Stingray Documents Show Law Enforcement Using 'Terrorism' To Obtain Equipment To Fight Regular Crime
from the because-WMDs-but-here's-a-low-level-drug-dealer-we-busted dept
Scott Ainslie at MuckRock has pried loose a few more Stingray documents with a FOIA request. What was requested were contractual documents, which seem to be something law enforcement agencies feel more comfortable with releasing. Anything pertaining to the actual use of Stingray devices still remains heavily shrouded, thanks in no small part to the intercession of the federal government.
Still, there is some useful information to be gleaned from the responsive documents, not the least of which is the fact that the DHS will happily fund local law enforcement’s surveillance technology if they cross themselves and say the word “terrorism” three time during the requisition process.
The entire purchase is itemized on the request form under “Homeland Security.” Specifics are redacted, not only on the purchase order, but also the letter from the governor’s office signing off on the acquisition. But a few details manage to escape the black marker. The letter from the governor’s office notes that this is no normal purchase.
The Illinois State Police has issued a request for a Procurement Code exception in order to covertly purchase [redacted] from Harris Corporation for conducting covert investigations. This exception is requested so that the Illinois State Police may purchase components directly from the vendor and decrease the possibility of sensitive information being disseminated inappropriately.
And this bit of sloppy redaction allows part of what must be a very ominous sentence to be revealed:
If you can’t make it out, the last three words of the redaction are “weapons of mass destruction.” The letter also confirms that the purchase is funded by a DHS grant.
As is the case when agencies reluctantly provide responsive documents, many of the documents look like they were scanned in by a poorly-trained monkey with an inner ear disorder, while others are apparently scans of tenth-generation copies made by the ancient copier kept around past the point of usefulness solely for responding to FOIA requests. This helps keep much of the text from being searchable, and in some cases early on, even legible.
Other points of interest include wording in the Harris contract. As has been pointed out before, Harris ties law enforcement up with non-disclosure agreements that (supposedly) prevent them from ever revealing information like this or, indeed, seeking warrants before using the equipment. Things may have changed since 2008 (when this requisition was completed), but the wording here doesn’t seem to be nearly as extreme as the interpretation provided by law enforcement agencies.
A. Publicity. Neither party will, without the prior written consent of the other party: (a) make any news release, public announcement, denial or confirmation of this Agreement or its subject matter, or (b) in any manner advertise or publish the fact of their Agreement.
This contractual language seems rather minimal as compared to what has surfaced more recently.
“The Harris (REDACTED) equipment is proprietary and used for surveillance missions,” the agreement reads. “Its capabilities can only be discussed with sworn law enforcement officers, the military or federal government. This equipment’s capabilities are not for public knowledge and are protected under non-disclosure agreements as well as Title 18 USC 2512.”
Apparently, Harris felt added restrictions were necessary to keep the public from learning about the technology public servants were deploying against them.
This Stingray was obtained in the fall of 2008, and it appears to be the only one the Illinois State Police own. But there are documents from 2006 and 2007 showing warranty replacements and repairs to existing Harris equipment, but most likely not a cell tower spoofer.
Then there’s this remarkable paragraph that’s included in the letter justifying redactions, which is a masterwork of unchecked fear:
Release of the information requested would endanger the life or physical safety of law enforcement personnel. Police officers, as well as the valuable and dedicated support personnel who work with them, face unknown and unpredictable dangers every day. Recent and unpredictable attacks on police officers and other criminal justice employees and their families point to an alarming trend in violence targeted directly at those persons simply because they represent law and order. Examples of violence toward law enforcement, criminal justice personnel and their families include: the shootout with a suspect in California armed with an AK47 on September 11, 2011; The murder of Maywood Police Officer Tom Wood as he had finished his shift in October 2006; Violence has not only been directed toward police officers. Damon Daniels was killed November 13, 2004 during a home-invasion robbery at the home he shared with his mother, Gery Gilbert, a secretary for the Oakland, California Police Department. In Texas, Kaufman County District Attorney Mike McLelland, his wife Cynthia, and Assistant District Attorney Mark Hasse were murdered by former Justice of the Peace Eric Williams in purported retaliation for prosecution of Williams for theft, which resulted in Williams losing his position as Justice of the Peace. Additionally, in April 2013, two members of a white supremacist prison gang were arrested for the murder of Colorado Department of Corrections head Tom Clements. Finally, consider the murder of the husband and mother of Judge Joan Lefkow. The suspect in that case, Bart Ross, was upset with Judge Lefkow because of an adverse ruling in a medical malpractice case. These are just a few incidents of violence directed at police officers, criminal justice system employees and their families.
