OFF THE WIRE
'Yesterday, the Illinois House unanimously passed a bill that would ban
the use of “stingrays” to track the location of phones and sweep up
electronic communications without a warrant in most situations. It now
goes to the governor’s desk.The proposed legislation would not only
protect privacy in Illinois, but would also hinder one aspect of the
federal surveillance state.'
SPRINGFIELD, Ill. (May 19, 2016) – Yesterday, the
Illinois House unanimously passed a bill that would ban the use of
“stingrays” to track the location of phones and sweep up electronic
communications without a warrant in most situations. It now goes to the
governor’s desk.The proposed legislation would not only protect privacy
in Illinois, but would also hinder one aspect of the federal
surveillance state.
Sen. Daniel Biss (D-Skokie) introduced Senate Bill 2343 (SB2343)
on Jan. 28. The legislation would help block the use of cell site
simulators, known as “stingrays.” These devices essentially spoof cell
phone towers, tricking any device within range into connecting to the
stingray instead of the tower, allowing law enforcement to sweep up
communications content, as well as locate and track the person in
possession of a specific phone or other electronic device.
SB2343 would prohibit the use of stingrays except to locate or track
the location of a communications device or to identify a communications
device. That means law enforcement would not be allowed to listen in on
conversations using cell site simulators under any circumstances.
The House passed SB2343 115-0. The Senate previously approved the measure 57-0.
The bill now heads to Gov. Bruce Rauner’s desk. He will have 60 days to
sign or veto the bill or it will become law without his signature.
The legislation stipulates that before deploying a stingray device
for location tracking, law enforcement agencies would have to get a
warrant, with only a few exceptions. Warrantless use of these devices
would only be allowed in certain specific emergency situations.
Under the proposed law, if a court finds by a preponderance of the
evidence that a law enforcement agency used a cell site simulator to
gather information in violation of the limits in the act, then the
information will be presumed to be inadmissible in any judicial or
administrative proceeding.
An amendment approved by the Judiciary Committee strengthened the
bill, requiring police destroy any information gathered on non-targeted
devices within 24 hours if the stingray was used to track or locate an
known device, and 72 hours if used to track or locate an unknown device.
IMPACT ON FEDERAL SURVEILLANCE PROGRAMS
The federal government funds the vast majority of state and local
stingray programs, attaching one important condition. The feds require
agencies acquiring the technology to sign non-disclosure agreements.
This throws a giant shroud over the program, even preventing judges,
prosecutors and defense attorneys from getting information about the use
of stingrays in court. The feds actually instruct prosecutors to
withdraw evidence if judges or legislators press for information. As the
Baltimore Sun reported
last fall, a Baltimore detective refused to answer questions on the
stand during a trial, citing a federal non-disclosure agreement.
Defense attorney Joshua Insley asked Cabreja about the agreement.
“Does this document instruct you to withhold evidence from the
state’s attorney and Circuit Court, even upon court order to produce?”
he asked.
“Yes,” Cabreja said.
As privacysos.org
put it, “The FBI would rather police officers and prosecutors let
‘criminals’ go than face a possible scenario where a defendant brings a
Fourth Amendment challenge to warrantless stingray spying.”
The feds sell the technology in the name of “anti-terrorism” efforts.
With non-disclosure agreements in place, most police departments refuse
to release any information on the use of stingrays. But information
obtained from the Tacoma Police Department revealed that it uses the
technology primarily for routine criminal investigations.
Some privacy advocates argue that stingray use can never happen
within the parameters of the Fourth Amendment because the technology
necessarily connects to every electronic device within range, not just
the one held by the target. And the information collected by these
devices undoubtedly ends up in federal data bases. The feds can share
and tap into vast amounts of information gathered at the state and local
level through a system known as the “information sharing environment”
or ISE. In other words, stingrays create the potential for the federal
government to track the movement of millions of Americans with no
warrant, no probable cause, and without the people even knowing it.
According to its website,
the ISE “provides analysts, operators, and investigators with
information needed to enhance national security. These analysts,
operators, and investigators… have mission needs to collaborate and
share information with each other and with private sector partners and
our foreign allies.” In other words, ISE serves as a conduit for the
sharing of information gathered without a warrant.
The federal government encourages and funds stingrays at the state
and local level across the U.S., thereby undoubtedly gaining access to a
massive data pool on Americans without having to expend the resources
to collect the information itself. By placing restrictions on stingray
use, state and local governments limit the data available that the feds
can access.
In a nutshell, without state and local cooperation, the feds have a
much more difficult time gathering information. This would represent a
major blow to the surveillance state and a win for privacy.
TAKE ACTION
Illinois residents should call Gov. Bruce Rauner and urge him to SIGN SB2343 into law. 217-782-0244