Signal Related Information (SRI).

The company also manufactures auxiliary products that capture "push-to-talk" communications, something that has been used in the past to elude law enforcement surveillance efforts.

While very few law enforcement agencies have produced documents indicating the purchase and use of these "Stingrays on steroids," DRT's own marketing materials proudly note the company has sold more than 5,000 units as of May 2015. And it is indeed bulked-up. The Los Angeles city clerk's notes on the LAPD's purchase states that DRT's products offer more capabilities than its competitors.

The LAPD has done extensive research to determine the best product available for tracking cellular telephone calls. Most vendors only offered a product that could track phones issued by one or two cellular service providers. Conversely, DRT's equipment can track and monitor all cellular phone traffic, making it the most advanced product on the market. To match the capability of DRT's product, the LAPD would be required to purchase several individual systems from other vendors at a far greater total cost.

This increased capability comes at a premium price, but it's not as though local police departments will be expected to pick up the tab.

Funding from the FY04 State Homeland Security Grant Program (Council File 04-2499), in the amount of $260,000, was previously allocated for the purchase of a Cell Phone Tracking System (CPTS).

Chicago's route to greater surveillance capabilities ran through its asset forfeiture program. In addition to its DRT purchases, the 193 pages of responsive documents show multiple purchases from Harris, including multiple upgrades to existing equipment.

As is the case nearly everywhere, the acquisitions were done in secret and usually without a true bidding process -- a very popular option for departments acquiring surveillance technology. No bidding process means no generation of additional FOIA-able paperwork.

Not found among the responsive documents was anything detailing policies regarding use of these powerful devices or any examination of potential privacy implications by the agencies seeking the equipment. Despite almost-daily revelations of cell tower spoofer acquisition and use (via FOIA requests, mostly), law enforcement agencies are still willing to drop cases and dismiss evidence rather than allow additional public scrutiny. The use of these tools also continues to be hidden behind pen register requests and parallel construction.

The good news is that the continued revelations have finally caught the eye of the nation's legislators.

U.S. Rep. Alan Grayson, D-Florida, who is on the House Foreign Affairs and Science, Space and Technology committees, said the use of technology with eavesdropping capabilities without a warrant is “a clear violation of the Fourth Amendment.”

By using such technology without informing judges of the full capabilities of these devices, Grayson said, law enforcement officials are exposing their casework to appeals under the exclusionary rule, which mandates that evidence gathered illegally cannot be used in court proceedings.

“They’re essentially messing up every case they use these devices in,” he said.

Whether or not this additional attention will result in Fourth Amendment-friendly legislation remains to be seen. Strongly-worded statements are great, but it will take a real, concerted effort to create a warrant requirement, much less restore some expectation of privacy to "business records" like connection and location info.

Filed Under: chicago, dirt boxes, drt boxes, imsi catcher, la, los angeles, police, stingray, surveillance

Senators Leahy & Grassley Quiz DOJ & DHS About Secret Fake Phone Towers Intercepting Calls

from the good-for-them dept

We've written plenty about Stingrays and other "IMSI Catcher" devices that allow law enforcement to set up what are effectively fake cell phone towers, designed to intercept calls and locate certain individuals. These devices are deployed in near total secrecy, often by law enforcement who got them from the federal government. There is little to no oversight over how these are used (and abused). The attempts to keep the details a total secret represent really egregious behavior from all involved. As we've covered, police have claimed that non-disclosure agreements with the manufacturers (such as Harris Corp.) prevent them from getting a warrant to use the devices. The DOJ, somewhat famously, had a whole plan for how to mislead judges about the use of these devices, with official documentation telling DOJ officials to be "less than explicit" and "less than forthright" to judges about how the tech was being used. In some cases, the US Marshals have stepped in and seized documents from local police forces to block them from being released in response to FOIA requests.

In short, law enforcement really doesn't want how it uses these devices revealed. And yet, reporters and activists keep digging up more information, including the WSJ finding out that the US Marshals (them again!) have been putting airborne versions of these devices, called DRT boxes, on airplanes and flying them over cities, likely scooping up information on tons of innocent people with no warrant.

At least some in our government are concerned about this. Senators Patrick Leahy and Chuck Grassley have been pressing government officials on this, and before the holidays sent a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder and Homeland Security Boss Jeh Johnson demanding answers. One very interesting tidbit is that in response to some of this public disclosure, the FBI now, at least, gets warrants before using the technology -- but the Senators would like more details:

We wrote to FBI Director Comey in June seeking information about law enforcement use of cell-site simulators. Since then, our staff members have participated in two briefings with FBI officials, and at the most recent session they learned that the FBI recently changed its policy with respect to the type of legal process that it typically seeks before employing this type of technology. According to this new policy, the FBI now obtains a search warrant before deploying a cell-site simulator, although the policy contains a number of potentially broad exceptions and we continue to have questions about how it is being implemented in practice. Furthermore, it remains unclear how other agencies within the Department of Justice and Department of Homeland Security make use of cell-site simulators and what policies are in place to govern their use of that technology.

But, still, the Senators would like a few more details:

The Judiciary Committee needs a broader understanding of the full range of law enforcement agencies that use this technology, the policies in place to protect the privacy interests of those whose information might be collected using these devices, and the legal process that DOJ and DHS entities seek prior to using them.

For example, we understand that the FBI’s new policy requires FBI agents to obtain a search warrant whenever a cell-site simulator is used as part of a FBI investigation or operation, unless one of several exceptions apply, including (among others): (1) cases that pose an imminent danger to public safety, (2) cases that involve a fugitive, or (3) cases in which the technology is used in public places or other locations at which the FBI deems there is no reasonable expectation of privacy.

We have concerns about the scope of the exceptions. Specifically, we are concerned about whether the FBI and other law enforcement agencies have adequately considered the privacy interests of other individuals who are not the targets of the interception, but whose information is nevertheless being collected when these devices are being used. We understand that the FBI believes that it can address these interests by maintaining that information for a short period of time and purging the information after it has been collected. But there is a question as to whether this sufficiently safeguards privacy interests.

The specific questions being asked:

1. Since the effective date of the FBI’s new policy:

a. How many times has the FBI used a cell-site simulator?
b. In how many of these instances was the use of the cell-site simulator authorized by a search warrant?
c. In how many of these instances was the use of the cell-site simulator authorized by some other form of legal process? Please identify the legal process used.
d. In how many of these instances was the cell-site simulator used without any legal process?
e. How many times has each of the exceptions to the search warrant policy, including those listed above, been used by the FBI?

2. From January 1, 2010, to the effective date of the FBI’s new policy:

a. How many times did the FBI use a cell-site simulator?
b. In how many of these instances was the use of a cell-site simulator authorized by a search warrant?
c. In how many of these instances was the use of the cell-site simulator authorized by some other form of legal process? Please identify the legal process used.
d. In how many of these instances was the cell-site simulator used without any legal process?
e. In how many of the instances referenced in Question 2(d) did the FBI use a cell-site simulator in a public place or other location in which the FBI deemed there is no reasonable expectation of privacy?

3. What is the FBI’s current policy on the retention and destruction of the information collected by cell-site simulators in all cases? How is that policy enforced?

4. What other DOJ and DHS agencies use cell-site simulators?

5. What is the policy of these agencies regarding the legal process needed for use of cell-site simulators?

a. Are these agencies seeking search warrants specific to the use of cell-site simulators?
b. If not, what legal authorities are they using?
c. Do these agencies make use of public place or other exceptions? If so, in what proportion of all instances in which the technology is used are exceptions relied upon?
d. What are these agencies’ policies on the retention and destruction of the information that is collected by cell-site simulators? How are those policies enforced?

6. What is the Department of Justice’s guidance to United States Attorneys’ Offices regarding the legal process required for the use of cell-site simulators?

7. Across all DOJ and DHS entities, what protections exist to safeguard the privacy interests of individuals who are not the targets of interception, but whose information is nevertheless being collected by cell-site simulators?

Anyone taking bets on how few of these questions will actually be answered?

Filed Under: chuck grassley, drt boxes, imsi catchers, patrick leahy, privacy, stingray, stingrays, us marshals, warrants
Companies: boeing, harris corp.