newly published e-mail from 2010 shows that Harris Corporation, one of the best-known makers of cellular surveillance systems, told the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) that its purpose "is only to provide state/local law enforcement officials with authority to utilize this equipment in emergency situations."

That e-mail was among 27 pages of e-mails that were part of the company’s application to get FCC authorization to sell the device in the United States. Neither the FCC nor Harris Corporation immediately responded to Ars’ request for comment, and Harris traditionally stays mum on its operations.

"We do not comment on solutions we may or may not provide to classified Department of Defense or law enforcement agencies," Jim Burke, a spokesman for Harris, told Ars last month.

If Harris has misrepresented how the devices are used as part of law enforcement operations, then it would mark another controversial moment in the company's shrouded history. In recent months, more information has come out about how stingrays have been used in violent crime investigations, including instances where cops have lied to courts about the use of such technology.

Relatively little is known about how stingrays are precisely used by law enforcement agencies nationwide, although documents have surfaced showing how they have been purchased and used in some limited instances. Last year, Ars reported on leaked documents showing the existence of a body-worn stingray. In 2010, Kristin Paget famously demonstrated a homemade device built for just $1,500.

Fightin' words

In a five-page letter by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) to FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler, the group indicated that Harris has not been totally honest with the agency as to how the then "Sting Fish," and presumably subsequent devices like the newer StingRay, TriggerFish, and HailStorm, were to be used by American law enforcement. While StingRay is a trademark of Harris, stingray has come to be known as the generic term that describes all such devices.

"Contrary to Harris’ claim, we now know—and Harris should have also been well-aware at the time—that state and local law enforcement agencies were using devices in the StingRay line of surveillance products for purposes other than emergency situations long before 2010, and continued to do so after," the letter states. "To the extent the Commission relied on this representation in the authorization and licensing process, its reliance is misplaced since the representation is clearly inaccurate."

The e-mails were first released by the ACLU of Northern California, obtained via a public records request. Last month, the FCC announced that it would investigate the "illicit and unauthorized use" of stingrays, also known as IMSI catchers. (Not only can stingrays be used to determine a phone’s location, but they can also intercept calls and text messages.)

According to Harris' annual report, which was filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission last month, the company profited over $534 million in its latest fiscal year, the most since 2011.