Tenth Amendment Center: Utah Bill Would Ban Warrantless Access to Information in the Cloud, Help Hinder Federal Surveillance

From Tenth Amendment Center

...from Tenth Amendment Center

SALT LAKE CITY, Utah (Jan. 7, 2019) – A bill filed in the Utah House would require police to get a warrant before accessing data stored in the “cloud.” The proposed law would not only increase privacy protections in Utah; it would also hinder the federal surveillance state.

Rep. Craig Hall (R-West Valley City) filed House Bill 57 (HB57) on Dec. 28. The proposed law would prohibit law enforcement agencies from accessing electronic information or data transmitted to a “remote computing service” without a warrant in most situations. In effect, it would prohibit police from warrantlessly accessing information uploaded into the “cloud.”

HB57 would expand existing laws already on the books in Utah requiring police to get a warrant before accessing location information, stored data, and transmitted data from an electronic device. The current laws effectively ban the warrantless use of “stingrays.” These devices essentially spoof cell phone towers, tricking any device within range into connecting to the stingray instead of the tower, allowing law enforcement to sweep up communications content, as well as locate and track the person in possession of a specific phone or other electronic device. Current law also requires police to get a warrant before accessing electronic data from third-party providers. Passage of HB57 would further limit the ability of law enforcement agencies to warrantlessly gather electronic information and data.

IMPACT ON FEDERAL PROGRAMS

It has become standard practice for law enforcement agencies to upload warrantless surveillance data gathered at the state level to federal fusion centers operated by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and other federal agencies. Fusion centers serve as clearinghouses for all kinds of information shared between federal, state and local law enforcement agencies—including data gathered by surveillance cameras, drones, intercepted cellphone and email communications, social network spying, as well as ALPRs and other invasive modes of surveillance. The DHS funds and ultimately runs 79 fusion centers across the U.S. The DHS describes homeland security intelligence/information fusion as the ”…process of managing the flow of information to support the rapid identification of emerging terrorism-related threats requiring intervention by government and private-sector authorities.”

Fusion centers were sold as a tool to combat terrorism, but that is not how they are being used. The ACLU pointed to a bipartisan congressional report to demonstrate the true nature of government fusion centers: “They haven’t contributed anything meaningful to counterterrorism efforts. Instead, they have largely served as police surveillance and information sharing nodes for law enforcement efforts targeting the frequent subjects of police attention: Black and brown people, immigrants, dissidents, and the poor.”

Fusion centers operate within a broader federal system known as the “information sharing environment” or ISE. According to its website, the ISE “provides analysts, operators, and investigators with information needed to enhance national security. These analysts, operators, and investigators…have mission needs to collaborate and share information with each other and with private sector partners and our foreign allies.” In other words, ISE serves as a conduit for the sharing of information gathered without a warrant. Known ISE partners include the Office of Director of National Intelligence which oversees 17 federal agencies and organizations, including the NSA. ISE utilizes these partnerships to collect and share data on the millions of unwitting people they track.

When states limit the data and information law enforcement agencies can collect, it minimizes the amount of information and data that can end up in this federal information-sharing pipeline. Legislation such as HB57 practically hinders the operation and growth of the federal surveillance state. Simply put if the data is never gathered in the first place, it can’t be shared.

In a nutshell, without state and local cooperation, the feds have a much more difficult time gathering information. Passage of HB57 would strike another blow to the surveillance state and would be a win for privacy.

WHAT’S NEXT

HB57 will be officially introduced when the legislative session begins on Jan. 28. At that time, it will be referred to the House Rules Committee for review and assignment to a standing committee.

 

Mike Maharrey
January 07, 2019 at 01:36PM

Tenth Amendment Center: Texas Bills Would Ban Warrantless Stingray Spying, Help Hinder Federal Surveillance

From Tenth Amendment Center

...from Tenth Amendment Center

AUSTIN, Texas (Nov. 23, 2018) – Two bills prefiled in the Texas House for the 2019 legislative session would ban warrantless location tracking and the use of stingray devices to sweep up electronic communications in most situations. The proposed laws would not only protect privacy in Texas, but would also hinder one aspect of the federal surveillance state.

