understanding new surveillance tools hanni m. fakhoury eff senior staff attorney
TRANSCRIPT
<Omaha, 5.27.15>
Understanding New
Surveillance Tools
Hanni M. FakhouryEFF Senior Staff Attorney
<Omaha, 5.27.15>
<Omaha, 5.27.15>
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/12/08/cellphone-data-spying-nsa-police/3902809/
<Omaha, 5.27.15>
<Omaha, 5.27.15>
https://www.aclu.org/maps/stingray-tracking-devices-whos-got-them
<Omaha, 5.27.15>
<Omaha, 5.27.15>
<Omaha, 5.27.15>
https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/assets/aclu_florida_stingray_police_emails.pdf
<Omaha, 5.27.15>
https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/assets/aclu_florida_stingray_police_emails.pdf
“In the past, and at the request of the U.S. Marshalls, the investigative means utilized to locate the suspect have not been revealed so that we may continue to utilize this technology without knowledge of the criminal element, in reports or depositions we simply refer to the assistance as ‘received information from a confidential source regarding the location of the suspect.’”
<Omaha, 5.27.15>
https://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/us-v-rigmaiden-doj-emails-stingray-applications
<Omaha, 5.27.15>
US v. Rigmaiden, 844 F. Supp. 2d 982 (D. Ariz. 2012) & 2013 WL 1932800 (D. Ariz. 2013)
<Omaha, 5.27.15>
<Omaha, 5.27.15>
<Omaha, 5.27.15>
<Omaha, 5.27.15>
<Omaha, 5.27.15>
<Omaha, 5.27.15>
<Omaha, 5.27.15>
<Omaha, 5.27.15>
Hemisphere• Database of CDRs available in near real
time regardless of carrier– Includes records made 2 hours after a call – Results returned in hours for exigent
circumstances and 2-5 days for routine requests
– At least 10 years worth of records• Used to
– Find dropped/new/additional phones– Determine some location information– CDRs on international numbers
<Omaha, 5.27.15>
Hemisphere
<Omaha, 5.27.15>
“Protecting” Hemisphere• Administrative subpoena to get
Hemisphere records• “Parallel subpoening”
– Hemisphere used as a “pointer” system to be followed up by a subpoena to carrier
• No reference to Hemisphere in official reports or court documents– Just reference to follow up subpoenas
<Omaha, 5.27.15>
US v. Ortiz, 12cr119 (NDCal)• Defense obtained
17(c) subpoena ordering disclosure of:– Court orders
authorizing HIDTA to release CDRs to law enforcement
– Correspondence between law enforcement and Hemisphere http://www.sfweekly.com/2014-01-15/news/hemisphere-at-and-t-wiretapping-gangs/
<Omaha, 5.27.15>
DEA Bulk Records Collection• Collection of phone records made from
US to 116 countries from 1992-2013– numbers, time and date of call and length of
call• Database queried if reasonable
articulable suspicion phone associated with criminal activity
• DEA’s SOD passed info as tips to field agents and local law enforcement– Database not referenced in official reporting
<Omaha, 5.27.15>
Discovery• Other “Stingray” Terminology
– IMSI catcher, digital analyzer, cell site simulator, triggerfish, stingray, kingfish, amberjack, hailstorm, WITT (FBI’s “wireless intercept tracking team”)
• Descriptions of the Technique– Cellular or cell phone tracking– Pinging– “Ride by”– “Known investigative technique”
<Omaha, 5.27.15>
US v. Kincaid, 13cr818 (NDCal)
<Omaha, 5.27.15>
US v. Kincaid, 13cr818 (NDCal)
<Omaha, 5.27.15>
State v. Taylor, 114140031
<Omaha, 5.27.15>
Expectations of Privacy• Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128, 143 n. 12
(1978)– Must “have a source outside of Fourth
Amendment” by reference to “understandings that are recognized and permitted by society”
• Riley v. California, 134 S.Ct. 2473 (2014)– Privacy interests depend on the quality and
quality of information revealed– Older cases involving physical items or less
intrusive government action don’t control digital searches or surveillance
<Omaha, 5.27.15>
Expectations of Privacy• US v. Knotts, 460 U.S. 276 (1983)
– No expectation of privacy in public movements “voluntarily conveyed” to others
– Reserved right to consider “dragnet-type law enforcement practices”
• Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979)– Use of pen register to capture outgoing
phone calls made over three days– No expectation of privacy in dialed phone
numbers
<Omaha, 5.27.15>
Location Privacy• Subjective expectation of privacy
– Location info revealing when aggregated– Phone records may be protected under state
constitution• Expectation is objectively reasonable
– Growing body of case law and statutory protection reflect changing “understanding”
• Smith Doesn’t Apply– Nature of intrusion matters
<Omaha, 5.27.15>
Location Privacy• US v. Cooper, 2015 WL 881578, at *8
(N.D. Cal. Mar. 2, 2015)– “Society's expectation of privacy in
historical cell site data is also evidenced by many state statutes and cases which suggest that this information exists within the ambit of an individual's personal and private realm… While state law is, of course, not dispositive on this question, ‘the recognition of a privacy right by numerous states may provide insight into broad societal expectations of privacy.’”
<Omaha, 5.27.15>
Location Privacy• Warrant to track car with a GPS device
– U.S. v. Maynard, 644 F.3d 544 (D.C. Cir. 2010); People v. Weaver, 909 N.E.2d 1195 (N.Y. 2009); State v. Campbell, 759 P.2d 1040 (Or. 1988); State v. Jackson, 76 P.3d 217 (Wash. 2003); Commonwealth v. Rousseau, 990 N.E.2d 543 (Mass. 2013); State v. Brereton, 826 N.W.2d 369 (Wis. 2013); State v. Zahn, 812 N.W.2d 490 (S.D. 2012); U.S. v. Lopez, 895 F. Supp. 2d 592 (D. Del. 2012)
• Warrant statutorily required to track cell phone– Historical & real time: CO, ME, MN, MT, UT– Real time only: IL, IN, MD, VA, WI
<Omaha, 5.27.15>
Location Privacy• Warrant required to obtain cell phone
location records – Tracey v. State, 152 So.3d 504 (Fla. 2014);
Commonwealth v. Augustine, 4 N.E.3d 846 (Mass. 2014); State v. Earls, 70 A.3d (NJ 2013); Commonwealth v. Rushing, 71 A.3d 939, 961-64 (Pa. Sup. Ct. 2013), appeal granted on other grounds 84 A.3d 699 (2014); United States v. Powell, 943 F. Supp. 2d 759, 776-77 (E.D. Mich. 2013); United States v. White, --- F.Supp.3d ---, 2014 WL 6682645 (E.D.Mich. 2014) (real time)
– But see U.S. v. Davis, --- F.3d ---, 2015 WL 2058977 (11th Cir. 2015) (en banc); In re US for Historical Cell Site Data, 724 F.3d 600 (5th Cir. 2013); In re US for an Order, 620 F.3d 304 (3d Cir. 2010)
