A little more than a week after securing the purchase of a $500,000 taxpayer-funded cellphone tracking device, Santa Clara County Sheriff Laurie Smith and her staff witnessed a demonstration.
The closed-door demonstration of the controversial mobile phone triangulation device took place Thursday, according to officials with the county Board of Supervisors. The system could soon be deployed in Los Altos Hills, which contracts with the county Sheriff’s Department for law enforcement services.
During the Feb. 24 meeting at which the Board of Supervisors approved the purchase, Smith dismissed privacy invasion concerns related to the suitcase-sized device manufactured by Harris Corp. of Melbourne, Fla., and colloquially referred to by model names such as Stingray, KingFish, AmberJack, Triggerfish and HailStorm. She advocated the purchase by characterizing the device as a vital tool in the apprehension of armed and dangerous felons and in locating at-risk and missing adults and children.
“The system triangulates and locates mobile phones only in real time,” Smith said. “And I know that this is kind of an oversimplification, but it acts much like your Find My iPhone, except, obviously, it’s used by law enforcement.”
Smith tentatively identified the Santa Clara County device as a HailStorm model. She said it does not intercept phone data or calls, listen to phone calls, read text messages, download content or retain any data. Its functions are limited to searching for one specific phone using a code acquired only via a search warrant or court order unless exigent circumstances exist.
Locating suspects and the missing
Sgt. Kurtis Stenderup listed a number of Bay Area investigations in which the device could have helped locate missing people, including Sierra LaMar, the Morgan Hill teen who disappeared three years ago.
Los Altos Hills City Councilman Gary Waldeck supports the county’s purchase of the HailStorm. He cited the recent rash of burglaries in Los Altos and last year’s surge in Los Altos Hills as cases in which mobile triangulation technology could prove a valuable asset to the community.
Law enforcement agencies already have the capability to track criminals via mobile phone technology, Waldeck said. The difference is the Harris device makes it possible to apprehend the “bad guys” in less time.
But Smith and Stenderup’s presentation generated more questions than answers for the board, according to Supervisor Joe Simitian.
“So, just to be clear,” Simitian said, “we’re being asked to spend $500,000 of the taxpayers’ money plus $42,000 a year thereafter today for a product, the brand name of which we’re not sure of, the product specs we haven’t seen, a demonstration we don’t have and we’ve got a nondisclosure requirement as a precondition?”
Simitian’s concerns failed to dissuade his fellow supervisors. Spurred by the sheriff’s warning that the $500,000 state Homeland Security grant would expire in May unless used for the purchase, Simitian cast the lone dissenting vote.
Heated debate
The back-and-forth between Simitian and Smith became heated during the Board of Supervisors meeting: Smith complained that she felt like a “witness on the stand” under cross-examination; Simitian characterized a purchase without policy as a “dirty-and-run” venture.
“So we’re going to get the equipment first and then figure out how it’s appropriate to use it?” Simitian asked.
“We’re going to get the equipment authorized first, then continue discussions about the policy,” Smith said.
A nondisclosure agreement has the Sheriff’s Office releasing little information about the device, versions of which are being acquired by law enforcement agencies across the country, including in the Bay Area. Simitian requested to attend Thursday’s demonstration and to view Harris Corp.’s nondisclosure agreement but was denied. Sheriff’s Office public information officers did not respond to phone calls and email queries from the Town Crier requesting comment; Harris’ spokesman declined to comment.
The secrecy surrounding mobile triangulation devices is troublesome to privacy-rights activists who believe they are invasive and could be used to illegally tap into phone calls and collect mobile data from innocent members of the public.
Simitian said he does not oppose the county’s acquisition of the device but objects to the way in which it happened.
“We need to know what it does or doesn’t do, and we need to have policies in place to make sure it’s used appropriately,” the supervisor said in a telephone interview last week.
How it works
A mobile triangulation device mimics cell towers and thereby “tricks” all wireless devices on the same network into communicating with it, according to reports from the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California.
“From a privacy perspective, this is worrying because it collects information about the devices and whereabouts of innocent third parties, not just the target of an investigation,” wrote Linda Lye, an ACLU of Northern California staff attorney, in a March 2014 ACLU report.
Lye’s colleague, ACLU policy fellow and attorney Matt Cagle, criticized county officials for the lack of transparency surrounding the HailStorm acquisition.
Prior to the purchase approval, there was limited public notice about the Board of Supervisors meeting, no public education about the device and its uses, no cost-benefit analysis to the purchase and no robust policy in place to protect against privacy violations, Cagle said.
“Decisions on surveillance shouldn’t happen behind closed doors, and we appreciate Mr. Simitian’s efforts to bring this to light,” Cagle said. “We hope the (Board of Supervisors) will increase transparency and public involvement in the future.”
Silver linings
Some silver linings have emerged for those concerned with privacy violations following news of the HailStorm purchase, Simitian said.
First, the Board of Supervisors accepted responsibility for drafting a policy that would establish official rules governing use of the new device or an ordinance that would make the rules a “matter of law.”
Second, that policy or ordinance would be in place should requests for similar purchases be made in the future.
Finally, as Smith has insisted the device’s capabilities are limited to locating a single, specific cellphone, she should not object to policy or rules designed to keep it from becoming more than that, Simitian added.
Waldeck, for one, doesn’t fear misuse, because law enforcement agencies simply don’t have the manpower, interest or time to collect data unrelated to criminal cases.
“They’re not going to be setting it up and spying on people, because it’s too valuable to use it that way,” he said.
