Civilian security is alive and well, because of regional terrorism investigations mandated by the Patriot Act. According to L.A. Weekly, the latest threat to an individual's privacy and liberty is a real-time mobile phone spy gadget called StingRay. While intended 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 devices were uncovered, unbeknownst 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.
Phone conversations reviewed
Of the 155 StingRay mobile 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, because of 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, drug and homicide inspections where StingRay was pressed into use. As yet, LAPD officials have refused to address questions concerning the StingRay technology, including whether the department thinks it has the legal right to use the technology in a way that invades the privacy of non-suspects.
The LAPD manuals do not make it clear if this sort of StingRay use is allowed legally without an order from a judge, according to First Amendment Coalition executive director Peter Scheer. He also notes that he does not think it should be allowed. Those who use the technology say it is impossible to stay away from everyone else when in proximity to a suspect, so people should not be offended.
Privately looking at information
Civic privileges activists do not like the StingRay technology because it used to be that regulators had to get permission before they could use technology such as it. Now, authorities can carry around the StingRay technology and use it in secret if they want to.
All about privacy
At this juncture, there's still an excellent deal of disagreement over StingRay's place amongst privacy regulations. The sophistication of the technology has put it ahead of the judicial curve, and American Civil Liberties Union attorneys like Linda Lye see StingRay as something that demands legal reassessment, as the potential for privacy violations is tremendous.
Phone conversations reviewed
Of the 155 StingRay mobile 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, because of 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, drug and homicide inspections where StingRay was pressed into use. As yet, LAPD officials have refused to address questions concerning the StingRay technology, including whether the department thinks it has the legal right to use the technology in a way that invades the privacy of non-suspects.
The LAPD manuals do not make it clear if this sort of StingRay use is allowed legally without an order from a judge, according to First Amendment Coalition executive director Peter Scheer. He also notes that he does not think it should be allowed. Those who use the technology say it is impossible to stay away from everyone else when in proximity to a suspect, so people should not be offended.
Privately looking at information
Civic privileges activists do not like the StingRay technology because it used to be that regulators had to get permission before they could use technology such as it. Now, authorities can carry around the StingRay technology and use it in secret if they want to.
All about privacy
At this juncture, there's still an excellent deal of disagreement over StingRay's place amongst privacy regulations. The sophistication of the technology has put it ahead of the judicial curve, and American Civil Liberties Union attorneys like Linda Lye see StingRay as something that demands legal reassessment, as the potential for privacy violations is tremendous.
About the Author:
Source for this article: why not necessarily conduct you a like you are able to glimpse on much of our blogging site?
No comments:
Post a Comment