There’s no real trend here. Law enforcement is safer than it’s been in 50 years. The only thing “alarming” is that the state police are using a highly-subjective fear to make supposedly “objective” redactions — ones that weigh the public interest rather than just a handful of unrelated events scattered over a decade.
The most notable aspect of the documents is what it confirms: that law enforcement agencies are leveraging terrorism fears to acquire pervasive surveillance technology (that was initially developed for use in war zones) — and that the DHS is more than happy to oblige them by funding the purchases. This intertwining of law enforcement and national security explains the federal government’s intercession in Freedom of Information denials.
[Postscript: bonus points for anyone who can figure out why a regular DUI bust police report was included in the responsive documents (embedded below).]
Filed Under: crime, dhs, law enforcement, stingray, terrorism
Comments on “Stingray Documents Show Law Enforcement Using 'Terrorism' To Obtain Equipment To Fight Regular Crime”
Probably best not to compare the numbers...
If they’re going to use ‘violence directed towards police by the public’ to justify picking up tech to spy on the public, it would be interesting to see how those numbers compare to ‘violence directed towards the public by police’.
If the numbers are in the same ballpark, their own logic would dictate that it’s in the public’s best interest to have increased surveillance over the police(like, say, mandatory cameras on all officers in the field, with the recordings publicly available), in order to protect the public.
However, I’m guessing the numbers would be anything but equal, or even remotely similar…
Re: Probably best not to compare the numbers...
f the numbers are in the same ballpark, their own logic would dictate that it’s in the public’s best interest to have increased surveillance over the police(like, say, mandatory cameras on all officers in the field, with the recordings publicly available), in order to protect the public.
The public would hate it. The decreases is officer violence are likely very much related to the public knowing that the cannot scream “police brutality” when they are the ones caught on video instigating the problems.
Re: Re: Probably best not to compare the numbers...
“The public would hate it. The decreases is officer violence are likely very much related to the public knowing that the cannot scream “police brutality” when they are the ones caught on video instigating the problems.”
This is a bad thing? Having a camera would make cops safer, reduce crime, and cover their asses in the event of false claims.
Oh, but you’re just talking out your ass, aren’t you? Citizens aren’t the ones apposed to having cameras, we’re the ones that have them at all times. Cops are the ones fighting the cameras. They’re the ones threatening and arresting people only for having cameras. They’re the ones destroying evidence. They’re the ones making claims that directly appose video evidence.
One would think that if there are just soooooo many false claims of police brutality, the cops would be falling over themselves to provide more evidence against these people.
Re: Re: Re: Probably best not to compare the numbers...
Cops are the ones fighting the cameras.
Of course they are. Would you like to have every word, every action, every step, and every motion you make held up for review at all times? Remember, this isn’t “forgot to use the TPS form” so your boss calls you out stuff, but things that happen in moments of great tension, adrenaline fueled persuits, breaking up fights… the list goes on and on. Perhaps they say something that is a little out of line (like cussing). Do you really want EVERYTHING that EVERY officer does up for review every time? The stress of having that unwavering eye on everything you do is enough to cause officers to back away and do nothing rather than risk action. That doesn’t help the public.
One would think that if there are just soooooo many false claims of police brutality, the cops would be falling over themselves to provide more evidence against these people.
Since every situation is two sided, the presence of cameras certainly does change the approach – but it changes it for both sides. Since the police generally aren’t busting heads of people just standing around or complying with an arrest, clearly something has happened. It cannot be only that the police are suddenly so much better behaved, but rather than the aggressive citizens are also taking a step back, knowing they can’t yell about police brutality at every turn.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/04/california-police-body-cameras-cuts-violence-complaints-rialto
Key numbers here, police use of force fell 60% – and complaints by the public dropped a whopping 88%. Both sides do behave better, and moreover:
Most now accepted cameras as another part of the job, said Sgt Josh Lindsay. A self-confessed technophile, he said they provided context to contentious incidents partially captured by bystanders’ phones. “Now you can see the [suspect] punching the officer twice in the face before he hits him with his baton.”
Yes, the whole Rodney King thing would have played differently, wouldn’t it?
The officers will come around. The risk is increase in costs for policing, as officers are more likely to call backup and less likely to handle situations alone. Is it any better that every situation turns into almost a SWAT call out?
Re: Re: Re:2 Probably best not to compare the numbers...
“Do you really want EVERYTHING that EVERY officer does up for review every time?”
What I want is the ability to meaningfully review what any officer does in the course of his duty if there is any question about his actions.
“The stress of having that unwavering eye on everything you do is enough to cause officers to back away and do nothing rather than risk action.”
Are cops really such pussies? A large percentage (perhaps most) of the workforce has an unwavering eye on everything they do right now. Why should cops be exempted from that, particularly given that the police are granted extraordinary powers over the lives of everyone else and that they have a very long history of being abusive.
If cops are so afraid of having their actions being visible, then they shouldn’t be cops.
“The risk is increase in costs for policing, as officers are more likely to call backup and less likely to handle situations alone.”
Where I live, the police always call for backup as a matter of procedure anyway. I’ve seen cops call for backup when citing people on bicycles for traffic infractions.
Re: Re: Re:3 Probably best not to compare the numbers...
I don’t think it’s “their actions being visible” they’re afraid of; it’s having their actions completely misrepresented, taken out of context, and causing worse problems.
A video recording is a great thing for showing what actually happened, except that it only shows what the camera was pointing at while it was running. If you present Act 2 like it was the entire play… well, just look at the Rodney King riots for one completely non-hypothetical example of what can (and did!) go wrong.
If you were a cop, would you want to end up at the center of another mess like that one?
Re: Re: Re:2 Probably best not to compare the numbers...
That is exactly what law enforcement is trying to do to everybody, and are happy to do so, so long as they control the footage and have convenient losses, camera failures etc. What they are objecting to is the citizens turning the tables on them, and having control of the footage.
Re: Re: Re:2 Probably best not to compare the numbers...
This is always the first thing I think of when I hear about police officers having trouble with being recorded. It’s hard to blame them; who would want to be the next guy at the center of a media report that sets off a riot because they neglected to show what happened a minute or two earlier?
Re: Re: Re:3 Probably best not to compare the numbers...
OK, I’m certain that I missed something — are you arguing that minutes prior to the events shown in the King beating video would have made people perceive the situation differently? Because if so, I disagree.
Re: Re: Re:4 Probably best not to compare the numbers...
Seeing the drunken high-speed chase, the way he endangered multiple innocent lives, the way he assaulted the police officers, the way he continued to violently resist arrest even when it was clear he had no chance, to the point where the police officers had good reason to believe he was high on PCP… none of this context which was suspiciously absent from the video that got broadcast would have made people perceive the situation differently?
There’s a very good reason the officers were found to not be at fault when tried by an actual impartial jury: they did exactly what was necessary to subdue a dangerous lunatic who had already demonstrated that he was a danger to them, to himself and to innocent bystanders. This was by no means a case of police brutality, but a camera told a different story, and the rest is history.
53 people died in the ensuing riots, with thousands severely injured and around $1 billion in property damage, and every last bit of it is on the heads of the idiotic news hounds who chose to put sensationalism and ratings above common sense, journalistic ethics, or basic honesty.
Re: Re: Probably best not to compare the numbers...
“The public would hate it.”
I think you misspelled “love”.
You know when some were saying a decade ago that the “terrorism” excuse will be used to justify just about anything? Guess what? It’s happening, and it doesn’t seem to slow down. If anything, it’s accelerating. All local law enforcement agencies are turning more and more into the military/NSA “because terrorism”.
Wake up, America, before it’s too late to stop any of it, because nobody will dare to say anything for fear of having militarized police driver a tank over their house, with a “no-knock” warrant.
Re: Says the anonymous coward
You are part of the problem. Hiding behind anonymity. You are too afraid to really speak your mind and to do anything about it. Stop spreading your crap, and do something about it.
Re: Re: Anonymous coward calls out anonymous coward for cowardice
“Hiding behind anonymity.”
huh?
This is the internet. Anonymity when giving one’s pov is the goal we should all be striving towards.
Besides, you should be focused on the merit of the ideas expressed, not who expressed them.
Re: Re:
It’s already too late.
No need for terrorists, the US will tear itself apart from the inside.
Re: No need for terrorists?
