SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Though the new rules don't go quite far enough for most privacy and civil liberties advocates, the DOJ guidelines require that local law enforcement agencies now obtain a warrant in most cases in which they plan to use a tracking device that disguises itself as a cell phone tower. (Image: Getty)
At long last, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has announced a slew of much-needed policy changes regarding the use of cell-site simulators. Most importantly, all federal law enforcement agencies--and all state and local agencies working with the federal government--will now be required to obtain a search warrant supported by probable cause before they are allowed to use cell-site simulators. EFF welcomes these policy changes as long overdue.
At long last, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has announced a slew of much-needed policy changes regarding the use of cell-site simulators. Most importantly, all federal law enforcement agencies--and all state and local agencies working with the federal government--will now be required to obtain a search warrant supported by probable cause before they are allowed to use cell-site simulators. EFF welcomes these policy changes as long overdue.
Colloquially known as "Stingrays" after Harris Corporation's brand name for a common model, cell-site simulators masquerade as legitimate cell phone towers, tricking phones nearby into connecting to them. This allows agents to learn the unique identifying number for each phone in the area of the device and to track a phone's location in real time. But Stingrays can get a lot more than just identifying numbers and location data--by virtue of the way they work, all mobile traffic (voice, data, and text) from every phone in the area could be routed through the Stingray, giving the operator the option to do anything from recording entire calls and texts, to selectively denying service to particular phones.
Until recently, law enforcement's use of Stingrays has been shrouded in an inexplicable and indefensible level of secrecy. At the behest of the FBI, state law enforcement agencies have been bound by non-disclosure agreements intended to shield from public scrutiny all details about the technical capabilities and even model numbers of the devices. Law enforcement has gone to extreme lengths to protect even the most basic information about them, even dropping charges rather than answering judges' questions about them. Although today's policy changes don't directly affect the non-disclosure agreements already in place, the tone of the announcement, along with a clarification from May, gives us hope that more transparency is on the way.
What the changes do:
What the changes don't do:
What more is needed:
While we're pleasantly surprised by this long-needed first step to bring Stingrays out of the shadows and into compliance with the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement, more is needed.
First and foremost, without a statute or court decision giving this voluntary policy the force of law, there will be no consequences if law enforcement agents flout its terms and continue using Stingrays as they have--without warrants. With only this policy shielding us, there's nothing keeping warrantless Stingray evidence out of court, and therefore nothing to deter agents from behaving badly.
And finally, we need to extend this warrant requirement to all state and local law enforcement agencies around the country. Some states (such as Washington) already have such laws in place. It's time to make the message clear to cops in all 50 states: if you want to use a Stingray, get a warrant!
Dear Common Dreams reader, The U.S. is on a fast track to authoritarianism like nothing I've ever seen. Meanwhile, corporate news outlets are utterly capitulating to Trump, twisting their coverage to avoid drawing his ire while lining up to stuff cash in his pockets. That's why I believe that Common Dreams is doing the best and most consequential reporting that we've ever done. Our small but mighty team is a progressive reporting powerhouse, covering the news every day that the corporate media never will. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. And to ignite change for the common good. Now here's the key piece that I want all our readers to understand: None of this would be possible without your financial support. That's not just some fundraising cliche. It's the absolute and literal truth. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. Will you donate now to help power the nonprofit, independent reporting of Common Dreams? Thank you for being a vital member of our community. Together, we can keep independent journalism alive when it’s needed most. - Craig Brown, Co-founder |
At long last, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has announced a slew of much-needed policy changes regarding the use of cell-site simulators. Most importantly, all federal law enforcement agencies--and all state and local agencies working with the federal government--will now be required to obtain a search warrant supported by probable cause before they are allowed to use cell-site simulators. EFF welcomes these policy changes as long overdue.
Colloquially known as "Stingrays" after Harris Corporation's brand name for a common model, cell-site simulators masquerade as legitimate cell phone towers, tricking phones nearby into connecting to them. This allows agents to learn the unique identifying number for each phone in the area of the device and to track a phone's location in real time. But Stingrays can get a lot more than just identifying numbers and location data--by virtue of the way they work, all mobile traffic (voice, data, and text) from every phone in the area could be routed through the Stingray, giving the operator the option to do anything from recording entire calls and texts, to selectively denying service to particular phones.
Until recently, law enforcement's use of Stingrays has been shrouded in an inexplicable and indefensible level of secrecy. At the behest of the FBI, state law enforcement agencies have been bound by non-disclosure agreements intended to shield from public scrutiny all details about the technical capabilities and even model numbers of the devices. Law enforcement has gone to extreme lengths to protect even the most basic information about them, even dropping charges rather than answering judges' questions about them. Although today's policy changes don't directly affect the non-disclosure agreements already in place, the tone of the announcement, along with a clarification from May, gives us hope that more transparency is on the way.
What the changes do:
What the changes don't do:
What more is needed:
While we're pleasantly surprised by this long-needed first step to bring Stingrays out of the shadows and into compliance with the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement, more is needed.
First and foremost, without a statute or court decision giving this voluntary policy the force of law, there will be no consequences if law enforcement agents flout its terms and continue using Stingrays as they have--without warrants. With only this policy shielding us, there's nothing keeping warrantless Stingray evidence out of court, and therefore nothing to deter agents from behaving badly.
And finally, we need to extend this warrant requirement to all state and local law enforcement agencies around the country. Some states (such as Washington) already have such laws in place. It's time to make the message clear to cops in all 50 states: if you want to use a Stingray, get a warrant!
At long last, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has announced a slew of much-needed policy changes regarding the use of cell-site simulators. Most importantly, all federal law enforcement agencies--and all state and local agencies working with the federal government--will now be required to obtain a search warrant supported by probable cause before they are allowed to use cell-site simulators. EFF welcomes these policy changes as long overdue.
Colloquially known as "Stingrays" after Harris Corporation's brand name for a common model, cell-site simulators masquerade as legitimate cell phone towers, tricking phones nearby into connecting to them. This allows agents to learn the unique identifying number for each phone in the area of the device and to track a phone's location in real time. But Stingrays can get a lot more than just identifying numbers and location data--by virtue of the way they work, all mobile traffic (voice, data, and text) from every phone in the area could be routed through the Stingray, giving the operator the option to do anything from recording entire calls and texts, to selectively denying service to particular phones.
Until recently, law enforcement's use of Stingrays has been shrouded in an inexplicable and indefensible level of secrecy. At the behest of the FBI, state law enforcement agencies have been bound by non-disclosure agreements intended to shield from public scrutiny all details about the technical capabilities and even model numbers of the devices. Law enforcement has gone to extreme lengths to protect even the most basic information about them, even dropping charges rather than answering judges' questions about them. Although today's policy changes don't directly affect the non-disclosure agreements already in place, the tone of the announcement, along with a clarification from May, gives us hope that more transparency is on the way.
What the changes do:
What the changes don't do:
What more is needed:
While we're pleasantly surprised by this long-needed first step to bring Stingrays out of the shadows and into compliance with the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement, more is needed.
First and foremost, without a statute or court decision giving this voluntary policy the force of law, there will be no consequences if law enforcement agents flout its terms and continue using Stingrays as they have--without warrants. With only this policy shielding us, there's nothing keeping warrantless Stingray evidence out of court, and therefore nothing to deter agents from behaving badly.
And finally, we need to extend this warrant requirement to all state and local law enforcement agencies around the country. Some states (such as Washington) already have such laws in place. It's time to make the message clear to cops in all 50 states: if you want to use a Stingray, get a warrant!