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.
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The judicial branch is obsolete, a relic from some past time when The Constitution of the United States was the highest law of the land.
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.
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.
They aren't legally allowed to this. It's entirely illegal.
On top of that, they take an oath to uphold the constitution when they get their badge and this clearly violates the constitution.
For far too long in this country we've decide that "criminals" are somehow non-citizens. We've declared them as an "Other" and not of us. This has allowed some people to rationalize their illegal behavior as somehow just. It's not. Violating even a criminals constitutional rights is wrong, and it wont be long before YOU are considered a criminal that no longer deserves his rights either.
No, but if it were legal, would you go around blaming everyone who killed (presumably there would be more than a few), or would you try to organize changing the law? Which would be more effective?
Organizations, for example, shouldn't be expected to "play nice," but they should be expected to play by the rules. The fact that, say, various corporations can play extremely sketchy games with their taxes is absolutely expected, given that the tax code allows it (if they didn't, they would more-or-less be shirking their duty to the shareholders).
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.
"that's their job: to do everything they are legally allowed to do to put the baddies away"
This is so far from the ideals of Liberty i dont even know where to begin..... You are a child with a child's opinion.
Good-bye
lol. i see where you are coming from. but the point is. the police are supposed to be people of higher morals. at least that is what you would expect from them. if they cant follow the laws that they are supposed to uphold. then why should we. the laws are only used in times of convenience. like if you were to kill someone on accident because you thought he was going to harm you, you would go to jail. but a police officers does the same thing and gets a pat on the back. not saying all police officers are d-bags. but the system we currently have in place is seriously flawed.
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.
Would I *want* them to know? No. Would I *care*. Not really. Would some people think, "where there's smoke, there's fire?" Sure. Screw them, they're idiots.
I think the best policy is ultimately to get everything out in the open. The worst case is when surveillance is secret so people think it hardly ever happens, and then it comes out that you were under surveillance. At least when it all comes out, it becomes pretty clear there's smoke around a lot of innocent people.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
The problem is, that without a regular reading of the Constitution, all you're left with are opinions of lawyers and judges as to all that the Constitution means. The fact is, the Constitution was deliberately focused and precise overarching set of "guidelines" that have been slowly eroded in favor of more "pragmatic" approaches, since nearly the beginning.
Here is a test on Voting Rights and Right to Bear Arms. We have a set of court opinions that one requires ID and the other doesn't require any, both on "Constitutional" grounds. Either both are rights, and require the same application to exercise, or they are not rights.
And for the anti-gun wackos, I'd suggest that Voting is more dangerous than guns, because you can't tell who the stupid people are voting for the tyrants taking away our rights as fast as they can.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Doing everything in your legal power leads to a Zod mentality in Man of Steel. He wasnt wrong, per se, he was just an asshole and caused more suffering than helping. The purpose of the police is to keep the peace, not punish and not push so hard that undue suffering is caused, esp when no true harm is at stake
Good-bye
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
Constitutional rights are just ink on paper.
Just like guns don't kill people, the constutution does not uphold the rights.
You need the people to do that and the majority is not interested other then a discussing point on how awfull it is.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
...and I equally blame law enforcement failing to exercise good judgement.
Right; but do you think law enforcement should be punished -- in a legal sense -- for failing to exercise good judgement? I think the answer is a resounding "yes," but if there are no laws explicitly saying that what the police are doing is wrong, then how should we proceed?
Yes, I agree that good judgement should be expected -- but I think that when the police do not exercise good judgement, it should very much be a legal issue.
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.
Ah yes, because if it weren't for government oversight corporations would all be honest, responsible bastions of human dignity.
I agree there's lots of problems with large government, but we've tried the opposite and discovered that corporations are run by greedy, irresponsible powermongers, and government is the only force that can keep them in check. The problem is that the corporate powermongers realized that as well, and proceeded to take over the government. And we let them. What we need is not necessarily small government, but *accountable* government - it's the only defense we the people have against independent corporations.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Found it! Franchise by Asimov.
It would be sorta like winning the lottery. Your old job, or business would be gone but with all the offers for a very well paid job doing nothing at "Big Corp" for just doing a few small favours, you really wouldn't need to actually work again.
Be good for "Big Corp" too as the price of lobbying will go down, especially with most representatives being ordinary people it'll take much less blow (perhaps just beer) and cheaper hookers.
With the ban on felons it'll be easy to disqualify anyone as well since everyone is a felon in waiting.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism