aGameOfThrones
06-17-2014, 07:27 PM
US Marshals step in, thwart efforts to learn about cell tracking devices
After an ordinary stingray records request, the feds drive the files 320 miles.
The American Civil Liberties Union has lost in its attempt to get the city of Sarasota, Florida, to hand over city records pertaining to the use of stingrays, or fake cell tower surveillance devices.
As we reported earlier this month, the ACLU asked a Florida court for an emergency motion (PDF) that would require the city to make its stingray records available via a public records request.*These devices, which are also known as international mobile subscriber identity (IMSI) catchers, can be used to track phones or, in some cases, intercept calls and text messages.
The term “Stingray” is a trademarked product manufactured by a Florida-based company, the Harris Corporation. But it has since come to be used as a generic term, like Xerox or Kleenex. Harris is notoriously secretive about the capabilities of its devices and generally won’t talk to the press about their capabilities or deployments.
Federal authorities frustrated the ACLU’s efforts to learn how the devices are used in Sarasota after the US Marshals Service (USMS) deputized a local police detective. The USMS then physically moved the stack of paper records hundreds of miles away.
In a four-page decision issued on Tuesday, state circuit court judge Charles Williams found that his court lacked jurisdiction over a federal agency—effectively recognizing the transfer of the stingray documents to the US government. The case was therefore dismissed.
However, pursuant to the government’s own voluntarily handover as it was described to the court on June 12, the court ordered that the US government must turn over applications and orders approving the use of stingray devices that have already been filed under seal and issued by Florida state judges. Those records will, at least for the time being, remain sealed.
Appeal forthcoming
Further Reading
Ars takes a look at the tools of the surveillance trade
We also talk about the merits of purple and Google's new real-life delivery service.
Michael Barfield, vice president of the ACLU of Florida, told Ars that he planned on appealing the decision and filing a motion to unseal these stingray records.
“I can guarantee you that we will move to unseal them and we also are evaluating our options in terms of appealing the judge’s decision because we never had an opportunity to address a critical factual issue in his ruling,” he said, noting that it remains unclear what portion of the stingray records the US government is willing to hand over.
“Now based on the judge’s order it appears that factual representations were made and, because we didn’t refute them at the status conference, they’re being used as a basis for the judge’s rationale, which obviously we disagree with.”
Barfield added that he continues to believe, despite the federal government’s claims, that the stingray records as they originated with the Sarasota Police Department are a state record and that state records law applies.
“When the government goes to such lengths to keep the public in the dark about its warrantless spying on citizens, then the requirement that courts approve of government searches is rendered pointless,” he added by e-mail. “Both the federal and local governments need to respect open records laws so the public knows what police are doing in their name.”
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/06/judge-allows-us-marshals-seizure-of-stingray-records-dimisses-lawsuit/
After an ordinary stingray records request, the feds drive the files 320 miles.
The American Civil Liberties Union has lost in its attempt to get the city of Sarasota, Florida, to hand over city records pertaining to the use of stingrays, or fake cell tower surveillance devices.
As we reported earlier this month, the ACLU asked a Florida court for an emergency motion (PDF) that would require the city to make its stingray records available via a public records request.*These devices, which are also known as international mobile subscriber identity (IMSI) catchers, can be used to track phones or, in some cases, intercept calls and text messages.
The term “Stingray” is a trademarked product manufactured by a Florida-based company, the Harris Corporation. But it has since come to be used as a generic term, like Xerox or Kleenex. Harris is notoriously secretive about the capabilities of its devices and generally won’t talk to the press about their capabilities or deployments.
Federal authorities frustrated the ACLU’s efforts to learn how the devices are used in Sarasota after the US Marshals Service (USMS) deputized a local police detective. The USMS then physically moved the stack of paper records hundreds of miles away.
In a four-page decision issued on Tuesday, state circuit court judge Charles Williams found that his court lacked jurisdiction over a federal agency—effectively recognizing the transfer of the stingray documents to the US government. The case was therefore dismissed.
However, pursuant to the government’s own voluntarily handover as it was described to the court on June 12, the court ordered that the US government must turn over applications and orders approving the use of stingray devices that have already been filed under seal and issued by Florida state judges. Those records will, at least for the time being, remain sealed.
Appeal forthcoming
Further Reading
Ars takes a look at the tools of the surveillance trade
We also talk about the merits of purple and Google's new real-life delivery service.
Michael Barfield, vice president of the ACLU of Florida, told Ars that he planned on appealing the decision and filing a motion to unseal these stingray records.
“I can guarantee you that we will move to unseal them and we also are evaluating our options in terms of appealing the judge’s decision because we never had an opportunity to address a critical factual issue in his ruling,” he said, noting that it remains unclear what portion of the stingray records the US government is willing to hand over.
“Now based on the judge’s order it appears that factual representations were made and, because we didn’t refute them at the status conference, they’re being used as a basis for the judge’s rationale, which obviously we disagree with.”
Barfield added that he continues to believe, despite the federal government’s claims, that the stingray records as they originated with the Sarasota Police Department are a state record and that state records law applies.
“When the government goes to such lengths to keep the public in the dark about its warrantless spying on citizens, then the requirement that courts approve of government searches is rendered pointless,” he added by e-mail. “Both the federal and local governments need to respect open records laws so the public knows what police are doing in their name.”
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/06/judge-allows-us-marshals-seizure-of-stingray-records-dimisses-lawsuit/