Rep. Cesar Blanco (D-El Paso) prefiled House Bill 352 (HB352) on Nov. 15. The legislation would help block the use of cell site simulators, known as “stingrays.” These devices essentially spoof cell phone towers, tricking any device within range into connecting to the stingray instead of the tower, allowing law enforcement to sweep up communications content, as well as locate and track the person in possession of a specific phone or other electronic device.

HB353 would require police to get a search warrant before deploying a stingray with only a few exceptions. Under the proposed law, police could use a cell site simulator without a warrant if the owner or possessor reports the target device stolen, or if there exists an immediate life-threatening situation. In that case, police would have to apply for a warrant “as soon as practicable.” If the judge finds no life-threatening situation existed, any information obtained by the cell site simulator would be inadmissible in court.

HB352 also features a provision that would prohibit state and local police from obtaining or using cell site information to assist with, participate in, provide material support or resources for, or enable or facilitate an investigation conducted by a law enforcement agency of the federal government or of another state without a warrant in most cases. This would also bar local police from using cell site simulator information collected by federal agencies in their investigations without a warrant, and block the sharing of warrantless data between state and federal agencies.

Under the proposed legislation, law enforcement agencies would be required to implement a written policy for deleting any data collected from devices not specified in the warrant.

Blanco also prefiled House Bill 353 (HB353) at the same time. Under this proposed law, police would have to get a warrant before obtaining location data from a cell phone provider.

IMPACT ON FEDERAL SURVEILLANCE PROGRAMS

The federal government funds the vast majority of state and local stingray programs, attaching one important condition. The feds require agencies acquiring the technology to sign non-disclosure agreements. This throws a giant shroud over the program, even preventing judges, prosecutors and defense attorneys from getting information about the use of stingrays in court. The feds actually instruct prosecutors to withdraw evidence if judges or legislators press for information. As the Baltimore Sun reported in April 2015, a Baltimore detective refused to answer questions on the stand during a trial, citing a federal non-disclosure agreement.

Defense attorney Joshua Insley asked Cabreja about the agreement.

“Does this document instruct you to withhold evidence from the state’s attorney and Circuit Court, even upon court order to produce?” he asked.

“Yes,” Cabreja said.

As privacysos.org put it, “The FBI would rather police officers and prosecutors let ‘criminals’ go than face a possible scenario where a defendant brings a Fourth Amendment challenge to warrantless stingray spying.”

The experience of a Pinellas County, Florida, man further highlights the shroud of secrecy around the use of stingray devices, along with the potential for abuse of power inherent in America’s law enforcement community.

The feds sell the technology in the name of “anti-terrorism” efforts. With non-disclosure agreements in place, most police departments refuse to release any information on the use of stingrays. But information obtained from the Tacoma Police Department revealed that it uses the technology primarily for routine criminal investigations.

Some privacy advocates argue that stingray use can never happen within the parameters of the Fourth Amendment because the technology necessarily connects to every electronic device within range, not just the one held by the target. And the information collected by these devices undoubtedly ends up in federal databases.

The feds can share and tap into vast amounts of information gathered at the state and local level through a system known as the “information sharing environment” or ISE. In other words, stingrays create the potential for the federal government to track the movement of millions of Americans with no warrant, no probable cause, and without the people even knowing it.

According to its website, the ISE “provides analysts, operators, and investigators with information needed to enhance national security. These analysts, operators, and investigators…have mission needs to collaborate and share information with each other and with private sector partners and our foreign allies.” In other words, ISE serves as a conduit for the sharing of information gathered without a warrant.

The federal government encourages and funds stingrays at the state and local level across the U.S., thereby undoubtedly gaining access to a massive data pool on Americans without having to expend the resources to collect the information itself. By placing restrictions on stingray use, state and local governments limit the data available that the feds can access. The provision in HB352 barring police from “obtaining” warrantless stingray data would also prevent local police from tapping into warrantless information gathered by federal agencies like the FBI and NSA.

In a nutshell, without state and local cooperation, the feds have a much more difficult time gathering information. Passage of HB352 and 353 would strike a major blow to the surveillance state and would be a win for privacy.

WHAT’S NEXT

HB352 and HB353 will be officially introduced when the 2019 regular session begins on Jan. 8. It will receive a committee assignment at that time.

Mike Maharrey
November 23, 2018 at 06:40AM

Tenth Amendment Center: Florida Senate Approves Bill to Ban Warrantless Stingray Spying, Help Hinder Federal Surveillance

From Tenth Amendment Center

...from Tenth Amendment Center

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. (Mar. 7, 2018) – Today, the Florida Senate approved a measure that would ban warrantless location tracking and the use of stingray devices to sweep up electronic communications in most situations. The new law will not only protect privacy in Florida, but will also hinder one aspect of the federal surveillance state.

Sen. Jeff Brandes (R-St. Petersburg) introduced Senate Bill 1256 (SB1256) on Dec. 14. The legislation would help block the use of cell site simulators, known as “stingrays.” These devices essentially spoof cell phone towers, tricking any device within range into connecting to the stingray instead of the tower, allowing law enforcement to sweep up communications content, as well as locate and track the person in possession of a specific phone or other electronic device.

SB1256 would require police to get a search warrant based on probable cause before acquiring real-time or historical GPS location data, and before using any type of mobile tracking device in most situations. Police already must get a warrant before intercepting cell phone communication content. Adding location tracking to the warrant requirement would effectively end warrantless stingray use in Florida. The legislation would also require police to get a warrant before accessing stored location data from a service provider. Under current law, police can access stored data with a court order.

Last month,, the Senate Rules Committee passed SB1256 by a 13-0. Today, the full senate passed the bill by a vote of 36-0.

The bill does include some exceptions to the warrant requirement. Police could use stingray devices an emergency situation that involves the immediate danger of death or serious injury, the danger of escape of a prisoner, or when specifically defined exigent circumstances exist. In these situations, police would still be required to obtain a warrant within 48 hours.

The contents of any intercepted wire, oral, or electronic communication, or evidence obtained in violation of the law could not be received in evidence or otherwise disclosed in any trial, hearing, or other proceedings.

IMPACT ON FEDERAL SURVEILLANCE PROGRAMS

The federal government funds the vast majority of state and local stingray programs, attaching one important condition. The feds require agencies acquiring the technology to sign non-disclosure agreements. This throws a giant shroud over the program, even preventing judges, prosecutors and defense attorneys from getting information about the use of stingrays in court. The feds actually instruct prosecutors to withdraw evidence if judges or legislators press for information. As the Baltimore Sun reported in April 2015, a Baltimore detective refused to answer questions on the stand during a trial, citing a federal non-disclosure agreement.

Defense attorney Joshua Insley asked Cabreja about the agreement.

“Does this document instruct you to withhold evidence from the state’s attorney and Circuit Court, even upon court order to produce?” he asked.

“Yes,” Cabreja said.

As privacysos.org put it, “The FBI would rather police officers and prosecutors let ‘criminals’ go than face a possible scenario where a defendant brings a Fourth Amendment challenge to warrantless stingray spying.”

The experience of a Pinellas County, Florida, man further highlights the shroud of secrecy around the use of stingray devices, along with the potential for abuse of power inherent in America’s law enforcement community.

The feds sell the technology in the name of “anti-terrorism” efforts. With non-disclosure agreements in place, most police departments refuse to release any information on the use of stingrays. But information obtained from the Tacoma Police Department revealed that it uses the technology primarily for routine criminal investigations.

Some privacy advocates argue that stingray use can never happen within the parameters of the Fourth Amendment because the technology necessarily connects to every electronic device within range, not just the one held by the target. And the information collected by these devices undoubtedly ends up in federal databases.

The feds can share and tap into vast amounts of information gathered at the state and local level through a system known as the “information sharing environment” or ISE. In other words, stingrays create the potential for the federal government to track the movement of millions of Americans with no warrant, no probable cause, and without the people even knowing it.

According to its website, the ISE “provides analysts, operators, and investigators with information needed to enhance national security. These analysts, operators, and investigators…have mission needs to collaborate and share information with each other and with private sector partners and our foreign allies.” In other words, ISE serves as a conduit for the sharing of information gathered without a warrant.

The federal government encourages and funds stingrays at the state and local level across the U.S., thereby undoubtedly gaining access to a massive data pool on Americans without having to expend the resources to collect the information itself. By placing restrictions on stingray use, state and local governments limit the data available that the feds can access.

In a nutshell, without state and local cooperation, the feds have a much more difficult time gathering information. Passage of SB1256 would represent a major blow to the surveillance state and a win for privacy.

Mike Maharrey
March 07, 2018 at 01:57PM

Tenth Amendment Center: Florida Committee Approves Bill to Ban Warrantless Stingray Spying, Help Hinder Federal Surveillance

From Tenth Amendment Center

...from Tenth Amendment Center

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. (Feb. 27, 2018) – Last Thursday, a third Florida Senate committee approved a measure that would ban warrantless location tracking and the use of stingray devices to sweep up electronic communications in most situations. The new law will not only protect privacy in Florida, but will also hinder one aspect of the federal surveillance state.

Sen. Jeff Brandes (R-St. Petersburg) introduced Senate Bill 1256 (SB1256) on Dec. 14. The legislation would help block the use of cell site simulators, known as “stingrays.” These devices essentially spoof cell phone towers, tricking any device within range into connecting to the stingray instead of the tower, allowing law enforcement to sweep up communications content, as well as locate and track the person in possession of a specific phone or other electronic device.

SB1256 would require police to get a search warrant based on probable cause before acquiring real-time or historical GPS location data, and before using any type of mobile tracking device in most situations. Police already must get a warrant before intercepting cell phone communication content. Adding location tracking to the warrant requirement would effectively end warrantless stingray use in Florida. The legislation would also require police to get a warrant before accessing stored location data from a service provider. Under current law, police can access stored data with a court order.

Last week,, the Senate Rules Committee passed SB1256 by a 13-0 vote with some amendments.

One amendment requires police to get a warrant before accessing information from a service provider that is more than 180 days old. Under current law, police have to have a warrant for data stored less than 180 days old, but do not need a warrant to access older data, A second amendment adds provisions allowing police to access stored electronic data with a judicially issued subpoena for sex crime investigations.

The Criminal Justice Committee previously passed the measure by a 4-1 vote and the Senate Judiciary Committee passed SB1256 by a 10-0 vote.

The bill does include some exceptions to the warrant requirement. Police could use stingray devices an emergency situation that involves the immediate danger of death or serious injury, the danger of escape of a prisoner, or when specifically defined exigent circumstances exist. In these situations, police would still be required to obtain a warrant within 48 hours.

The contents of any intercepted wire, oral, or electronic communication, or evidence obtained in violation of the law could not be received in evidence or otherwise disclosed in any trial, hearing, or other proceedings.

IMPACT ON FEDERAL SURVEILLANCE PROGRAMS

The federal government funds the vast majority of state and local stingray programs, attaching one important condition. The feds require agencies acquiring the technology to sign non-disclosure agreements. This throws a giant shroud over the program, even preventing judges, prosecutors and defense attorneys from getting information about the use of stingrays in court. The feds actually instruct prosecutors to withdraw evidence if judges or legislators press for information. As the Baltimore Sun reported in April 2015, a Baltimore detective refused to answer questions on the stand during a trial, citing a federal non-disclosure agreement.

Defense attorney Joshua Insley asked Cabreja about the agreement.

“Does this document instruct you to withhold evidence from the state’s attorney and Circuit Court, even upon court order to produce?” he asked.

“Yes,” Cabreja said.

As privacysos.org put it, “The FBI would rather police officers and prosecutors let ‘criminals’ go than face a possible scenario where a defendant brings a Fourth Amendment challenge to warrantless stingray spying.”

The experience of a Pinellas County, Florida, man further highlights the shroud of secrecy around the use of stingray devices, along with the potential for abuse of power inherent in America’s law enforcement community.

The feds sell the technology in the name of “anti-terrorism” efforts. With non-disclosure agreements in place, most police departments refuse to release any information on the use of stingrays. But information obtained from the Tacoma Police Department revealed that it uses the technology primarily for routine criminal investigations.

Some privacy advocates argue that stingray use can never happen within the parameters of the Fourth Amendment because the technology necessarily connects to every electronic device within range, not just the one held by the target. And the information collected by these devices undoubtedly ends up in federal databases.

The feds can share and tap into vast amounts of information gathered at the state and local level through a system known as the “information sharing environment” or ISE. In other words, stingrays create the potential for the federal government to track the movement of millions of Americans with no warrant, no probable cause, and without the people even knowing it.

According to its website, the ISE “provides analysts, operators, and investigators with information needed to enhance national security. These analysts, operators, and investigators…have mission needs to collaborate and share information with each other and with private sector partners and our foreign allies.” In other words, ISE serves as a conduit for the sharing of information gathered without a warrant.

The federal government encourages and funds stingrays at the state and local level across the U.S., thereby undoubtedly gaining access to a massive data pool on Americans without having to expend the resources to collect the information itself. By placing restrictions on stingray use, state and local governments limit the data available that the feds can access.

In a nutshell, without state and local cooperation, the feds have a much more difficult time gathering information. Passage of SB1256 would represent a major blow to the surveillance state and a win for privacy.

WHAT’S NEXT

SB1256 has cleared all three of its Senate committees. At this point, Senate leadership could send the bill to the Senate floor, or it could go back to a committee for further consideration.

 

Mike Maharrey
February 27, 2018 at 01:46PM

Tenth Amendment Center: Florida Committee Approves Measure to Ban Warrantless Stingray Spying, Help Hinder Federal Surveillance

From Tenth Amendment Center

...from Tenth Amendment Center

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. (Feb. 14, 2018) – Yesterday, a  second Florida Senate committee approved a measure that would ban warrantless location tracking and the use of stingray devices to sweep up electronic communications in most situations. The new law will not only protect privacy in Florida, but will also hinder one aspect of the federal surveillance state.

Sen. Jeff Brandes (R-St. Petersburg) introduced Senate Bill 1256 (SB1256) on Dec. 14. The legislation would help block the use of cell site simulators, known as “stingrays.” These devices essentially spoof cell phone towers, tricking any device within range into connecting to the stingray instead of the tower, allowing law enforcement to sweep up communications content, as well as locate and track the person in possession of a specific phone or other electronic device.

SB1256 would require police to get a search warrant based on probable cause before acquiring real-time or historical GPS location data, and before using any type of mobile tracking device in most situations. The bill would also add “electronic communications” to existing statutes requiring law enforcement to get a warrant before intercepting oral communications. This would effectively end warrantless stingray use in Florida, and would also require police to get a warrant before accessing stored location data from a service provider.

On Tuesday, the Senate Judiciary Committee passed SB1256 by a 10-0 vote with some technical amendments. The Criminal Justice Committee previously passed the measure by a 4-1 vote.

