Civilian security is alive and well, because of regional terrorism investigations required by the Patriot Act. According to L.A. Weekly, the most recent threat to an individual's privacy and liberty is a real-time cellphone spy gadget called StingRay. While meant 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 inspections, where non-suspects' private devices were revealed, unbeknownst to the court system. Call it collateral damage, as the non-suspects lived near individuals the LAPD thought were terrorists. Better yet, call it collateral erosion of the individual privileges of complacent citizens.
Seeing tapped phones
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 inspections, but the LAPD has documented proof that there have been burglary, narcotic and murder investigations where StingRay was pressed into use. As yet, LAPD officials have refused to address questions regarding 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 First Amendment Coalition executive director Peter Scheer does not think the LAPD should be able to use this kind of technology. It is virtually impossible to keep away from intercepting other people with the StingRay technology, according to those who use the technology, but the LAPD manuals do not even make it clear whether or not this is unlawful.
Laws evaded with StingRay
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.
Looking at privacy
There are too many potential privacy violations, according to American Civil Liberties Union lawyer Linda Lye. Others agree with her too. It is unclear how StingRay technology plays a part in privacy regulations, but it does have to be addressed.
Seeing tapped phones
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 inspections, but the LAPD has documented proof that there have been burglary, narcotic and murder investigations where StingRay was pressed into use. As yet, LAPD officials have refused to address questions regarding 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 First Amendment Coalition executive director Peter Scheer does not think the LAPD should be able to use this kind of technology. It is virtually impossible to keep away from intercepting other people with the StingRay technology, according to those who use the technology, but the LAPD manuals do not even make it clear whether or not this is unlawful.
Laws evaded with StingRay
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.
Looking at privacy
There are too many potential privacy violations, according to American Civil Liberties Union lawyer Linda Lye. Others agree with her too. It is unclear how StingRay technology plays a part in privacy regulations, but it does have to be addressed.
No comments:
Post a Comment