In July of 2015, 400 gigabytes of documents outlining the dealings of spyware company Hacking Team were released. The for-profit surveillance firm was found to work with oppressive regimes across the globe, including those of Russia, Ethiopia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Vietnam, Saudi Arabia, and Sudan. Also benefiting from the company’s exploitive surveillance tools is the US Bureau of Investigation, which has spent $775,000 on Hacking Team tools since 2011.

Hacking Team’s abilities are expansive. The firm can steal pre-encrypted data and passwords typed in Web browsers, as well as activate the microphone and camera on a target device. Users of Google Play and Apple stores may also be activating surveillance malware coded by Hacking Team.

Privacy and human rights advocates are outraged by the lack of legislation regulating firms like Hacking Team and its rival Gamma International, but regulation can be tricky. Badly drafted export controls could create red tape for journalists to circumvent when trying to access communications mechanisms or antivirus software. Syrian activists, for example, have cited American export controls as one of the leading obstacles of installing anti-surveillance software on phones and computers to protect their communications from the Assad regime.

The discussion is subtle, as it must take into account the personal liberties of global citizens, the dynamic nature of the technology industry, and the diverse interests of country governments.

Article via Committee to Protect JournalistsJuly 13, 2015

Photo: On the Phone via Artform Canada [Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs]

 

 

 

According to Manhattan’s District Attorney, smartphone data encryption hinders criminal investigations in state courts. Cyrus R. Vance, Jr. testified to the Senate Judiciary Committee on July 8, 2015 in an effort to advocate legislation allowing law enforcement officials to access private phone data with judicial authorization.

Vance, Jr. cites that 71% of phone evidence in his office comes from Apple or Android devices. As a result, Apple and Google’s move to fully integrate data encryption in their next devices will significantly affect prosecution processes in state courts.

State courts adjudicate over 90% of all criminal cases annually, which means over 100,000 cases for Vance’s office alone.

“To investigate these 100,000 cases without smartphone data is to fight crime with one hand tied behind our backs,” he asserts.

Vance does not support bulk data collection or surveillance without authorization. Civil liberty and privacy advocates are still wary, however, and endorse data encryption overall. This sentiment is in relative accordance with statements from Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates and FBI Director James Comey. They say that the Obama administration has no current plans to mandate companies to provide federal agents encryption keys for their products, but they also recognize that companies should not make their devices “warrant-free zones” that impede law enforcement’s authorized access to criminal evidence.

Article via Legaltech NewsAugust 10, 2015

Photo: IPhone via Jorge Quinteros [Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs]

Recent incidences of police brutality have sparked public outrage, and as a result, the use of police dashboard and body cameras has increased. However, footage released to the public could be altered. Sandra Bland’s arrest video, for example, loops several times in the 52 minute span. Journalists have accused police departments of editing the videos; the Texas Department of Public Safety denies any tampering of the footage.

Police camera footage is stored unaltered on police department software systems. This is because the Axon body cam dominates the police camera industry, and it records footage in a way that is nearly impossible to corrupt. The only way an officer could impede a video is by physically pushing the off-button for five seconds, an unlikely occurrence during a high-intensity event. Additionally, the officer’s name is attached to the video for as long as it exists in the software system.

Although raw footage can’t be edited, there’s no way to regulate what edits are made to the footage released to the public. In fact, almost all videos that the media releases are edited—bystanders’ faces are blurred, and sections of video with no action are removed. The Freedom of Information Act has no provisions that require police departments to release raw footage. However, several incidences recorded on police cameras have led to the indictment of guilty officers, and no allegations that videos are tampered have been confirmed.

It’s evident that police body and dashboard cams will continue to rise to prominence, whether the accusations of video tampering are true or not. The Obama administration has proposed a $75 million program to provide 50,000 cameras to agencies, and the Department of Justice is allocating $20 million for police body cameras.

Article via The Huffington Post, August 28, 2015

Photo:  via Whoop Whoop that’s the Sound of the Police via AshtonPal [Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs]

Artificial intelligence features heavily in science fiction, from 2001: A Space Odyssey to Star Wars, but AI systems may soon become commonplace in day to day activities. Ten years from now, one third of standard jobs are expected to be completed by robots. While this may raise many concerns, perhaps the most unexpected issue lies with which legal and civil rights will be granted to artificially intelligent beings.

Recently, an artificially intelligent system in Switzerland that was programmed to shop online purchased several illegal items and was subsequently arrested. However, neither the system nor its creators were prosecuted. Cases like this question who should be held accountable for crimes committed by AI systems. Can artificially intelligent beings be held responsible for their actions? If the system is acting independently and is charged with a crime similar to how a human being would be charged, should the AI system be considered to have its own individual identity? And if AI systems have their own identities, should they also be granted the same rights as a human being? After all, a robot was created that could pass a test signifying that that it is self aware, a test that before only humans could pass.

While science fiction appears to have spent years preparing the world for the introduction of artificial intelligence into every day activities, the ethical and legal problems concerning the new technology are still surprising law enforcers and creators alike.

Article via TechCrunch, August 22, 2015

Photo: Electric Neuron via Ronny R [Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs]

Uber, which has been met with legal resistance in cities across the United States and around the world, recently had a small win against charges from taxi companies and related services when a district court judge dismissed several complaints against the company in Connecticut. The lawsuits leveled against Uber included charges of incorrectly reporting the services they offer, intentionally deceiving customers, and, most surprisingly, racketeering. Racketeering is usually associated with criminal endeavors and no disputes between related companies. With this in mind, US District Court Judge Thompson ruled that the lawsuits had no base.

While his ruling has been praised by Uber, the company may not be in the clear. Judge Thompson has given the taxi and limo companies behind the lawsuits against Uber the chance to alter their lawsuits and potentially challenge Uber in court once again. Additionally, Uber is still facing ongoing legal disputes around the US and in other countries.

Article via CNET, 14 August 2015

Photo: Taxi life n.1  via Daniel Horacio Agostini [Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs]

 

Police are using facial recognition software to identify suspects, but the rules on how they should be using the technology are not transparent.

Some San Diego citizens say their pictures had been taken even though they had not been arrested, and without permission. Spokesman Lt. Scott Wahl, when asked about department policy for this practice, said it doesn’t exist. Officers are not required to document the use of facial recognition technology and do not receive training on its use.

Eric Hanson, a retired firefighter with a non existent criminal record, says his picture was taken after being stopped by police due to a dispute with a prowler.

Article via ABA Journal, 13 August 2015

Photo: [59- 365] Behind the camera via Gemma Bou [Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs]