FBI really doesn’t want anyone to know about “stingray” use by local cops

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

_CY_

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
May 11, 2009
Messages
33,848
Reaction score
6,619
Location
tulsa
US Marshals Service conceals key details of millions spent on StingRays
“Sensitive law-enforcement information” redacted on docs available on public government website

The US Marshals Service is known to be one of the most avid users of StingRays, and documents confirm that the agency has spent more than $9 million on equipment and training since 2009.

While it appears the USMS is not under any nondisclosure agreement with the device manufacturer, the agency has withheld a wide range of basic information under an exemption meant to protect law enforcement techniques. However, much of the redacted data is already available online via a federal accounting website.

This same website indicates that the USMS signed a $12.7 million contract with the StingRay manufacturer in the final months of 2014.

https://www.muckrock.com/news/archi...shals-service-conceal-key-details-millions-s/
 

TenBears

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Sep 1, 2009
Messages
1,780
Reaction score
75
Location
Idiocracy
I think if we just submit, everything will be OK. Only terrorist want privacy, real murkans know how to bend over.



image.jpg
 

Mr.357Sig

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Jun 29, 2009
Messages
3,735
Reaction score
88
Location
BA
What a great way to fight terrorism and protect children. I wouldn't worry about this unless YOU ARE DOING SOMETHING ILLEGAL.

tapatalk.imageshack.com_v2_15_03_09_1fa8af965bc673530d77b7a7bfbe105a.jpg


By the same logic, you don't need M855 5.56 ammo unless you're planning on killing cops.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

_CY_

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
May 11, 2009
Messages
33,848
Reaction score
6,619
Location
tulsa
A Police Gadget Tracks Phones? Shhh! It’s Secret

MARCH 15, 2015

Joe Simitian, a Santa Clara County, Calif., supervisor, pressed for more information about the StingRay surveillance device. Credit Jim Wilson/The New York Times

A powerful new surveillance tool being adopted by police departments across the country comes with an unusual requirement: To buy it, law enforcement officials must sign a nondisclosure agreement preventing them from saying almost anything about the technology.

Any disclosure about the technology, which tracks cellphones and is often called StingRay, could allow criminals and terrorists to circumvent it, the F.B.I. has said in an affidavit. But the tool is adopted in such secrecy that communities are not always sure what they are buying or whether the technology could raise serious privacy concerns.

The confidentiality has elevated the stakes in a longstanding debate about the public disclosure of government practices versus law enforcement’s desire to keep its methods confidential. While companies routinely require nondisclosure agreements for technical products, legal experts say these agreements raise questions and are unusual given the privacy and even constitutional issues at stake.

“It might be a totally legitimate business interest, or maybe they’re trying to keep people from realizing there are bigger privacy problems,” said Orin S. Kerr, a privacy law expert at George Washington University. “What’s the secret that they’re trying to hide?”

The issue led to a public dispute three weeks ago in Silicon Valley, where a sheriff asked county officials to spend $502,000 on the technology. The Santa Clara County sheriff, Laurie Smith, said the technology allowed for locating cellphones - belonging to, say, terrorists or a missing person. But when asked for details, she offered no technical specifications and acknowledged she had not seen a product demonstration.

Buying the technology, she said, required the signing of a nondisclosure agreement.

“So, just to be clear,” Joe Simitian, a county supervisor, said, “we are being asked to spend $500,000 of taxpayers’ money and $42,000 a year thereafter for a product for the name brand which we are not sure of, a product we have not seen, a demonstration we don’t have, and we have a nondisclosure requirement as a precondition. You want us to vote and spend money,” he continued, but “you can’t tell us more about it.”

The technology goes by various names, including StingRay, KingFish or, generically, cell site simulator. It is a rectangular device, small enough to fit into a suitcase, that intercepts a cellphone signal by acting like a cellphone tower.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/16/b...n-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=1
 

TenBears

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Sep 1, 2009
Messages
1,780
Reaction score
75
Location
Idiocracy
http://rt.com/usa/241937-erie-county-stingray-surveillance/

Police in western New York state have been ordered to reveal secret documents containing information on the purchase and use of surveillance technology that collects data from cellphones.

On Tuesday, a New York State Supreme Court judge said that Erie County’s top law enforcement agency must turn over documents concerning its use of a spy tool that gives authorities the ability to collect identifying information on groups of people, including individualized location data, by mimicking the behavior of cellular phone towers.
 

TenBears

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Sep 1, 2009
Messages
1,780
Reaction score
75
Location
Idiocracy
Wannabe Rambos, want military grade secrecy. The KGB or Stasi would be proud.


John A. Curr III, the director of the NYCLU’s Western Regional Office, said that “the Erie County Sheriff has claimed military grade secrecy to prevent the release of information about how it uses StingRays against its own residents.”

“But this is not Iraq or Afghanistan – this is Buffalo. And we have a right to know what the Sheriff is doing to us in the name of keeping us safe,” Curr said in a statement.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom