In this report, I will discuss Chapter 14 of the book, “Police Technology” by Raymond E. Foster. Dr. Foster, LAPD (retired), in his book, has written extensively on technical tools and gadgets which are applicable to law-enforcement. Chapter 14 deals with the subject of wiretapping which has immense learning value for aspiring law enforcement officers. Despite being surrounded by legal controversies, wiretapping remains an excellent crime-prevention tool and is employed quite frequently by the Police. The subject of wiretapping, while the bane for several organizations including the ACLU and other free speech groups, remains a highly indispensable tool when it comes to speeding up results of an investigation.
Wiretapping began in the era of the Civil War when opposing armies of the United States and Confederates devised tools to intercept each others’ messages passing through telegraph lines (Garfinkel, 1995. p. 118).
During the First World War, wiretapping gained ground as a counter-espionage tool. Even as code-breaking would become a powerful weapon of war in the years to come, law enforcement officials immediately started using wiretaps to gain more information on suspected criminal activity, such as on the infamous bootlegger gangs of the 1920’s Prohibition era.
However, this is where legal complications came into the picture. There were a myriad of issues to be addressed such as which state’s laws had jurisdiction over an interstate cable, free speech rights (Fourth and Fifth Amendment) of the accused and whether any newly devised laws should be equally applicable to suspected criminals and ordinary citizens (Foster, 2004, p.288). There was also concern about the tapped information being edited, altered or misunderstood for which specialists had to be recalled.
The first legal precedent on wiretapping was set in 1928 when the Supreme Court ruled in the case of Olmstead v. United States that wiretapping could not be considered unconstitutional until some kind of trespass was involved (Foster, 2004, p.288). It was announced that the Fourth Amendment covered only material goods and seizures, and did not apply to private conversations (Garfinkel, 1995, p.119).
However, Olmstead was soon forgotten as the privacy advocates and civil rights organizations lobbied hard to overturn the ruling in favor of a 1967 court order which essentially mandated that if there was no prior search warrant, the Police could not force a citizen to be subjected to wiretapping as it violated their Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights (Foster, 2004, p.289). Gradually, legal precedents were set up to ensure that wiretapping is subjected to extensive judicial review even when admitted as evidence in a court of law.
The 1994 CALEA act called on telephone companies (and later, Internet Service Providers) to fully cooperate with law enforcement agencies in investigation matters of immediate urgency such as kidnapping cases, terrorist activity and crimes involving drugs and sex offenders (Foster, 2004, p.292).
After the September 11 terror attacks on United States soil, it was deemed necessary for police officers to respond with urgency whenever there is a slightest doubt that a terror activity is being planned.
It is easily established that wiretaps can substantially contribute to large drug busts, in dealing with arson, explosives and assault weapons (Diffie and Landau, 2007, p.210). Solving these crime investigations or preventing them in the first place requires great efforts on the part of police officers to gain quick tip-offs about the intent of suspected criminals. In other hostile situations such as kidnapping and hostage crises, it’s unthinkable to dispense with wiretapping tools.
Currently, 12 states in the US require both parties involved in a telephone call to be informed in advance when their phone lines are being tapped. In the remaining states, only one party need know about it. In most civil cases, a prior court order is necessary, and the investigation officer has to be able to convince that the desired suspect information cannot be procured in any other way (Foster, 2004, p.295). In order to establish that, it may be sufficient to establish that the crime boss is untraceable or the suspect has refused to co-operate with the investigation.
The cost of wiretapping is an issue that should also be part of the concern for a thorough investigation summary. While most call content can be traced using simple devices such as microphones, most police stations employ some kind of call recording software for a more decisive output (Foster, 2004, p.299).
The average cost of a wiretap has risen from $1358 in 1968 to $49,478 in 1994 (Diffie and Landau, 2007, p.209). The average surveillance time has also gone up significantly from 20 days in 1969 to around 40 in 1994 (Diffie and Landau, 2007, p.209). Drug investigations, which are a major focus of any wiretap activity, take particularly long time periods for a decisive conclusion (Diffie and Landau, 2007, p.209).
Consequently, Dr. Foster believes that unless there is no other way to find out information release from the subject, it may be prudent to not consider wiretapping as it’s an unnecessary and expensive tool for simple data (Foster, 2004, p.297). Moreover, any wiretapping effort should focus on getting explicit information about a crime incident.
