Civilian security is alive and well, due to local terrorism investigations 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 cellphone spy device called StingRay. While intended for intercepting terrorist transmissions, reports suggest that the Los Angeles Police Department used StingRay 21 times in a four-month period of 2012 for routine investigations, where non-suspects' private devices were revealed, unknowingly 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.
Seeing tapped phones
The LAPD has been getting some heat lately for inappropriate use of StingRay cellular phone technology. The technology was only supposed to be used in terrorism cases, but it turns out that is not all the LAPD was doing. In fact, of the 155 StingRay cases from last year between June and Sept, 13 percent exposed innocent non-suspects. The LAPD officials have not commented on the technology and whether or not it was used illegally, but it was specifically given to them in 2006 with subsidies from the federal Department of Homeland Security to be able to track terrorism. It has been found that the technology is used in many burglary, murder and narcotic cases as well.
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 extremely hard.
Laws evaded with StingRay
Another troubling facet of StingRay to civil privileges supports is that the technology can circumvent the standard process of requesting location data from carrier networks before eavesdropping. Typically, regulators have required a court order before gaining access, but with StingRay, authorities can get around carrier monitors totally in secret.
Privacy regulations should be considered
There are too many potential privacy violations, according to ACLU lawyer Linda Lye. Others agree with her too. It is unclear how StingRay technology plays a part in privacy laws, but it does need to be addressed.
Seeing tapped phones
The LAPD has been getting some heat lately for inappropriate use of StingRay cellular phone technology. The technology was only supposed to be used in terrorism cases, but it turns out that is not all the LAPD was doing. In fact, of the 155 StingRay cases from last year between June and Sept, 13 percent exposed innocent non-suspects. The LAPD officials have not commented on the technology and whether or not it was used illegally, but it was specifically given to them in 2006 with subsidies from the federal Department of Homeland Security to be able to track terrorism. It has been found that the technology is used in many burglary, murder and narcotic cases as well.
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 extremely hard.
Laws evaded with StingRay
Another troubling facet of StingRay to civil privileges supports is that the technology can circumvent the standard process of requesting location data from carrier networks before eavesdropping. Typically, regulators have required a court order before gaining access, but with StingRay, authorities can get around carrier monitors totally in secret.
Privacy regulations should be considered
There are too many potential privacy violations, according to ACLU lawyer Linda Lye. Others agree with her too. It is unclear how StingRay technology plays a part in privacy laws, but it does need to be addressed.
About the Author:
Source for this article: visit at this moment in https://personalmoneynetwork.com/
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire