1 Sabha, Tamer
Subject: RE: The Stingray - Taking the Department's Word for It
From: kris ockershauser
Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2023 3:24 PM
To: Sabha, Tamer <[email protected]>
Subject: The Stingray - Taking the Department's Word for It
------------------------
Sent from Mail for Windows
In a 1921 ACLU document* in about the FBI’s practice of requiring local police to sign strict nondisclosure agreements prior to purchasing invasive cell phone tracking technology, the civil liberties union states: “Regardless of law enforcement’s intended target, cell site simulators collect data from all phones in their vicinity and can also interfere with nearby phones’ connections to the cellular network.”* In today’s Pasadena Now story on the Stingray purchase it noted the Police Department was refusing comment on the purchase. Might this be evidence of a nondisclosure agreement even today? And while PPD declares the cell phone simulator’s reach is limited to the work at hand, what independent evidence is there that that’s true? Unfortunately, for Pasadenans, Public Safety Committee doesn’t have staff looking objectively at claims of the Department. They basically take the Department’s word for things. Is this Pasadena’s due diligence in signing up for extremely powerful, invasive technology by a department susceptible to mission creep and not known for its transparency? Can’t the Committee work a little harder at protecting the public?
*https://www.aclu.org/news/privacy-technology/surreal-stingray-secrecy-uncovering-the-fbis-surveillance-tech- secrecy-agreements
Kris Ockershauser
91105