The bill does include some exceptions to the warrant requirement. Police could use stingray devices an emergency situation that involves the immediate danger of death or serious injury, the danger of escape of a prisoner, or when specifically defined exigent circumstances exist. In these situations, police would still be required to obtain a warrant within 48 hours.

The contents of any intercepted wire, oral, or electronic communication, or evidence obtained in violation of the law could not be received in evidence or otherwise disclosed in any trial, hearing, or other proceeding.

IMPACT ON FEDERAL SURVEILLANCE PROGRAMS

The federal government funds the vast majority of state and local stingray programs, attaching one important condition. The feds require agencies acquiring the technology to sign non-disclosure agreements. This throws a giant shroud over the program, even preventing judges, prosecutors and defense attorneys from getting information about the use of stingrays in court. The feds actually instruct prosecutors to withdraw evidence if judges or legislators press for information. As the Baltimore Sun reported in April 2015, a Baltimore detective refused to answer questions on the stand during a trial, citing a federal non-disclosure agreement.

Defense attorney Joshua Insley asked Cabreja about the agreement.

“Does this document instruct you to withhold evidence from the state’s attorney and Circuit Court, even upon court order to produce?” he asked.

“Yes,” Cabreja said.

As privacysos.org put it, “The FBI would rather police officers and prosecutors let ‘criminals’ go than face a possible scenario where a defendant brings a Fourth Amendment challenge to warrantless stingray spying.”

The experience of a Pinellas County, Florida, man further highlights the shroud of secrecy around the use of stingray devices, along with the potential for abuse of power inherent in America’s law enforcement community.

The feds sell the technology in the name of “anti-terrorism” efforts. With non-disclosure agreements in place, most police departments refuse to release any information on the use of stingrays. But information obtained from the Tacoma Police Department revealed that it uses the technology primarily for routine criminal investigations.

Some privacy advocates argue that stingray use can never happen within the parameters of the Fourth Amendment because the technology necessarily connects to every electronic device within range, not just the one held by the target. And the information collected by these devices undoubtedly ends up in federal databases.

The feds can share and tap into vast amounts of information gathered at the state and local level through a system known as the “information sharing environment” or ISE. In other words, stingrays create the potential for the federal government to track the movement of millions of Americans with no warrant, no probable cause, and without the people even knowing it.

According to its website, the ISE “provides analysts, operators, and investigators with information needed to enhance national security. These analysts, operators, and investigators…have mission needs to collaborate and share information with each other and with private sector partners and our foreign allies.” In other words, ISE serves as a conduit for the sharing of information gathered without a warrant.

The federal government encourages and funds stingrays at the state and local level across the U.S., thereby undoubtedly gaining access to a massive data pool on Americans without having to expend the resources to collect the information itself. By placing restrictions on stingray use, state and local governments limit the data available that the feds can access.

In a nutshell, without state and local cooperation, the feds have a much more difficult time gathering information. Passage of SB1256 would represent a major blow to the surveillance state and a win for privacy.

WHAT’S NEXT

SB1256 now moves to the Senate Rules Committee where it must pass by a majority vote before moving to the Senate floor for a vote.

Mike Maharrey
February 14, 2018 at 03:17PM

Tenth Amendment Center: Florida Committee Passes Bill to Ban Warrantless Stingray Spying, Help Hinder Federal Surveillance

From Tenth Amendment Center

...from Tenth Amendment Center

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. (Feb. 7, 2018) – Yesterday, a Florida Senate committee approved a measure that would ban warrantless location tracking and the use of stingray devices to sweep up electronic communications in most situations. The new law will not only protect privacy in Florida, but will also hinder one aspect of the federal surveillance state.

Sen. Jeff Brandes (R-St. Petersburg) introduced Senate Bill 1256 (SB1256) on Dec. 14. The legislation would help block the use of cell site simulators, known as “stingrays.” These devices essentially spoof cell phone towers, tricking any device within range into connecting to the stingray instead of the tower, allowing law enforcement to sweep up communications content, as well as locate and track the person in possession of a specific phone or other electronic device.

