Switch Theme:

Congressman Jason Chaffetz attempting to reign in Stingray surveillance  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
  • No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
  • Times and dates in your local timezone.
  • Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
  • Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
  • Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.




Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





CL VI Store in at the Cyber Center of Excellence

I'm saying the device lends itself to 4th amendment violations. It WILL collect on numbers other than the one the warrant would cover. Best to not use the device in a domestic LE role.

Just as we see no-knock warrants are abused all the time, just as we see the proliferation of heavily armed SWAT type units has led to their use to serve warrants that could have been served by regular cops (and lead to dead folks and dead pets, too often at the wrong address), and we very rarely see the cops/their agencies punished, I am saying giving them a tool like this will likely lead to further abuses. It fits into an existing pattern that I do not like. Just disallow the tool from the get go.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/11/06 11:30:32


Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings. 
   
Made in us
Last Remaining Whole C'Tan






Pleasant Valley, Iowa

I think we're describing two different problems, though, and they are not problems that are inextricably linked. Police abuse and malfeasance is a whole other problem.

No-knock warrants also should not exist, but you can't say "well, we can't ban them, because then the police will just do them anyway". Yeah, they might, but at least now we have a punitive framework for that eventuality.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/11/06 11:41:52


 lord_blackfang wrote:
Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.

 Flinty wrote:
The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut






 CptJake wrote:
I'm saying the device lends itself to 4th amendment violations. It WILL collect on numbers other than the one the warrant would cover.


From a technical standpoint, isn't this true of pretty much any form of surveillance though? Even a cop sitting in his car watching a house is going to see things unrelated to the person(s) they are watching.

We do it all the time in our data collections at work. It's unavoidable. The issue then is parsing down and destroying (with verification) all the data that's not related to your actual case/warrant.

Edit: To be clear, I'm with Chaffetz on this one, something I never thought I would say in my entire life time. Warrantless use of them has to go. I wouldn't be against banning their use entirely, mind you, but if they're not going to be banned they should at least require a warrant before raking in everything around them.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/11/06 13:17:55


 
   
 
Forum Index » Off-Topic Forum
Go to: