- js reader version
- view hidden posts
- tags and related articles
Thursday, May. 24, 2012 at 6:47 AM
Any conversation picked up by a drone inside a home or business, police can take out of context to institute arrests; or civil asset forfeiture to confiscate the home/business and other assets.
Police are salivating at the prospect of having drones to spy on lawful citizens. Congress approved 30,000 drones in U.S. Skies. That amounts to 600 drones for every state.
It is problematic local police will want to use drones to record without warrants, personal conversations inside Americans’ homes and businesses: Consider the House just passed CISPA the recent Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act. If passed by the Senate, CISPA will allow——the military and NSA spy agency (warrant-less spying) on Americans’ private Internet electronic Communications by using so-called (Government certified self-protected cyber entities” that may share with NSA your private Internet activity, e.g. emails, faxes, phone calls and confidential transmitted files they believe might relate to a cyber threat or crime—circumventing the Fourth Amendment—with full immunity from lawsuits if done in good faith. CISPA does not clearly define what is an element or self-protected cyber entity, that could broadly mean anything, e.g. a private computer, local or national network, website; an online service.
Despite some cities and counties banning and restricting police using drones to invade citizens’ privacy, local police have a strong financial incentive to call in Federal Drones, (Civil Asset forfeiture sharing) that can result from drone surveillance). Should (no-warrant drone surveillance evidence) be allowed in courts circumventing the Fourth Amendment, for example (drones’ recording conversations in private homes and businesses, expect federal and local police civil asset property forfeitures to escalate. Civil asset forfeiture requires only a preponderance of civil evidence for federal government to forfeit property, little more than hearsay: any conversation picked up by a drone inside a home or business, police can take out of context to institute arrests; or civil asset forfeiture to confiscate the home/business and other assets. Local police now circumvent state laws that require someone be convicted before police can civilly forfeit their property—by turning their investigation over to the Federal Government that can rebate to the referring local police department 80% of assets forfeited. There are more than 350 laws and violations that can subject property to government asset forfeiture that have nothing to do with illegal drugs.
Consider: if CISPA is passed by Congress it will provide Government, police and government contractors (without warrants) the incentive (to take out of context) any innocent—hastily written email, fax or other Internet activity to allege a crime or violation was committed to cause a person’s arrest, assess fines and or civilly forfeit a business or property. U.S. Government can use CISPA to (certify any employee) including employees that work for a Government certified cyber self-protected entity—opening the door for certified employees to spy on their employers and clients. U.S. Government is not prohibited from paying any person including Government Certified Self Protected Cyber Entities, Elements or Certified Employees part of government forfeited assets or other compensation that result from the aforementioned providing U.S. Government a corporation’s confidential information or clients’ private information—that otherwise would require a warrant. U.S. Government currently contracts on a fee/commission basis with Self Protected Cyber Entities, Elements and Contractors that have security clearances to participate in facilitating arrests and Government asset forfeitures.
Currently Government can't use evidence obtained through illegal Internet searches of e.g. private emails and transmitted files without a warrant, however that will change if CISPA or a similar bill is passed by Congress. Since CISPA, two additional cyber-security bills have been created in the Senate called, “The Cyber Security Act of 2012” and “SECURE IT Act”. Both bills appear unconstitutional; appear designed to circumvent the Fourth Amendment. The Cyber security Act of 2012 formally known as S. 2105 was created by Senate Democrats, Joe Lieberman and Susan Collins. Similar to CISPA, the Cyber security Act of 2012 would abolish legal walls that stop Federal government and private companies sharing information.
The SECURE IT Act: S. 2151 was introduced by Senate Republicans on March 1st 2012: would require federal contractors to alert government about any cyber threats, forcing such communications between government regulators and corporations. The SECURE IT Act authorizes sharing of persons’ private Internet information (without a warrant) going beyond what is necessary to describe a believed cyber threat. SECURE Act fails to create a regulatory system at the Federal level to oversee cyber-security threats opening the door for a person or businesses’ confidential information to be misused and misappropriated by government agencies and private cyber entities.
Government should be prohibited from using independent contractors, created non-profit organizations and so-call (certified self protected cyber entities) to circumvent the Fourth Amendment. Corrupt police, U.S. Government Agencies and Government Contractors may too easily use private Internet transmissions, emails and transmitted files it is free to collect without a warrant to extort corporations, politicians and Citizens; or sell confidential information gleaned from warrant-less Internet Surveillance. Confidential Information in corrupt hands can be worth more than illegal drugs.
Report this post as: