01-03-2015, 05:53 AM
|
|
|
It's 42
Industry Role:
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Global
Posts: 18,083
|
Quote:
[B]ut according to Wired, that’s in part because the Harris Corporation makes law enforcement organizations sign non-disclosure agreements that preclude them from revealing their use of the technology to the courts. ...
... In Baltimore, the EFF said, prosecutors gave up on use of evidence gathered through a Stingray after “a judge threatened to hold a police officer in contempt for refusing to testify about the device.” ...
... According to the EFF, Tacoma judges are now requiring police say when they plan to implement the technology in surveillance and that they commit to not keep data related to people who aren’t part of an investigation. State Supreme Courts in Florida and Massachusetts ruled that police must get warrants for any real-time cell phone monitoring, as did lawmakers in nine states — Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Colorado, Minnesota, Maryland, Utah, Virginia, and Tennessee. ...
|
These things debunk the conspiracy theorists (CT) as these unlawful acts of law enforcement get disclosed. As long as the intercepts are targeted to ''persons of interest'' and there is proper court oversight it's not a problem but when the net is cast wide and persons are arbitrarily spied on it becomes a 4th Amendment constitutional infringement.
America is free only because there are disclosures like this. How much do you find out about your own national security services malfeasance? Ignorance is bliss or is it just ignorance? |
|
|