Dog Brothers Public Forum
Return To Homepage
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
August 29, 2015, 04:30:47 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
87765 Posts in 2281 Topics by 1070 Members
Latest Member: Nexquietus
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Dog Brothers Public Forum
|-+  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities
| |-+  Science, Culture, & Humanities
| | |-+  Privacy, Big Brother (State and Corporate) and the 4th & 9th Amendments
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 18 19 [20] Print
Author Topic: Privacy, Big Brother (State and Corporate) and the 4th & 9th Amendments  (Read 169238 times)
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 34092


« Reply #950 on: September 25, 2014, 02:52:35 PM »



http://www.capoliticalreview.com/capoliticalnewsandviews/los-angeles-collects-information-on-citizens-via-traffic-cameras-3000000-a-week/
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4565


« Reply #951 on: September 25, 2014, 08:57:57 PM »

I know someone who is being surveillance by organized crime.  At least one local cop is part of the equation.  Nice to know they have broad power to surveillance.

 I am very glad apple and hopefully the rest of the "masters of the universe" are/will come out with devices to keep government officals out.

Everything is not always in the name of terrorism.

Problem who is watching the "master's of the universe"  including Apple.  (using Sen Session's name).


Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 34092


« Reply #952 on: September 27, 2014, 08:39:42 PM »



http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/27/technology/iphone-locks-out-the-nsa-signaling-a-post-snowden-era-.html?emc=edit_th_20140927&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=49641193
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12671


« Reply #953 on: September 28, 2014, 11:13:23 AM »


Don't believe the hype.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 34092


« Reply #954 on: September 30, 2014, 11:09:37 AM »

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-to-defend-your-privacy-online/
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12671


« Reply #955 on: October 07, 2014, 03:24:11 PM »

http://lasvegassun.com/youre-being-watched/
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 34092


« Reply #956 on: December 14, 2014, 09:21:48 AM »

http://thefreethoughtproject.com/breaking-congress-secretly-okd-nsa-spying-domestic-criminal-cases-focused-torture/
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12671


« Reply #957 on: December 16, 2014, 01:07:21 PM »

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20141214/06590429436/verizon-offers-encrypted-calling-with-nsa-backdoor-no-additional-charge.shtml
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 34092


« Reply #958 on: December 19, 2014, 04:55:06 AM »

Ain't that cute , , , angry
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12671


« Reply #959 on: December 23, 2014, 10:12:36 PM »

http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/12/the-webcam-hacking-epidemic/383998/?single_page=true
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 34092


« Reply #960 on: December 24, 2014, 01:03:52 PM »

 cry angry
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 34092


« Reply #961 on: December 27, 2014, 11:08:42 PM »




HAYMARKET, Va. — FOUR years ago, the Federal Trade Commission announced, with fanfare, a plan to let American consumers decide whether to let companies track their online browsing and buying habits. The plan would let users opt out of the collection of data about their habits through a setting in their web browsers, without having to decide on a site-by-site basis.

The idea, known as “Do Not Track,” and modeled on the popular “Do Not Call” rule that protects consumers from unwanted telemarketing calls, is simple. But the details are anything but.

Although many digital advertising companies agreed to the idea in principle, the debate over the definition, scope and application of “Do Not Track” has been raging for several years.

Now, finally, an industry working group is expected to propose detailed rules governing how the privacy switch should work. The group includes experts but is dominated by Internet giants like Adobe, Apple, Facebook, Google and Yahoo. It is poised to recommend a carve-out that would effectively free them from honoring “Do Not Track” requests.

If regulators go along, the rules would allow the largest Internet giants to continue scooping up data about users on their own sites and on other sites that include their plug-ins, such as Facebook’s “Like” button or an embedded YouTube video. This giant loophole would make “Do Not Track” meaningless.

How did we get into this mess?

For starters, the Federal Trade Commission doesn’t seem to fully understand the nature of the Internet.

