Members of Boston’s City Council questioned the police department Tuesday about its purchase of an expensive and powerful piece of surveillance technology that was used dozens of times without a warrant.The technology in question is known as a “Stingray.” It simulates a cellphone tower, allowing police to gather data, including location and device identifiers, about all the nearby phones that establish a connection. Citing a ProPublica and WBUR investigation, the council’s order for a hearing in front of the Committee on Government Accountability, Transparency and Accessibility states that the technology was purchased in 2019 for a price of $627,000. However, that expenditure was not a part of the budget approved by the City Council.“This was not an item that was budgeted in our operating budget,” said Bureau Chief for Administration and Technology Lisa O’Brien, who explained the department used a civil asset forfeiture trust fund to pay the bill. O’Brien said the trust fund “enhances our operating budget” allowing them to add new equipment not normally covered in the budget.In response to questions, Bureau Chief for Investigative Services Felipe Colon told councilors the technology was deployed 106 times over the past six years. Of those, 70 uses were under a court order and 36 were under exigent circumstances, meaning the equipment was used without a judge’s approval because of concern about imminent harm. “In many of those instances, this technology saved lives,” Colon said. “It averted harm, trauma to the community. It has also helped us apprehend violent offenders.”Colon provided examples in which the Stingray was used without a warrant, including helping another agency with a human trafficking investigation that led to three rescues, locating a suspect accused of threatening the life of then-Mayor Marty Walsh outside the city limits and locating a suicidal individual in time to get them help. “This particular piece of equipment is controlled and secured by the commander of the special investigation unit. There’s only limited folks who have access to this technology,” said Colon.According to the Massachusetts ACLU, BPD’s use of this technology dates back beyond that most recent purchase. The ACLU questioned the department about its ownership and use of a Stingray in 2016.”This powerful surveillance device not only gathers data about the intended target, but can also sweep up information from countless bystanders who end up monitored just because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time,” the ACLU wrote at the time. Representatives of BPD said the department is the only one in Massachusetts to possess a Stingray device and confirmed it has been used to help with investigations in neighboring communities. “We are following the policy, so without an approved City Council specific use policy, this surveillance technology should not be used,” Mayor Michelle Wu said when asked about the program at an unrelated event. Wu referenced a surveillance ordinance that she supported as a member of the city council, which was signed last year by her predecessor. “With that legislation in place, with those policies set, there’s now a very clear set of criteria, mechanisms and process for any new surveillance technology to have a use policy, privacy parameters, public knowledge and participation and Council approval,” Wu said.
BOSTON —
Members of Boston’s City Council questioned the police department Tuesday about its purchase of an expensive and powerful piece of surveillance technology that was used dozens of times without a warrant.
The technology in question is known as a “Stingray.” It simulates a cellphone tower, allowing police to gather data, including location and device identifiers, about all the nearby phones that establish a connection.
Citing a ProPublica and WBUR investigation, the council’s order for a hearing in front of the Committee on Government Accountability, Transparency and Accessibility states that the technology was purchased in 2019 for a price of $627,000. However, that expenditure was not a part of the budget approved by the City Council.
“This was not an item that was budgeted in our operating budget,” said Bureau Chief for Administration and Technology Lisa O’Brien, who explained the department used a civil asset forfeiture trust fund to pay the bill.
O’Brien said the trust fund “enhances our operating budget” allowing them to add new equipment not normally covered in the budget.
In response to questions, Bureau Chief for Investigative Services Felipe Colon told councilors the technology was deployed 106 times over the past six years. Of those, 70 uses were under a court order and 36 were under exigent circumstances, meaning the equipment was used without a judge’s approval because of concern about imminent harm.
“In many of those instances, this technology saved lives,” Colon said. “It averted harm, trauma to the community. It has also helped us apprehend violent offenders.”
Colon provided examples in which the Stingray was used without a warrant, including helping another agency with a human trafficking investigation that led to three rescues, locating a suspect accused of threatening the life of then-Mayor Marty Walsh outside the city limits and locating a suicidal individual in time to get them help.
“This particular piece of equipment is controlled and secured by the commander of the special investigation unit. There’s only limited folks who have access to this technology,” said Colon.
According to the Massachusetts ACLU, BPD’s use of this technology dates back beyond that most recent purchase. The ACLU questioned the department about its ownership and use of a Stingray in 2016.
“This powerful surveillance device not only gathers data about the intended target, but can also sweep up information from countless bystanders who end up monitored just because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time,” the ACLU wrote at the time.
Representatives of BPD said the department is the only one in Massachusetts to possess a Stingray device and confirmed it has been used to help with investigations in neighboring communities.
“We are following the policy, so without an approved City Council specific use policy, this surveillance technology should not be used,” Mayor Michelle Wu said when asked about the program at an unrelated event.
Wu referenced a surveillance ordinance that she supported as a member of the city council, which was signed last year by her predecessor.
“With that legislation in place, with those policies set, there’s now a very clear set of criteria, mechanisms and process for any new surveillance technology to have a use policy, privacy parameters, public knowledge and participation and Council approval,” Wu said.
