If you fill out the form on the page, we'll submit a request to your local police department, asking for policies, invoices, etc. that will detail if and how they're using cell phone scanning technology (including Stingrays), and even what vendors have unsuccessfully pitched them on the technology.
Reading this post made it seem like muckrock is more of a ideologically driven site than a neutral data dump. Which is totally OK, but I was thinking maybe it be nice to just to have a place to get data regardless of the topic or how it fits in with a particular set of opinions.
So I'm all for using FOIA to make public data accessible for the greater good, but I'm not sure if what you're doing is the right approach.
Anyone can sign up for and file any request through the site, and the request pages are about as neutral as can be (http://j.mp/UG3TMB). We also publish news, analysis and commentary on select documents, but that's handled fairly separately, so if you just want the raw docs, that's very easy; if you want to better understand why they're important, we try to make that easy, too.
We don't typically take too many ideological stances except that agencies should probably follow the public records laws that they're subject to, which generally isn't too controversial an opinion. We're looking for other ways to allow more analysis and context, but keeping the data clean and easily accessible will always be a part of what we do.
You might say that there is an implicit ideology in what kinds of government activities people find interesting or concerning. For example, the Sacramento Bee has made great use of CPRA to find out about things that went wrong in the construction of the new Bay Bridge. Other people are concerned about government surveillance and send a lot of requests to try to expose information about it. Not everyone finds it intuitive that the ability of police to know your cell phone's location is a concern on par with the quality of the welding in the Bay Bridge.
I don't drive over the bay bridge. Nobody I know regularly drives over the bay bridge. Nothing I buy is likely to be transported over the bay bridge. I don't even live in the same state as the bay bridge anymore. By and large, the bay bridge just doesn't have any significance to me.
I, like every other person in America, do live within the jurisdiction of a law enforcement agency that may be buying/using this technology.
It seems strange to suggest that an entity must be ideologically driven because it's focusing on something that affects an entire country instead of a distinctly local issue.
I guess I meant to compare concerns about the Bay Bridge with concerns over whether SFPD or OPD has IMSI catchers (or drones), rather than over whether any law enforcement agency anywhere has them.
A very significant fraction of public records requests relate to something that the requester is concerned about or objects to or fears is being mishandled in some way. Deciding where to focus one's concerns and questions could be viewed as ideological, or at least ideological concerns help make particular topics more salient and interesting to people.
By way of analogy, take a look at the series of questions that these journalists decide to pose to Victoria Nuland, then spokeswoman for the U.S. Department of State, about the activities of European election observers in Texas during the 2012 elections there:
Obviously journalists have the right to ask Ms. Nuland about anything that interests them, and supporting that right isn't (very) ideological (within the U.S. political context). But it seems pretty clear that the line of questioning that they were pursuing was inspired by a concern or belief that Ms. Nuland herself didn't share: that there was something improper or disturbing about European international institutions observing an election in Texas.
If you share that belief, you might find the questioning pretty natural and obvious and even wish that it had been pursued a bit further and uncovered more information about the relationship between the U.S. and OSCE. If you don't share that belief, you might find the questioning perplexing or annoying, and be bewildered that the journalists didn't accept Ms. Nuland's perfectly reasonable replies.
I was planning to donate but it requires subscribing to Beacon with monthly recurring donations and you get a CD/thumbdrive? I just wanted to throw some one-time cash their way ala kickstarter. I don't really care about subscriptions/CDs.
That was the template Beacon Reader gave us and how they're set up. We're looking at building out our own donation tools to enable one-time, zero-signup donations, but not quite there yet (we do take PayPal at info@muckrock.com though).
Nice. Making that PayPal email more prominent might result in higher donations. Also, have you considered accepting Bitcoin, through Coinbase or something similar?
Yes, I understand. But sounds of goofy to refer to them as FOIA. If you say "FOIA" people assume you are referring specifically to the federal law called Freedom of Information Act and that you are probably trying to request a record from a federal agency.
My state also has laws to help the public access public records. We just dont call them FOIA because they have a different name as they do in other states.
I'm guessing you're not active there, but maybe you know someone / some outfit that is. I would assume Canadian authorities are also snapping this equipment up.
A while back, I knew someone who played a significant role in helping pass a FOIA-like measure in British Columbia. (I'm no longer in touch with them.)
If various U.S. authorities remain uncooperative, I'm not overly hopeful about Canadian, but maybe?
And while I guess that wouldn't focus on U.S. authorities' use of what is already a fairly well understood technology, I bet a few Canadians would like to know when and how this technology is being used up there.
Very surprised that a search for my local police department and a few terms like 'stingray' or 'cell phone tracking/privacy/tapping/gps' yielded more results than expected along with a state SC case initiated because of the actions taken by our department. Not specific to Stingray usage, but I still filed a request.
I hope this campaign successfully increases the awareness and insight into the fact that this is happening everywhere and has been for close to a decade.
But it does make the whole "USA IS A POLICE STATE!!!1" claims a bit harder to take seriously. I keep trying to imagine East German civil libertarians publically crowd-sourcing requests to the Stasi to divulge the particulars of their surveillance appartus, in ways that don't result in the murder of themselves or their families.
I don't mean this to be snide though, this kind of civil action and distrust of authority is precisely what it means to be an American, and precisely what is needed to ensure that our various police forces don't actually become a modern day Stasi, so keep it up! :)
What's a true police state? Something like a sobriety checkpoint, where a technical measure of blood alcohol level is used to assess guilt, at least gives wink and a nod to social control.
(I don't really mean to speak against the checkpoints, I just wonder if "police state" has a clear enough definition to provide an interesting framework for discussion of modern governments)
> I don't really mean to speak against the checkpoints, I just wonder if "police state" has a clear enough definition to provide an interesting framework for discussion of modern governments
That's a really good point, but I suspect that those for whom 'police state' has the most meaning would also have the most incentive to keep the definition from ever getting too specific. That's not counting the idea that one person's "police state" is another person's "safe spot to raise my kids".
But even non "police states" involve social control (e.g. against serial killing), there's no getting around that. Even anarchies involve social control—the members of each commune are expected to abide by the democratically-reached decisions.
If I had to start on a definition I'd probably key off the difference between "social control for the benefit of the people/society" and "social control for the sole benefit of the government in power". There are implementations of sobriety checkpoints are not too hard to classify in the former.
I don't think I've articulated it above, but there must be some way of separating out the police work that punishes actions that have clear negative consequences (murder, theft, etc) from the police work that punishes actions that tend to lead to negative consequences (said checkpoints).
Perhaps. But I wouldn't describe "preventative maintenance" by police as necessarily bad, if (and that's the big question) it can help avoid direct negative consequences down the road where those negative consequences outweigh the hassle of what they're doing.
At some point living with other people will necessarily inconvenience you, whether it's sobriety checkpoints, or directing traffic, or jury dury, or voting, or taxes, or any of the dozens of other things that go into the civic duties of maintaining the general welfare.
Obviously there's a balance that must be chosen (e.g. the speed traps in rural Georgia that are so dense that you have to assume they are more for revenue than for safety), but I don't think police activity only becomes legitimate when it's directly focused on a specific and known criminal occurrence.
Right, I'm not questioning the legitimacy of the activity or trying to say that it is bad (or at least, I'm not real concerned with that here).
I'm speculating that it is really only different from more dire authoritarianism in degree. If that's true, then we've essentially chosen a police state (it just happens to usually be friendly and reasonably egalitarian).
We're not claiming a police state, and certainly not the Stasi. I typically assume good faith on all sides, and I do genuinely believe that the program is being promoted by people with either the best intentions or simply trying to make a buck with easy federal money flowing, no sinister plot for a police state intended.
But it's now pretty well documented that the federal government is currently encouraging, sometimes by force, local agencies to violate their state laws in order to keep secret a widespread federal program that has, at least by one circuit court, been found illegal.
Given past experience, it's probably also incredibly wasteful, and without this you're giving local police that can literally barely operate a thumb drive the surveillance equivalent of a flamethrower, and just hoping nothing goes wrong.
In other words, I don't think we're trying to expose a New World Order so much as a lot of legal and practical problems just waiting to explode.
Yes, I should have made it more clear that I was piggybacking on this story to make a more general observation.
