Boston Police Bought Spy Tech With a Pot of Money Hidden From the Public (propublica.org) 63
An anonymous reader quotes a report from ProPublica: Across the country, some law enforcement agencies have deployed controversial surveillance technology to track cellphone location and use. Critics say it threatens constitutional rights, and members of Congress have moved to restrain its use. Nonetheless, in 2019 the Boston Police Department bought the device known as a cell site simulator -- and tapped a hidden pot of money that kept the purchase out of the public eye. A WBUR investigation with ProPublica found elected officials and the public were largely kept in the dark when Boston police spent $627,000 on this equipment by dipping into money seized in connection with alleged crimes.
Also known as a "stingray," the cell site simulator purchased by Boston police acts like a commercial cellphone tower, tricking nearby phones into connecting to it. Once the phones connect to the cell site simulator's decoy signal, the equipment secretly obtains location and other potentially identifying information. It can pinpoint someone's location down to a particular room of a hotel or house. While this briefcase-sized device can help locate a suspect or a missing person, it can also scoop up information from other phones in the vicinity, including yours. The Boston police bought its simulator device using money that is typically taken during drug investigations through what's called civil asset forfeiture.
An August investigation by WBUR and ProPublica found that even if no criminal charges are brought, law enforcement almost always keeps the money and has few limitations on how it's spent. Some departments benefit from both state and federal civil asset forfeiture. The police chiefs in Massachusetts have discretion over the money, and the public has virtually no way of knowing how the funds are used. The Boston City Council reviews the BPD annual budget, scrutinizing proposed spending. But the surveillance equipment wasn't part of the budget. Because it was purchased with civil forfeiture funds, BPD was able to circumvent the council. According to an invoice obtained by WBUR, the only city review of the purchase -- which was made with federal forfeiture funds -- came from the Procurement Department, confirming that the funds were available. In fact, it was only after sifting through hundreds of documents received through public records requests that WBUR discovered BPD had bought the device from North Carolina-based Tactical Support Equipment Inc., which specializes in surveillance technology.
Also known as a "stingray," the cell site simulator purchased by Boston police acts like a commercial cellphone tower, tricking nearby phones into connecting to it. Once the phones connect to the cell site simulator's decoy signal, the equipment secretly obtains location and other potentially identifying information. It can pinpoint someone's location down to a particular room of a hotel or house. While this briefcase-sized device can help locate a suspect or a missing person, it can also scoop up information from other phones in the vicinity, including yours. The Boston police bought its simulator device using money that is typically taken during drug investigations through what's called civil asset forfeiture.
An August investigation by WBUR and ProPublica found that even if no criminal charges are brought, law enforcement almost always keeps the money and has few limitations on how it's spent. Some departments benefit from both state and federal civil asset forfeiture. The police chiefs in Massachusetts have discretion over the money, and the public has virtually no way of knowing how the funds are used. The Boston City Council reviews the BPD annual budget, scrutinizing proposed spending. But the surveillance equipment wasn't part of the budget. Because it was purchased with civil forfeiture funds, BPD was able to circumvent the council. According to an invoice obtained by WBUR, the only city review of the purchase -- which was made with federal forfeiture funds -- came from the Procurement Department, confirming that the funds were available. In fact, it was only after sifting through hundreds of documents received through public records requests that WBUR discovered BPD had bought the device from North Carolina-based Tactical Support Equipment Inc., which specializes in surveillance technology.
Bandage over brain fart (Score:2)
Just attempting to help insure the vacuous Subject doesn't get propagated. I didn't actually stop to smell the brain fart.
Re: (Score:2)
Clearly the constitution. . . (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
But, really, how long until Americans wake up and realize they live in a fascist state?
Massachusetts?
(Well, okay, they want you to mach schnell and show your papers [nbcboston.com], but ...)
Re: Clearly the constitution. . . (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Clearly the constitution. . . (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
s/civil/civic/
*sigh*
Re: (Score:2)
they're the same party. The differences are primarily aesthetic and choose-your-own-delusion.
Love this, I'll be using it from now on instead of whatever convoluted over-explanation I'd use before.
