Will the LAPD be held responsible for spying on the mobile phone discussions of naive bystanders? Evidently tech to watch terror suspects, StingRay has been used quite differently.
Phone conversations reviewed
Of the 155 StingRay cell 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 homicide investigations where StingRay was pressed into use. As yet, LAPD officials have refused to address questions concerning the StingRay technology, such as whether the department thinks it has the legal right to use the technology in a way that invades the privacy of 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 unclear 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.
Secretly looking at information
With StingRay, authorities can keep monitors with them in complete secret as opposed to the past when authorities had to get a court order before using them. StingRay is bothersome to civil privileges activists for this very reason.
Privacy laws should be considered
There are too many potential privacy violations, according to American Civil Liberties Union attorney Linda Lye. Others agree with her too. It is unclear how StingRay technology plays a part in privacy laws, but it does have to be addressed.
Phone conversations reviewed
Of the 155 StingRay cell 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 homicide investigations where StingRay was pressed into use. As yet, LAPD officials have refused to address questions concerning the StingRay technology, such as whether the department thinks it has the legal right to use the technology in a way that invades the privacy of 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 unclear 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.
Secretly looking at information
With StingRay, authorities can keep monitors with them in complete secret as opposed to the past when authorities had to get a court order before using them. StingRay is bothersome to civil privileges activists for this very reason.
Privacy laws should be considered
There are too many potential privacy violations, according to American Civil Liberties Union attorney Linda Lye. Others agree with her too. It is unclear how StingRay technology plays a part in privacy laws, but it does have to be addressed.
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire