PDA

View Full Version : LE eager for Web-surveillance tools


Badger52
09-05-2012, 12:01
Courtesy of Homeland Security News Wire:

Private technology firms are pitching software capable of analyzing large swaths of the Internet to local law enforcement looking for ways to stop the next mass shooting or domestic terrorist event before it happens; police departments hope the software will help them detect online information from terrorists, traffickers, pedophiles, and rioters.
The advancement of technology allows for greater surveillance capabilities, and that has law enforcement agencies eager to acquire their own tools to track people who might be planning or thinking about taking out their frustrations on other citizens.

I'm sure this wouldn't be misused.

Interesting historical piece on domestic intel collection:
http://brennan.3cdn.net/b80aa0bab0b425857d_jdm6b8776.pdf

JJ_BPK
09-05-2012, 14:50
Courtesy of Homeland Security News Wire:

I'm sure this wouldn't be misused.




An they don't need any warrants to snoop...

JJ_BPK
09-05-2012, 17:54
Along the same lines..

Feds Say Mobile-Phone Location Data Not ĎConstitutionally Protectedí (http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/09/feds-say-mobile-phone-location-data-not-constitutionally-protected/)


Anyone want to invest in tin-foil??

SF_BHT
09-05-2012, 21:27
Take off the Tin-foil hats. It is called CALEA (Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act) It is very regulated and most of it you need a Court Order. Get a grip and quit thinking that LEO's abuse everything. Clinton signed it into law. It has been around for a while (18 yrs). LEO's have had these tools for a while. It is a dynamic environment and always evolving but ti evolves with check and balances.:p Nothing works a Hollywood depicts it on TV or the movies.

The Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA) is a United States wiretapping law passed in 1994, during the presidency of Bill Clinton (Pub. L. No. 103-414, 108 Stat. 4279, codified at 47 USC 1001-1010).

CALEA's purpose is to enhance the ability of law enforcement and intelligence agencies to conduct electronic surveillance by requiring that telecommunications carriers and manufacturers of telecommunications equipment modify and design their equipment, facilities, and services to ensure that they have built-in surveillance capabilities, allowing federal agencies to monitor all telephone, broadband internet, and VoIP traffic in real-time.

monsterhunter
09-05-2012, 21:48
Take off the Tin-foil hats. It is called CALEA (Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act) It is very regulated and most of it you need a Court Order. Get a grip and quit thinking that LEO's abuse everything. Clinton signed it into law. It has been around for a while (18 yrs). LEO's have had these tools for a while. It is a dynamic environment and always evolving but ti evolves with check and balances.:p Nothing works a Hollywood depicts it on TV or the movies.

We have to go through steps in order to "ping" a cellphone. My department has to call the service provider and then fax them as to why, along with providing a report number on letterhead paper. The providers have told us to pound sound when they did not agree with the level of the emergency and added "not without a warrant."

SF_BHT
09-05-2012, 22:13
We have to go through steps in order to "ping" a cellphone. My department has to call the service provider and then fax them as to why, along with providing a report number on letterhead paper. The providers have told us to pound sound when they did not agree with the level of the emergency and added "not without a warrant."

You are right if there is an Emergency you can do those steps and the provider can if they wish help out as a temp solution but you still have to followup with the judges order within 48 hrs. Time lines vary depending on the location.

They do have the right to say no if they want until you have an order. Providers can get fined a lot if they do not play by the rules and the fines care out of this world if they do not comply. We have good checks and balances. It has so much oversight it frustrates LEO's but it is the LAW.

I have other agents come in several times a week and ask for help and I have to say give me the order and we can roll. Out they go until it is signed...........

Diablo
09-05-2012, 22:21
Anybody have any insight on this potential destroyer of the 4th Amendment?

http://rt.com/usa/news/stratfor-trapwire-abraxas-wikileaks-313/

SF_BHT
09-06-2012, 05:31
Anybody have any insight on this potential destroyer of the 4th Amendment?

http://rt.com/usa/news/stratfor-trapwire-abraxas-wikileaks-313/

That link is Russian and does not work. Do some more google work and you will get a lot of good answers.

Badger52
09-06-2012, 05:52
Understand that existing legal decisions afford no privacy expectation to info released to a 3rd party - old news. I think there's a legitimate concern these days, 3rd party traffic or not, when differentiating who's targeted for collection. I suspect - but do not know - that most agencies below the Federal level (or their DHS-subsidized 'cells') don't currently have the resources to actually analyze the 'take' from such tools.

Nonetheless, imo, there is a difference between focusing on something of interest which arises out of other means & furthers an investigation, and wholesale collection using data-aggregation tools to find something/anything of interest in the first place. That latter something of interest, when made pretty on an emblem & caveat-festooned report, can gain traction beyond its actual worth.

What does a warrant look like that allows a "go out & see what you can see" approach? Sincerely asking.

