SurveillanceMinnesota wants to limit law-enforcement use of wireless tracking devices

The Minnesota Department of Public Safety’s acquisition of Kingfish and Stingray II wireless surveillance devices has come under scrutiny as the department’s Bureau of Criminal Apprehension(BCA) has used the devices in investigations. Some legislators are considering placing limits on law enforcement’s use of the data captured by the devices because of concerns over who has access to the data and how long it is being kept.

Government Technology reports that in December 2013 a bipartisan group of state senators and representatives, led by Senate Transportation and Public Safety Committee chair, Senator Scott Dibble, sent a letter to Minnesota Department of Public Safety Commissioner Ramona Dohman requesting details about the policies and practices concerning cell phone data tracking. A six-page response revealed the cost and capabilities of the department’s use of Kingfish and Stingray devices, but legislators were unsatisfied.

Minnesota State Senator Branden Petersen told Government Technology that the response from Commissioner Dohman was insufficient. “The unfortunate part is that, as has been the case with law enforcement, they don’t entirely give you all of the information under the guise that it is security information, or it’s investigative techniques information,” Petersen said, adding that Dohman “did acknowledge these techniques are being used to target individuals without a search warrant, which is a problem for myself and I know for others.”

In the letter Dohman claims that only BCA operates the Kingfish and Stingray II devices, which is done “lawfully and with data privacy protections in place.” The devices are only used in criminal investigations to locate the cell phone of a victim or in missing person cases. A court order is obtained in the “vast majority” of cases but not in cases where a “serious threat to life or exigent circumstances,” such as an abducted child or an armed murder suspect.

Despite assurance from Dohman that the devices have no ability to listen to or monitor voice or text communications, Senator Petersen says the invasive nature of the devices makes them a risk, particularly when a warrant is not being sought in some cases. “A lot of people say, ‘We’re not reading text messages,’ or, ‘We’re not listening to the phone calls,’ but mapping out all those data points, you don’t really need to listen to the phone calls,” Petersen said. “Certainly that would provide more context, but you can still get a very clear picture of somebody’s everyday life.”

Petersen acknowledges that using phone tracking technology without a warrant is sometimes necessary, and that future legislation will consider those accounts.