For the past six years, the Tacoma, WA Police Department has used “controversial surveillance equipment that can sweep up records of every cellphone call, text message and data transfer up to a half a mile away,” according to the Tacoma News Tribune.[icopyright one button toolbar]

One of the more chilling aspects of this story: Tacoma has a nondisclosure agreement with the FBI. Given that agreement, I suppose this is not surprising:

Earlier this month, city officials blacked out portions of relevant purchase documents requested by The News Tribune.

Troubling, but not surprising

It is also no surprise that city officials — elected and appointed — cite ‘keeping us safe’ as their rationale for approving budget requests that were, in a word, opaque.

Documents at Muckrock, an open-source clearinghouse for FOIA requests, illustrate foot-dragging at the Tacoma Police Department.

Nearly 10 wks since I filed request, Tacoma PD still "reviewing" IMSI catcher docs, refuse to say who is reviewing: https://t.co/9P6bXzXCfw — Phil Mocek (@pmocek) August 27, 2014

From a 2013 document released by Tacoma:

The Tacoma Police Department uses specialized technical equipment to support field operations for criminal investigations and Homeland Security Initiatives…. This one-time purchase is 75% funded by a federal grant. The remaining 25% match [$251,752.41] is budgeted from the Tacoma Police Federal Asset Seizure Fund… [this is a] proprietary technology upgrade … manufactured exclusively by the Harris Corporation Wireless Products Group.

All in the name of the war on drugs, according to Tacoma officials cited in the TNT story.

In 2011, the Wall Street Journal examined the use of Stingray equipment (and its ilk) and the civil liberties implications:

Stingrays are one of several new technologies used by law enforcement to track people’s locations, often without a search warrant. These techniques are driving a constitutional debate about whether the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures, but which was written before the digital age, is keeping pace with the times.

Tacoma is the latest city in the US to be “outed” as using the Department of Defense technology.

In June, Sacramento officials denied using Stringray equipment:

Despite evidence showing the sheriff’s department is utilizing the device, the Sacramento County District Attorney’s Office and Sacramento Superior Court judges said they have no knowledge of StingRays or similar tools being used in Sacramento. […] The district attorney’s office said they would expect to see a search warrant for any device capable of real-time location tracking.

Phil Mocek, a Seattle-area software developer who filed the FOIA request about Tacoma’s use of the Stingray, made these points about the use of the technology:

@kegill IMSI catchers are used to spy on people's words, locations, & associations. They're nearly impossible to use in a targetted manner. — Phil Mocek (@pmocek) August 27, 2014

@kegill That Tacoma & other police detps hide their use of these from the public, prosecutors, & courts suggests they know it's unacceptable — Phil Mocek (@pmocek) August 27, 2014

@kegill The US govt have been handing out surveillance gear and military surplus like candy. We don't want our police to have this stuff. — Phil Mocek (@pmocek) August 27, 2014

Harris Corporation Wireless Products Group

Harris is a Melbourne, Florida-based corporation with “approximately $5 billion of annual revenue and about 14,000 employees.”

According to USASpending.gov, the Harris Corporation (zip code 32919) has received $134,871,305 from the federal government in 127 contracts.

Although the Department of Defense has the overwhelming majority of the contracts with Harris Corporation, other agencies include

the Broadcasting Board of Governors (12)

FEMA (10)

the Department of Justice/FBI (7)

the Department of the Interior (5)

NASA (2)

the Department of Justice/Federal Prison System (1) and

the Department of Transportation/U.S. Coast Guard (1)

The earliest contract is dated 1/19/2000 and four were dated 9/15/2001. [See the 127 contract summaries at Scribd.]

The ACLU is tracking news reports of police use of Stingray equipment. In June, a judge in Florida “sided with the ACLU to order release of information about police use of ‘stingrays,’ which are invasive surveillance devices that send out powerful signals to trick cell phones into transmitting their locations and identifying information.”

The ACLU has documented about 30 Florida police and sheriff departments that use or have used Stingray equipment.

Florida police hid fact they used warrantless cell tracking tech. "Nondisclosure agreement" with commercial vendor: http://t.co/Zn64CuhAL4 — Declan McCullagh (@declanm) January 31, 2014

How the Stingray works

In December, USA Today developed an interactive infographic documenting how the Stingray works.

However, this is not the only equipment capable of grabbing cellular data:

Seattle

Related documents at Muckrock for the city of Seattle indicate that Seattle is mum on the subject.

[A] search of the Email archives database for the terms “Cell Site Simulator” or “Stingray” and again received no responsive records to your request.

In response, Mocek (the requester) appealed:

It is possible for an agency that does not own such equipment to have previously owned it, to have borrowed it, to have evaluated it, to have received offers for others to lend it to them, to have made non-disclosure agreements with manufacturers of it, to have training materials for use of it, to have communicated with wireless carriers regarding the use or potential use of it, to have communicated with regulatory agencies regarding the use or potential use of it, to have records of investigations which involved the use of it, or to have applied to courts for authorization to use it.

What next?

In the United States v Jones (2012), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled (9-0) that installing a GPS tracker on a suspect’s car is, indeed, a fourth amendment-protected “search.” As such, the search in that case was ruled unconstitutional.

However, the ACLU has found that “cell phone tracking is routine” and “few agencies consistently obtain warrants.” And tracking is a passive action when compared with installing a GPS.

Moreover, the equipment is small and spreading widely around the globe, according to the Washington Post:

[O]ne industry official, speaking on the condition of anonymity to share sensitive trade information, said that dozens of countries have bought or leased such technology in recent years. This rapid spread underscores how the burgeoning, multibillion-dollar surveillance industry makes advanced spying technology available worldwide.

As a reminder, this a story told by cellphone metadata.

I do not believe we give up our right to privacy when we use our cellphone to call home or text a message or check directions.

However, when we use a cellphone, it will talk to the closest tower or what it thinks is the closest tower.

We need legislation specifically clarifying that these broad sweeps are fourth amendment violations; until then, we seem to have scant protection from the prying eyes of the law.



:: Follow me on Twitter



Edited to correct grammar (3:27 pm Pacific)