Entries Tagged "law enforcement"

Page 40 of 46

The Militarization of Police Work

This was originally published in The Washington Post:

During the past 15 years, The Post and other media outlets have reported on the unsettling “militarization” of police departments across the country. Armed with free surplus military gear from the Pentagon, SWAT teams have multiplied at a furious pace. Tactics once reserved for rare, volatile situations such as hostage takings, bank robberies and terrorist incidents increasingly are being used for routine police work.

Eastern Kentucky University’s Peter Kraska—a widely cited expert on police militarization—estimates that SWAT teams are called out about 40,000 times a year in the United States; in the 1980s, that figure was 3,000 times a year. Most “call-outs” were to serve warrants on nonviolent drug offenders.

Posted on February 9, 2006 at 12:25 PM • View Comments

The Topology of Covert Conflict

Interesting research paper by Shishir Nagaraja and Ross Anderson. Implications for warfare, terrorism, and peer-to-peer file sharing:

Abstract:

Often an attacker tries to disconnect a network by destroying nodes or edges, while the defender counters using various resilience mechanisms. Examples include a music industry body attempting to close down a peer-to-peer file-sharing network; medics attempting to halt the spread of an infectious disease by selective vaccination; and a police agency trying to decapitate a terrorist organisation. Albert, Jeong and Barabási famously analysed the static case, and showed that vertex-order attacks are effective against scale-free networks. We extend this work to the dynamic case by developing a framework based on evolutionary game theory to explore the interaction of attack and defence strategies. We show, first, that naive defences don’t work against vertex-order attack; second, that defences based on simple redundancy don’t work much better, but that defences based on cliques work well; third, that attacks based on centrality work better against clique defences than vertex-order attacks do; and fourth, that defences based on complex strategies such as delegation plus clique resist centrality attacks better than simple clique defences. Our models thus build a bridge between network analysis and evolutionary game theory, and provide a framework for analysing defence and attack in networks where topology matters. They suggest definitions of efficiency of attack and defence, and may even explain the evolution of insurgent organisations from networks of cells to a more virtual leadership that facilitates operations rather than directing them. Finally, we draw some conclusions and present possible directions for future research.

Posted on February 6, 2006 at 7:03 AM • View Comments

Who Watches the Watchers?

One problem with cameras is that you can’t trust the watchers not to misuse them:

Two council CCTV camera operators have been jailed for spying on a naked woman in her own home.

Mark Summerton and Kevin Judge, from Sefton Council, Merseyside, trained a street camera into the woman’s flat.

[…]

The images from the camera, including the woman without her clothes on, were shown on a large plasma screen in the council’s CCTV control room in November 2004, Liverpool Crown Court heard.

Over several hours, she was filmed cuddling her boyfriend before undressing, using the toilet, having a bath and watching television dressed only in a towel.

Judge Gerald Clifton told the three men: “To dismiss what was happening as laddish behaviour, something that the 21st Century apparently condones, is absurd.

“You only have to read the impact statements of the lady to realise the harrowing effect that this had on her.

“Her life has almost been ruined, her self-confidence entirely destroyed by the thought that prying male eyes have entered her flat.”

Also, The Register reported on this.

Posted on January 16, 2006 at 12:00 PM • View Comments

Vehicle Tracking in the UK

Universal automobile surveillance is coming:

Britain is to become the first country in the world where the movements of all vehicles on the roads are recorded. A new national surveillance system will hold the records for at least two years.

Using a network of cameras that can automatically read every passing number plate, the plan is to build a huge database of vehicle movements so that the police and security services can analyse any journey a driver has made over several years.

The network will incorporate thousands of existing CCTV cameras which are being converted to read number plates automatically night and day to provide 24/7 coverage of all motorways and main roads, as well as towns, cities, ports and petrol-station forecourts.

By next March a central database installed alongside the Police National Computer in Hendon, north London, will store the details of 35 million number-plate “reads” per day. These will include time, date and precise location, with camera sites monitored by global positioning satellites.

