Dept Of Justice must release info on location tracking.

[Wrabbit2000]

Well, the courts have done it again and its no wonder the Administration isn't terribly happy with that whole branch right now. They just don't seem to see eye to eye any longer. Whatever tolerance the courts once had for trusting the better intentions of the police and security services seems to have faded, and good for that too.

This is actually something I have been anxiously awaiting and now will be looking forward to seeing when it's released. At least a couple sites out there ought to have the original documents added to archives pretty quickly, I'd think.

The Department of Justice must release documents on government policies and procedures for use of location-tracking technology in Northern California, a federal judge ruled.

     In early 2012, the ACLU of Northern California and the San Francisco Bay Guardian newspaper submitted a Freedom of Information Act request to the Department of Justice seeking information about the federal government's use of location tracking technology to monitor and surveil suspects.

Now, so far so good but I'll bet folks are wondering what should be familiar or why this should matter. Ahhh... Let me add a bit more to be specific here.

Among other things, the ACLU sought information on "the use or policies of utilizing any location tracking technology, including but not limited to cellsite simulators or digital analyzers such as devices known as Stingray, Triggerfish, AmberJack, KingFish or Loggerhead."

Source

It is a long article, but the long and short of it is that the Government's arguments about the release of information regarding these systems leading to criminals finding crime easier to commit failed to impress the Judge.

To give some idea of just what those names represent, here is a link discussing Stingray in further detail, and keep in mind, Stingray is the lesser of the technologies where some of that is concerned. It's not even the most important.

FBI's Stingray Cellphone Tracker
Detailed Article on Stingray's Recent Use

Triggerfish: Eavesdropping Device
Among this devices claims to fame is the ability to collect and make available the ID codes of up to 60,000 individual phones at once.

AmberJack: Enhanced Antenna System for use with Stingray, Gossamer and Kingfish systems.
This addition allows direction finding and homing in on the target phone, in real time. It's used by both civilian and military agencies.

KingFish: ID Number Scanner. Also displays connections between phones and numbers dialed.
The interrogation of large numbers of phones and showing connections between them across a large area at once seems to be it's strength.

Loggerhead: Material I can find indicates this is an outdated system, primarily used for the above purposes against the old analog cell phones.

Harpoon: Amplifier or Signal Booster for the Stingray and Kingfish devices

Gossamer: Portable (walkie/handy talkie size) unit to mine data from cellphones in the area.
This seems a bit special in saying it can perform Denial of Service attacks to block incoming and outgoing traffic from specific cell phones.

Additional Information On Above Systems

Now some may wonder, why would normal, decent and law abiding people have any need to know about things like this? I'd say that is a good question too. On the first glance, these seem very specialized to use against criminals and for all we know, ones that need catching. Who knows, eh?

I'd also say we all have the right to legally protest, and the methods used to suppress that protest having gotten higher and higher in both sophistication and technology. I simply don't trust Uncle Sam anymore to not use this against those who may have committed no crime, other than thinking the wrong thoughts.

Like so much else, it's rarely the technology itself. Its how it gets used and whether that can be trusted to happen in good faith. Hmmm.... Nope.. Not feeling that way lately.

[Pimander]

I though that intelligence agencies have the right to protect methods and sources.  Can't they just stop civilian agencies from compromising their methods.

To be honest, I think we already know about Stingray and similar from Wikileaks don't we.

When asked for details of the cell phone tracking methods it used on Daniel Rigmaiden, the government claimed that the information was too sensitive, and therefore must be kept secret. In particular, it was claimed that "public release [of information on stingrays] could harm law enforcement efforts by compromising future use of the equipment." Such statements were contradicted by the Friends of the Court Brief, which showed that this information is widely available. They further stated that:

...as the US government neither has, nor can it enforce a monopoly for itself over the use of IMSI catchers, the public interest is not served by the government's continued secrecy regarding its use of this surveillance technique. Rather than urging this court to prevent the public from learning more about its use of IMSI catchers, the government should be taking steps to protect the communications of innocent Americans from the real threat of IMSI catchers used by foreign governments and criminals.

In light of the government's refusal to provide further information, the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) subsequently filed a Freedom of Information Act request, resulting in the release of (heavily redacted) FBI documents on Stingray specifications and capabilities in October, November, and December of 2012.

http://wikileaks-press.org/topic/spyfiles-document-wide-public-use-of-stingrays-in-amici-court-brief/

[Wrabbit2000]

I though that intelligence agencies have the right to protect methods and sources.  Can't they just stop civilian agencies from compromising their methods.

To be honest, I think we already know about Stingray and similar from Wikileaks don't we.

We know it's name from WL and other sources. Do we know enough to say what its limitations and actual capabilities are? I have no idea and that is what I'm anxious to see. After all, specifics and what is essentially on a tech spec sheet is what I'd need if I went back to something like Occupy. How far from the unit do I have to be, to be outside the range? What conditions does it work best/worst under? What are the limiting factors and why?

Stuff like that are what I'd find critical as a protester.

I also see your point on methods and tactics for legitimate security/intelligence work. When that is the case, they need to stop giving those very powerful toys out to cops for use against civilians back home here. Then they wouldn't get properly sued into exposing what they use against us, eh?

[Pimander]

I also see your point on methods and tactics for legitimate security/intelligence work. When that is the case, they need to stop giving those very powerful toys out to cops for use against civilians back home here. Then they wouldn't get properly sued into exposing what they use against us, eh?

I think you made a really good point here.

It frankly makes me sick that we can participate in demonstrations or other reasonable activities in a democratic society (it is at least as bad in the UK) such as political organising and automatically become targets for invasion of privacy.

I know this is not a private conversation but you can guarantee that someone is interested in the pair of us just because we are tech savvy and are watching the watchers so to speak.  What a waste of resources.

Yes we might be politically aware but they have no right to monitor us for that reason.  How can a nation be democratic if it is frightened of citizens who are politically aware or active.

I'm thinking about setting up a more private group with some of this in mind at some point