You are on page 1of 5

Senator demands answers about DOJ mobile

phone surveillance planes

Grant Gross
@GrantGross-Nov 17, 2014
A reported mobile phone surveillance program at the U.S. Department of

Justice raises serious privacy questions, a U.S. senator said Monday.


The DOJ program, which reportedly uses cell-tower mimicking equipment on
airplanes to target the mobile phone locations of criminals, raises questions
about how many innocent peoples mobile phone data is also swept up in
the operation, said Senator Ed Markey, a Massachusetts Democrat. The DOJ
has not confirmed the existence of the surveillance program, reported in a
Wall Street Journal article on Thursday.A reported mobile phone surveillance
program at the U.S. Department of Justice raises serious privacy questions,
a U.S. senator said Monday.
Americans are rightfully disturbed by just how pervasive collection of
mobile phone information is, even of innocent individuals, Markey said in a
statement. While this data can be an important tool for law enforcement to
identify and capture criminals and terrorists, we must ensure the privacy
rights of Americans are protected.
Markey on Monday disclosed a letter he sent to Attorney General Eric
Holder asking for details about the program.
We need to know what information is being collected, what authority is
being used to collect it, and if and how this information is retained and
stored, said Markey, a long-time advocate of personal privacy.
A DOJ spokesman didnt immediately return a message seeking comment
on Markeys letter and the surveillance program.
In the letter, Markey asks Holder how long the surveillance program has
operated and if the DOJ has any other mobile phone surveillance programs
that use airplanes, helicopters or drones. He asks how many times the DOJ
has conducted mobile phone surveillance operations over U.S. cities.
The senator also asks if the DOJ has a court order that allows the
surveillance and whether the agency has informed judges about the
number of innocent people whose information may be swept up.
He also asks what kind of information the program collects and whether
there are any limitations on what kinds of investigations the surveillance
can be used for.

Government documents reveal telecom providers envision


surveillance-ready networks: Geist
By: Michael Geist Technology, Law , Published on Fri Dec 12 2014
Vic Toews 2012 lawful access bill generated an enormous outcry.

Aft
er years of failed bills, public debate and considerable controversy, lawful access
legislation received royal assent earlier this week.

Bill C-13 lumped together measures designed to combat cyberbullying


with a series of new warrants to enhance police investigative powers, generating
criticism from the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, civil liberties groups and some
prominent victims rights advocates. They argued that the government should have
created cyberbullying safeguards without sacrificing privacy.
While the bill would have benefited from some amendments, it remains a far cry from
earlier versions that featured mandatory personal information disclosure without
court oversight and required Internet providers to install extensive surveillance and
interception capabilities within their networks.

The mandatory disclosure of subscriber information rules, which figured prominently


in earlier lawful access bills, were gradually reduced in scope and ultimately
eliminated. A recent Supreme Court ruling raised doubt about the constitutionality of
the provisions.
The surveillance and interception capability issue is more complicated, however. The
prospect of a total surveillance infrastructure within Canadian Internet networks
generated an enormous outcry when proposed in Vic Toews 2012 lawful access bill.
Not only did the bill specify the required surveillance and interception capabilities, it
also would have established extensive Internet-provider reporting requirements and
envisioned partial payments by government to help offset the costs for smaller Internet
providers.
Those provisions were dropped from Bill C-13, yet according to documents obtained
under the Access to Information Act, both Internet providers and the government have
been debating a Plan B on how to ensure that there are surveillance- and
interception-capable networks.
Perhaps the most notable revelation is that Internet providers have tried to convince
the government that they will voluntarily build surveillance capabilities into their
networks. A 2013 memorandum prepared for the public safety minister reveals that
Canadian telecom companies advised the government that leading telecom equipment
manufacturers including Cisco, Juniper and Huawei all offer products with
interception capabilities at a small additional cost.
In light of the standardization of interception capabilities, the memo notes that the
Canadian providers argue that the telecommunications market will soon shift to a
point where interception capability will simply become a standard component of
available equipment, and that technical changes in the way communications actually
travel on communications networks will make it even easier to intercept
communications.
In other words, Canadian telecom providers are telling the government there is no
need for legally mandated surveillance and interception functionality since they will be
building networks that will feature those capabilities by default.
While Canadian network providers claimed that interception and surveillance

capabilities would become a standard feature in their networks, government officials


were not entirely convinced. Department officials argued that interception is a
complex process and that legislative requirements were preferred.
In the absence of mandated surveillance and interception capabilities, another internal
government memorandum emphasized the value of incorporating the technologies in
wireless networks through spectrum licence requirements. The memorandum notes
that Public Safety works with Industry Canada in developing those requirements and
deals directly with providers to ensure that they meet the necessary standards.
The departments stated goal is to ensure that the lawful interception capabilities of
public safety agencies are maximized within the existing legal framework. In meeting
its goal, the memorandum notes that it will work directly with the wireless providers to
assess compliance levels and gain valuable information on the interception capability
currently available.
The latest chapter of lawful access legislation may have come to a close, but the
internal government documents suggest that the story is not yet over. With telecom
providers suggesting that surveillance-capable networks are inevitable and
government officials seeking alternatives to mandatory interception capabilities, the
reality is that some of the issues at the heart of lawful access remain very much in play.
Michael Geist holds the Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-commerce Law at
the University of Ottawa, Faculty of Law. He can be reached
at mgeist@uottawa.ca or online at www.michaelgeist.ca .

You might also like