As a member of the military myself, the increasing militarization of law enforcement in the U.S. is something that has me concerned, which is why I hope your efforts are successful in identifying (and fixing!) any of the legal and practical problems with new technologies in the hands of untrained police departments.
Hey it's not like there's script kiddies out there that like to send over militiarized and bored SWAT teams into unsuspecting houses for no reason at all. Oh, right.
The manufacture and use of Stingray type equipment is clearly in violation of Federal law and is punishable by up to ten years in prison. Two parties conspiring to infringe on a citizens civil rights. Read for yourself.
It is also agains FCC rules with 2 years in prison on $50,000 fine.
Section 705 of the Communications Act
Section 705 of the Communications Act adds to the Federal Wiretap Act additional restrictions on the unauthorized interception of communication "by wire or radio." Specifically, the Act provides
No person not being authorized by the sender shall intercept any radio communication and divulge or publish the existence, contents, substance, purport, effect, or meaning of such intercepted communication to any person. No person not being entitled thereto shall receive or assist in receiving any interstate or foreign communication by radio and use such communication (or any information therein contained) for his own benefit or for the benefit of another not entitled thereto. No person having received any intercepted radio communication or having become acquainted with the contents, substance, purport, effect, or meaning of such communication (or any part thereof) knowing that such communication was intercepted, shall divulge or publish the existence, contents, substance, purport, effect, or meaning of such communication (or any part thereof) or use such communication (or any information therein contained) for his own benefit or for the benefit of another not entitled thereto.Violations of Section 705 carry strict penalties, with willful violations "for purposes of direct or indirect commercial advantage or private financial gain" meriting fines of up to $50,000 and prison for up to two years for the first offense.
34 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 77.1 ms ] threadSo I'm all for using FOIA to make public data accessible for the greater good, but I'm not sure if what you're doing is the right approach.
We don't typically take too many ideological stances except that agencies should probably follow the public records laws that they're subject to, which generally isn't too controversial an opinion. We're looking for other ways to allow more analysis and context, but keeping the data clean and easily accessible will always be a part of what we do.
I, like every other person in America, do live within the jurisdiction of a law enforcement agency that may be buying/using this technology.
It seems strange to suggest that an entity must be ideologically driven because it's focusing on something that affects an entire country instead of a distinctly local issue.
A very significant fraction of public records requests relate to something that the requester is concerned about or objects to or fears is being mishandled in some way. Deciding where to focus one's concerns and questions could be viewed as ideological, or at least ideological concerns help make particular topics more salient and interesting to people.
By way of analogy, take a look at the series of questions that these journalists decide to pose to Victoria Nuland, then spokeswoman for the U.S. Department of State, about the activities of European election observers in Texas during the 2012 elections there:
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2012/10/199824.htm
Obviously journalists have the right to ask Ms. Nuland about anything that interests them, and supporting that right isn't (very) ideological (within the U.S. political context). But it seems pretty clear that the line of questioning that they were pursuing was inspired by a concern or belief that Ms. Nuland herself didn't share: that there was something improper or disturbing about European international institutions observing an election in Texas.
If you share that belief, you might find the questioning pretty natural and obvious and even wish that it had been pursued a bit further and uncovered more information about the relationship between the U.S. and OSCE. If you don't share that belief, you might find the questioning perplexing or annoying, and be bewildered that the journalists didn't accept Ms. Nuland's perfectly reasonable replies.
That was the template Beacon Reader gave us and how they're set up. We're looking at building out our own donation tools to enable one-time, zero-signup donations, but not quite there yet (we do take PayPal at info@muckrock.com though).
[1] http://www.nfoic.org/state-freedom-of-information-laws
My state also has laws to help the public access public records. We just dont call them FOIA because they have a different name as they do in other states.
I understand its probably nitpicking. :>
A while back, I knew someone who played a significant role in helping pass a FOIA-like measure in British Columbia. (I'm no longer in touch with them.)
If various U.S. authorities remain uncooperative, I'm not overly hopeful about Canadian, but maybe?
And while I guess that wouldn't focus on U.S. authorities' use of what is already a fairly well understood technology, I bet a few Canadians would like to know when and how this technology is being used up there.
