By Paul Rosenzweig, The George Washington University Law School
The tracking system Stingray is used to locate, interfere with, and even intercept communications from cell towers and other wireless devices. However, to keep the technology safe, the US government doesn’t disclose how it actually works. This secrecy surrounding Stingray is problematic, as it leads to conflict between secrecy and transparency.
Stingray: How It Works
When a Stingray tracking device is turned on, it pretends it is a cell phone tower. It simulates the call out from the tower to nearby phones, even when they’re not turned on. Those phones, in turn, respond to the Stingray by reporting in their phone number and a unique electronic serial ID number.
According to Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), the non-profit civil liberties organization in Washington, government investigators and private individuals alike can use Stingray and other cell site simulators to locate, interfere with, and even intercept communications from cell towers and other wireless devices. EPIC tells us that the Federal Bureau of Investigation has used these simulators to track and locate phones and users since at least 1995.
Learn more about the techniques cops use to solve crimes.
How Powerful Is Stingray Tech?
According to The Wall Street Journal, the US Marshals Service flies planes carrying devices that mimic cell phone towers in order to scan the identifying information of Americans’ phones as it searches for criminal suspects and fugitives.
The Justice Department justifies the phone records collection program by arguing that it is minimally invasive and an essential way to attempt to track terrorists and criminals. Its main virtue, from the government’s perspective, is that the program eliminates the need to go to phone companies as an intermediary in searching for suspects.
Naturally, others see that as problematic. Chris Soghoian, chief technologist of the American Civil Liberties Union, says that Stingray in the air is “inexcusable and it’s likely—to the extent that judges are authorizing it—that they have no idea of the scale of it.”
This is a transcript from the video series The Surveillance State: Big Data, Freedom, and You. Watch it now, on Wondrium.
The Secrecy–Transparency Balance
It’s important for American citizens to know what their government is doing. On the other hand, it’s clear that the disclosure of certain surveillance techniques can significantly diminish their utility.
Most of what you read about Stingray is a matter of public record, derived from enterprising journalists and litigants who have run into the program as part of ongoing criminal proceedings, for example. But the US government is anxious to keep the technology out of the hands of non-government actors.
To that end, whenever they’re asked to produce the equipment in court, they dismiss the case rather than disclose how the Stingray actually works.
Learn more about surveillance dilemmas.
The Case against Tadrae McKenzie
The Washington Post brought us the story of Tadrae McKenzie, a small-time criminal living in Florida. He and two of his friends robbed another small-time crook—a marijuana dealer—armed only with BB guns.
At first, the police had no leads to this crime. But the robbers stole the victim’s cell phone as well, so the Tampa police got a court order directing the local telephone company to give them the cell tower location data. The data helped, but it was not specific enough.
Then the police used a Stingray device to more narrowly focus their investigation. Eventually, using the Stingray, the police were able to narrow down the location of the stolen cell phone to a single, specific house, which they put under surveillance. And, as McKenzie left his home one morning, he was arrested.
Secrecy Surrounding Stingray
During the preliminary hearing in McKenzie’s case, the lead police officer said that he had used a device that was subject to a nondisclosure agreement with the FBI, and, therefore, he wasn’t allowed to tell the defense counsel how the machine operated.
The Florida judge handling the matter ordered the government to produce details of the Stingray and how it operated. Rather than doing that, the state prosecutor offered McKenzie a deal. And, so, McKenzie agreed to plead guilty to a second-degree misdemeanor, and he received 6 months’ probation.
Because of the secrecy surrounding how the Stingray works, McKenzie got off easy.
Learn more about the U.S. intelligence community.
Conflict in Usage of Stingray
If you’re a law and order advocate, you should be concerned that a guilty man went essentially free. If you’re a champion of civil liberties, you should be concerned that the Stingray and its technical details remained secret.
We are, I’m afraid, in a very unsteady and unstable place where neither answer satisfies. More to the point, such an unreconciled conflict is simply untenable in the long run. Either the government’s use of new technologies in the public sphere will have to be fully disclosed and made subject to adequate oversight, or the police are going to have to give up such surveillance and tracking tools if they can’t withstand the scrutiny that comes with its use in a free society.
One small step in the direction of reconciling the conflict: the Department of Justice has now said that as a matter of policy, but not legal obligation, federal law enforcement officers will seek warrants before using a Stingray.
ACLU’s Chris Soghoian points out there is yet one more reason why the secrecy surrounding Stingrays is problematic, at best. The idea is that if the FBI can use Stingrays, then so can our enemies.
Common Questions about Stingray
When a Stingray tracking device is turned on, it pretends it is a cell phone tower. It simulates the call out from the tower to nearby phones, even when they’re not turned on. Those phones, in turn, respond to the Stingray by reporting in their phone number and a unique electronic serial ID number.
Government investigators and private individuals alike can use Stingray and other cell site simulators to locate, interfere with, and even intercept communications from cell towers and other wireless devices.
The Justice Department justifies the phone records collection program by arguing that it is minimally invasive and an essential way to attempt to track terrorists and criminals. Its main virtue, from the government’s perspective, is that the program eliminates the need to go to phone companies as an intermediary in searching for suspects.