CA_TacMedic
09-06-2012, 08:50
This technology is not new. The use and implementation has huge federal hurdles before it could reasonably be instituted "legally". It has been used and tested extensively already.

It is one of the hotbed issues in my current work venue in relation to contraband cell phones in the hands of California's inmate population. One major technology giant is in the process of providing cellular jamming devices in all California prisons....in addition the company that won the contract to install the systems at all of the prisons will actually pay the state nearly $1 million per institution to install thee systems. On a side note, this same company currently is the only provider for authorized inmate payphones in California.:confused: The "Managed Access Jamming" will authorize select devices to function by ESN and can either block, intercept or monitor all other phone, data, text or media applications. Supposedly all without any impact to surrounding communities....which if it did occur would come with huge fines and possible jail time for every FCC violation that occurs. According to our department heads, the technology would be used exclusively to block transmissions and any monitoring would have to be by issuing a warrant.....:munchin

http://prisoncellphones.com/blog/2012/04/17/cdcr-to-block-prison-cell-phones-via-managed-access-jamming-system/

SF_BHT
09-06-2012, 13:09
This technology is not new. The use and implementation has huge federal hurdles before it could reasonably be instituted "legally". It has been used and tested extensively already.

It is one of the hotbed issues in my current work venue in relation to contraband cell phones in the hands of California's inmate population. One major technology giant is in the process of providing cellular jamming devices in all California prisons....in addition the company that won the contract to install the systems at all of the prisons will actually pay the state nearly $1 million per institution to install thee systems. On a side note, this same company currently is the only provider for authorized inmate payphones in California.:confused: The "Managed Access Jamming" will authorize select devices to function by ESN and can either block, intercept or monitor all other phone, data, text or media applications. Supposedly all without any impact to surrounding communities....which if it did occur would come with huge fines and possible jail time for every FCC violation that occurs. According to our department heads, the technology would be used exclusively to block transmissions and any monitoring would have to be by issuing a warrant.....:munchin

http://prisoncellphones.com/blog/2012/04/17/cdcr-to-block-prison-cell-phones-via-managed-access-jamming-system/

It is not the ones that are approved that they sell it is all the ones that are smuggled in. Just wait for the ACLU to file against it and win.........
This sounds really out there for the Left Coast. Good luck......

perdurabo
09-06-2012, 21:34
CALEA is more oriented towards source and destination IP addresses and protocols (eg VPN, WWW, etc).

The stuff Badger52 is referring to is more DPI (Deep Packet Inspection) meets (an attempt at) an automated CIA behavioral analyst. Tin foilers would mumble something about Minority Report.

SF_BHT
09-06-2012, 21:58
CALEA is more oriented towards source and destination IP addresses and protocols (eg VPN, WWW, etc).

The stuff Badger52 is referring to is more DPI (Deep Packet Inspection) meets (an attempt at) an automated CIA behavioral analyst. Tin foilers would mumble something about Minority Report.

Oh it does.....:lifter

Terrorist have to fear that but ..............:eek:

A honest person does not have anything to worry about......even if you get caught up in that .00000002%........

Flagg
09-09-2012, 17:47
You are right if there is an Emergency you can do those steps and the provider can if they wish help out as a temp solution but you still have to followup with the judges order within 48 hrs. Time lines vary depending on the location.

They do have the right to say no if they want until you have an order. Providers can get fined a lot if they do not play by the rules and the fines care out of this world if they do not comply. We have good checks and balances. It has so much oversight it frustrates LEO's but it is the LAW.

I have other agents come in several times a week and ask for help and I have to say give me the order and we can roll. Out they go until it is signed...........

I'm glad to hear there are good checks and balances.

While I'd consider myself to be a "don't tread on me" type, rather than being concerned about civil liberties, I'm probably more concerned about monsterhunter's post mentioning "fax" and "report number on letterhead paper".

From an amateur that sounds very 1980's/1990's type of process.

No offense intended, but I'd feel more confident with all those checks and balances able to be performed with a number of clicks on a secure desktop.

Would that be due to the nature of the Republic and the thousands of local/state/fed organizations and IT systems?

monsterhunter
09-10-2012, 15:03
I'm glad to hear there are good checks and balances.

While I'd consider myself to be a "don't tread on me" type, rather than being concerned about civil liberties, I'm probably more concerned about monsterhunter's post mentioning "fax" and "report number on letterhead paper".

From an amateur that sounds very 1980's/1990's type of process.

No offense intended, but I'd feel more confident with all those checks and balances able to be performed with a number of clicks on a secure desktop.

Would that be due to the nature of the Republic and the thousands of local/state/fed organizations and IT systems?

It's just a bit more complicated than that. Most of these folks have our numbers on file and will insist on calling us back. There are a few other things that go into it as well, and that will vary by company. Rest assured, the phone companies are very cautious and strict. There are a bunch of them out there and nobody wants to lose business.

