This weekend, Governor Jerry Brown signed into law what advocates describe as some of strongest privacy protections in the United States. Legislation which takes effect January 1st, 2016, known as CAL-EPCA, will prohibit police from searching electronic equipment and records such as email, including metadata, without a warrant. (Another bill which he vetoed wanted to put an RFID chip into every California driver’s license. )
A further bill, signed into law, requires most state and local agencies acquiring a Stingray Cellphone Surveillance Device or equivalent to both conduct a public hearing before acquisition and to create a privacy policy that governs its use. A “Stingray” is a device that simulates a cellphone tower and intercepts all the cell phone traffic in its range. These devices are made by Harris Corporation, and the base model was dubbed “Stingray” – this has become the generic term (The law has an exception for county sheriffs – they do not need to hold a public hearing, but still have to put a privacy policy in place.)
On Tuesday, October 13th, the Alameda County Board of Supervisors is scheduled to consider whether to approve a request by the Alameda County District Attorney to accept money from the state to acquire an upgraded Stingray known as a “Hailstorm.” From the agenda, Item 16:
Sheriff and District Attorney – Approve an agreement (Procurement Contract No. 12489) with Harris Corporation (Principal: William M. Brown; Location: Melbourne, Florida) for the retrofit of Electronic Surveillance Telephone Tracking Technology, for the period of 8/31/15 – 12/31/15, in the amount of $113,419.25 – Continued from Tuesday, 9/29/15 (Item #25)
If approved, and if the purchase is consummated before the new year, the new Stingray Regulation law would not apply. The Alameda County Board of Supervisors needs to stipulate that the law be applied even though it technically has not yet taken effect. They have the power to do this.
The hearing, beginning at 10:45 AM will take place on the 5th floor of the Alameda County Building at 1221 Oak St., across from the Court House.
Stingrays and their ilk and just plain wrong.
They arguably violate the 4th amendment and even more likely the California Constitution’s right to privacy because they indiscriminately pick up transmissions – yours, mine and, if they are really lucky, two people sexting each other. Despite this no court has as yet ruled them unconstitutional, or even their use without a warrant unconstitutional.
The best privacy and civil liberties advocates have been able to get so far is this new California law which places some public oversight on the acquisition of such equipment, and the new “get a warrant” law (CAL-EPCA) which – in theory at least – will stop the indiscriminate use by police of Stingray-like devices.
The Oakland Privacy Working Group, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the Stop Urban Shield Coalition and others are calling on the ALCO Board of Supervisors to reject this money. Claims made by those proposing the grant that this equipment is necessary to fight terrorism e.g.
“Having these capabilities, law enforcement will be able to disrupt, track, locate and capture terrorists…”
are as ingenuous as the claims of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The public is encouraged to come to the Board of Supervisors meeting and make it clear that this is not the technology the people of Alameda County are looking for.
One way or another, various types of surveillance will be (and already have been) acquired – whether we like it or not. It is critical that strong privacy policies, such as the one created for the Domain Awareness Center, be put in place to provide some measure of accountability and respect for the 4th amendment by the agencies that will employ them. If the District Attorney is to get her upgrade despite our protests, it should not be without the proviso of a publicly vetted privacy policy.
If you can’t get to the hearing you can still call or email your representative on the County Board of Supervisors: Contacting them by phone is best. However, the emails provided are for their legislative aides and can also be used to contact them and tell them what you think about IMSI catchers and applying the new privacy protections to the District Attorney. Check the Board of Supervisors site and the Supervisors’ Districts map to find your district if you’re not sure.
District 1, Supervisor Scott Haggerty Phone number:(510) 272-6691
Aide: shawn.wilson@acgov.org
District 2, Supervisor Richard Valle:
Phone number: (510) 272-6692
Aide: christopher.miley@acgov.org
District 3, Supervisor Wilma Chan Phone number: (510)272-6693
Aide:jeanette.dong@acgov.org
District 4, Supervisor Nate Miley Phone number: (510)272-6694
Aide: anna.gee@acgov.org
District 5, Supervisor Keith Carson Phone number: (510)272-6695
Aide: rodney.brooks@acgov.org
Comments are closed.