Re:Clearly the constitution. . . (Score:5, Insightful)
Civil asset forfeiture should be a complete outrage for conservatives and liberals alike, but the reality of it is so preposterous and so contrary to "freedom" aesthetics I think no one really believes it's actually happening here: literally police officers stealing from the public so they can buy police toys and military equipment.
I think most people are aware of it to some extent and are okay with it. They think, "oh, that's what we do to drug dealers and arms dealers and that's okay." People fail to see the greater implications of such policies. We fail to see the distinction between a criminal and an alleged criminal. We also tend to view justice in terms of retribution, meaning that we find it easy to justify excessive punishments and violating the rights of alleged criminals.
But, really, how long until Americans wake up and realize they live in a fascist state?
I don't think we live in a fascist state, but I do think that the attitude I previously outlined does make us susceptible to fascism. I would agree that, on a sliding scale, only a few countries are more fascist than America. Russia, Hungary, and Poland, for example. China is an interesting case where they exist in the nether-region of the political horseshoe and have merged communism and fascism.
Re: (Score:1)
Ignoring when it is applied without an actual guilty verdict for a moment. Forfeiture is not retribution, it's removing incentive and deterrence.
Some people might view justice too much as retribution, but some people people also don't give deterrence its due.
Re: (Score:2)
Some people might view justice too much as retribution, but some people people also don't give deterrence its due.
Deterrence will stop some people from committing crimes, but it won't stop all people. Some people think they won't be caught, and some people think the risk is worth it because of their present circumstances. Meeting needs is crime deterrence.
Re:Clearly the constitution. . . (Score:5, Insightful)
Deterrence for what? they've taken your shit before your found guilty of anything, and they don't give it back if you're never found guilty unless you post $% of what they took. It's a legal fiction that says the property is guilty, it has no rights to due process so too bad. You should be ashamed for defending it.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't even know what you think I was saying there, but you're wrong.
Re: Clearly the constitution. . . (Score:2)
Meeting needs is crime deterrence.
Some people need to go to prison. That will deter them.
Re:Clearly the constitution. . . (Score:5, Insightful)
Forfeiture is not retribution, it's removing incentive and deterrence.
Actually, what it is, as this article makes clear, is right of plunder. I mean, seriously, the police get to _keep_ the money? Not even hand it over to local, state or federal government, but keep it for themselves? In some places, it even gets handed out directly to officers as bonuses. That makes for a particularly egregious perverse incentive.
This sort of plunder incentive has been used throughout history, and it's always a bad idea. An example I keep going back to is how the Janissaries in the Ottoman Empire were put in charge of firefighting. As an incentive to get them to actually bother doing it, they were given right of plunder for any house where they put out a fire. The end result was obviously a lot of arson.
Re: Clearly the constitution. . . (Score:2)
What happened to innocent until proven guilty? This country is fascist.
Re: (Score:2)
Well the fact that you believe there is a political horseshoe is just horse shit.
I wouldn't say that I believe in a political horseshoe as much as I think it can sometimes be a useful metaphor.
Civil asset forfeiture is done without any legal process or paperwork. The police just take your stuff.
I am aware and think that is wrong. Did my post suggest otherwise?
What happened to innocent until proven guilty? This country is fascist.
You seem to be prone to hyperbole and making absolute statements. I want you to consider this: is such a rhetorical strategy persuasive? I actually agree with you for the most part and my post was an attempt to add some much needed nuance to the point you were trying to make.
Re: Clearly the constitution. . . (Score:4, Informative)
The 'civil' in 'civil asset forfeiture' is what you're looking for. They do document it, but the fact that they took it doesn't mean they believe you committed a crime, rather it would be some kind of civil infraction, so there is no 'guilty' or 'innocent'. At least, that's the legal theory. You can get it back, but you basically have to prove, using the preponderance of evidence standard, that you didn't obtain it illegally. It therefore doesn't pass any of the fascism smell tests, just run of the mill government corruption.