Nonsense. There is a large and increasing need for terrorists who want to destroy the American way of life and its freedoms. They are trained under the working title of “law officer”, are getting equipped with military-grade weapons and transports, terrorize the citizenship, making arbitrary raids, beat people up, shoot their dogs, leave a trail of havoc and fear in their wake and stop people from insisting on their rights.
They use “plea bargains” to make people give up on their right to due process. They torture and kill people and rain death from the skies in various countries. They maintain rape camps called “prison” and incarcerate unprecedented numbers of citizens for terms that have no relation to the made-up crimes they are supposed to be connected with.
There has never been a better job market for terrorists in the U.S.A.
What the U.S. tries to curb is unlicensed terrorism.
Re: Re: No need for terrorists?
I wish there was a “Sad but True” button I could click on.
Re: Re:
Test question: how much of raw sewage is being dumped straight into the oceans by major metro areas?
Perhaps half.
But we spend more on the T word, then on improving our 19th century infrastructure. Will see how far that could be pulled.
But..but… Won’t somebody think of the terrorist children!
Re: Re:
Way ahead of you. They already took care of those:
http://youtu.be/BN2b8pnk_BI?t=13m39s
violence targeted directly at those persons simply because they represent law and order
So they have redacted these documents because there is violence against police officers, criminal justice system employees and their families simply because they represent law and order. So how does redacting the documents help?
Oh, wait, I think I get it, by childishly withholding information sought in a FOIA request and preventing the public from seeing what they are doing, they are not representing law and order – thus making them less of a target for the people that want to act against those types of people. Nice thinking! I would have never come up with that one.
WMDs? Since we knew from the start that they were never there, let’s just skip to the real justification… oil!
Wait, this isn’t Iraq is it?
Re: Re:
I always thought Iraq was because somebody called Bush Sr. a wuss and Bush Jr. needed to avenge his daddy.
Re: Re: Re:
In all honesty it was probably a combination of reasons, from these two to just increasing our presence in that region
Stingray, DUI, and Mayor Ardis... Hmmm...
Drunk driving at the War Memorial in Peoria? Wasn’t that where Mayor Jim Ardis used to dress up as Bo Peep and enjoy romantic interludes with sheep? At least that’s what I read on Twitter…
Upon reading 18 USC 2512, I don’t understand how this is not a misrepresentation of the law. This is a particular pet peeve of mine.
Sure, I can’t place an ad to sell one of these devices, but I can disclose their existence and capabilities (in the absence of the NDA).
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2512
Re: Re:
There’s an argument to be made. I don’t endorse this as the correct reading of the statute, but it’s an argument at least:
?1(c) makes punishable the publishing or electronic dissemination of “any advertisement” of a device. ?3 says it’s not unlawful “to advertise for sale” a device “if the advertisement is mailed, sent, or carried [etc.]” to one of an enumerated group of people. The phrase “the advertisement” in ?3 clearly refers to an “advertise[ment] for sale,” as found earlier in that section. However, in ?1, the language is “any advertisement.” This leads us to the possibility that ?1 envisions “an[] advertisement” that is not an advertisement “for sale” of a device. Nor is it a strained reading of English to claim that an advertisement doesn’t necessarily have to publicize something for sale. Just glance at the entry for “advertisement” in the OED, and you’ll find numerous instances of the word being used to denote the general notification of someone or some people about something, without any necessary mercantile implication. It’s true that we use “advertisement” now generally to denote something intended to convey an offer to sell something, but given the ambiguity in how sections 1 and 3 of the statute seem to be using advertisement (“any advertisement” versus an advertisement specifically “for sale”), we can perhaps conclude that the statute is indeed meant to prohibit the general disclosure of such devices’ capabilities, as well as targeting specifically advertisements for sale.
Stingray DUI
They knew where this person was right before they drive. The DUI was related to where they were. Probable cause would be from the use of this illegal device that is incapable of illegally wiretapping one person at a time. All of the redactions are to try to prevent the most obvious lies from being used against them.
City of Miami Harris Doc
Idk why but the City of Miami posted some of their 2008 Stingray stuff online.
http://egov.ci.miami.fl.us/Legistarweb/Attachments/48003.pdf
2014 GSA Harris Price List
Found a 2014 Harris GSA price list.
