Florida PD's Stingray Documents Oddly Don't Mention Stingrays Once
Furnished content.
Curtis Waltman, filing his public records request through MuckRock, has obtained several hundred pages of documents related to IMSI catchers/Stingray devices from the Sarasota (FL) Police Department. There are a handful of interesting aspects about this haul, not the least of which is the fact that US Marshals basically raided the Sarasota PD's office in 2014 to remove Stingray-related documents ahead of the ACLU's scheduled examination of the files.What's been obtained by Waltman is presumably part of the stash the Marshals didn't take. The other interesting fact is that there is no reference whatsoever to Stingray devices or IMSI catchers in the documents, despite that being specifically what was requested.Here's Waltman's request:To Whom It May Concern:Pursuant to Florida's Sunshine Law (Fla. Stat. secs. 119.01 to 119.15 (1995)), I hereby request the following records:Documents concerning IMSI catchers or any of the following words: "Stingray", "cell site simulator", or "dirtbox". including:-Contracts with the Harris Corporation regarding the acquisition of their Stingray or KingFish IMSI catchers-Department policies and procedure regarding the use of IMSI catcher technology-policies and procedures on the keeping of statistics about the Department's use and acquisition of IMSI catchersThe requested documents will be made available to the general public, and this request is not being made for commercial purposes. Whatever search the Sarasota PD performed was in response to these search terms. But as Waltman points out in his post about the document haul, none of those terms are found in the hundreds of pages returned.These documents are the result of Joint Law Enforcement Operations Task Forces (JLEOs) that the SPD participated in from the years 2008 to 2014 with various local departments in their area, and also the DEA and the Marshals. Considering that South Florida has been designated as a High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area, or HIDTA, it’s not surprising that they are engaged in high level operations with federal law enforcement agencies.What is surprising is how often they resorted to pen register and trap and trace court orders to be officially permitted to use their Stingray. Referring to cell site simulators as “trap and trace devices” is common, even by the DOJ. Obviously, the Sarasota PD engaged in the same obfuscatory tactics other law enforcement agencies have, urged on by the FBI's omnipresent demands for secrecy. The PD was either using its own devices or those belonging to the US Marshals service, but the outcome was the same: court orders and subpoenas for dialing data covering up the use of cell tower spoofers to obtain this information in real time.What is left in documents left behind by the Marshals seems to indicate the Sarasota PD has at least one device of its own. A DEA communication with the agency says a task force would be using "SPD's equipment" and a "Pen Order" to cover up this deployment.Also of note is the fact that the US Marshals service seems to enjoy using the Sarasota PD's personnel and equipment, but is a bit more reluctant to pay its tab.This is part of an ongoing response to Waltman, so there will be more documents on the way. What's arrived so far shows the PD is actively engaged in hiding its Stingray usage from courts by generating a misleading paper trail filled with redundant pen register orders. What may never arrive, however, is the documents the Marshals removed from the PD's office shortly before ACLU reps were supposed to meet with the PD to discuss the release of this information.In any event, there's still plenty of secrecy enshrouding law enforcement's use of "secret" technology that honestly isn't that much of a secret anymore.
Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
Read more here
posted at: 12:00am on 12-Jan-2017
path: /Policy | permalink | edit (requires password)
Techdirt's First Amendment Fight For Its Life
Furnished content.
As you may have heard, last week we were sued for $15 million by Shiva Ayyadurai, who claims to have invented email. We have written, at great length, about his claims and our opinion — backed up by detailed and thorough evidence — that email existed long before Ayyadurai created any software. We believe the legal claims in the lawsuit are meritless, and we intend to fight them and to win.There is a larger point here. Defamation claims like this can force independent media companies to capitulate and shut down due to mounting legal costs. Ayyadurai's attorney, Charles Harder, has already shown that this model can lead to exactly that result. His efforts helped put a much larger and much more well-resourced company than Techdirt completely out of business.So, in our view, this is not a fight about who invented email. This is a fight about whether or not our legal system will silence independent publications for publishing opinions that public figures do not like.And here's the thing: this fight could very well be the end of Techdirt, even if we are completely on the right side of the law.Whether or not you agree with us on our opinions about various things, I hope that you can recognize the importance of what's at stake here. Our First Amendment is designed to enable a free and open press — a press that can investigate and dig, a press that can challenge and expose. And if prominent individuals can make use of a crippling legal process to silence that effort, or even to create chilling effects among others, we become a weaker nation and a weaker people because of it.We are a truly small and independent media company. We do not have many resources. We intend to fight this baseless lawsuit because of the principles at stake, but we have no illusions about the costs. It will take a toll on us, even if we win. It will be a distraction, no matter what happens. It already has been — which may well have been part of Ayyadurai's intent.I am beyond thankful to the many of you who have reached out and offered to help in all sorts of ways. It is heartening to know so many people care about Techdirt. At some point soon, we may set up a dedicated legal defense fund. But, in the meantime, any support you can provide us will help — whether it's just alerting people to this situation and the danger of trying to stifle a free press through meritless lawsuits, or it's supporting Techdirt directly (or, if you have a company, advertising with us). As always, you can support us directly as a Friend of Techdirt, or check out some of the other perks you can get in our Insider program. You can also support us via Patreon.If freedom of expression and the press is to actually mean something, it needs to be protected, not stomped on with baseless lawsuits that silence independent voices and opinions.
Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
Read more here
posted at: 12:00am on 12-Jan-2017
path: /Policy | permalink | edit (requires password)
|
|
