Introduction
Cell site simulators (CSS), or “stingrays” are devices that mimic cell phone towers, to which every cell phone within range connects to. This allows for surveillance of all nearby cell phone activity and identifying information about the person using it. Although this technology was originally developed for intelligence gathering purposes within the United States military, the primary use of stingrays currently is by law enforcement. Stingrays are used at the federal, state, and local levels. Its implementation is controversial, with law enforcement agencies fully supporting stingrays as an invaluable method of finding and identifying criminals, but many others believe the technology to be a blatant violation of 4th amendment rights.
Competing interests: Public safety and protecting privacy
The technology was first used by the federal government to track potential terrorists and drug traffickers within the United States. It was later given to state and local law enforcement and began to be used for a wider variety of cases, including robbery, immigration enforcement, and protest surveillance. Individuals arguing in favor of the use of stingrays in law enforcement use increased ease of investigation as the main justification. There is a definite public safety benefit: tracking and identifying a suspect within a large crowd or highly populated residential area becomes much easier when access to that individual’s cellular device is obtained.
However, the manner in which this technology was implemented made people apprehensive. The FBI has admitted to making local law enforcement agencies sign NDAs before buying stingrays. Supporters of this enforced secrecy once again justify it with ease of investigation. They argue that if law enforcement’s use of stingrays were to become public knowledge, it would hinder efforts to apprehend criminals because suspects would change their behavior to avoid detection.
While it is acknowledged that stingrays have improved the speed and overall process of investigation, many are justifiably concerned about the potential for privacy violations. Firstly, the ability to track cell phone usage while the individual is in their home or somewhere in which there is a reasonable expectation of privacy is a clear breach of the 4th amendment. Secondly, stingrays operate indiscriminately, gathering the data from every cell phone within range. This means that in addition to the suspect, it also collects information from people who have nothing to do with the criminal activity being investigated. This raises serious privacy concerns, especially because not only did law enforcement not have a warrant to obtain information from their devices, it was also taken from them without knowledge or consent solely due to close proximity with the suspect. Finally, civil liberties organizations like the ACLU argue against the need for secrecy with stingrays, as this gives the public the ability to hold law enforcement accountable for their actions. They believe that the public should know whether stingrays are being used and if these organizations are taking steps to protect their privacy.
My opinion
It has been proven that law enforcement agencies are actively trying to conceal their use of stingrays from the general public, and claiming that this secrecy is necessary to avoid alerting the criminals that are being tracked. In 2019, the ACLU of Southern California had to sue ICE and CBP to get them to reveal how exactly they were using stingrays. I am definitely of the opinion that law enforcement should be required to obtain a warrant before attempting to use stingrays to track suspects. There have been laws passed regarding warrants at both the state and the federal level. However, I believe using the technology may violate the Fourth Amendment, even with a warrant. This is because of the range in which stingrays operate, and how the devices also pick up the information from nearby innocent bystanders.
I agree with Shreya that at minimum a warrant should be required to use stingrays, but even that might not be enough. I personally don't like the idea of my communications being unknowingly collected just so law enforcement can improve the speed of their investigations. It's not like law enforcement can't do their job without stingrays, so I think it's reasonable to agree that the cost of using such a technology is too high for its use to even be considered. Regardless of my opinion, this should be something that the public decides, not something that is agreed upon between the FBI and law enforcement behind closed doors.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI think Shreya brings up a very important point; law enforcement should obtain a warrant before proceeding with their investigations using stingrays. I agree that even after acquiring a warrant, law enforcement is still violating innocent bystanders' Fourth Amendment rights. I think that the technological mechanisms of stingrays need to be manipulated to have stricter regulations for this exact reason. Once stingrays are factored solely for individual access through enhanced technology, I think the Fourth Amendment of individual parties would be much of a concern. Also, I think once law enforcement knows that their access is further restrained, they will be more thorough with their desired targets of interest. I think, as Will mentioned, the public should know more about this process, and they should be the ones to promote such technological regulations to lawmakers.
ReplyDeleteThis might be one of the hardest topics for me to form an opinion on so far, and we've covered a fair amount of things in this class. Cell phones are such a critical part of life and contain lots of personal information. I don't like that, but others embrace it. So I can agree that stingrays are dangerous. Say they obtain incriminating information about someone through this collection and then use it to go after that individual when they weren't supposed to? I feel like some restrictions would need to be in place. Others have suggested a warrant, or maybe a law that puts more protections on how it can be used. But I don't think they should be outright illegal for law enforcement to use.
ReplyDeleteI think the Katz test can be used to pretty definitively illustrate that stingrays count as searching and should at least be limited to usage by a warrant. The average person certainly expects privacy of their phone activity in their own home. Due to the indiscriminate "sweeping" nature, if it's impossible to restrict stingray-based tracking to subjects of a warrant, this may mean that any usage of stingrays is unconstitutional because it inherently causes unreasonable search of anyone in the area.
ReplyDeleteThere is a lot of information cell phones have that is personal and private to its user. The topic of stingrays puts the role of privacy into question. The privacy of the individual versus the privacy of the government may depend. Although it is helpful to track potential suspects for various crimes, there should be, at the very least, transparency to the individual regarding what the technology is, how it is gathered/used, where/how long it is stored, and so on. Even though individuals must agree to giving third parties information before receiving a given product, there is a lack of transparency in the phrasing alone of what and/or who a ‘third party’ is. In situations such as protesting, monitoring people just to monitor/track seems suspicious and unnerving. Going back to the news article(s) shared with the class last week, why is it so important to monitor and track individuals who participate in activities such as protests? The Carpenter case is relevant in this discussion as well. There may be information found in cellular devices that may or may not be incriminating. The government, law enforcement, and other entities would need a warrant to present/use that information. Therefore, there is great purpose to requiring a judicial warrant and/or restrictions in order to use such technologies.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI think there is an argument to be made that any information collected by a stingray about a person for whom law enforcement has a warrant is incidental—similar to searching a home and discovering a crime committed by a roommate. Still, the use of a stingray in any circumstance is questionable. I think there could be reasonable use and respect of privacy in a secure non-public area with a form of notification. Otherwise law enforcement should have a warrant and specific use for all circumstances in which they use a stingray.
ReplyDeleteThe usage of stingrays presents an interesting argument. Concerning the Katz test, one must ask if there is any substantial view of privacy on a cellular device. After all, any use of a smart phone means giving up massive personal information and data. Therefore, the first question is: does the use of cell phones constitute a relinquishing of privacy. Secondly, if the Katz test is upheld, I would agree with the author's perspective. I do believe that the overarching issue is the broad tracking and usage of stingrays by law enforcement. The easiest solution is to require a court issued warrant before approval to use a stingray.
ReplyDelete