I think progressives know as much about fascism as they do socialism: Basically nothing, but that doesn't stop them from talking about those subjects as if they're some kind of authorities on them. The US doesn't even begin to be fascist, in fact basically any country in Europe would better fit that definition for a myriad of reasons.
Fascism, at its very core, requires collectivism. It's in the name, after all. The biggest thing progressives seem to be opposed to that is prevalent in the US is what they often call our "rugged individualism", preferring that we be more collectivist instead like Europe, which if anything suggests they would rather us be closer to fascism than we currently are. For example, progressives believe that if you hire somebody to do work for you, then they permanently get an irrevocable vote in how you are allowed to use the product of their labor, and to a lesser degree, the general public does as well.
Another thing fascism needs is for people to more willingly bend to the powers that be. That is, authoritarian as opposed to libertarian. The US is very strongly libertarian compared to basically every other country. And this is another area where progressives would prefer we be closer to fascism. Progressives would prefer that we had more limits on speech. That is, they'd like to make hate speech a crime, and they would like to put limits on what political groups (like PACs, lobbyists, etc) are allowed to say, and how big of an audience they're allowed to have. Progressives also believe that only authority figures should be allowed to possess or otherwise deploy weapons of any kind, like for example police officers, or bodyguards for politicians. Progressives, like fascists, believe that if they determine that a business model you have is contrary to what is in their opinion as being in the interest of the public good, then they should have the right to shut you down and take all of your assets.
Now, that isn't to say that progressives want fascism, but it does show that they like to call things fascism even when it's not even remotely true, just as their statements about Nordic countries being socialist is also not even remotely true.
Re: Clearly the constitution. . . (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: Clearly the constitution. . . (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Clearly the constitution. . . (Score:1)
My fave thing is school bonds (Score:5, Insightful)
so, the ballot every year ("Virginia is for lovers. .
I used to always vote "yes"--who would be so evil as to throw the kids under their own school bus?--until it was explained to me that this was an example of the Administrators flunking Math.
Now I'm a hard "no".
Yikes! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
And get rid of their NBA and NHL teams. Buck Foston from a LA sport fan. :P
Re: (Score:1)
Boston (Score:4, Funny)
Boston, the once proud city that quakes in fear over Lite-Brite.
legitimately forfeited cash should be destroyed (Score:5, Interesting)
Same goes for the proceeds from the sale of legitimately forfeited assets.
Destruction would serve the goal of denying the previous owners the use of the ill-gotten goods while avoiding the obvious conflict of interest.
Now, as for the legitimacy of asset seizures and forfeiture in the first place, that's another issue worthy of its own debate. I think it's pretty obvious that at least some asset forfeitures are legit - meaning there are adequate legal protections for those whose assets were seized in the first place - and at least some are questionable at best.
Re: (Score:1)
Same goes for the proceeds from the sale of legitimately forfeited assets.
Destruction would serve the goal of denying the previous owners the use of the ill-gotten goods while avoiding the obvious conflict of interest.
Now, as for the legitimacy of asset seizures and forfeiture in the first place, that's another issue worthy of its own debate. I think it's pretty obvious that at least some asset forfeitures are legit - meaning there are adequate legal protections for those whose assets were seized in the first place - and at least some are questionable at best.
Sounds good in theory, the destruction of seized cash that is. In practice, let's say the police destroyed X dollars last year. Guess how much new money is the Fed going to print the next year?
The point is to avoid a conflict-of-interest (Score:2)
The purpose of destroying the cash is not to reduce the money supply. It's to eliminate the conflict of interest that comes when "seizing ill-gotten goods in the name of justice" butts heads against "seizing it in the name of padding our budgets."
You want to eliminate the incentive to seize things for unjust reasons.
Re: (Score:1)
The purpose of destroying the cash is not to reduce the money supply. It's to eliminate the conflict of interest that comes when "seizing ill-gotten goods in the name of justice" butts heads against "seizing it in the name of padding our budgets."
You want to eliminate the incentive to seize things for unjust reasons.
"padding our budget". By "our" you mean the police dept's, or assets available to government in general, whichever part or agency it is? If the first, then why not simply "all seized money goes into federal budget"? Avoids the destroying and re-printing step (and we both know the printing *IS* going to happen).
