04:01:00
Civilian surveillance is alive and well, due to regional terrorism inspections mandated by the Patriot Act. According to L.A. Weekly, the latest 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 duration 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 persons the LAPD believed were terrorists. Better yet, call it collateral erosion of the individual rights of complacent citizens.
Calls not private
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 murder, narcotic and burglary inspections. The LAPD was only supposed to use StingRay mobile phone technology for terrorism inspections, 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 extremely hard.
Laws evaded with StingRay
Civic rights activists do not like the StingRay technology because it used to be that authorities 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.
Taking a look at privacy
Privacy regulations have to be addressed since StingRay may be hurting a ton of privacy rights for customers. Many attorneys agree with American Civil Liberties Union attorney Linda Lye who believes that the law needs to look at StingRay and create brand new legislation so privacy violations will be avoided.
Calls not private
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 murder, narcotic and burglary inspections. The LAPD was only supposed to use StingRay mobile phone technology for terrorism inspections, 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 extremely hard.
Laws evaded with StingRay
Civic rights activists do not like the StingRay technology because it used to be that authorities 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.
Taking a look at privacy
Privacy regulations have to be addressed since StingRay may be hurting a ton of privacy rights for customers. Many attorneys agree with American Civil Liberties Union attorney Linda Lye who believes that the law needs to look at StingRay and create brand new legislation so privacy violations will be avoided.
0 comments:
Post a Comment