Online companies typically make money by utilizing data gleaned from their users to sell targeted ads. If the flow of user data slows down, so does the money. A study commissioned by the Interactive Advertising Bureau with researchers from Harvard Business School underscores the point: at least half of the Internet’s economic value is based on the collection of individual user data, and nearly all commercial content on the Internet relies on advertising to some extent. Digital advertising grew to a $42.8 billion business last year, a sum that already exceeds spending on broadcast television advertising.

Essentially, the collection of user data makes possible the free access to maps, email, games, music, social networks and other services.

Digital privacy advocates, understandably, view the online ecosystem differently. They are alarmed by the growth of the surveillance economy, in which companies compile and store information about what a user reads, looks for, clicks on or buys. In this world, disclosure is fairly meaningless, because almost no one reads the terms of service that define the relationship between the customer and the company.

The regulatory process is the wrong way to address this fundamental tension. If the government wants to shift the Internet economy away from a “barter” system (exchanging personal data for free services) toward a subscription-based system, Congress should take charge.

Even worse, the Federal Trade Commission has abandoned responsibility, all but throwing up its hands. Instead of leading the effort to write good rules, based on the broadest public participation, the commission has basically surrendered control of the process to the industry panel, the “tracking protection working group” of the World Wide Web Consortium, or W3C.
Continue reading the main story Continue reading the main story
Continue reading the main story

The outcome could be worse than doing nothing at all.
Continue reading the main story
Recent Comments
John
11 hours ago

Something needs to be done. How is it possible that if I want to use any little insignificant app on my phone, I have to let them have...
Mick
11 hours ago

Those who believe "...the regulatory process is the wrong way to address this..." sure are well represented in the NYT. And look where it's...
Robin Muench
11 hours ago

There are more than enough software fixes out there to deter nearly all tracking. For a start, use Firefox as a browser, then add in Adblock...

    See All Comments

The industry recommendation is expected to distinguish between companies that have a “first party” relationship with users — consumer-facing Internet content providers and Internet service providers — and “third party” companies, which include most small advertising-technology companies.

First-party relationships would be created if the user “intends to interact” with the web company (or a service provider acting on behalf of that company). For example, logging into Facebook would count as a “user action” that would allow Facebook to track your activity “across multiple distinct contexts,” including other websites.

In contrast, companies with third-party relationships would have far more limited tracking abilities. For example, if a user visits a site that integrates an advertisement with content from other sources, the ad server would not be able to place a tracking “cookie” for marketing purposes on your device without your consent.

This dubious distinction would harm competition in the online ad market by turning “Do Not Track” into “Do Not Track for small ad companies only.” Google, Facebook and other large companies that operate both first- and third-party businesses would be able to use data they gather through their first-party relationships to compete in the third-party ad market. Smaller ad tech companies would be at a severe competitive disadvantage and could even be driven out of the market.

The Federal Trade Commission shouldn’t help pick winners and losers through a murky process that has devolved into an effort to protect the positions of Internet giants. It should stay focused on policing the behavior of companies that short-shrift consumers or restrict competition. If the industry group recommends a lopsided version of “Do Not Track,” as expected, the commission should not go along with it. The correct balance between privacy and competition is a decision better left to Congress than to a feckless regulator.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12671


« Reply #962 on: January 01, 2015, 04:38:16 PM »

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2889860/Hackers-steal-fingerprint-PHOTO-Copycat-print-used-criminals-fool-security-systems.html
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12671


« Reply #963 on: January 14, 2015, 02:56:09 PM »

http://venturebeat.com/2015/01/12/this-usb-wall-charger-secretly-logs-keystrokes-from-microsoft-wireless-keyboards-nearby/
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4565


« Reply #964 on: January 14, 2015, 06:15:31 PM »

If I hear one more person tell me organized crime is defunct......

Just because we don't don't see them using Tommy guns ala Valentine's Day doesn't mean white collar organized crime is not rampant it is.

Because most people can't see it they don't understand, believe, or think it effects them.

They're wrong.   

What is law enforcement doing about it?  Thanks to our feckless politicians as far as I can tell, very little.

