It could allow investigators in a surveillance vehicle to park in a crowded area and track the movements of anyone nearby with a cellphone and capture the numbers of people’s incoming and outgoing calls and text messages.
All of which concerns civil liberties and open-government groups.
They worry that the technology could be used to violate innocent Hoosiers’ constitutionally protected rights to privacy if proper checks and balances aren’t in place.
But officials at Indiana’s largest police agency aren’t saying what they do with the technology; they’re mum on whose data they’ve collected so far; and they’re not talking about what steps they take to safeguard the data.
Citing concerns that releasing any information would endanger public safety by hindering the agency’s ability to fight crime and combat terrorism, they won’t even say whether they ask a judge for a search warrant before they turn the equipment on.
On a national level, police officials at other agencies say that such secrecy is essential to thwart terror attacks and fight crime. Some said the devices are used in extraordinary circumstances, and only to hunt for a single phone at a time, not to collect data from thousands of callers.
But a joint investigation of the Indianapolis Star and USA Today found instances in which police in some cities across the U.S. used cellphone snooping techniques in less urgent and more questionable ways.
In one case, a South Carolina sheriff obtained cellphone data from an unknown number of people - just to investigate a rash of car burglaries that included the theft of guns from the sheriff’s SUV.
In another instance, Miami police told the city council they intended to collect cellphone data to track protesters at a world trade event.
Civil liberties groups say that giving police the authority to secretly collect bulk cellphone data has unprecedented potential for abuse. Searching cellphone data, they say, ought to require a warrant as is required to search a home or a car.
When presented with The Star’s and USA Today’s findings, Gerry Lanosga of the Indiana Coalition for Open Government said police should be required to provide at least some information about how the technology is being used. Are, he asked, Indiana police agencies using the devices for routine investigations? Or, of more concern to him, might it be used to monitor political activities, such as a tea party rally or a racially sensitive cultural event, such as Indianapolis’ Black Expo? If a suspect walks into a crowded mall, he wonders, are police grabbing - and keeping - data from innocent shoppers?
“I think the public has a right to know some details about that program,” said Lanosga, whose group advocates for government transparency.
While most Americans have paid little thought to the fact that their smartphone is a mobile tracking device that broadcasts their location and data about who they’re calling and texting, local police agencies have taken sharp notice.
At least 25 police agencies around the country, including the Indiana State Police, have contracts with Harris Corp., of Melbourne, Fla., for devices called Stingrays, according to public records requests filed this fall with 115 police agencies by the Indianapolis Star, USA Today and other media outlets owned by Gannett.
Often installed in a surveillance vehicle, the suitcase-size Stingrays trick all cellphones in a set distance - sometimes exceeding a mile, depending on the terrain and antennas - into connecting to it as if it were a real cellphone tower. That allows police agencies to capture location data and numbers dialed for calls and text messages from thousands of people at a time.
Local and state police often buy the devices with federal grants aimed at protecting cities from terror attacks, and the devices, originally developed for military and spy agencies, are closely guarded secrets.
The company referred inquires to local police departments, but they’re not talking either, in part because Harris requires them to sign nondisclosure agreements.
'Required information'
The Indiana State Police paid Harris $373,995 this spring for a Stingray, but police officials were reluctant to share even that information.
State Police officials initially refused to provide any records related to the agency’s contract with Harris or grants they obtained.
After The Star appealed the denial to the Indiana Public Access Counselor, the state’s arbiter of public records disputes, the agency provided a one-page purchase order, which provided no clues to how the device works or how and when it may be used.
From IndyStar
Related
Report: NSA Tracks Billions of Cellphones Daily
Your iPhone Will Talk to Stores While You Shop
AT&T Says It Doesn’t Have To Disclose NSA Dealings
