Slashdot Mirror
Local Police Increasingly Rely On Secret Surveillance
v3rgEz writes: 'The Wall Street Journal reports on how local law enforcement is increasingly requesting (and receiving) sealed wiretap requests and surveillance that doesn't require a warrant for cellular data, a move that is making some courts uneasy — but not uneasy enough to stop the practice. "Across the U.S., thousands of similar law-enforcement requests for electronic monitoring are likewise locked away from public view, even after the investigations that spawned them have ended. In most cases, they stay sealed indefinitely—unlike nearly all other aspects of American judicial proceedings. Courts long have presumed that search warrants, for example, eventually should be made public." One group has set up a crowdfunding campaign to research how far the practice has spread, hoping to raise money to file and follow up on public records requests across the country for policies, invoices, and other "surveillance metadata."'
This is a travesty.
what? did you think because it happens on tv shows like Dexter all the time that it was impossible for it to happen? "oh that happens on tv so it can't be real." that mentality is why so many people get surprised when they see an article like this.
Yes, we all need to pay more taxes so we can experience even more of the overweening government we already have!
If the federal government doesn't need a warrant, why should local law enforcement? OTOH, the federal government uses "national security" as an excuse to violate the constitution. What's local law enforcement's excuse?
a move that is making some courts uneasy
The judicial branch is obsolete, a relic from some past time when The Constitution of the United States was the highest law of the land.
Tempting to blame law enforcement for their increasingly-Orwellian tactics, but -- in my opinion -- that's their job: to do everything they are legally allowed to do to put the baddies away. The thing is, "legally allowed to do" should stop somewhat short 1984; the fact that it doesn't isn't their fault per se, but the fault of the courts for allowing this.
If they have nothing to hide they have nothing to fear.
By reporting on such stories you are slowly coercing your readership into accepting this (inhibiting violent refusal). Another example: little by little faggots have overtaken our world.
would you kill someone if the courts allowed you too. knowing full well that it was murder and that it was wrong. that the person didnt deserve to die. i can think of dozens of other analogies, but the principle is still the same.
How is this even a question?
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
That's not even remotely vague. It's clear as day. You need a warrant and that warrant should be public. Period. Any Judge that didn't see this as a violation of the 4th amendment should be strung up without a trial, since they don't feel the constitution is important.
On one hand keeping the wiretaps secret harms transparency and hides abuses.
On the other hand it keeps the names of people under investigation private. Would you really want to other people to know that the police were tapping your phone? A conclusion many may draw is that you have done something wrong.
Not the first time the government does something completely at odds with what would be appropriate for a government to do. And won't be the last time, either.
The thing is that it's the American People that's supposed to stand up against this sort of thing... and it's not happening.
The police everywhere seem to be given to a general trend of militarization. Assault rifles, military-style clothing and accessories, armored vehicles, intelligence gathering operations, air power (helicopters, drones, etc).
They no longer resemble the "beat cop" who managed to keep order with a whistle and a truncheon in a uniform with shiny brass buttons. They resemble a military assault force.
people's faces at From a technical from within. been the best, the project faces, Play area Try not Survey which Join GNAA (GAY Are about 7000/5
The point is my they knew exactly where I stopped at, and located me quite easily to pull me over (my 3g was off at the time). These are the times we live in nowadays...k
The practice has been abused, and innocent people have been harmed in some way by this abuse.
Where there is no accountability or visibility, there is abuse. It is guaranteed.
Any attempt at seeing the old data will be fiercely resisted by those who abused this practice, and they will have lots of political clout to keep their corruption secret.
Police regularly request and usually receive camera footage from businesses, particularly footage of streets and sidewalks but sometimes internal footage as well. I worked in the 'security' industry for a while, this has been my direct experience, not hearsay :) I saw dozens of requests over a couple years from 10 storefronts and only once did I see a warrant and I never saw a request refused.
The main impediment to police's unfettered access to camera systems is the diversity of bad systems out there. It's difficult to get info out of some DVR/NVR systems for various reasons, user knowledge, design, and the police's ability to, say, receive emails with attachments or download a file from dropbox.
Seriously. I kid you not.
Anyway, the more networked and user friendly these products become the more the police will have easy unfettered access.
closed minded is as closed minded does
I shouldn't be surprised by the idea that cell phone conversations aren't protected by the same wire taping laws as landline phones, but I am. That's so stupid. I should become a politician and try to fix some laws.
All politicians and bureaucrats also have to speak an oath to uphold the ultimate law of the land. For reference the United State's Supreme Court Oath of Office is below.
For citizens, "ignorance of the law is no excuse". Tax law, I'm looking at you... But we are talking about the Supreme Law of the Land, The Constitution of the United States of America. Those in power that breach this law or redefine it are the problem. But they get away with it, over and over again (I think of Won't Be Fooled Again by The Who, all of the bosses are the same).
Why is this happening? I figure they have their fingers crossed behind their back when they take the Oath.
And I have a particular problem with the Supreme Court, I'm looking at you Commerce Clause... I'm surprised the States aren't all fenced so that deer and other animals don't cross borders, hunting and tourism revenues and all.
And of course local police shouldn't be abusing The Constitution.
The Supreme Court's Oath of Office:
"I, _________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."
BlameBillCosby.com
We can't have those activist judges throwing out cases, to overturning laws that allow unwarranted monitoring. That's just not right.
A private camera's owner is allowed to share any footage they have recorded.
The request may be unsettling (it would be for me), ask about it first if you want. Then decide, unless there's a warrant.
Unless it is you they are after or if the footage requested puts one in a compromising position. What you do at that point is your decision (LWYR UP, per Saul Goodman).
BlameBillCosby.com
Generalized surveillance such as hidden cams watching any car or foot traffic on a block is probably very common. Areas around schools are a great example as public interest wants kids to be able to walk home without being swept up and molested. Volunteer addresses may be a common practice such that bad guys can never operate with impunity.
Difference between a phone box and a power box, Because I'm tried of coming home to fried bacon every time!!
I've seen the unredacted version of this decision. It cites Catch-22 several times; precedent going back to at least WWII.
Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
The practice has been abused, and innocent people have been harmed in some way by this abuse.
Where there is no accountability or visibility, there is abuse. It is guaranteed.
Any attempt at seeing the old data will be fiercely resisted by those who abused this practice, and they will have lots of political clout to keep their corruption secret.
If it is 'sealed' how can it be used as evidence or even allowed to be used to make arrests? In a court room there should be press/media around that would catch on to this and report it to the public.
This is entrapment, with numerous constitutional, and civil rights violations. I still don't get how the courts allow DUI checkpoints, and undercover drug officers to continue for the same reasons. And because of that a man once told me 'if they are allowing that, then it is only going to get worse'!
I am amazed when I see ppl screaming that we should dissolve the NSA. Yet, they do not realize that all of the techniques and tech would simply transfer to FBI, local police, etc. This is the kind of stuff that Americans should fear. Yet, we have idiots running around screaming about everything else, and most of the leaders on that, are the same ones that caused it.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.