By: Yevgeniy Rokhin
We currently live in information societies. As Gilliom and Monahan put it, information societies rely on surveillance and surveillance is woven into the fabric of our lives. We all are aware that surveillance is the idea of watching and monitoring individuals with the intent to channel their behavior. However, we also live with the concept of privacy. The social and legal concept of privacy revolves around the idea that we have the right to be left alone in certain spheres of our lives. What would happen if these spheres of our lives were to be penetrated by agents belonging to the government?
In The Washington Post article, that very question raises concerns of privacy activists and judges. According to Washington Post, Federal investigators used a device known as StingRay. This device “simulates a cellphone tower and enables agents to collect the serial numbers of individual cell phones and then locate them.” This very device can be used by FBI agents to penetrate the sphere of individual’s life without a warrant whether he is at home or at work. As the article points out “‘No matter how the StingRay is used – to identify, locate or intercept – they always send signals through the walls of homes’ which should trigger a warrant requirement.” This device, in addition, can pick up information on bystanders that are not under investigation. Northern California Judges expressed concerns about the invasive nature of this technology since Agents requesting the warrants to use the StingRay device are usually unclear and do not make it explicit what the device does and the scope of usage. Yet warrants were granted and the device was used in previous cases.
We are aware that with cell phone architecture and information societies we will be under scrutiny and surveillance at one point or another whether by government or by corporations. Isn’t this use of StingRay devices an excessive use of surveillance where the warrant to invade our private spheres is almost not necessary? Should there be a limit or restriction on the use of the StingRay devices?
Prevention is always better than cure. Certainly, StingRay raises a concern about invasion of privacy, but the kind of terroristic acts that modern society has seen now warrants better and tighter surveillance. StingRay is an act of caution, to prevent something bad from happening, and the fact is that, as recent experiences have shown the public, something bad is always bound to happen. Anyway, if you are not doing anything wrong, you will be exonerated because the facts will reveal your innocence.
ReplyDelete-Sehun Lee
This is interesting but no surprise with the advances made in technology. I think there should be limits and restrictions especially since you picked up on the fact that information can be gathered on bystanders (those not being investigated). I think the next logical step would be to develop a device that would block the signal of the Stingray. This plays into the commodification of security. I would like to know more information on what protocols are in place for the FBI to justify using such technology.
ReplyDeleteOn another note and maybe less connected but still interesting to think about is the "car that drives itself" that the engineering dept (CAL), Google and Cisco systems are developing that will be connected to the Cloud system. Will Stingray technology also penetrate our vehicles by the proposed year 2025? If so...then how will privacy rights argument be shaped if individuals can be located in their homes, employment, and their cars? But then again, aren't we already?
I agree with the first comment. I believe that we all must pay the price for our security. Even though our rights to privacy seem to be infringed on by the newest surveillance technologies, if there is a chance that they will prevent future crimes even in 5% or 10%, than allowing those strategies to operate is a rational choice. I believe that throughout the course we learned a lot about how the governmental agencies, especially public law enforcement, abuse their power and violate our rights, whether by ignoring the due process, racial profiling, or physical abuse. I do agree that these constitute a concern, but at the same time I question how is the law enforcement expected to do their job of protecting us if more and more constraints are constantly put on them? I realize this is a controversial topic but I think it is good to think about the issue from various angles and not only from the impulsive determination to guard our rights.
ReplyDeleteThis is a very interesting post, and I believe that the StingRay could be use both in useful and harmful in ways. Hopefully the StingRay can serve our country to prevent crimes and not to abuse. I do agree that the FBI should have warrants to use the StingRay because if not, they would be able to collect any information they want, which could increase the chances of having an unjust search.
ReplyDeleteThis was a great post, I agree with the first comment in that technology like StingRay can really help the government prevent extreme forms of crime like terrorism. Although the article specifically mentions Northern California implementing this sophisticated surveillance system I wondered if it had been used in Boston, the creation of the bombs could have been detected.
ReplyDeleteAs Americans we value privacy very highly, but we also value our security and that of those around us. Although this technology might be intrusive it could help us in the long run.
-Jacky Galeno-Escobedo
I think regardless of the new technology created, people give up their privacy by every day actions already. If the FBI wants to find out information about is, all they really need is a computer. All our information is stored somewhere even if we think it is kept private. We give up our right to privacy by owning a cell phone in general. Especially with smart phone technology, people can track our location instantly. Although the StingRay may be a violation of privacy, it is not giving up any more information than we already do every day.
ReplyDeleteJessica Crume
there is definitely a large difference between the information we choose to make available and the government coming and snooping without our knowledge. I think that is the true distinction between an invasion of privacy and the natural consequences of living in an information society.
ReplyDelete