I can&#x27;t really find a statement on that either way.  The 3 requirements in this memo do not include such a stipulation, though.  (The requirements are to minimize the capture, destroy extra data, and not use extra data.)  Part of their operation involves MITM&#x27;ing between the phone and the network[0], which probably means the network has not been told it&#x27;s happening.<p>Even if they have permission, do you think that&#x27;s as stringent as it would be if they had to subpoena this from the network?  Some agencies are using these things daily, or hundreds of times in a few years, without even telling the courts.[1]  The FCC only approved them for emergency use.[2]  They are probably not licensed for most of the times they are used, even if the network says OK.<p>[0] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Stingray_phone_tracker#Interception_of_communications_content" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Stingray_phone_tracker#Interce...</a>
[1] <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.wired.com&#x2F;2014&#x2F;03&#x2F;stingray&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.wired.com&#x2F;2014&#x2F;03&#x2F;stingray&#x2F;</a>
[2] <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;arstechnica.com&#x2F;tech-policy&#x2F;2014&#x2F;09&#x2F;new-e-mail-shows-stingray-maker-may-have-lied-to-fcc-back-in-2010&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;arstechnica.com&#x2F;tech-policy&#x2F;2014&#x2F;09&#x2F;new-e-mail-shows-...</a>