[LINK] Police can suck data out of cell phones in under two minutes

[Kim Holburn]

http://www.networkworld.com/community/blog/state-police-can-suck-data-out-cell-phones-un
> State Police can suck data out of cell phones in under two minutes
> 
> The ACLU was quoted a half million dollars as the cost of FOIA request documents to determine if the Michigan State Police are violating Fourth Amendment rights when using high-tech mobile forensic devices to suck out cell phone data in under two minutes.
> 
> By Ms. Smith on Thu, 04/21/11 - 11:22am.
> 
> You don't want to be pulled over by the police in Michigan. When law enforcement wants half a million dollars to produce documents for a FOIA request, something is not right. And since the high-tech mobile forensic device in question can grab data in one-and-a-half minutes off more than 3,000 different cell phone models, it could be used during minor traffic violations to conduct suspicionless and warrantless searches without the phone owner having any idea that all their phone data was now in the hands of authorities.
> 
> The Universal Forensic Extraction Device (UFED) made by Cellebrite can extract data off 95% of cell phones on the market. It can also grab GPS information from units in most vehicles. According the company's profile [PDF], the UFED is stand-alone gadget designed for "recovery and analysis" used by law enforcement, intelligence agencies, military and governments across the world in 60 different countries.
> 
> The ACLU of Michigan has been trying to get more information to determine if the Michigan State Police (MSP) are using these gadgets to "violate Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches if a warrant is not issued." Back in 2008, after the ACLU filed the first FOIA request for logs, reports and records of use, the MSP said Okay but it will cost $544,680 to retrieve and assemble the documents to disclose how five of the devices were being used. The MSP wanted $272,340 deposit before showing the ACLU documents. After sending 70 different FOIA requests in November, narrowing the time period and the UFED models, the ACLU was told no documents existed with that criteria.  It's like a endlessly expensive and unfruitful fishing expedition for information.


......

http://www.networkworld.com/community/blog/michigan-state-police-reply-aclu-about-cell-p

> Michigan State Police reply to ACLU about cell phone data extraction devices
> 
> Michigan State Police do not seem pleased with the coverage about its use of high-tech mobile forensic devices to suck out cell phone data in under two minutes. MSP issued this statement which seems to conflict with the ACLU's report.
> 
> By Ms. Smith on Mon, 04/25/11 - 2:14pm.
> 
> The Michigan State Police do not seem to appreciate the publicity raining down on it over Fourth Amendment rights and its use of Universal Forensic Extraction Devices (UFED) which can extract data off 95% of cell phones on the market. The ACLU was quoted a half million dollars as the cost of documents associated with a FOIA request. I reported on it last week as State Police can suck data out of cell phones in under two minutes. The MSP issued the following statement:

<http://www.networkworld.com/Micronet%20images/smith-mich-police-statement.png>

> I asked the ACLU of Michigan if it had a reply to the MSP saying it had worked with the ACLU "to narrow the focus and reduce the cost?" I also asked the ACLU about its reaction to the MSP saying, "the implication that the MSP is using the devices to 'quietly to bypass Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches' is untrue and harmful to police and community relations?" ACLU of Michigan staff attorney Mark Fancher responded:

>> In 2008, when we heard claims that MSP had these devices, we filed our first FOIA request to confirm or disprove this  allegation. After many months and after much effort by the ACLU of Michigan, MSP at last produced documents that confirmed that they had the devices. In response to a follow-up request for documents that would provide information about actual use, they conditioned production of the documents on the payment of more than $500,000.
>> 
>> MSP's references to "cooperation" and "lower costs" relate to that portion of our letter where we describe how our narrowed requests have resulted only in assertions that there are no documents for the specified periods, or that for a fee of a few hundred or a few thousand dollars they will take a look to see whether there are any documents. What they characterize as "cooperation" is almost three years of failing to produce documents for a reasonable fee. We remain unsatisfied.
>> 
>> We don’t believe we should go on an expensive fishing expedition to find out whether MSP is following the law. In fact, we are encouraged that they issued a statement saying that they now have policies and practices in place, but it’s important to know what they did in 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010. The statement does not satisfy our request for documents regarding how these devices were used in practice in the past. I think we have more questions than answers.
>> 
>> In our original release we referenced the fact that if motorists hand over their cellphones they may not know that Michigan State Police have a device that can extract a vast amount of data. We have never accused MSP of violating motorists’ rights, we’ve only asked them to prove that they have not.
>> 
>> We are still hopeful that MSP will honor our Freedom of Information Act requests, after all it is transparency and accountability that are the bedrocks of our democracy.

.....

-- 
Kim Holburn
IT Network & Security Consultant
T: +61 2 61402408  M: +61 404072753
mailto:kim at holburn.net  aim://kimholburn
skype://kholburn - PGP Public Key on request