It lists the Harpoon cell tracker and accessories inc Amberjack (ant), Gossamer(?), Moray-II(?), etc
Upgrade-to-Harpoon costs from Stingray I/II and Kingfish X1-X5,
the AN/USC65(V)5 Sat Terminal and bunches of ancillary products.
https://www.gsaadvantage.gov/ref_text/GS35F0283J/0ML8KB.2S6VTT_GS-35F-0283J_HARRISMOD162.PDF
Re: 2014 GSA Harris Price List
VERY interesting. Also reminds us that Harris’ Melbourne, FL location is the development center, which might explain the Floridians’ obsession with civilian use of ant-terror technology; what developer wouldn’t want to hop into a company car and make a short trip to Tampa to wring out operational issues or do field testing, especially when real-world developmental testing is highly illegal.
Also, as noted before, these non-disclosure agreements can sometimes be requested by the law enforcement agencies themselves as a way to get around FOIA requests. “Oh darn, we’d love to tell you, but there’s that NDA.” No mentioning that they wanted the the NDA in there in the first place for precisely that reason.
DUI
The DUI is pretty interesting. It’s nice to know that they carefully redacted the information about the police officers involved, but Jamie L Wilson, a single, white, woman from Peoria Illinois who used to drive a black 2002 Pontiac Grand Am was drunk and crashed her car.
We have also been granted access to some of her medical records. Nice guys those Peoria police officers are.
I would also question if she was really “unable to sign” the ticket or simply unwilling – considering she was apparently able to tell the officer “I’m not giving blood or blowin on nothin!”.
I assume these were included in response to the FOIA request because the incident happened at the Glen-War Memorial and they needed something with “War” in the document to justify getting a Stingray device.
Weapon of Mass Destruction is a weasel term
Why? Because under federal law, if you take the gunpowder out of a cartridge and make a firecracker out of it, you have created a WMD.
Federal law classifies all explosives other than firearm ammunition as WMDs. Undetonated hand grenades are just as illegal as undetonated nukes under federal law — if you set one off the penalties are different due to damage/fatality numbers but possession will send you to prison for the same number of years for both under federal statutes.
A flash/bang grenade, the ‘distraction device’ police like to throw around like rice at a wedding during SWAT raids is legally a WMD under federal law.
Please deposit bonus points into my account
The DUI report was for FOIA request #14-0745 instead of MuckRock’s request which was FOIA request #14-0754. Obviously the result of a typo or a misread and search.
The interesting thing about this woman’s DUI is that her BAC was .392. This is beyond severe impairment and well into life threatening. It is amazing this woman was conscious enough to even get in a car and start it.
HIPPA anyone?
I have to agree, it seems odd that a DUI case would be considered relevant to the whole “Stingray” thing. What I really want to know, is how the F@#K is it legal for a cop to just obtain personal and private medical data by just filling out a form rather than having to get a warrant?
It is my understanding that our medical information is private and protected by the so-called “HIPPA” law enacted in 1996. What is going on here?
Re: HIPPA anyone?
HIPAA restricts the release of medical records by a health care provider. There are exceptions for release to law enforcement, including the case where the information is evidence of a crime. Release of medical information by law enforcement is not covered under HIPAA. The only medical information included here is the lab report for BAC, which is evidence for the DUI charge.
Terrorism is terrorizing the fucking terrorists!
stingray
The manufacture and use of Stingray type equipment is clearly in violation of Federal law and is punishable by up to ten years in prison. Two parties conspiring to infringe on a citizens civil rights. Read for yourself.
http://www.justice.gov/crt/abo…
It is also agains FCC rules with 2 years in prison on $50,000 fine.
Section 705 of the Communications Act
Section 705 of the Communications Act adds to the Federal Wiretap Act additional restrictions on the unauthorized interception of communication “by wire or radio.” Specifically, the Act provides
No person not being authorized by the sender shall intercept any radio communication and divulge or publish the existence, contents, substance, purport, effect, or meaning of such intercepted communication to any person. No person not being entitled thereto shall receive or assist in receiving any interstate or foreign communication by radio and use such communication (or any information therein contained) for his own benefit or for the benefit of another not entitled thereto. No person having received any intercepted radio communication or having become acquainted with the contents, substance, purport, effect, or meaning of such communication (or any part thereof) knowing that such communication was intercepted, shall divulge or publish the existence, contents, substance, purport, effect, or meaning of such communication (or any part thereof) or use such communication (or any information therein contained) for his own benefit or for the benefit of another not entitled thereto.Violations of Section 705 carry strict penalties, with willful violations “for purposes of direct or indirect commercial advantage or private financial gain” meriting fines of up to $50,000 and prison for up to two years for the first offense.