{"id":11413,"date":"2016-02-01T22:00:21","date_gmt":"2016-02-02T04:00:21","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/hcstx.org\/?p=11413"},"modified":"2016-02-01T22:00:21","modified_gmt":"2016-02-02T04:00:21","slug":"the-surveillance-state-privacy-outcry-sparked-by-secret-surveillance","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/thetacticalhermit.com\/index.php\/2016\/02\/01\/the-surveillance-state-privacy-outcry-sparked-by-secret-surveillance\/","title":{"rendered":"The Surveillance State: Privacy Outcry Sparked by Secret Surveillance"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

 <\/p>\n

This is scary Big Brother stuff folks, and it is not something that COULD happen, it is happening right now to everyday citizens. This is the world in which we now live, no getting around it, no saying “It could never happen to me”…this is Reality, and if you don’t want to be a victim, educate yourself now.-SF<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

\"sstate\"<\/p>\n

This is the first story in a multi-part series brought to you by Participant Media\u2019s all-new documentary series Truth and Power. Read new stories each week on OZY, and watch the latest episodes on Fridays at 10 P.M. ET \/ PT on Pivot.<\/em><\/p>\n

In their elusive cat-and-mouse pursuit of criminals<\/a>, police officers are increasingly turning to a little-known secret weapon: Stingray, aka triggerfish, an IMSI-catcher or cell-site simulator. No, these aren\u2019t code names for under-the-sea, RoboCop-like patrollers. They\u2019re actually surveillance devices<\/a> that mimic cell phone towers \u2014 only they emit a stronger signal \u2014 and trick phones into connecting and revealing their location. Some liken these high-tech trackers to the kids\u2019 swimming pool game Marco Polo, where a cell-site simulator triggers \u201cMarco\u201d and nearby phones respond with \u201cPolo\u201d \u2014 along with their unique device ID.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

But you probably don\u2019t know the half of it. Some of these trackers, which are roughly the size of a backpack, are also capable of recording numbers for a cell phone\u2019s incoming and outgoing calls, as well as what is said or written in calls or texts. And they\u2019re increasingly being used for all kinds of investigative cases, without being bound by public spaces. In fact, Nathan Wessler, staff attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union, says Stingray signals can pass through the walls of people\u2019s homes (and other constitutionally protected areas), pinpointing exactly where a phone is within a building. \u201cThey could basically serve as a wiretap,\u201d warns Brian Owsley, an assistant professor of law at UNT Dallas College of Law.<\/p>\n

Police departments<\/a> argue the device can be a useful tool for locating possible suspects. Yet only a few states require a warrant for such surveillance, and critics fear they violate the Fourth Amendment and sometimes get used by agencies that have no business deploying this tech. So far, at least 58 agencies spread across 23 states and the District of Columbia have purchased Stingray surveillance, according to the ACLU. And while experts say some of these agencies include the usual suspects \u2014 the National Security Agency, the FBI and the Drug Enforcement Agency \u2014 others, including the Internal Revenue Service at one point, may be more surprising.<\/p>\n

“If the government wants to build a database of location information about where innocent people are located, well, that would be very disturbing.”<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

Adam Schwartz, senior lawyer, Electronic Frontier Foundation<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Of course, Stingray technology isn\u2019t the only type of surveillance being used today. Government-owned cameras, automatic license plate readers, telephone record databases and information sharing about citizens\u2019 DNA are all part of a movement that\u2019s sparking a national conversation about when enough is enough.<\/em> But when it comes to Stingray specifically, there\u2019s the issue of what kind of information gets gathered and how the data is stored. Adam Schwartz, senior lawyer at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a digital rights group, says the data can place people on a map, within mere meters, and identify whether someone is, say, near a therapist\u2019s office or meeting with a criminal defense lawyer. \u201cIf the government wants to build a database of location information about where innocent people are located,\u201d he says, \u201cwell, that would be very disturbing.\u201d He and other experts agree that, for the most part, the use of such data remains unknown.<\/p>\n

Now some politicians and activists are trying to better protect the privacy of ordinary citizens. For instance, Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) introduced a new bill in November that would force law enforcement officials to obtain Stingray warrants and make it illegal for the tech to be deployed without them. \u201cIf you are a law-abiding citizen, the federal government should not be able to track your movements,\u201d Chaffetz recently wrote in a statement to OZY. \u201cClear guidelines that carry the weight of the law are needed to protect the privacy of innocent Americans.\u201d Separately, 28-year-old activist Freddy Martinez won a significant intermediary step this January in a lawsuit against the Chicago Police Department; as a result, the police department is required to produce documents that disclose the use of cell-site simulators, which a judge is set to review in a closed-door hearing. \u201cWe can\u2019t have an informed debate about what\u2019s appropriate when it comes to government surveillance if we don\u2019t even know what that surveillance is,\u201d says Martinez\u2019s attorney, Matthew Topic of Loevy & Loevy.<\/p>\n

To be sure, some states, such as Washington and Virginia, do require a search warrant to use cell site simulators to identify a cellphone\u2019s location or intercept incoming or outgoing calls and text messages. And following public outcry, the IRS recently announced that it would seek a probable-cause warrant. Meanwhile, in September, the Department of Justice issued a new policy<\/a> for its own use of cell-site simulators designed to \u201cenhance transparency and accountability,\u201d and media reps for both the DEA and FBI said they also follow the DOJ\u2019s policy. (The NSA didn\u2019t respond to our request for comment.)<\/p>\n

Yet given the growing threat and frequency of data breaches, privacy advocates say, the surveillance metadata of innocent citizens may risk falling into the hands of malicious cybercriminals. Ryan Satterfield, founder of the information security company Planet Zuda, explains that metadata gathered from Stingray devices can map out a lot, including where individuals have been and who they\u2019ve been communicating with. The question some are asking is: Do agencies collecting Stingray surveillance data swiftly delete the metadata of innocent bystanders? The answer, however, remains a mystery.<\/p>\n

\n

To learn more about Stingray surveillance and other infringements on civil liberties in the digital age, watch all-new episodes of Truth and Power<\/a>, Participant Media\u2019s new investigative documentary series on Fridays at 10 p.m. ET \/ PT on Pivot<\/a>. Preview this week\u2019s episode on Stingray technology:<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n