U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s Covert Surveillance Program Raises Privacy Concerns

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has purchased a fleet of vehicles equipped with cell-site simulators, commonly known as “stingrays” or “fake cell towers,” according to documents obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request. These devices, which mimic legitimate cell towers, can intercept mobile communications and track individuals’ locations without their knowledge or consent, raising significant privacy and civil liberties concerns.

The documents, first reported by TechCrunch, reveal that ICE acquired these surveillance-equipped vehicles through a $20 million contract with the Harris Corporation, a major defense contractor that manufactures various surveillance technologies. The contract covered not only the vehicles and equipment but also training for ICE agents on how to deploy and utilize these sophisticated tracking systems.

Surveillance Technology Operating in Plain Sight

The cell-site simulators work by forcing nearby mobile phones to disconnect from legitimate cell towers and instead connect to the simulator, which can then capture various types of data, including unique device identifiers, location information, and potentially even call and text content. Civil liberties experts have long criticized these devices for their intrusive capabilities and the lack of transparency surrounding their use.

“These stingray devices can collect data from hundreds or thousands of phones in a particular area, the vast majority of which belong to people who aren’t suspected of any crime,” said Nathan Freed Wessler, deputy director of the ACLU’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project, as quoted by TechCrunch. “It’s a form of dragnet surveillance that raises serious Fourth Amendment concerns.”

Legal Gray Areas and Limited Oversight

The use of cell-site simulators exists in a legal gray area. While law enforcement agencies typically require a warrant to use these devices for criminal investigations, immigration enforcement operations may operate under different rules, particularly in areas within 100 miles of a U.S. border—a zone where approximately two-thirds of the U.S. population resides.

The documents indicate that ICE has been using these surveillance-equipped vehicles primarily for locating and tracking individuals suspected of immigration violations. However, the breadth of data collection raises questions about whether innocent bystanders’ information is being swept up in these operations.

“The public deserves to know how their tax dollars are being spent on surveillance technology that can indiscriminately collect their private information,” said Jake Laperruque, senior counsel at the Project on Government Oversight, according to TechCrunch’s reporting. “There needs to be meaningful oversight and transparency regarding how these tools are deployed.”

Growing Trend in Digital Surveillance

ICE’s acquisition of these surveillance vehicles represents part of a broader trend in law enforcement’s increasing reliance on advanced digital tracking technologies. The agency has previously invested in other controversial surveillance tools, including facial recognition software and automated license plate readers.

Privacy advocates argue that the combination of these various surveillance technologies creates a powerful apparatus for tracking individuals’ movements and activities with limited public awareness or oversight. The American Immigration Council noted in a statement to TechCrunch that “these tools fundamentally alter the relationship between government agencies and the communities they operate in.”

The documents also reveal that ICE has deployed these surveillance vehicles in major metropolitan areas across the country, including Los Angeles, New York, Chicago, and Miami—cities with significant immigrant populations.

Calls for Greater Transparency and Regulation

In response to these revelations, several civil liberties organizations have called for greater transparency regarding how ICE and other law enforcement agencies use cell-site simulators. Some state legislatures have already passed laws requiring warrants for stingray use, but federal policies remain less restrictive.

“Without proper safeguards and oversight, these powerful surveillance tools risk undermining Americans’ privacy rights,” said Senator Ron Wyden in a statement referenced by TechCrunch. “Law enforcement should not be able to secretly track Americans’ phones without appropriate legal process.”

As this technology continues to evolve and proliferate across law enforcement agencies, the debate over balancing legitimate security needs with constitutional privacy protections is likely to intensify, leaving courts and legislators to determine appropriate boundaries for digital surveillance in the modern era.