Sound The Trumpet : Veil of Secrecy - Widespread Potential for Misuse of Stingray Surveillance

Must Listen

Must Read

What Art Thinks

Pre-Millennialism

Today's Headlines

Sorry... Not Available

Locally Contributed...

Audio

Video

Special Interest

Daily News

22021

“Veil of Secrecy - Widespread Potential for Misuse of Stingray Surveillance”
by Prophecy News Watch
June 3rd, 2014

It has been deemed an “unconstitutional, all-you-can-eat data buffet” by Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF.org), who report that this veiled-in-secrecy surveillance system is already being deployed illegally in cities throughout the U.S.

In March, the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California released a report revealing unregulated use of StingRays in California, indicating 'widespread' use of the devices by police departments in the Golden State.

In January of 2013, the LA Weekly reported that the StingRay “intended to fight terrorism was used in far more routine Los Angeles Police criminal investigations,” apparently probing the lives of non-suspects that live in the same neighborhood as a suspect, without the courts’ knowledge.

Critics point to the illegal invasion of technology, saying the device’s uncontrolled use by law enforcement raises constitutional questions. “It is the biggest threat to cell phone privacy you don’t know about,” EFF said in a statement.

According to the ACLU, the city of Sunrise, Florida refused to confirm or deny the existence of any records related to a StingRay device it owns, yet MyFoxNY.com reports that the county received a $283,000 terrorism prevention grant from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to pay for the device.

And in Erie County, sheriff Tim Howard told local station WGRZ just over a week ago that he will no longer make public comments about a cellphone surveillance device used by his police agency since 2008 to gather information on ‘persons of interest’ because it could adversely impact investigations. The sheriff said the device is used only for tracking a person's movements, not for gathering content of cellphone communications.

What is a StingRay exactly? It’s a device manufactured by the Florida-based Harris Corporation that mimics a cell phone tower, and has the capability of hijacking all wireless device activity on the same network, including locating a cell phone signal and intercepting cell phone calls and text messages. Harris Corp., an international telecommunications equipment company, gets between $60,000 and $175,000 for each Stingray it sells to U.S. law enforcement agencies.

The units, also marketed as Triggerfish, IMSI Catcher, Cell-site Simulator or Digital Analyzer, are legally marketed to military and law enforcement as a means of tracking and locating persons of interest, and are obtained through government grants at the expense of taxpayer dollars.

Human rights groups such as the ACLU and the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) are focusing on the potential illegal interception of private conversations while operating the StingRay. “That type of usage would be illegal,” said Alan Butler of EPIC. “But nonetheless, the capability is there,” which, according to Butler, would first require a search warrant, or become a 4th Amendment issue.

Butler clarified that not all uses of the device necessarily conflict with the Fourth Amendment, but because the capability exists, warrants should first be issued. A previous Supreme Court decision currently blocks federal investigators and other law enforcement agencies from using GPS tracking devices without a warrant.

The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures of property and effects without a warrant that defines a probable cause.

“It’s a powerful device and its use should be regulated,” Butler explained. “With it in the wrong hands, a phone system can be hijacked without either the user or the phone company being aware.”

At a Yale Law School Location Tracking and Biometrics Conference held in October of 2013, ACLU privacy researcher Christopher Soghoian told a panel that “the government uses the device either when a target is routinely and quickly changing phones to thwart a wiretap or when police don’t have sufficient cause for a warrant.”

During interviews with reporters covering the StingRay story, Soghoian said, “If the government shows up in your neighborhood, essentially every phone is going to check in with the government…The government is sending signals through people’s walls and clothes and capturing information about innocent people. That’s not much different than using invasive technology to search every house on a block.”

In the first federal StingRay case iniated in 2012, ACLU staff attorney Linda Lye wrote in a legal brief, “The government is hiding information about new surveillance technology not only from the public, but even from the courts…By keeping courts in the dark about new technologies, the government is essentially seeking to write its own search warrants, and that’s not how the Constitution works.”

On its website, the ACLU expounds: “The ACLU and the Electronic Frontier Foundation filed an amicus brief arguing that when the government wants to use invasive surveillance technology, it has an obligation to explain to the court basic information about the technology, such as its impact on innocent third parties. This is necessary to ensure that courts can perform their constitutional function of ensuring that the search does not violate the Fourth Amendment.

Unfortunately, today’s decision trivializes the intrusive nature of electronic searches and potentially opens the door to troubling government misuse of new technology.”

In the May 8th, 2013 court decision denying the motion to suppress, ACLU.org reports “the judge held that information about how the stingray operates – such as the fact that it scoops up third party data – was merely a ‘detail of execution which need not be specified.’ We respectfully but strongly disagree.”

Attorney Lye additionally expressed concern over violations of the Federal Communication Act, given the StingRay’s ability to interfere with cell phone signals. “We haven’t seen documents suggesting the LAPD or any other agency have sought or obtained FCC authorization,” she wrote.

Alarms have also been raised by 4th Amendment rights advocates over another disturbing issue: investigators using the StingRay can bypass a routine process of obtaining fee-based location data from cell service providers like Sprint, AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile and Comcast, essentially leaving no paper trail for defense attorneys.

In February of 2014, the FairfaxTimes.com reported on Bill HB 17 that unanimously passed 99-0 in the Virginia House of Delegates. This bill would prohibit police from using ‘currently utilized mobile devices’ to spy on residents’ cellphone usage without first obtaining search warrants, except under very specific and limited circumstances. HB 17 is currently being evaluated in the Virginia Senate’s Courts of Justice Committee.

The Fairfax County Police Department has been using the devices for at least four years, according to Fairfax County government documents, yet spokesperson Lucy Caldwell refused to comment on precisely how they are utilized by police.

Caldwell stated that “the FCPD does not comment on our investigative tools, nor do we discuss investigative techniques or capabilities … however, our detectives and officers follow all state and federal legal requirements for the use of technologies that we do use.”

Fairfax County police describe their use of the StingRay as being “used in conjunction with a court order, and the Fairfax County Police Department has been sponsored to use this tracking device through the U.S. Marshals Service,” to track cellphone use for “crime victims, suspects of crimes, wanted persons, and those in need of emergency services.”

This information was detailed in a Fairfax County Board of Supervisors agenda dated Sept. 28, 2010, in which the department also said it will use $126,661 of a federal grant to “enhance the StingRay cell phone tracking system,” which is “capable of locating and tracking cellular service whether or not a phone is transmitting. As long as the cellular phone is powered on, the StingRay is capable of locating it.”

Police additionally state in the agenda that the StingRay enhances “officer safety and allows the officers to stay in communication with each other during covert operations.”

According to GlobalResearch.ca, U.S. courts are only beginning to tackle the legal implications of StingRay use, while foreign hackers, for a $1,000 price tag, have reportedly been busy selling an underground IMSI tracker that counters the Stingray, to anyone who is willing to pay. And German security expert Karsten Nohl released "Catcher Catcher" in December of 2011 – powerful monitoring software that can detect a StingRay in use within a network's traffic.

“The StingRay technology is so new and so powerful,” GlobalResearch.ca reports, “that it not only raises Fourth Amendment concerns, it also raises questions about whether police and federal agents are withholding information about it from judges to win approval to monitor suspects without meeting the probable cause standard required by the Fourth. At least one federal judge thinks they are.”

Magistrate Judge Brian Owsley of the Southern District of Texas in Corpus Christi informed the Yale conference participants that “federal prosecutors are using clever techniques to fool judges into allowing use of StingRay. They will draft surveillance requests to appear as Pen Register applications, which don’t need to meet the probable cause standards,” Owsley told the panel.

“After receiving a second StingRay request,” Owsley said, “I emailed every magistrate judge in the country telling them about the device. And hardly anyone understood them.”

It becomes quite evident that continuing use by federal and local law enforcement agencies of technologies designed to acquire our exact locations and capture our private conversations 24/7 will not be adequately restricted or go away any time soon. In an era where absolutes no longer exist in the interpretation and enforcement of protective constitutional laws, it seems a natural progression that lawlessness follows.

“For the secret power of lawlessness is already at work; but the one who now holds it back will continue to do so till he is taken out of the way. And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will overthrow with the breath of his mouth and destroy by the splendor of his coming.” 2nd Thessalonians 2:7-8, NIV

Looking for His glorious appearing! Titus 2:13