Stingrays Could Be Stinging You - Here’s How
Potential abuse of powerful surveillance “Stingrays” by U.S. government is sparking debate and controversy among protesters and public.
By May Herring
2/8/24
Stingrays- also known as “IMSI catchers” or “cell-site simulators (CSS),” are powerful multi-use tools deployed by the U.S. government and military in order to track criminals and keep tabs on threats before they happen. These controversial tools have sparked debate since their previously secretive usage has begun to come to light. As the public learns more about Stingrays and other similar surveillance tools, debates about the ethics behind their use have erupted. They may be more common than you think, and if you’ve participated in a protest or large public gathering, your mobile phone may have been stung.
Stingrays are so effective because of the wide range of surveillance functions they can perform, especially with the aid of other surveillance devices. These tools are about the size of a briefcase (see attached picture) and are equipped with all sorts of controls. According to The Intercept: “The surveillance equipment is pricey and often sold as a package. For example, in documents obtained by Motherboard in 2016, Harris offered a KingFish package that cost $157,300 and a StingRay package that cost $148,000, not including training and maintenance.” They yield the best results when flown over the target area in a low-flying aircraft. Stingrays send out a powerful signal that mimics a cell tower- forcing your phone to connect to the Stingray instead of a nearby tower. If you own a mobile phone, it’s always searching for the nearest cell connection tower, so when it picks up on the powerful signal emitted by the Stingray, it automatically switches over. As soon as it does, the Stingray can access lots of valuable information hiding in your phone- starting with an IMSI number.
Every mobile phone has a unique IMSI tracking number. Think of it as a nametag for your phone, so whoever has access to it knows exactly what device that is. With this number, whoever is operating the Stingray can gather all sorts of personal information and data. For example, they can see the name and address associated with that phone. They can also access your call history- who you called and for how long, what cell towers your phone pinged to make that call. On top of this, the exact location of your phone at any given moment can be found, using a smaller additional tool called a “KingFish,” which is more precise.
However, it’s not that simple. Nowadays, most places you go with your phone are connected to a 4G network. 4G is a secure network that allows your mobile device to encrypt its data, so that it’s harder for hackers to access the IMSI code, even with advanced surveillance technology. But in some cases, a Stingray can force the devices it catches to downgrade to a 2G network- where the information won’t be encrypted and is easily collected. According to the Electronic Frontier Foundation: “...cell-site simulators broadcast signals that are either stronger than the legitimate cell sites around them or are made to appear stronger. This causes devices within range to disconnect from their service providers’ legitimate cell sites and to instead establish a new connection with the cell-site simulator. Cell-site simulators can also take advantage of flaws in the design of cellular protocols (such as 2G/3G/4G/5G) to cause phones to disconnect from a legitimate cell-site and connect to the cell-site simulator instead.” It has also been proven possible to decode encrypted IMSI numbers by hand- with mixed results.
Like any other surveillance device, a Stingray is a powerful tool that can be used highly effectively to help prevent crime and attacks, however, it can also be misused to spy and collect data on civilians. With the rise of the “Black Lives Matter” movement, suspicions have been raised about the use of Stingrays to spy on protesters. According to the Electronic Frontier Foundation: “...more than 85 local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies around the country have some type of CSS (some of which are used hundreds of times per year).” Reports of low-flying planes and helicopters over large groups of protesters and other public events left people confused as to the intentions of government monitoring, as many reported their phones seemingly jammed- text messages not going through and live streams being interrupted. This poses yet another problem- emergency call access. Stingrays are supposed to patch phones through to a cell tower if they make a call to 911, however, this process was tested and found to be faulty, and phones didn’t always switch back over to a cell tower in time to place the call.
Stingrays can be extremely effective in catching criminals and preventing crime, but it’s a tradeoff that comes at the cost of privacy for many. None of the citizens at the Black Lives Matter protest consented to have their phones’ data looked through, and even though this is all alleged evidence and speculation, it still raises questions about the widespread use of government surveillance technology. Officials speculate that should the population be informed about the use of Stingrays and how they work, criminals would be able to use that information to evade them- rendering the technology ineffective. However, due to their secrecy, privacy rights may be at risk. Should law enforcement and governments be required to get a warrant to use Stingrays on suspected criminals? Should the general public have a right to know how Stingrays work, and when they’re being deployed?
Sources:
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/06/quick-and-dirty-guide-cell-phone-surveillance-protests
https://sls.eff.org/technologies/cell-site-simulators-imsi-catchers
https://theintercept.com/2020/07/31/protests-surveillance-stingrays-dirtboxes-phone-tracking/
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-is-the-big-secret-surrounding-stingray-surveillance/
Stingrays seem to be an extreme example of teetering on the line of public safety over privacy concerns, and I think in this situation, I would more or less lean towards the concern of privacy. Because these devices go through and track your phone location when you are unaware of it, that seems like a huge invasion of privacy. Not only does this make protestors vulnerable, especially when it comes to tracking during a protest, but I think that when considering the fact that a Stingray can also make it harder to call 911, I think it makes it more of a safety risk. It makes it so that when you are looking for help, like if a protest becomes more dangerous, it almost condemns those who are protesting to being unable to help. In light of this, I would like to learn the situations where stingrays could be helpful, and what about them makes them an essential tracking tool. Overall, I think that Stingrays should only be used in situations where a threat has escalated to the point where it is necessary. In simpler terms, I think a stingray should be used in the same context as if a police officer saw someone shoot someone else. Immediate situations, but nothing beyond that.
ReplyDeleteI do believe that in order for stingrays to be used there must be a warrant involved. with this being said, how would they be able to regulate whose phone they are pinging. I do believe the threat of this technology in the wrong hands is slim since it cost so much but it's still never zero. When in the wrong hands it is said to cause problems with limiting the calls to go out. This is troublesome when in need of an emergency. It can also impact work. With more people working from home lots of important information like the movement of prescriptions through hospitals or business deals with your money or other peoples. The problem I have with IMSI is how incognito you can be to use it. There are ways to get around it. for instance, if your phone is able you can turn off 2G support and this will greatly help you chances of getting stung.
ReplyDeleteThis topic surprised me when I read because this is the first time I learned about this. This reminds me of McCarthyism during the Cold War. People would lose their jobs because they were accused of participating in political activities. Stingrays seem to me like a blatant violation of the 4th Amendment due to the fact that none of the people are aware that they are being monitored. There are rare circumstances where I could see this being constitutional. This is a step in the direction of a complete Orwellian surveillance state, and there are no ethical domestic uses of this for the US government.
ReplyDelete