Very interesting! The main problem is that when local and state agencies autonomously investigate, this rules do not apply. Also, the policy "applies to all instances in which Department components use cell-site simulators in support of other Federal agencies and/or State and Local law enforcement agencies." This wording makes me think that even when the Department of Justice collaborates with state and local agencies, the policy does not apply inasmuch as the cell-site simulators are used by the latter (and not by the DOJ itself). 2015-09-04 10:01 GMT+01:00 J.C. DE MARTIN <demartin@polito.it>:
SEPTEMBER 3, 2015 | BY NATE CARDOZO
*Finally! DOJ Reverses Course and Requires Warrants for Stingrays!*
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/09/finally-doj-reverses-course-and-will-g...
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, starting today all federal law enforcement agencies—and all state and local agencies working with the federal government—will 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 today’s changes do:*
Federal law enforcement agents will be required to obtain a search warrant supported by probable cause prior to using a cell-site simulator in a law enforcement context. A search warrant requires a showing by the agent, under oath, that meets one of the highest standards in federal law. This incredibly important change is precisely what EFF has been asking for. Agents will only be allowed to use Stingrays in “pen register” mode, meaning the devices will collect only the basic location of the phone and the numbers of incoming and outgoing calls and texts. Agents will not be allowed to collect the content of your communications -- like your emails or text messages -- even if the cell-site simulator is capable of such collection. Finally, Agencies must delete data on users not targeted in either 24 hours or 30 days, depending on context.
*What today’s changes don’t do:*
The new policy isn’t law and doesn’t provide any remedy to people whose data is swept up by Stingrays operated without a warrant. Indeed, it won’t even act to keep evidence collected in violation of the policy out of court (this is known as suppression). The policy doesn’t apply to the use of Stingrays outside of the criminal investigation context. For instance, when federal agents use cell-site simulators for “national security” purposes, they won’t be required to obtain a warrant by the terms of this policy. There are two enumerated exceptions to the warrant requirement in today’s guidance. The first is the traditional “exigent circumstances” exception, common to all warrant requirements and not particularly worrisome. But the second exception listed in today’s policy for undefined “exceptional circumstances” is potentially problematic. We have no idea what that means, so we’re waiting to see if and how the exception will be used.
*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!
Files
doj_cell_site_simulator_policy_9-3-15.pdf
_______________________________________________ nexa mailing list nexa@server-nexa.polito.it https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa
-- *Guido* Dr. Guido Noto La Diega <http://www.law.qmul.ac.uk/staff/notoladiega.html>, Postdoctoral Research Assistant in Cloud Computing Law <http://www.cloudlegal.ccls.qmul.ac.uk/project/researchers/index.html> - Queen Mary Universityof London <http://www.mccrc.eu/Pages/Research-Team.aspx> President of Ital-IoT <http://italiot.altervista.org/about-us/> - Centre of Multidisciplinary Research on the Internet of Things Avvocato <http://www.studioperrino.it/intro/index.asp> (Commercial and IP/IT Lawyer) Cultore della materia in Civil Law and Intellectual Property <http://www.unipa.it/persone/docenti/n/guido.notoladiega> - University of Palermo 67-69 Lincoln's Inn Fields London WC2A 3JB g.notoladiega@qmul.ac.uk +44(0)2078823386 @gui_notoladiega https://it.linkedin.com/pub/guido-noto-la-diega-ph-d/6/614/669 This e-mail and any attachment hereto are strictly confidential and are exclusively intended for the person above identified. Without intended recipient’s entitlement, use, copy and dissemination of this e-mail is prohibited. If you have received it in error, please advice us immediately by telephone and return the documents received to the above address, deleting the files. Thank you. Diese E-Mail enthält vertrauliche und/oder rechtlich geschützte Informationen. Das unerlaubte Kopieren sowie die unbefugte Weitergabe dieser Mail ist nicht gestaettet. Wenn Sie nicht der richtige Adressat sind oder diese E-Mail irrtümlich erhalten haben, informieren Sie bitte sofort den Absender und vernichten Sie diese Mail. Danke. Il presente messaggio di posta elettronica ed ogni eventuale allegato contengono informazioni strettamente riservate e sono indirizzati esclusivamente al soggetto sopra indicato. In mancanza di autorizzazione del destinatario, ne sono vietati l’uso, la riproduzione e la divulgazione. Se avete ricevuto questo messaggio per errore, siete pregati di avvisarci immediatamente per telefono e di restituirci i documenti ricevuti all’indirizzo sopra indicato, distruggendo i file. Grazie. LIK DŐR