Stingray phone tracker
[13] In active mode, the StingRay will force each compatible cellular device in a given area to disconnect from its service provider cell site (e.g., operated by Verizon, AT&T, etc.)
[22] For example, if visual surveillance is being conducted on a group of protestors,[23] a StingRay can be used to download the IMSI or equivalent identifier from each phone within the protest area.
If overpowered that way, a cell phone will not indicate the change due to the secret radio being programmed to hide from normal detection.
Just as a person shouting drowns out someone whispering, the boost in RF watts of power into the cell telephone system can overtake and control that system—in total or only a few, or even only one, conversation.
Once a secretly boosted system takes control, any manipulation is possible from simple recording of the voice or data to total blocking of all cell phones in the geographic area.
[26][27] The FBI has claimed that when used to identify, locate, or track a cellular device, the StingRay does not collect communications content or forward it to the service provider.
[29] Under this scenario, any attempt by the cellular device user to place a call or access data services will fail while the StingRay is conducting its surveillance.
On August 21, 2018, Senator Ron Wyden noted that Harris Corporation confirmed that Stingrays disrupt the targeted phone's communications.
"[30] By way of software upgrades,[31] the StingRay and similar Harris products can be used to intercept GSM communications content transmitted over-the-air between a target cellular device and a legitimate service provider cell site.
By "passive mode", it is meant that the StingRay does not mimic a wireless carrier cell site or communicate directly with cellular devices.
However, the signal coverage area of a given cell site may change according to the time of day, weather, and physical obstructions in relation to where a cellular device attempts to access service.
For these reasons, it is beneficial to use a StingRay and a test phone to map out the precise coverage areas of all cell sites appearing in the HCSLI records.
[40][41][42][43] The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) confirmed that local police have cell site simulators in Washington, Nevada, Arizona, Alaska, Missouri, New Mexico, Georgia, and Massachusetts.
Local and state police have cell site simulators in California, Texas, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois, Indiana, Tennessee, North Carolina, Virginia, Florida, Maryland, and New York.
According to the most recent information published by the American Civil Liberties Union, 72 law enforcement agencies in 24 states own StingRay technology in 2017.
The following are federal agencies in the United States that have validated their use of cell-site simulators: Federal Bureau of Investigation, Drug Enforcement Administration, US Secret Service, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, US Marshals Service, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, US Army, US Navy, US Marine Corps, US National Guard, US Special Command, and National Security Agency.
[48] Police in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, admitted after much speculation across the country that they had made use of a Stingray device[49] provided by the RCMP.
[51][52] On June 10, 2015, the BBC reported on an investigation by Sky News[53][54] about possible false mobile phone towers being used by the London Metropolitan Police.
Between February 2015 and April 2016, over 12 companies in the United Kingdom were authorized to export IMSI-catcher devices to states including Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Turkey.
[57] The American Civil Liberties Union has filed multiple requests for the public records of Florida law enforcement agencies about their use of the cell phone tracking devices.
[59][60] In June 2014, the American Civil Liberties Union published information from court regarding the extensive use of these devices by local Florida police.
[61] After this publication, United States Marshals Service then seized the local police's surveillance records in a bid to keep them from coming out in court.
[63] The ACLU has said "potentially unconstitutional government surveillance on this scale should not remain hidden from the public just because a private corporation desires secrecy.
[67] The NDAs revealed that the FBI has often intervened directly in state criminal trials to protect the confidentiality of any information relating to the Harris Corporation.
In fact, NDA between the Harris Corporation and Police Departments in San Diego, Chicago, Miami, Indianapolis, Tucson, and many others include a contractual clause that reads: "In the event that the San Diego Police Department receives a request pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act ... or any equivalent state or local law, the civil or criminal discovery process, or other judicial, legislative, or administrative process, to disclose information concerning the Harris Corporation wireless collection equipment/technology ... the San Diego Police Department will notify the FBI of any such request telephonically and in writing in order to allow sufficient time for the FBI to seek to prevent disclosure through appropriate channels".
In recent years, legal scholars, public interest advocates, legislators and several members of the judiciary have strongly criticized the use of this technology by law enforcement agencies.
Critics have called the use of the devices by government agencies warrantless cell phone tracking, as they have frequently been used without informing the court system or obtaining a warrant.
[71] In 2016, Professor Laura Moy of the Georgetown University Law Center filed a formal complaint to the FCC regarding the use of the devices by law enforcement agencies, taking the position that because the devices mimic the properties of cell phone towers, the agencies operating them are in violation of FCC regulation, as they lack the appropriate spectrum licenses.
[73] The NYCLU and ACLU proceeded with the lawsuit under the statement that both CBP and ICE had failed "to produce a range of records about their use, purchase, and oversight of Stingrays".
[73] In an official statement expanding their reasoning for the lawsuit, the ACLU expressed their concern over the Stingrays current and future applications, stating that ICE were using them for "unlawfully tracking journalists and advocates and subjecting people to invasive searches of their electronic devices at the border".
