Civilian security is alive and well, thanks 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 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 investigations, where non-suspects' private communications were exposed, 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 rights of complacent citizens.
Listening in on phone calls
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 homicide, narcotic and burglary inspections. The LAPD was only supposed to use StingRay cell phone technology for terrorism investigations, but definitely 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.
The LAPD guides do not make it clear if this type 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 every person else when in proximity to a suspect, so people should not be offended.
Authorities getting around regulations
Another troubling facet of StingRay to civil rights supports is that the technology can circumvent the standard process of requesting location data from carrier networks before eavesdropping. Usually, regulators have required a court order before gaining access, but with StingRay, authorities can get around carrier monitors entirely in secret.
How should StingRay fit in with privacy regulations?
At this juncture, there's still an excellent 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.
Listening in on phone calls
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 homicide, narcotic and burglary inspections. The LAPD was only supposed to use StingRay cell phone technology for terrorism investigations, but definitely 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.
The LAPD guides do not make it clear if this type 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 every person else when in proximity to a suspect, so people should not be offended.
Authorities getting around regulations
Another troubling facet of StingRay to civil rights supports is that the technology can circumvent the standard process of requesting location data from carrier networks before eavesdropping. Usually, regulators have required a court order before gaining access, but with StingRay, authorities can get around carrier monitors entirely in secret.
How should StingRay fit in with privacy regulations?
At this juncture, there's still an excellent 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.
No comments:
Post a Comment