OFF THE WIRE
By Jack Gillum
Associated Press
Police say Stingray, a suitcase-size device that
pretends it's a cell tower, is useful for catching criminals, but that's
about all they'll say............
WASHINGTON — Police across the country may be intercepting phone
calls or text messages to find suspects using a technology tool known as
Stingray. But they're refusing to turn over details about its use or
heavily censoring files when they do.
Police say Stingray, a suitcase-size device that pretends it's a cell
tower, is useful for catching criminals, but that's about all they'll
say.
For example, they won't disclose details about contracts with the
device's manufacturer, Harris Corp., insisting they are protecting both
police tactics and commercial secrets. The secrecy — at times imposed by
nondisclosure agreements signed by police — is pitting obligations
under private contracts against government transparency laws.
Even in states with strong open records laws, including Florida and
Arizona, little is known about police use of Stingray and any rules
governing it.
A Stingray device tricks all cellphones in an area into
electronically identifying themselves and transmitting data to police
rather than the nearest phone company's tower. Because documents about
Stingrays are regularly censored, it's not immediately clear what
information the devices could capture, such as the contents of phone
conversations and text messages, what they routinely do capture based on
how they're configured or how often they might be used.
In one of the rare court cases involving the device, the FBI
acknowledged in 2011 that so-called cell site simulator technology
affects innocent users in the area where it's operated, not just a
suspect police are seeking.
Earlier this month, journalist Beau Hodai and the American Civil
Liberties Union of Arizona sued the Tucson Police Department, alleging
in court documents that police didn't comply with the state's
public-records law because they did not fully disclose Stingray-related
records and allowed Harris Corp. to dictate what information could be
made public.
Revelations about surveillance programs run by the federal National
Security Agency have driven a sustained debate since last summer on the
balance between privacy and government intrusion. Classified NSA
documents, leaked to news organizations, showed the NSA was collecting
telephone records, emails and video chats of millions of Americans who
were not suspected of crimes.
That debate has extended to state and local governments. News
organizations in Palm Springs, Calif.; Tallahassee, Fla.; Sacramento,
Calif., and Pittsburgh are among those that have been denied records
about Stingrays or Stingray-like devices, including details of contracts
that Harris has with government agencies.
In a response to a records request from the Tallahassee Democrat
newspaper about Florida's use of cell-tracking technology, the state's
top police agency provided a four-page, heavily censored document signed
by a police investigator. The newspaper reported that the document
referred to guidelines concerning the purchase of items and sought the
department's agreement to the "provisions/content of the Non-Disclosure
Agreement."
The Desert Sun of Palm Springs made a similar request to the San
Bernardino County Sheriff's Department, which said it had to maintain
secrecy even though the newspaper found information online about cell
site simulators.
And in Sacramento, the local sheriff's office told a TV station it
would "be inappropriate for us to comment about any agency that may be
using the technology" in light of a Harris nondisclosure agreement.
Many of the requests were part of an effort to investigate the
devices by Gannett Co. Inc., which publishes USA Today and owns other
newspapers and television stations around the country.
"I don't see how public agencies can make up an agreement with a
private company that breaks state law," said David Cuillier, the
director of the University of Arizona's journalism school and a national
expert on public-records laws. "We can't have the commercial sector
running our governments for us. These public agencies need to be
forthright and transparent."
A representative for Melbourne, Fla.-based Harris Corp. declined to
comment or elaborate on how the company's agreements comport with open
records laws. Court documents in Hodai's case show Harris' agreement
required the Tucson city government not to "discuss, publish, release or
disclose any information" about its products without the company's
written consent.
The agreement also required the city to contact Harris when it
receives public-records requests about a "protected product," like a
Stingray, so that the company can "challenge any such request in court."
The police department declined to comment on Hodai's lawsuit.
He had sought Harris contracts and police emails about how the
technology is used. Email records show a Harris contract manager advised
a Tucson police sergeant on what records couldn't be released to the
public; the manager relied on the U.S. Freedom of Information Act, which
governs records of the executive branch of the federal government.
Nathan Freed Wessler, a staff attorney with the ACLU, said there's
often a distinction in public-records laws to protect bona fide trade
secrets — such as circuit board diagrams — as opposed to broader
information like agency policies governing a Stingray's use or purchase
agreements. He said police in Florida have declined to tell judges about
the use of Stingrays because of nondisclosure agreements.
A December 2013 investigation by USA Today found roughly 1 in 4 law
enforcement agencies it surveyed had performed tower dumps, and slightly
fewer owned a Stingray. But the report also said 36 additional agencies
refused to provide details on their use, with most denying the
newspaper's public-records requests.
WarriorSpirit
COMMENT,
This technology needs to be regulated and very strictly. Yeah, yeah, I
know, it can make catching "bad" guys easier, but so would being able to
just walk into anyone's home or business and look around to see what we
could find. Such would fly in the face of our Constitution and the
ideas upon which this country was founded.
I see much potential for evil with this technology and hope that restrictions and oversight into its use are forthcoming.
