US justice department cracks down on mobile phone surveillance
|
Version 0 of 1. American federal law enforcement officials will be required to get a search warrant before using secretive and intrusive mobile phone-tracking technology under a new US justice department policy. The policy, the first of its kind in the US, comes amid concerns from privacy groups and even judges that cell-site simulator technology, which is now widely used by local police departments, is infringing on privacy rights and is being used without proper accountability. “The policy is really designed to address our practices, and to really try to promote transparency and consistency and accountability – all while being mindful of the public’s privacy interest,” deputy attorney general Sally Yates told reporters in announcing the policy change on Thursday. The technology – also known as a Stingray, a suitcase-sized device – can sweep up basic mobile phone data from a neighbourhood by tricking phones in the area to believe that it’s a cell tower, allowing it to identify unique subscriber numbers. The data is then transmitted to the police, helping them determine the location of a phone without the user even making a call or sending a text message. The equipment used by the justice department does not collect the content of communications. Even as federal law enforcement officials tout the technology as a vital tool to catch fugitives and kidnapping suspects, privacy groups and defence lawyers have raised concerns about the collection of mobile phone information of innocent bystanders who happen to be in a particular area. In creating the new policy the justice department said it was mindful of those concerns, as well as a sense that federal agencies and offices within the department were using inconsistent practices. The policy applies only to federal agencies within the justice department. “We thought really we ought to look at this, and we ought to have a consistent practice across all of DOJ,” Yates said. She added: “We understand that people have a concern about their private information, and particularly folks who are not the subjects or targets of investigation.” Besides requiring a warrant in most circumstances, except for emergencies like an immediate national security threat, the policy also requires authorities to delete data that’s been collected once they have the information that they need. In drafting a warrant, law enforcement will need to spell out how the technology works and how it will be used. The policy could act as a blueprint for state and local law enforcement agencies in developing their own regulations. But it’s unclear how broad an impact Thursday’s announcement will have, since it does not directly affect local police agencies unless they’re working alongside federal authorities or using their assistance. Use of the technology has spread widely among local police departments, who have been largely mum about their use of the technology, withholding materials or heavily censoring documents that they do provide. Local departments, including in Baltimore, have faced scrutiny from judges about how they deploy the equipment, though they have often insisted that non-disclosure agreements signed with the FBI limit what they can say. Yates said she expected the FBI to revise any such agreements to allow for more transparency. The ACLU called the policy a good first step, but said it was disappointed that it did not cover federal agencies outside the justice department or local police who use federal funds to purchase the surveillance equipment. It called on the justice department to close remaining loopholes, such as one allowing for warrantless surveillance under undefined “exceptional circumstances”. “After decades of secrecy in which the government hid this surveillance technology from courts, defense lawyers, and the American public, we are happy to see that the justice department is now willing to openly discuss its policies,” ACLU lawyer Nathan Freed Wessler said in a statement. Nate Cardozo, a staff attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a privacy group, praised the policy as an important step in protecting privacy, though he said he suspected justice department attorneys saw “the writing on the wall” and recognised that judges would increasingly begin requiring warrants. Though the policy does not require local police to follow the lead of federal agencies, “this is going to let the air out of state law enforcement’s argument that a warrant shouldn’t be required,” Cardozo said. “We think that given the power of cell-site simulators and the sort of information that they can collect – not just from the target but from every innocent cellphone user in the area – a warrant based on probable cause is required by the Fourth Amendment,” Cardozo said. |