Re: (Score:3)
It means the cops turn into robbers to give themselves new toys.
I'd like to point out that it's even worse than that. There's nothing stopping the money from being handed out directly to officers as bonuses and bounties and that is, in fact, done in some locations.
Re:legitimately forfeited cash should be destroyed (Score:4, Insightful)
Why not return the money to those who were harmed in its taking? If it was earned through victimless "crimes," then the person who earned it is the one harmed by its forfeit.
Re: (Score:1)
Why not return the money to those who were harmed in its taking?
I assume you are talking about money seized that, in a just system, would not have been seized in the first place. That is not what I was addressing.
In my original post, I used the word "legitimately" to mean those assets whose seizure and forfeiture were "just" in both the moral and legal senses of the word, not just the legal sense.
Replying to those who say give it to the feds (Score:1)
At least a couple of replies suggest turning such assets over to the general public budget or to pay off the national debt, which amounts to the same thing in the long run.
While this seems acceptable and it's certainly better than having the money wind up in the budgets of the police departments, I worry that police departments that turn over a large amount of money to the feds might mysteriously wind up with a bigger budget a year or two down the road. Or, more likely, they will receive some other less-ob
Re: (Score:3)
Was it a pot of gold? (Score:3)
bc you know, Boston
Cellular disruption (Score:2)
In addition to all the privacy issues, also consider how this would screw around with your phone's ability to function, as phones in the vicinity would be connecting to some dead-end connection that doesn't actually provide proper service.
Re: (Score:3)
The Texas approach(!) (Score:5, Interesting)
Texas has abolished abortion by allowing private citizens to sue providers. A similar approach aimed at police departments - and allowing the police chief to be personally liable - would ensure their disappearance quite fast.
Too many state governments are corrupt - and protect corrupt police. We need to see state government's power being used to target problems, not allowed to fester.
Re: (Score:1)
allowing the police chief to be personally liable - would ensure their disappearance quite fast.
By "their disappearance" do you mean police chiefs or civil forfeiture actions?
I'm pretty sure you meant the latter, but without near-blanket protection from lawsuits from "doing their job," police chiefs will demand much higher salaries so they can pay for liability insurance. Are you, as a taxpayer, willing to pay up? Are your fellow taxpayers? If the answer to both is "yes" then you might be on to something.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure you meant the latter, but without near-blanket protection from lawsuits from "doing their job," police chiefs will demand much higher salaries so they can pay for liability insurance. Are you, as a taxpayer, willing to pay up? Are your fellow taxpayers? If the answer to both is "yes" then you might be on to something.
It would probably be cheaper than the corruption.
side-bar, on Texas and abortions (Score:1)
Texas has abolished abortion by allowing private citizens to sue providers
I predict this will be a historical blip:
Either Roe v. Wade will be eviscerated in 2022 making the Texas law mostly irrelevant, or other states will "weaponize" it in other ways that cause the Supreme Court to say "oops, Chief Justice Roberts was right all along" and effectively neutralize all such laws sometime in the next few years, or both.
Yes and no (Score:2)
I agree that the approach Texas has taken to stop abortion will be struck down; it's totally weird jurisprudence. But this would be about targeting expenditure by police that contradicts state or city policy. So in this case if state legislature or city council has explicitly rejected expenditure on something, for the police to use their discretionary funds to pay for it should result in an abuse of power suit by residents. Obviously the devil is in the detail: how explicit must the ban be for it to make th
not just $$ (Score:3)
Aside from the apparent lack of fiscal transparency it seems to me as if there are some other things wrong here. For example:
Which brings me to one last point, is there some app that can track this kind of thing and at least quarantine new cell towers until they can be verified
There's are words for this. (Score:1)
corruption.
injustice.
amorality.
despotism.
tyranny.
evil.
So the cops bought an illegal device... (Score:3)
"Stingrays" have RF transmitters. They transmit in licensed spectrum. Cops don't have a license to transmit on those frequencies. A police dept. which uses one is in violation of federal law. Who's watching the watchmen?