One even has to ask how much our politicians or those who support them are directly involved.

It isn't just illegals they are not doing nothing about.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12671


« Reply #965 on: January 14, 2015, 09:31:20 PM »

Generally, there must be a complaintant for law enforcement to open an investigation. Illegal surveillance is by it's nature, very difficult to detect.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 34092


« Reply #966 on: January 19, 2015, 09:02:56 PM »

Well!  This is profoundly disconcerting!!! 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/01/19/police-radar-see-through-walls/22007615/ 

 angry angry angry
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12671


« Reply #967 on: January 19, 2015, 09:05:32 PM »


Why?
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 34092


« Reply #968 on: January 19, 2015, 09:40:05 PM »

C'mon GM, you're not only a very bright guy, you are also very well versed in the issues appearing here.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12671


« Reply #969 on: January 19, 2015, 09:48:51 PM »

It's one thing if officers were driving down the street with virtual X-ray glasses looking through every house they drive by, another if a specific house where a fugitive with a valid arrest warrant is believed to be hiding, or a hostage rescue scenario.

A reasonable expectation of privacy differs in each case.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 34092


« Reply #970 on: January 19, 2015, 11:12:58 PM »

I didn't get that the use of these was limited to serving warrants GM.  Indeed, the courts here seem more than a little surprised that the technology exists.

Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12671


« Reply #971 on: February 11, 2015, 04:58:06 AM »

http://techcrunch.com/2015/02/08/telescreen/
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 34092


« Reply #972 on: February 11, 2015, 11:04:27 PM »

http://www.wsj.com/articles/sleuthing-search-engine-even-better-than-google-1423703464?mod=WSJ_hp_RightTopStories

n the run-up to Super Bowl XLIX, a team of social workers in Glendale, Ariz. spent two weeks combing through local classified ads sites. They were looking for listings posted by sex traffickers.

Criminal networks that exploit women often advertise on local sites around events that draw large numbers of transient visitors. “It’s like a flood,” said Dominique Roe-Sepowitz, who headed the Glendale effort.

Dr. Roe-Sepowitz is director of the Office of Sex Trafficking Intervention Research at Arizona State University. She has worked for five years with authorities in Houston, Las Vegas and Phoenix to find and hunt down traffickers.

In the past, she painstakingly copied and pasted suspicious URLs into a document and looked for patterns that suggested a trafficking ring. This year, she analyzed criminal networks using visual displays from a powerful data-mining tool, one whose capabilities hint at the future of investigations into online criminal networks.

The program, a tool called Memex developed by the U.S. military’s research and development arm, is a search engine on steroids. Rather than endless pages of Web links, it returns sophisticated infographics that represent the relationships between Web pages, including many that a Google search would miss.
Advertisement

For instance, searching the name and phone number that appear in a suspicious ad would result in a diagram that showed separate constellations of dots, representing links to ads that contain the name, the phone number, or both. Such results could suggest a ring in which the same phone number was associated with different women. Clicking on a dot can reveal the physical location of the device that posted the ad and the time it was posted. Another click, and it shows a map of the locations from which the ads were posted. Capabilities like this make it possible to identify criminal networks and understand their operations in powerful new ways.

Unlike a Google search, Memex can search not only for text but also for images and latitude/longitude coordinates encoded in photos. It can decipher numbers that are part of an image, including handwritten numbers in a photo, a technique traffickers often use to mask their contact information. It also recognizes photo backgrounds independently of their subjects, so it can identify pictures of different women that share the same backdrop, such as a hotel room—a telltale sign of sex trafficking, experts say.

Also unlike Google, it can look into, and spot relationships among, not only run-of-the-mill Web pages but online databases such as those offered by government agencies and within online forums (the so-called deep Web) and networks like Tor, whose server addresses are obscured (the so-called dark Web).

Since its release a year ago, Memex has had notable successes in sex-trafficking investigations. New York County District Attorney Cyrus Vance said Memex has generated leads in 20 investigations and has been used in eight trials prosecuted by the county’s sex-trafficking division. In a case last June, Mr. Vance said, Memex’s ability to search the posting times of ads that had been taken down helped in a case that resulted in the sentencing of a trafficker to 50 years to life in prison.

The creator of Memex is Christopher White, a Harvard-trained electrical engineer who runs big-data projects for the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, or Darpa. The Defense Department’s center of forward-looking research and development, Darpa put between $10 million and $20 million into building Memex. (The precise amount isn’t disclosed.) Although the tool can be used in any Web-based investigation, Dr. White started with the sex trade because the Defense Department believed its proceeds finance other illegal activities.

Memex is part of a wave of software tools that visualize and organize the rising tide of online information. Unlike many other tools, though, it is free of charge for those who want to download, distribute and modify. Dr. White said he wanted Memex to be free “because taxpayers are paying for it.” Federal agencies have more money to spend, but local law-enforcement agencies often can’t afford the most sophisticated tools, even as more criminal activity moves online.
ENLARGE

Among tools used by law-enforcement agencies, Memex would compete with software from Giant Oak, Decision Lens and Centrifuge Systems. The leader in the field is Palantir Technologies, whose software costs $10 million to $100 million per installation and draws from the user’s proprietary databases rather than from the Web. Palantir didn’t immediately reply to a request for comment.

Advertisements posted by sex traffickers amount to between $90,000 and $500,000 daily in total revenue to a variety of outlets, according to Darpa.


Memex and similar tools raise serious questions about privacy. Marc Rotenberg, president and executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center in Washington, D.C., said, that when law-enforcement authorities start using powerful data-mining software, “the question that moves in the background is how much of this is actually lawful.” Data-visualization tools like Memex enable enforcers to combine vast amounts of public and private information, but the implications haven’t been fully examined, he said.

Dr. White said he drew a “bright line” around online privacy, designing Memex to index only publicly available information. In anonymous networks like Tor, which hosts many sex ads, Memex finds only the public pages. But since the tool isn't technically controlled by Darpa, independent developers could add capabilities that would make it more invasive, he acknowledged.

Another big question is whether sex traffickers and other malefactors will thwart Memex by changing their tactics. For example, they might blur out photo backgrounds if they knew law enforcement officials were searching for them. For this reason, law-enforcement users will withhold some of the proprietary data they developed while using Memex. “We want it to be free,” said Dr. White. “But there’s always this tension between knowing what people are doing…and alerting them to that fact so they change their behavior.”

Dr. White is starting to test other uses for Memex with law enforcement and government partners, he said, including recognizing connections between shell companies, following the chains of recruitment for foreign fighters drawn to the terrorist group ISIS, mapping the spread of epidemics, and following ads for labor and goods to understand supply chains involved in money laundering.

Write to Elizabeth Dwoskin at elizabeth.dwoskin@wsj.com
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 34092


« Reply #973 on: March 02, 2015, 11:18:20 AM »

http://www.thecourt.ca/2014/12/31/r-v-fearon-cell-phones-privacy-and-the-supreme-court-in-the-digital-age/
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 34092


« Reply #974 on: March 07, 2015, 01:03:01 AM »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WbyuuOl5Y4s 
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 34092


« Reply #975 on: March 10, 2015, 04:18:21 AM »

SAN FRANCISCO — TODAY, we’re filing a lawsuit against the National Security Agency to protect the rights of the 500 million people who use Wikipedia every month. We’re doing so because a fundamental pillar of democracy is at stake: the free exchange of knowledge and ideas.

Our lawsuit says that the N.S.A.’s mass surveillance of Internet traffic on American soil — often called “upstream” surveillance — violates the Fourth Amendment, which protects the right to privacy, as well as the First Amendment, which protects the freedoms of expression and association. We also argue that this agency activity exceeds the authority granted by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that Congress amended in 2008.

Most people search and read Wikipedia anonymously, since you don’t need an account to view its tens of millions of articles in hundreds of languages. Every month, at least 75,000 volunteers in the United States and around the world contribute their time and passion to writing those articles and keeping the site going — and growing.

On our servers, run by the nonprofit Wikimedia Foundation, those volunteers discuss their work on everything from Tiananmen Square to gay rights in Uganda. Many of them prefer to work anonymously, especially those who work on controversial issues or who live in countries with repressive governments.

These volunteers should be able to do their work without having to worry that the United States government is monitoring what they read and write. Unfortunately, their anonymity is far from certain because, using upstream surveillance, the N.S.A. intercepts and searches virtually all of the international text-based traffic that flows across the Internet “backbone” inside the United States. This is the network of fiber-optic cables and junctions that connect Wikipedia with its global community of readers and editors.

As a result, whenever someone overseas views or edits a Wikipedia page, it’s likely that the N.S.A. is tracking that activity — including the content of what was read or typed, as well as other information that can be linked to the person’s physical location and possible identity. These activities are sensitive and private: They can reveal everything from a person’s political and religious beliefs to sexual orientation and medical conditions.

The notion that the N.S.A. is monitoring Wikipedia’s users is not, unfortunately, a stretch of the imagination. One of the documents revealed by the whistle-blower Edward J. Snowden specifically identified Wikipedia as a target for surveillance, alongside several other major websites like CNN.com, Gmail and Facebook. The leaked slide from a classified PowerPoint presentation declared that monitoring these sites could allow N.S.A. analysts to learn “nearly everything a typical user does on the Internet.”

The harm to Wikimedia and the hundreds of millions of people who visit our websites is clear: Pervasive surveillance has a chilling effect. It stifles freedom of expression and the free exchange of knowledge that Wikimedia was designed to enable.
Continue reading the main story Continue reading the main story
Continue reading the main story

During the 2011 Arab uprisings, Wikipedia users collaborated to create articles that helped educate the world about what was happening. Continuing cooperation between American and Egyptian intelligence services is well established; the director of Egypt’s main spy agency under President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi boasted in 2013 that he was “in constant contact” with the Central Intelligence Agency.
Continue reading the main story
Recent Comments
Stan Chaz
12 minutes ago

Whoever taught President Obama constitutional lawshould be fired, ....if they're still around.At the very least they should hang their heads...
Lady Liberty
14 minutes ago

Politics and science is never a good mix.Before we know it we the people are corralled beyond an imaginary boundary so freedom can't escape.
Stu
14 minutes ago

There is no question that the NSA and the system that spawns it has no respect for anything other than their own goals. A lawsuit--which...

    See All Comments
    Write a comment

So imagine, now, a Wikipedia user in Egypt who wants to edit a page about government opposition or discuss it with fellow editors. If that user knows the N.S.A. is routinely combing through her contributions to Wikipedia, and possibly sharing information with her government, she will surely be less likely to add her knowledge or have that conversation, for fear of reprisal.

And then imagine this decision playing out in the minds of thousands of would-be contributors in other countries. That represents a loss for everyone who uses Wikipedia and the Internet — not just fellow editors, but hundreds of millions of readers in the United States and around the world.

In the lawsuit we’re filing with the help of the American Civil Liberties Union, we’re joining as a fellow plaintiff a broad coalition of human rights, civil society, legal, media and information organizations. Their work, like ours, requires them to engage in sensitive Internet communications with people outside the United States.

That is why we’re asking the court to order an end to the N.S.A.’s dragnet surveillance of Internet traffic.

Privacy is an essential right. It makes freedom of expression possible, and sustains freedom of inquiry and association. It empowers us to read, write and communicate in confidence, without fear of persecution. Knowledge flourishes where privacy is protected.

Jimmy Wales, the founder of Wikipedia, is a board member of the Wikimedia Foundation, of which Lila Tretikov is the executive director.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 34092


« Reply #976 on: April 21, 2015, 10:17:14 PM »

http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/03/supreme-court-if-youre-being-gps-tracked-youre-being-searched/389114/?single_page=true
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12671


« Reply #977 on: April 26, 2015, 10:29:16 PM »


If you are being surveiled by officers in plain clothes, is that a search?
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 34092


« Reply #978 on: April 28, 2015, 09:33:50 AM »

A fair and logical question.

I would answer that there is an inherent limit on the police power that comes from manpower limitations, whereas with this new technology, and others coming down the pike, that a dramatic shift in the balance between citizens and the police occurs-- and an Orwellian state begins to coalesce.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 34092


« Reply #979 on: April 28, 2015, 02:35:49 PM »

http://www.dailydot.com/politics/police-drug-sniffing-dog-violates-your-rights/?fb_action_ids=10205182973906620&fb_action_types=og.shares
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12671


« Reply #980 on: April 28, 2015, 08:41:36 PM »

A fair and logical question.

I would answer that there is an inherent limit on the police power that comes from manpower limitations, whereas with this new technology, and others coming down the pike, that a dramatic shift in the balance between citizens and the police occurs-- and an Orwellian state begins to coalesce.


If an officer is operating a drone following you in a public place, is that a search?
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 34092


« Reply #981 on: April 28, 2015, 09:25:26 PM »

Interesting question.  First impression is that it does meet my objection.  My first response is that there should be some sort of probable cause basis.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12671


« Reply #982 on: April 30, 2015, 09:40:51 PM »

Interesting question.  First impression is that it does meet my objection.  My first response is that there should be some sort of probable cause basis.

You need probable cause to surveil a suspect? Why not raise the standard to beyond a reasonable doubt?
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 34092


« Reply #983 on: May 04, 2015, 10:36:03 AM »



Federal law-enforcement and phone-company officials also have expressed concerns that some local police authorities were abusing a legal shortcut by submitting an inordinate number of requests for cellphone information, according to people familiar with the matter. A Baltimore police official, for example, told a local judge overseeing a murder case last month the department had used the devices at least 4,300 times dating to 2007. The judge ruled the use of the device in that case was permissible.

One of the most effective ways to find a suspect using the technology is to get the last known location of the suspect’s phone—which can be provided by a phone company. Some companies can “ping” a phone in real time to determine its general whereabouts while others can tell investigators where it made its last call or text.

The Journal last year detailed how the U.S. Marshals Service flies planes equipped with the devices from airports around five major U.S. cities, scanning tens of thousands of phones at a time in densely populated areas as it hunts for fugitives. The Justice Department also uses them outside U.S. soil, and a Marshals employee was shot last July in a secret operation with such a device in Mexico, leading some law-enforcement officials to question how Justice Department managers decide to deploy them.

The Senate Judiciary Committee has demanded more details from the Justice Department about their use in response to the articles.

“We know it’s got to come out,” one law-enforcement official said. “At some point, it becomes more harmful to try to keep it secret than to acknowledge it. We just want to acknowledge it carefully and slowly, so we don’t lose what is a very effective tool.”

Officials said they don’t want to reveal so much that it gives criminals clues about how to defeat the devices. Law-enforcement officials also don’t want to reveal information that would give new ammunition to defense lawyers in prosecutions where warrants weren’t used, according to officials involved in the discussions.

And one federal agency, the U.S. Marshals, are fugitive-hunters who rarely testify in court, so they are likely to reveal much less about how they use the technology than their counterparts at the FBI and DEA, these people said.

Law-enforcement officials say they aren’t interested in gathering large amounts of information with the devices and say their purpose is typically finding a single suspect in a sea of floating digital data. Privacy advocates say the methods amount to a digital dragnet—a silent ID check of untold numbers of innocent people who aren’t suspected of anything, or even aware their phones are being checked. The machines can also interrupt service on cellphones being scanned.

The effectiveness of the technology in finding suspects is prompting some local law enforcement to use it frequently.
ENLARGE

About a year ago, Baltimore police officials began deluging some phone companies with requests for customer cellphone information, claiming it couldn’t wait for a judge’s order, according to people familiar with the matter. Normally, police need a court order to get that kind of information about a phone customer. But there is an exception for emergency requests. Phone companies’ rules vary, but they generally allow emergency requests to be fulfilled in missing-persons cases or when there is a risk of death or serious injury. Typically, the phone company employee doesn’t ask questions to verify the nature of the emergency.