MTN Medic
09-11-2012, 06:58
Oh it does.....:lifter

Terrorist have to fear that but ..............:eek:

A honest person does not have anything to worry about......even if you get caught up in that .00000002%........

Should I then give up my right against unreasonable search and seizure because I "have nothing to worry about?"

SF_BHT
09-11-2012, 09:26
Should I then give up my right against unreasonable search and seizure because I "have nothing to worry about?"

No and I did not say that. I was commenting on the Tin Hat comments before. I fully believe that you and I have the right to protections from unreasonable search and seizure. I agree that some violate some peopleís rights under existing laws and that is wrong BUT.......

The violations from what I have seen in my work are nonexistent in regards to the OPís subject. There are more errors by people in vehicle, personal searches than what we are discussing.

CALEA and any other Cyber/Telecom intercept executions of searches are so highly regulated today with so many checks and balances that it hurts some case investigations. You have to check so many boxes to flip the switch and get so many signatures/reviews that when it is turned on it is too late to get actionable intel.

It is not the old days when you could run a rouge wire tap and not get caught. Way tooooo much automation oversight. This is good and also frustrating at times but that is the law and we work within the rules and laws we are given.

Letís not mix apples and oranges on searches.

perdurabo
09-11-2012, 14:27
No and I did not say that. I was commenting on the Tin Hat comments before. I fully believe that you and I have the right to protections from unreasonable search and seizure. I agree that some violate some peopleís rights under existing laws and that is wrong BUT.......

The violations from what I have seen in my work are nonexistent in regards to the OPís subject. There are more errors by people in vehicle, personal searches than what we are discussing.

CALEA and any other Cyber/Telecom intercept executions of searches are so highly regulated today with so many checks and balances that it hurts some case investigations. You have to check so many boxes to flip the switch and get so many signatures/reviews that when it is turned on it is too late to get actionable intel.

It is not the old days when you could run a rouge wire tap and not get caught. Way tooooo much automation oversight. This is good and also frustrating at times but that is the law and we work within the rules and laws we are given.

Letís not mix apples and oranges on searches.

In the cases I've been involved with, an officer/detective can get a judge to sign a paper within an hour and start getting information back from people like Google and Comcast within a day. If I remember correctly, Yahoo is a big stickler about things, though.

Granted, I'm not complaining because these cases happened to be very bad people -- but at least around these parts, it doesn't seem to be too big a red tape run and I do worry about (perhaps not illegal) privacy abuses from less than ethical OR over-eager LE elements.

SF_BHT
09-11-2012, 16:38
In the cases I've been involved with, an officer/detective can get a judge to sign a paper within an hour and start getting information back from people like Google and Comcast within a day. If I remember correctly, Yahoo is a big stickler about things, though.

Granted, I'm not complaining because these cases happened to be very bad people -- but at least around these parts, it doesn't seem to be too big a red tape run and I do worry about (perhaps not illegal) privacy abuses from less than ethical OR over-eager LE elements.

Hummmm

We are not going to go into any more details on the operational procedures of LOCAL, STATE or FEDERAL Officers/Agents in the step by step process in the Public no matter what you can find in Wiki stuff or anything else.

Yes for some things you can go faster than other and there are different levels of probable cause.

I Recomend that we move on to another subject. You do not need to give out processes to the Bad Guys at least on this site. Lets get back to military SOF stuff.

MTN Medic
09-11-2012, 16:48
No and I did not say that. I was commenting on the Tin Hat comments before. I fully believe that you and I have the right to protections from unreasonable search and seizure. I agree that some violate some peopleís rights under existing laws and that is wrong BUT.......

The violations from what I have seen in my work are nonexistent in regards to the OPís subject. There are more errors by people in vehicle, personal searches than what we are discussing.

CALEA and any other Cyber/Telecom intercept executions of searches are so highly regulated today with so many checks and balances that it hurts some case investigations. You have to check so many boxes to flip the switch and get so many signatures/reviews that when it is turned on it is too late to get actionable intel.

It is not the old days when you could run a rouge wire tap and not get caught. Way tooooo much automation oversight. This is good and also frustrating at times but that is the law and we work within the rules and laws we are given.

Letís not mix apples and oranges on searches.

Fair enough. I just feel like I am far from one of the tin hatters but I don't quite subscribe to the mentality that I would trust all LEO to do the right thing especially when their only over sight is a telecom corporation. I can honestly say that I know little about the "checks and balances" of LEO utilizing this technology but believe that my frets are justifiable after seeing many abuses of power in the past. As in all professions, there are bad apples but as long as there are adequate precautions, I cannot see fault in utilizing the best technology to ensure the safety of the officers and the ability to prosecute when the dirtbags get dragged downtown.