In his detailed investigation into wiretapping, Dr. Foster has summarily defined a few terms which are immensely important to know for aspiring law enforcement officers. For drug-related crimes or homicide investigations, the term “operational security” is employed which means that the suspect has not been intimated about his phones being wiretapped (Foster, 2004, p.300).
Another definition includes a “roving” warrant which means a suspect is not immune to further investigation when he’s suspected for a crime. He cannot simply switch telephones to escape legal eavesdropping when there is sufficient warrant brought during consultation with the court (Foster, 2004, p. 301).
The emergence of the Internet has opened new vistas for law enforcement officials to record a suspect’s conversations, and continue a detailed investigation from the information that has been traced. While telephone calls involve the call content of a recorded conversation, an Internet recording will involve emails, chat text, forum posts, Facebook wall posts, comments made live on Youtube and Twitter and many other incidents.
There may be some doubts here as to the free speech rights violations. Recently, a harried British citizen who was concerned about the delay of his flight, tweeted a text to all his followers about how he wanted to go ahead with “blowing up the plane”. Even though the incident was unremarkable, and was clearly a joke in poor taste, the man was asked to be produced before a court of law and subjected to lengthy fines and a prison term. Clearly, it is impossible to ignore one’s responsibilities in free speech, whether on the phone, or in an online message. As far as the Police is concerned, the agencies use packet-sniffing software and keylogging tools when required to gather information about the suspect.
National Sex Offender Registry Website
The National sex offender registry (www.nspor.gov) was set up to deal with the problem of sex offenders absconding from their legal jurisdiction where they must face up an investigation, and escape into another jurisdiction where they can continue to threaten children. The registry is a single stop window for citizens to learn about sexual predators, especially child sexual predators living in their community, and keep track of these privacy-prone individuals.
Since, our society is of a highly mobile nature, it is becoming increasingly difficult to keep a tab on child sex offenders as they keep moving from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and evade justice. Often, these suspects manage to travel internationally (even though many have had their passports confiscated) and become a source of embarrassment for the United States, once they reach overseas and are caught in a sex crime scandal.
The sex offender registry website allows any concerned individual to look up a suspected sex offender within their vicinity through search engine (keyword) tools which include advanced parameters such as names, zip codes, counties, age, city, town and more. The database is regularly updated and contains exhaustive details on a particular suspect such as photographs, the use of tattoos, exact conviction details and whether there is a gang association or activity.
Apart from the public, the National sex offender registry is also a very helpful tool for law enforcement officials who are spared the routine of holding commonly believed suspects for hours of investigation, which is both time-consuming since it involves a warrant and costly. It is much simpler to just look up the suspect in a database and prevent him from harming minors or engaging in any other unlawful activity which pertains to sex abuse.
Federal Trade Commission Identity Theft
The Federal Trade Commission Identity Theft website (www.ftc.gov/ bcp/edu/microsites/idtheft/) is a key national portal for consumers, businesses and law enforcement agents to learn about identity theft, and gives detailed guidance on what to do if someone has had an experience with an identity crime. Although, the FTC does not resolve individual identity theft issues, it has a complaint form (an ID Theft complaint input form) which allows complainants to file a detailed description of their encounters. However, some cases do lead to law enforcement action. The website uses encrypted security to protect personal details being filled.
The website describes identity theft as any particular incident that involves an individual’s particulars, social security details, credit card and bank account information. Fraudsters use various contrivances including trickery, social engineering and online phishing tools such as keyloggers to gain confidential information.
Once, the information falls into their hands, they often use it for financial gains, or to put the defrauded person’s credit reputation at stake. For law enforcement agents, the realm of identity theft involves the real possibility of terrorism and acts of forgery, which include fake passports, financial scams and a lot more. This allows them to understand the specific course of investigation which should bring an identity thief to justice.
The FTC website is immensely helpful for members of the public who are usually clueless after becoming victim of an identity crime. It is quite logical to believe most of them do not know how to proceed in the event of such a crime. The FTC website allows them to learn about their rights, and clear their situations in the light of credit card frauds and more.
References
Diffie, W., & Landau, S.E. (2007). Privacy on the Line: The Politics of Wiretapping and Encryption. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Foster, R. (2004). Police Technology. Princeton, NJ: Prentice Hall Publishers.
Garfinkel, S. (1995). PGP: Pretty Good Privacy. New York, NY: O’Reilly & Associates.