As The Independent opines, this is only the beginning:

The new national surveillance network for tracking car journeys, which has taken more than 25 years to develop, is only the beginning of plans to monitor the movements of all British citizens. The Home Office Scientific Development Branch in Hertfordshire is already working on ways of automatically recognising human faces by computer, which many people would see as truly introducing the prospect of Orwellian street surveillance, where our every move is recorded and stored by machines.

Although the problems of facial recognition by computer are far more formidable than for car number plates, experts believe it is only a matter of time before machines can reliably pull a face out of a crowd of moving people.

If the police and security services can show that a national surveillance operation based on recording car movements can protect the public against criminals and terrorists, there will be a strong political will to do the same with street cameras designed to monitor the flow of human traffic.

I’ve already written about the security risks of what I call “wholesale surveillance.” Once this information is collected, it will be misused, lost, and stolen. It will be filled with errors. The problems and insecurities that come from living in a surveillance society more than outweigh any crimefighting (and terrorist-fighting) advantages.

Posted on December 22, 2005 at 2:41 PM • View Comments

More Erosion of Police Oversight in the U.S.

From EPIC:

Documents obtained by EPIC in a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit reveal FBI agents expressing frustration that the Office of Intelligence Policy and Review, an office that reviews FBI search requests, had not approved applications for orders under Section 215 of the Patriot Act. A subsequent memo refers to “recent changes” allowing the FBI to “bypass”; the office. EPIC is expecting to receive further information about this matter.

Some background:

Under Section 215, the FBI must show only “relevance” to a foreign intelligence or terrorism investigation to obtain vast amounts of personal information. It is unclear why the Office of Intelligence Policy and Review did not approve these applications. The FBI has not revealed this information, nor did it explain whether other search methods had failed.

Remember, the issue here is not whether or not the FBI can engage in counterterrorism. The issue is the erosion of judicial oversight—the only check we have on police power. And this power grab is dangerous regardless of which party is in the White House at the moment.

Posted on December 16, 2005 at 10:03 AM • View Comments

FBI to Approve All Software?

Sounds implausible, I know. But how else do you explain this FCC ruling (from September—I missed it until now):

The Federal Communications Commission thinks you have the right to use software on your computer only if the FBI approves.

No, really. In an obscure “policy” document released around 9 p.m. ET last Friday, the FCC announced this remarkable decision.

According to the three-page document, to preserve the openness that characterizes today’s Internet, “consumers are entitled to run applications and use services of their choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement.” Read the last seven words again.

The FCC didn’t offer much in the way of clarification. But the clearest reading of the pronouncement is that some unelected bureaucrats at the commission have decreeed that Americans don’t have the right to use software such as Skype or PGPfone if it doesn’t support mandatory backdoors for wiretapping. (That interpretation was confirmed by an FCC spokesman on Monday, who asked not to be identified by name. Also, the announcement came at the same time as the FCC posted its wiretapping rules for Internet telephony.)

Posted on December 2, 2005 at 11:24 AM • View Comments

Limitations on Police Power Shouldn't Be a Partisan Issue

In response to my op ed last week, the Minneapolis Star Tribune published this letter:

THE PATRIOT ACT

Where are the abuses?

The Nov. 22 commentary “The erosion of freedom” is yet another example of how liberal hysteria is conspicuously light on details.

While the Patriot Act may allow for potential abuses of power, flaws undoubtedly to be fine-tuned over time, the “erosion of freedom” it may foster absolutely pales in comparison to the freedom it is designed to protect in the new age of global terrorism.

I have yet to read of one incident of infringement of any private citizen’s rights as a direct result of the Patriot Act—nor does this commentary point out any, either.

While I’m a firm believer in the Fourth Amendment, I also want our law enforcement to have the legal tools necessary, unfettered by restrictions to counter liberals’ paranoid fixation on “fascism,” in order to combat the threat that terrorism has on all our freedoms.

I have enough trust in our free democratic society and the coequal branches of government that we won’t evolve into a sinister “police state,” as ominously predicted by this commentary.

