Civilian security is alive and well, because of regional terrorism investigations required 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 intended for intercepting enemy 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 communications were exposed, unknowingly 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 rights of complacent citizens.
Phone conversations reviewed
The LAPD has been getting some heat recently for inappropriate use of StingRay cellular phone technology. The technology was only intended 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, homicide and narcotic cases as well.
The First Amendment Coalition executive director Peter Scheer does not think the LAPD should be able to use this sort of technology. It is pretty much impossible to avoid intercepting other people with the StingRay technology, according to those who use the technology, but the LAPD guides do not even make it clear whether or not this is illegal.
Secretly looking at info
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.
How come privacy does not matter?
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 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
The LAPD has been getting some heat recently for inappropriate use of StingRay cellular phone technology. The technology was only intended 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, homicide and narcotic cases as well.
The First Amendment Coalition executive director Peter Scheer does not think the LAPD should be able to use this sort of technology. It is pretty much impossible to avoid intercepting other people with the StingRay technology, according to those who use the technology, but the LAPD guides do not even make it clear whether or not this is illegal.
Secretly looking at info
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.
How come privacy does not matter?
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 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:
Resource for this article: get addiitional information during https://personalmoneynetwork.com/personal-loans/
No comments:
Post a Comment