SB1256 would require police to get a search warrant based on probable cause before acquiring real-time or historical GPS location data, and before using any type of mobile tracking device in most situations. The bill would also add “electronic communications” to existing statutes requiring law enforcement to get a warrant before intercepting oral communications. This would effectively end warrantless stingray use in Florida, and would also require police to get a warrant before accessing stored location data from a service provider.

The Senate Criminal Justice Committee passed SB1256 with some technical amendments by a 4-1 vote.

Under current law, police can obtain location data and intercept electronic communications with only a court order which requires much looser evidentiary standards.

The bill does include some exceptions to the warrant requirement. Police could use stingray devices an emergency situation that involves the immediate danger of death or serious injury, the danger of escape of a prisoner, or when specifically defined exigent circumstances exist. In these situations, police would still be required to obtain a warrant within 48 hours.

The contents of any intercepted wire, oral, or electronic communication, or evidence obtained in violation of the law could not be received in evidence or otherwise disclosed in any trial, hearing, or other proceeding.

IMPACT ON FEDERAL SURVEILLANCE PROGRAMS

The federal government funds the vast majority of state and local stingray programs, attaching one important condition. The feds require agencies acquiring the technology to sign non-disclosure agreements. This throws a giant shroud over the program, even preventing judges, prosecutors and defense attorneys from getting information about the use of stingrays in court. The feds actually instruct prosecutors to withdraw evidence if judges or legislators press for information. As the Baltimore Sun reported in April 2015, a Baltimore detective refused to answer questions on the stand during a trial, citing a federal non-disclosure agreement.

Defense attorney Joshua Insley asked Cabreja about the agreement.

“Does this document instruct you to withhold evidence from the state’s attorney and Circuit Court, even upon court order to produce?” he asked.

“Yes,” Cabreja said.

As privacysos.org put it, “The FBI would rather police officers and prosecutors let ‘criminals’ go than face a possible scenario where a defendant brings a Fourth Amendment challenge to warrantless stingray spying.”

The experience of a Pinellas County, Florida, man further highlights the shroud of secrecy around the use of stingray devices, along with the potential for abuse of power inherent in America’s law enforcement community.

The feds sell the technology in the name of “anti-terrorism” efforts. With non-disclosure agreements in place, most police departments refuse to release any information on the use of stingrays. But information obtained from the Tacoma Police Department revealed that it uses the technology primarily for routine criminal investigations.

Some privacy advocates argue that stingray use can never happen within the parameters of the Fourth Amendment because the technology necessarily connects to every electronic device within range, not just the one held by the target. And the information collected by these devices undoubtedly ends up in federal databases.

The feds can share and tap into vast amounts of information gathered at the state and local level through a system known as the “information sharing environment” or ISE. In other words, stingrays create the potential for the federal government to track the movement of millions of Americans with no warrant, no probable cause, and without the people even knowing it.

According to its website, the ISE “provides analysts, operators, and investigators with information needed to enhance national security. These analysts, operators, and investigators…have mission needs to collaborate and share information with each other and with private sector partners and our foreign allies.” In other words, ISE serves as a conduit for the sharing of information gathered without a warrant.

The federal government encourages and funds stingrays at the state and local level across the U.S., thereby undoubtedly gaining access to a massive data pool on Americans without having to expend the resources to collect the information itself. By placing restrictions on stingray use, state and local governments limit the data available that the feds can access.

In a nutshell, without state and local cooperation, the feds have a much more difficult time gathering information. Passage of SB1256 would represent a major blow to the surveillance state and a win for privacy.

WHAT’S NEXT

SB1256 now moves to the Senate Judiciary Committee where it must pass by a majority vote before moving forward in the legislative process.

 

Mike Maharrey
February 07, 2018 at 11:06AM