Local police departments must sign a nondisclosure agreement with the FBI before getting access to the technology—agreeing not to reveal details of how the technology works and to seek guidance from the FBI if questioned in court or elsewhere. As part of that agreement, police agencies acknowledge they may have to drop charges against suspects if prosecuting a suspect risks revealing information about the machines.

In contrast, the FBI doesn’t require or provide legal standards to police on best practices for how to use the devices, according to people familiar with the issue. Officials say that if a police department asks for advice on how they use the devices, the FBI will provide it.

People familiar with the Baltimore matter said police there have scaled back their emergency requests.

But some phone company officials remain concerned the emergency request function is prone to abuse, according to people familiar with the issue. A spokesman for the police department didn’t respond to requests for comment.

Verizon Wireless, the nation’s largest cellphone provider, saw an 8% increase in emergency requests by law enforcement nationwide from the first half to the second half of 2014, according to company data.

The overall number of law-enforcement requests fell by 7% from the first half, according to Verizon. AT&T Inc. data showed a 4% increase in emergency law-enforcement requests along with an increase in nonemergency requests. Emergency requests encompass a range of issues, including trying to track information from dropped 911 calls.

In a federal court filing last year in Atlanta, AT&T broadly discussed the increasing demands that law enforcement is putting on phone companies.

“AT&T receives and responds to an enormous volume of official demands to provide information to federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies in the United States,” lawyers for the company wrote in the filing.

The company has more than 100 full-time employees staffed to meet the volume of requests from law enforcement and civil lawsuits.

Write to Devlin Barrett at devlin.barrett@wsj.com
Popular on WSJ
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12671


« Reply #984 on: May 11, 2015, 09:42:05 PM »

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/national/2015/05/09/the-revolution-will-be-digitized/

Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 34092


« Reply #985 on: June 02, 2015, 11:56:28 AM »

http://news.yahoo.com/fbi-behind-mysterious-surveillance-aircraft-over-us-cities-070836765--politics.html#
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 34092


« Reply #986 on: June 29, 2015, 02:45:34 PM »

http://thefreethoughtproject.com/supreme-court-rules-cops-warrant-search-home/
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12671


« Reply #987 on: June 29, 2015, 07:53:06 PM »


What a insightful and balanced examination of the subject!
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 34092


« Reply #988 on: June 30, 2015, 10:10:53 AM »

Understood, but it was the only one on the decision I found.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12671


« Reply #989 on: July 01, 2015, 06:19:54 PM »

http://www.lawenforcementtoday.com/2014/04/03/supreme-court-decision-in-fernandez-v-california-supports-leos/
« Last Edit: July 01, 2015, 06:43:56 PM by Crafty_Dog » Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 34092


« Reply #990 on: July 01, 2015, 06:44:20 PM »

GM:

That was a superior discussion of the case.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 34092


« Reply #991 on: July 13, 2015, 02:33:59 PM »

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/07/a-devastating-leak-for-edward-snowdens-critics/373991/
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12671


« Reply #992 on: July 19, 2015, 11:33:24 AM »

http://pursuitmag.com/is-big-brother-google-spying-on-you/

Yes. Next question?
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12671


« Reply #993 on: July 31, 2015, 11:00:43 PM »

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/07/29/tape-your-webcam-horrifying-malware-broadcasts-you-to-the-world

Vermin.
Logged
Body-by-Guinness
Power User
***
Posts: 2845


« Reply #994 on: August 01, 2015, 07:46:53 PM »

And these are the same fools protecting protecting all the other information they gather about Americans, et al.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/01/world/asia/us-decides-to-retaliate-against-chinas-hacking.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12671


« Reply #995 on: August 02, 2015, 08:15:39 AM »

https://bgr.com/2015/07/31/windows-10-upgrade-spying-how-to-opt-out/
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 18 19 [20] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!