CHRIS GARDNER, MINNEAPOLIS

Two things strike me in this letter. The first is his “I have yet to read of one incident of infringement of any private citizen’s rights as a direct result of the Patriot Act….” line. It’s just odd. A simple Googling of “patriot act abuses” comes up with almost 3 million hits, many of them pretty extensive descriptions of Patriot Act abuses. Now, he could decide that none of them are abuses. He could choose not to believe any of them are true. He could choose to believe, as he seems to, that it’s all in some liberal fantasy. But to simply not even bother reading about them…isn’t he just admitting that he’s not qualified to have an opinion on the matter? (There’s also that “direct result” weaseling, which I’m not sure what to make of either. Are infringements that are an indirect result of the Patriot Act somehow better?)

I suppose that’s just being petty, though.

The more important thing that strikes me is how partisan he is. He writes about “liberal hysteria” and “liberals’ paranoid fixation on ‘fascism.'” In his last paragraph, he writes about his trust in government.

Most laws don’t matter when we all trust each other. Contracts are rarely if ever looked at if the parties trust each other. The whole point of laws and contracts is to protect us when the parties don’t trust each other. It’s not enough that this guy, and everyone else with this opinion, trusts the Bush government to judiciously balance his rights with the need to fight global terrorism. This guy has to believe that when the Democrats are in power that his rights are just as protected: that he is just as secure against police and government abuse.

Because that’s how you should think about laws, contracts, and government power. When reading through a contract, don’t think about how much you like the other person who’s signing it; imagine how the contract will protect you if you become enemies. When thinking about a law, imagine how it will protect you when your worst nightmare—Hillary Clinton as President, Janet Reno as Attorney General, Howard Dean as something-or-other, and a Democratic Senate and House—is in power.

Laws and contracts are not written for one political party, or for one side. They’re written for everybody. History teaches us this lesson again and again. In the United States, the Bill of Rights was opposed on the grounds that it wasn’t necessary; the Alien and Sedition Act of 1798 proved that it was, only nine years later.

It makes no sense to me that this is a partisan issue.

Posted on December 2, 2005 at 6:11 AM • View Comments

Google and Privacy

Daniel Solove on Google and privacy:

A New York Times editorial observes:

At a North Carolina strangulation-murder trial this month, prosecutors announced an unusual piece of evidence: Google searches allegedly done by the defendant that included the words “neck” and “snap.” The data were taken from the defendant’s computer, prosecutors say. But it might have come directly from Google, which—unbeknownst to many users—keeps records of every search on its site, in ways that can be traced back to individuals.

This is an interesting fact—Google keeps records of every search in a way that can be traceable to individuals. The op-ed goes on to say:

Google has been aggressive about collecting information about its users’ activities online. It stores their search data, possibly forever, and puts “cookies” on their computers that make it possible to track those searches in a personally identifiable way—cookies that do not expire until 2038. Its e-mail system, Gmail, scans the content of e-mail messages so relevant ads can be posted. Google’s written privacy policy reserves the right to pool what it learns about users from their searches with what it learns from their e-mail messages, though Google says it won’t do so. . . .

The government can gain access to Google’s data storehouse simply by presenting a valid warrant or subpoena. . . .

This is an important point. No matter what Google’s privacy policy says, the fact that it maintains information about people’s search activity enables the government to gather that data, often with a mere subpoena, which provides virtually no protection to privacy—and sometimes without even a subpoena.

Solove goes on to argue that if companies like Google want to collect people’s data (even if people are willing to supply it), the least they can do is fight for greater protections against government access to that data. While this won’t address all the problems, it would be a step forward to see companies like Google use their power to foster meaningful legislative change.

EDITED TO ADD (12/3): Here’s an op ed from The Boston Globe on the same topic.

Posted on November 30, 2005 at 3:08 PM • View Comments

1 … 38 39 40 41 42 … 46

Sidebar photo of Bruce Schneier by Joe MacInnis.