Civilian surveillance is alive and well, thanks to local terrorism inspections mandated by the Patriot Act. According to L.A. Weekly, the most recent risk to an individual's privacy and liberty is a real-time mobile phone spy machine called StingRay. While meant for intercepting terrorist transmissions, reports indicate that the LA Police Department used StingRay 21 times in a four-month period of 2012 for routine investigations, where non-suspects' private communications were exposed, unbeknownst to the court system. Call it collateral damage, as the non-suspects lived near individuals the LAPD believed were terrorists. Better yet, call it collateral erosion of the individual privileges of complacent citizens.
Listening in on calls
StingRay technology has been used since 2006 by the LAPD. LAPD officials have not made any comment about whether or not it has the legal right to use the technology in inappropriate ways, but it has been using it in many cases, such as homicide, drug and burglary inspections. The LAPD was only supposed to use StingRay mobile phone technology for terrorism investigations, but certainly it did not just do that. Between June and September of last year, there were 155 StingRay cellular phone investigation cases, and 13 percent of them listened in on calls for 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 ambiguous 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.
No court order needed
Another troubling facet of StingRay to civil rights advocates is that the technology can circumvent the standard process of requesting location data from carrier networks before eavesdropping. Generally, authorities have needed a court order before gaining access, but with StingRay, regulators can get around carrier monitors entirely in secret.
How should StingRay fit in with privacy laws?
At this juncture, there's still a fantastic deal of disagreement over StingRay's place amongst privacy laws. The sophistication of the technology has put it ahead of the judicial curve, and ACLU attorneys like Linda Lye see StingRay as something that demands legal reassessment, as the potential for privacy violations is tremendous.
Listening in on calls
StingRay technology has been used since 2006 by the LAPD. LAPD officials have not made any comment about whether or not it has the legal right to use the technology in inappropriate ways, but it has been using it in many cases, such as homicide, drug and burglary inspections. The LAPD was only supposed to use StingRay mobile phone technology for terrorism investigations, but certainly it did not just do that. Between June and September of last year, there were 155 StingRay cellular phone investigation cases, and 13 percent of them listened in on calls for 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 ambiguous 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.
No court order needed
Another troubling facet of StingRay to civil rights advocates is that the technology can circumvent the standard process of requesting location data from carrier networks before eavesdropping. Generally, authorities have needed a court order before gaining access, but with StingRay, regulators can get around carrier monitors entirely in secret.
How should StingRay fit in with privacy laws?
At this juncture, there's still a fantastic deal of disagreement over StingRay's place amongst privacy laws. The sophistication of the technology has put it ahead of the judicial curve, and ACLU attorneys like Linda Lye see StingRay as something that demands legal reassessment, as the potential for privacy violations is tremendous.
About the Author:
Article resource: why in no way implement your own benefit and check out https://personalmoneynetwork.com/personal-loans/?
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire