Civilian surveillance is alive and well, due to regional terrorism investigations required by the Patriot Act. According to L.A. Weekly, the latest threat to an individual's privacy and liberty is a real-time cellphone spy device called StingRay. While meant for intercepting terrorist transmissions, reports indicate that the Los Angeles Police Department used StingRay 21 times in a four-month duration of 2012 for routine inspections, where non-suspects' private communications were uncovered, unknowingly to the court system. Call it collateral damage, as the non-suspects lived near persons the LAPD believed were terrorists. Better yet, call it collateral erosion of the individual rights of complacent citizens.
Listening in on phone calls
Of the 155 StingRay cellular phone investigation cases the LAPD faced between June and September last year, over 13 percent of cases exposed the communications of innocent non-suspects without their awareness or consent. The LAPD has had access to StingRay technology since 2006, due to subsidies from the federal Department of Homeland Security. The intent was for StingRay to be used specifically for terrorism investigations, but the LAPD has documented proof that there have been burglary, narcotic and homicide inspections where StingRay was pressed into use. As yet, LAPD officials have refused to address questions concerning the StingRay technology, such as whether the department thinks it has the legal right to use the technology in a way that invades the privacy of non-suspects.
One person who doesn't believe the LAPD has the right to use StingRay in this fashion is Peter Scheer, executive director of the First Amendment Coalition. Scheer notes that LAPD procedure guides are unclear as to whether such use of StingRay is legal without a warrant or judicial permission. According to those familiar with the technology, avoiding collateral cellular data interception from non-suspects when they are in close proximity to suspects is practically impossible.
StingRay also circumvents carrier technology
With StingRay, authorities can keep monitors with them in complete secret as opposed to the past when regulators had to get a court order before using them. StingRay is bothersome to civil privileges activists for this very reason.
Privacy laws should be considered
Privacy laws need to be addressed since StingRay might be hurting a lot of privacy privileges for customers. Many attorneys agree with ACLU lawyer Linda Lye who believes that the law needs to look at StingRay and create brand new legislation so privacy violations will be avoided.
Listening in on phone calls
Of the 155 StingRay cellular phone investigation cases the LAPD faced between June and September last year, over 13 percent of cases exposed the communications of innocent non-suspects without their awareness or consent. The LAPD has had access to StingRay technology since 2006, due to subsidies from the federal Department of Homeland Security. The intent was for StingRay to be used specifically for terrorism investigations, but the LAPD has documented proof that there have been burglary, narcotic and homicide inspections where StingRay was pressed into use. As yet, LAPD officials have refused to address questions concerning the StingRay technology, such as whether the department thinks it has the legal right to use the technology in a way that invades the privacy of non-suspects.
One person who doesn't believe the LAPD has the right to use StingRay in this fashion is Peter Scheer, executive director of the First Amendment Coalition. Scheer notes that LAPD procedure guides are unclear as to whether such use of StingRay is legal without a warrant or judicial permission. According to those familiar with the technology, avoiding collateral cellular data interception from non-suspects when they are in close proximity to suspects is practically impossible.
StingRay also circumvents carrier technology
With StingRay, authorities can keep monitors with them in complete secret as opposed to the past when regulators had to get a court order before using them. StingRay is bothersome to civil privileges activists for this very reason.
Privacy laws should be considered
Privacy laws need to be addressed since StingRay might be hurting a lot of privacy privileges for customers. Many attorneys agree with ACLU lawyer Linda Lye who believes that the law needs to look at StingRay and create brand new legislation so privacy violations will be avoided.
About the Author:
Resource for this article: why not achieve you a choose and also a appear about each of our blog?
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire