Congressman Jason Chaffetz attempting to reign in Stingray surveillance

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Breotan**

It looks like at least one Republican is sick and tired of trading liberty for security. Given the current makeup of Congress, I don't know if this will go very far but I think it's about time for something like this.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/04/house-bill-end-warrantless-stingray-surveillance-jason-chaffetz

Nicky Woolf wrote:Congressman introduces bill to end warrantless Stingray surveillance

Legislation from Jason Chaffetz would make it illegal for Stingray technology to be deployed without a warrant: ‘If you’re just on a surfing expedition, back off’

A bill has been introduced in Congress that aims to control the use of the sophisticated surveillance equipment known as Stingray, following a Guardian investigation which revealed the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) as the 13th federal agency known to possess the devices.

Stingrays are one of a class of suitcase-size devices known as “cell-site simulators”, which work by pretending to be a cellphone tower in order to strip data and metadata from any phones which connect to them.

They are used by at least 13 federal agencies, and at least 50 local and state police departments, according to the American Civil Liberties Union. A Guardian investigation in April uncovered the non-disclosure agreement that local police departments were forced to sign with the FBI before using Stingrays, which mandated local prosecutors to throw cases in some instances rather than reveal that they used the devices. In October, the Guardian reported that the IRS acquired Stingray technology for undisclosed reasons.

On 29 October, three days after the investigation was published, Representative Jason Chaffetz, the chair of the House oversight committee, along with the rest of the committee, sent a bipartisan letter to IRS commissioner John Koskinen demanding documents detailing the agency’s guidelines, policies and use of the devices.

The Senate judiciary committee is also holding an inquiry into their use, and in the Senate finance committee, Ron Wyden of Oregon also asked Koskinen for details about the agency’s use of Stingray. In response, Koskinen said that it requires a court order for its use.

On Monday, Chaffetz introduced a bill to the House floor which would make it illegal for Stingray technology to be deployed without a warrant by either local, state or federal agencies – a much higher judicial bar for their use than the Pen register, or trap-and-trace, court order which they previously required.

“When you find out the IRS, and potentially others are using this tech – whoa! That’s a bridge too far,” Chaffetz told the Guardian on Wednesday. “If they have [probable] cause, go get a warrant. But if you’re just on a surfing expedition, back off.”

His bill, which is called the Stingray Privacy Act, or Cell-Site Simulator Privacy Act, makes use of these devices without a warrant punishable by a fine or up to 10 years’ imprisonment.

Chaffetz said that technology development was moving faster, currently, than lawmakers can keep up. “My 14-year-old daughter knows more about technology than 90% of Congress,” he said. “It’s going to present its new set of challenges for America. The seminal question is: how much liberty are we going to give up in the name of security?

“I think personal privacy will triumph,” he added. “But we’ve got to be really careful.”

**Dreadclaw69**

Good. The War on Terror and the War on Drugs has resulted in some pretty big inroads into privacy rights and personal freedoms.

**Co'tor Shas**

Oh, good. It's nice to see some R's standing up to this, as it goes directly against many of the ideas they espouse. If the more pro-personal freedom members on both sides work together, we might be able to reign this in at least a little bit.

**Nostromodamus**

Excellent!

**Tannhauser42**

But, but, gotta be tough on crime! Think of the children!

**Ensis Ferrae**

Despite his lack of education on issues such as Planned Parenthood (where he was taken to task by the presiden/chair person of PP)....

I stand firmly with him on this particular issue. I've always felt that this sort of thing was just inherently wrong, no matter the "justifications" used. And I'm sorry but, "if you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about" isn't any kind of reason for this activity.

**Peregrine**

Well, a broken clock is right twice a day...

**LethalShade**

Damn, right-wing people can be right.

Incredible

(Involuntary pun. Damn you, English language)

**Ouze**

I am as surprised as I am pleased.

I wholly agree stingrays should require a warrant.

**Frazzled**

I foresee...nothing happening.

Courts ruled against the NSA and Obama/NSA just gave it the finger.

**Easy E**

Nothing will happen, but I still support his efforts and may even write to my Congress critter and ask them to support this.

**CptJake**

Ouze wrote:
I am as surprised as I am pleased.

I wholly agree stingrays should require a warrant.

The problem is, even if you get a warrant to use it, it potentially connecst and collects on numbers not included in the warrant. And we have no way of knowing what any agency will/will not do with the incidental collection since they (according to rumors about the NDAs) are going to be prone to lie about how they got the info in the first place.

**Ouze**

Well, perjury is already illegal, so I'm not sure that's a useful reason to preclude this.

**CptJake**

Ouze wrote:
Well, perjury is already illegal, so I'm not sure that's a useful reason to preclude this.

But not disclosing methods and means when tech like this is used has been happening, so those perjury laws don't seem to apply or don't seem to work in this case.

**Ouze**

So what exactly is your argument? Let's get rid of laws, because sometimes the police don't follow them?

We've got literally decades of experience with wiretapping public phones, like pay phones (although less so now) and somehow we've managed to do OK with that. Should we not require warrants for wiretaps, because the police might catch some non relevant info? I mean, these seem like two totally different problems.

**CptJake**

Ouze wrote:
So what exactly is your argument? Let's get rid of laws, because sometimes the police don't follow them?

We've got literally decades of experience with wiretapping public phones, like pay phones (although less so now) and somehow we've managed to do OK with that. Should we not require warrants for wiretaps, because the police might catch some non relevant info? I mean, these seem like two totally different problems.

No, my argument is the cops don't need to be using these devices because as it stands the rules they use them by pretty much open up massive 4th amendment violations. If I have a warrent allowing me to tap a specific number, I only capture calls from that number (and in some cases calls to that number depending on how the collection is done.) Any incidental collection WILL involve that number on one end of the call. Using these devices, even if the warrant is for a specific number, I collect on ANY phone that connects to the device, and the way cell service works that pretty much guarantees I collect on any cell phones being used in the area the device is capable of collecting in, regardless of if that phone or its owner/user make any calls to the number the warrant covers. Frankly, I do not trust the LEOs to not abuse that collection, as the rules the operate under allow them to hide how any incidental collection was made in order to protect knowledge of the device in question.

**Ouze**

So you're saying the argument that their potential for abuse outweighs their benefits and so they should be completely banned?

**whembly**

Ouze wrote:
So you're saying the argument that their potential for abuse outweighs their benefits and so they should be completely banned?

Yeah... I'd advocate such bans.

Maybe this is a good analogy... do you know that cable internet providers cache website traffics in such a short timeframe? Purposely... the basic reasons are technical and legal.

Technical is that these providers have to pay/maintain these cached data... and that's not the business model.

Legal is that there are privacy concerns that these providers don't want to be inundated with court/executive suponeas.

Hence, it's a large part why the NSA' Prism system was formulated... and you know the outcrys for that.

So, Stingray is a microcosm of what Prism does on cell traffics.

Unless Stingray can be assured to only zero in on the numbers the Warrants dictate, it ripe for massive abuse.

**Ouze**

What if stingrays are banned, but the police use them anyway?

**Dreadclaw69**

Ouze wrote:
What if stingrays are banned, but the police use them anyway?

I may be mis-remembering but haven't there already been cases where stingrays, or similar, have been used but the DA has recreated the chain of evidence to hide their use?

**Ensis Ferrae**

CptJake wrote:
Ouze wrote:
I am as surprised as I am pleased.

I wholly agree stingrays should require a warrant.

The problem is, even if you get a warrant to use it, it potentially connecst and collects on numbers not included in the warrant. And we have no way of knowing what any agency will/will not do with the incidental collection since they (according to rumors about the NDAs) are going to be prone to lie about how they got the info in the first place.

Pierce County has something in place for this.... A Stingray can only be used in the county following strict warrant procedures. Any data collected not pertaining to the case is destroyed and verified by some other agency. Any data that directly relates to the case is kept only for the duration of the case, and then destroyed with 3rd part verification as well.

Can it be abused? You betcha. Is it harder to abuse with something like this in place? I would think so, provided that the actual, and strict guidelines applied to these systems is adhered to.

**Jihadin**

It should have stayed on the battlefield

**CptJake**

Jihadin wrote:
It should have stayed on the battlefield

Yep, it was never designed to be used for domestic LE issues. At best it promotes lazy police work, at worst it is a 4th amendment destroyer.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ouze wrote:
What if stingrays are banned, but the police use them anyway?

If I were in charge, the leadership of the department that allowed it would do serious prison time and the cops that did it under orders would be jobless.

**Ensis Ferrae**

CptJake wrote:

If I were in charge, the leadership of the department that allowed it would do serious prison time and the cops that did it under orders would be jobless.

If there were viable proof that the department leadership "outlawed" the activity, they may be forced to retire without prison.... However, I'd throw the local union reps in among the prison crowd for their inevitable role in covering it up

**daedalus**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Ouze wrote:
What if stingrays are banned, but the police use them anyway?

I may be mis-remembering but haven't there already been cases where stingrays, or similar, have been used but the DA has recreated the chain of evidence to hide their use?

I recall the same. A cursory glance revealed this: http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/apr/10/stingray-spying-fbi-phone-dragnet-police

Also, I recall a few court cases (at least one in STL) that showed that they'd rather drop a case than reveal the details behind said program.

Interesting times.

**Peregrine**

daedalus wrote:
Also, I recall a few court cases (at least one in STL) that showed that they'd rather drop a case than reveal the details behind said program.

And that's how it should be, every time this stuff is used. Don't want to reveal the details of how your system works? Case dismissed, no appeal. Otherwise we create a situation that is way too vulnerable to abuse, and all we can do is just trust that the police aren't manufacturing evidence.

**daedalus**

Peregrine wrote:

And that's how it should be, every time this stuff is used. Don't want to reveal the details of how your system works? Case dismissed, no appeal. Otherwise we create a situation that is way too vulnerable to abuse, and all we can do is just trust that the police aren't manufacturing evidence.

I am not disagreeing in the slightest.

**LordofHats**

I don't know. This thread sounds awfully

SOFT ON CRIME

**LethalShade**

LordofHats wrote:
I don't know. This thread sounds awfully SOFT ON CRIME

I'd rather be free than safe, tbh.

(And yes, we have the same issues here, with the same device)

**Ouze**

CptJake wrote:
Ouze wrote:
What if stingrays are banned, but the police use them anyway?

If I were in charge, the leadership of the department that allowed it would do serious prison time and the cops that did it under orders would be jobless.

So to sum it up; a legislator proposes requiring a warrant to use a stingray and attaches prison time for using one without it, and you're against it because you feel like the cops are likely to just break the law; in which case you'd want to see them get prison time for not following the law and using one without it.

Seems pretty clear-cut to me.