On February 27, 2015, California Senator Jerry Hill introduced SB 741, which “would require that require local governing bodies in California to take public comment before implementing cell phone intercept technology.” SB-741 was discussed at a meeting of the California Senate Judiciary Committee on May 12, 2015. After opening remarks by Senator Hill, Tracy Rosenberg of the Bay Area Civil Liberties Coalition spoke in favor of the bill and Aaron Maguire of the California State Sheriff’s Association spoke against the bill. Maguire said, We are in respectful opposition to the bill. We’re in opposition to actually several bills that are […]
Previously, the Ventura County Sheriff released a heavily redacted non-disclosure agreement with the FBI and similarly redacted terms and conditions from Harris Corporation (See http://www.cehrp.org/ventura-county-sheriff-has-a-stingray/). Today, I received the following responses to my appeal: Harris Government Communications Systems Division Terms and Conditions of Sale for Wireless Equipment, Software and Services, dated February 15, 2011 Software Key License Reactivation Addendum, dated February 28, 2011 Acquisition of Wireless Collection Equipment/Technology and Non-Disclosure Obligations, dated May 29, 2012 Contract J-FBI-09-211 “Landshark” Restricted Software Request Approval – Ventura County Sheriff’s Office, dated June 12, 2012 Harris Government Communications Systems Division Terms and Conditions of […]
In a February 13, 2015, response to my public records request, the Boston Police Department indicated that it had records responsive to my request, but “The information you have requested is exempt from disclosure by MGL c. 4 s. 7(26)(f) and (n). Disclosure of the information contained in these documents would not be in the public interest and would prejudice the possibility of effective law enforcement.” As the public records request only asked for information related to Harris Corporation equipment, this indicates that the Boston Police Department has a Harris Corporation cell site simulator, probably a StingRay.
In a February 18, 2015, response to my public records request, the New York Police Department indicated it had records responsive to my request, but “In regard to the documents(s) which you requested, I must deny access to these records on the basis of Public Officers Law Section 87(2)(e)(iv) as such information, if disclosed, would reveal non-routine techniques and procedures.” This indicates that the New York Police Department has a cell site simulator.
In a March 26, 2015, response to my public records request, the Ventura County Sheriff’s Office provided a heavily-redacted copy of a non-disclosure agreement with the FBI dated May 29, 2012. Based on the number of pages, the non-disclosure agreement appears similar to non-disclosure agreements between the FBI and the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension and between the FBI and the Erie County Sheriff. The non-disclosure agreement refers to “wireless collection equipment/technology manufactured by Harris Corporation,” which indicates that the equipment is likely a StingRay. In a followup response to my public records request, dated March 27, 2015, the Ventura […]
In an April 7, 2015, response to a public records request, the Kern County Sheriff released a quotation from Digital Receiver Technology dated April 8, 2009, for a DRT 1201B 0402/PRS Wireless Receiving System. This came after the Kern County Board of Supervisors approved allocating $193,030 in State Homeland Security Grant Funds (agenda consent item CA-37) at its meeting of December 9, 2008. The background material for this item noted that “The vendor will not permit public disclosure of the equipment features.” The quotation describes the DRT 1201B as: Consisting of the following items: 4 RF tuners. 2 wideband processor […]
In a March 19, 2015, response to my public records request, the Los Angeles Police Department responded, “To the extent that any such records may exist…they would constitute official information.” The letter goes on to state that all requested documents are exempt under California Government Code section 6254(k) and section 6255 without indicating whether such records exist. However, a little research shows that on August 2, 2005, the Los Angeles City Council approved the purchase of a cell phone tracking system from Digital Receiver Technology for an amount not to exceed $260,000. Background material for the agenda item stated, “Most […]
In a March 30, 2015, response to my public records request, the Fresno County Sheriff’s Office claims that requested records are exempt from disclosure – without actually making a determination that the records actually exist. With respect to a non-disclosure agreement between the FBI and the Fresno County Sheriff’s Office, the letter states: Pursuant to California Government Code 6254(f) ” … Records of intelligence information or security procedures of, the office of the Attorney General and the Department of Justice …. ,” are exempt from disclosure, therefore this part of the request is denied. Based on the response, it is […]
In an emailed response to public records request, the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Office released a lightly-redacted copy of its non-disclosure disagreement with the FBI. The document is dated December 7, 2012, and uses the same template of the NDA between the FBI and the Erie County Sheriff that was released by the ACLU on April 7, 2015. The NDA includes these references to public records requests: 7. The San Bernardino Sheriff’s Department shall not, in any civil or criminal proceeding, use or provide any information concerning the Harris Corporation wireless collection equipment/technology, its associated software, operating manuals, and any […]
The source for this text is the non-disclosure agreement between the Erie County Sheriff’s Office and the FBI obtained by the ACLU. U.S. Department of Justice Federal Bureau of Investigation June 29, 2012 Scott R. Patronik Chief Erie County Sheriff’s Office 10 Delaware Avenue Buffalo, NY 14202 Re: Acquisition of Wireless Collection Equipment/Technology and Non-Disclosure Obligations LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE (LES): The information in this document is the property of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and may be distributed within the federal government (and its contractors), U.S. intelligence, law enforcement, public safety or protection officials and individuals with a need […]