We're working on more options for getting people involved while trying to keep the model simple.
Good to get this feedback!
I hope this campaign successfully increases the awareness and insight into the fact that this is happening everywhere and has been for close to a decade.
But it does make the whole "USA IS A POLICE STATE!!!1" claims a bit harder to take seriously. I keep trying to imagine East German civil libertarians publically crowd-sourcing requests to the Stasi to divulge the particulars of their surveillance appartus, in ways that don't result in the murder of themselves or their families.
I don't mean this to be snide though, this kind of civil action and distrust of authority is precisely what it means to be an American, and precisely what is needed to ensure that our various police forces don't actually become a modern day Stasi, so keep it up! :)
(I don't really mean to speak against the checkpoints, I just wonder if "police state" has a clear enough definition to provide an interesting framework for discussion of modern governments)
That's a really good point, but I suspect that those for whom 'police state' has the most meaning would also have the most incentive to keep the definition from ever getting too specific. That's not counting the idea that one person's "police state" is another person's "safe spot to raise my kids".
But even non "police states" involve social control (e.g. against serial killing), there's no getting around that. Even anarchies involve social control—the members of each commune are expected to abide by the democratically-reached decisions.
If I had to start on a definition I'd probably key off the difference between "social control for the benefit of the people/society" and "social control for the sole benefit of the government in power". There are implementations of sobriety checkpoints are not too hard to classify in the former.
At some point living with other people will necessarily inconvenience you, whether it's sobriety checkpoints, or directing traffic, or jury dury, or voting, or taxes, or any of the dozens of other things that go into the civic duties of maintaining the general welfare.
Obviously there's a balance that must be chosen (e.g. the speed traps in rural Georgia that are so dense that you have to assume they are more for revenue than for safety), but I don't think police activity only becomes legitimate when it's directly focused on a specific and known criminal occurrence.
I'm speculating that it is really only different from more dire authoritarianism in degree. If that's true, then we've essentially chosen a police state (it just happens to usually be friendly and reasonably egalitarian).
If that's the case, then everything is authoritarianism (to some degree) and then Syndrome's quote from The Incredibles applies.
But it's now pretty well documented that the federal government is currently encouraging, sometimes by force, local agencies to violate their state laws in order to keep secret a widespread federal program that has, at least by one circuit court, been found illegal.
Given past experience, it's probably also incredibly wasteful, and without this you're giving local police that can literally barely operate a thumb drive the surveillance equivalent of a flamethrower, and just hoping nothing goes wrong.
In other words, I don't think we're trying to expose a New World Order so much as a lot of legal and practical problems just waiting to explode.
As a member of the military myself, the increasing militarization of law enforcement in the U.S. is something that has me concerned, which is why I hope your efforts are successful in identifying (and fixing!) any of the legal and practical problems with new technologies in the hands of untrained police departments.
https://news.vice.com/video/swatting
Because well-off suburban NJ needs a federally granted armored vehicle for... who knows what.
You and me both are terrified.
Sort of how people take White House petitions as meaningful in any way.
http://www.justice.gov/crt/abo...
It is also agains FCC rules with 2 years in prison on $50,000 fine.
Section 705 of the Communications Act
Section 705 of the Communications Act adds to the Federal Wiretap Act additional restrictions on the unauthorized interception of communication "by wire or radio." Specifically, the Act provides
No person not being authorized by the sender shall intercept any radio communication and divulge or publish the existence, contents, substance, purport, effect, or meaning of such intercepted communication to any person. No person not being entitled thereto shall receive or assist in receiving any interstate or foreign communication by radio and use such communication (or any information therein contained) for his own benefit or for the benefit of another not entitled thereto. No person having received any intercepted radio communication or having become acquainted with the contents, substance, purport, effect, or meaning of such communication (or any part thereof) knowing that such communication was intercepted, shall divulge or publish the existence, contents, substance, purport, effect, or meaning of such communication (or any part thereof) or use such communication (or any information therein contained) for his own benefit or for the benefit of another not entitled thereto.Violations of Section 705 carry strict penalties, with willful violations "for purposes of direct or indirect commercial advantage or private financial gain" meriting fines of up to $50,000 and prison for up to two years for the first offense.