Police sweep up phone data with secret snooping device Sean O’Neill Last updated November 01 2014 12:01AM The latest and most powerful IMSI Catcher models can intercept and listen to phone calls, collect and read text messages and emails and block phone signals in a specific area Getty Images Tens of thousands of innocent people are having their mobile phones snooped on by police officers using secretive and controversial surveillance technology. The Times can disclose that the Metropolitan police, the country’s largest force, uses devices called IMSI Catchers that “hoover up” the identity, call and message data of mobile phones. The latest and most powerful IMSI Catcher models can also intercept and listen to phone calls, collect and read text messages and emails and block phone signals in a specific area. The devices are deployed to uncover the phone activity of suspects but automatically capture information from all active mobiles within their range. There is no automatic deletion of material gathered through “collateral intrusion” and police are thought to have stored details of many thousands of innocent people’s phone activity. The National Crime Agency (NCA) and other larger police forces are also thought to deploy IMSI Catchers, the use of which can be authorised by an officer of chief constable rank without having to seek permission from a judge or government minister. The use of an IMSI Catcher by law enforcement agencies falls under the Police Act 1997 as “interference with property”. That legislation was drawn up to cover intelligence agencies planting bugs in houses or cars but is now deemed to apply to interfering with “wireless telegraphy”. Neither Scotland Yard nor the NCA will discuss how often, why or when they use the devices, nor will they comment on what material they collect or the cost of buying and using the machines. Sources have confirmed that they are deployed regularly in large-scale investigations. One police source said: “We only used them when we had no idea who our target was in contact with. We’d sit outside and pick up everything. To be honest, I was always uncomfortable about them because you are looking at everyone’s information.” A second source said: “There is a genuine question to be asked about whether the legislation is really up to date and covers their use at all.” Disclosure of the use of IMSI Catchers will heighten unease about the extent of secret surveillance by police and the lack of transparency about the methods being used. The use of interception techniques against journalists’ phones in media leak investigations is already the subject of an inquiry and is seen as undermining the police’s call for enhanced powers to gather data. Privacy International said yesterday that police had to be open with the public about surveillance. Matthew Rice, the group’s advocacy officer, said: “You cannot maintain this level of secrecy and claim that we have policing by consent. This technology is not capable of targeting an individual. “It is astonishing to see a continued reluctance by the police to discuss its use. The latest IMSI Catchers can unmask entire groups involved in protests, intercept all their messages and block all their calls.” Oversight in Britain is conducted by Sir Christopher Rose, the part-time chief surveillance commissioner, whose office refused to answer questions about his inspection regime. The exact number of times they were used in the past two years is hidden in the overall “property interference” statistics, which show that 2,689 authorisations were granted over the year. Home Office sources insist that agencies go to great lengths to minimise the “collateral intrusion” of collecting data from innocent people’s phones. The use of the devices is said to be authorised only in preventing or detecting serious crime. It is understood that large amounts of “collateral” data are not automatically deleted. Scotland Yard said: “The Metropolitan police can neither confirm nor deny if such equipment is held or used.” A spokesman for the NCA said: “We do not confirm or deny the use of specific technology.”
Posted on: Sat, 01 Nov 2014 11:50:10 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015