Terrorist privacy rights bug New York detectives

NY Times:

An effort by the New York Police Department to get broader latitude to eavesdrop on terrorism suspects has run into sharp resistance from the Justice Department in a bitter struggle that has left the police commissioner and the attorney general accusing the other of putting the public at risk.

The Police Department, with the largest municipal counterterrorism operation in the country, wants the Justice Department and the Federal Bureau of Investigation to loosen their approach to the federal law that governs electronic surveillance. But federal officials have refused to relax the standards, and have said requests submitted by the police department could actually jeopardize surveillance efforts by casting doubt on their legality.

Under the law, the government must in most cases obtain a warrant from the special Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court before it can begin electronic monitoring of people suspected of spying or terrorism. The requests are subjected to sharp scrutiny, first by lawyers at the F.B.I., then by lawyers at the Justice Department, and finally by the court itself.

New York’s department, as a local police force, cannot apply directly, but must seek warrants through the F.B.I. and the Justice Department. The police want those agencies to expedite their requests, and say that the federal agencies unfairly blocked the city’s applications for surveillance warrants, first in June and then in September. The disagreement, in which the Bush Justice Department has taken a more cautious approach than police officials, is something of an unexpected twist for an administration that has more often seemed willing to stretch legal boundaries to fight terrorism.

The dispute has played out since midsummer in a highly unusual exchange of letters between Raymond W. Kelly, the police commissioner, and Michael B. Mukasey, the attorney general, in which each accuses the other of mishandling terrorism cases and embracing an approach that made the public more vulnerable. The letters have not been publicly released.

While the letters do not specifically identify the target of the eavesdropping requests, Mr. Mukasey said that the Police Department had sought authority in one of them to eavesdrop on “numerous communications facilities” without providing an adequate basis for their requests. Some officials who have been briefed on the cases said the requests, from the police Intelligence Division, were unusually broad, and included telephones in public places, like train or subway stations, rather than phones used by a specific individual.

...
It does not take much imagination to realize that the bad guys will try to use public phones because they think theirs may be tapped. It appears the Feds are going to make sure they have access to untapped phones. This sounds like an episode of The Wire removed to New York City.

I suspect that the NYPD detectives have spotted the bad guys using the phones they want tapped. That is probably how they got the idea it would be good to hear those conversations. They are apparently bumping into the memorial Jamie Gorelick desk in Washington.

Comments

  1. They are not too bright...

    they can get around this in total, and very easily if they wernt so narrow thinking...

    while it is illegal to eavesdrop, its not illegal to listen in a public place.

    in other words, a sensitive microphone recording EVERYTHING in the area should be legal as they are not eavesdropping on them specifically, but recording the sound in an area...

    i know it sounds the same, but legally its not.

    its like taking a picture from a public position... or recording the audio in an area of the park...

    no one has to get rights to all the people generating sounds in that area.. or else movies couldnt use real traffic audio as background.

    its the kind of slight division that law is good at arguing for a long time.

    did they bug the phone? nope...
    did they bug the person? nope, they indiscriminately recorded all audio in a public area.

    the questino is whether being able to pull out information from the audio is considered tapping.

    i can tell you that its not... because the state doesnt need a wire tap to analyze audio they get that is made this way.

    in other words, the tapping is dependent on which tech you use... recording everything in a 10 acre area is not tapping... any more than recording the crowd at a football stadium is.

    if you could extract a converstaion from the television audio, would that be eavesdropping?

    i wish i knew someone at the FBI... i have seen all kinds of issues like this, and other issues where technology i have could help.
    (i design technology and or software for a living and one of teh projects i have as a pet project is to be able to extract such information from crowd noise!!!!! DARPA wanted such too, but i am not affiliated to get such grants)

    they should also make many recordings... one at 3 feet in two areas... one at 9 feet in two areas, etc. .

    then when challenged. they ask waht distance IS ok... then the rest is easy... drop the shorter evidence that is no good and then enter in the evidence that is good from a logner distance.

    there are many ways to skirt fixed systems if one wishes to... in this case, they can skirt it PRECISELY because the action is in conflict with common actions that are already allowed and have been allowed for almost a century

    anyone interested in the stuff i have for such things (preferably FBI), just write me an email, and if the spam filther dont stop it, i would be glad to brainstorm with them to find solutions they can use.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Should Republicans go ahead and add Supreme Court Justices to head off Democrats

Is the F-35 obsolete?

Apple's huge investment in US including Texas facility