Thursday, March 30, 2017
Wednesday, March 29, 2017
Rent a Room, Go to Jail if you "Income Discriminate" in Marin
Marin Housing Income Discrimination ordinance for Owner occupied houses. If you mistakenly rent to the wrong person and are perceived to "income discriminate" you may face jail time, stiff fines and a lawsuit by housing activists. Participating in the section 8 programs force you to agree to government inspections, modify your house for accessibility and face a government bureaucracy. Is it any wonder that people don't want to participate?
The first member of the public to speak was 1960s radical and lawyer Stephen Bingham (former federal fugitive for his alleged role in smuggling a gun to Black Panther, George Jackson) who said,
"I was expecting opposition from the public, but there is none"
A very common situation is a homeowner who is forced to rent rooms to make ends meet. A newly divorced Mom, for example, could be forced to consult a lawyer BEFORE renting a room a section 8 tenant. This law is GROSSLY UNFAIR to low income homeowners. I doubt that any of the Supervisors will be forced to rent a room in their own home.
Marin County enacts Sanctuary City policy 3/21/2017
On March 21, 2017, Marin County California Board of Supervisors approved legislation to abide by Sanctuary City policy meant to thwart enforcement of immigration laws. The Marin County sheriff will implement. The deliberate act of defiance of the rule of law creates a "two legal systems" and leniency for dangerous criminals and gang members. Immigration reform is needed to allow otherwise law abiding people to come out of the shadows and openly participate in full society. A Sanctuary City keeps illegal immigrants underground and hurts the vulnerable. Immigration reform is the answer as it respects the individual and the rule of law.
Tuesday, March 28, 2017
5 Scary Chinese Robots of the Future | China Uncensored
Who better to control an army of fire-spouting drones and creepy android mimics than the People's Republic of China? Here are China's Top 5 Scary Robots of the Future.
Meet the Latina Bicycle Brigade Fighting Against Gender-Based Violence
Meet the Latina Bicycle Brigade Fighting Against Gender-Based Violence
The Ovarian Psycos of East L.A. are an all-woman-of-color cycling collective carving out space for themselves in a hostile urban environment.
This story originally appeared in Spanish on our sister site, CityLab Latino.
In a way, it was a stroke of luck when Xela De la X’s car broke down in the summer of 2010. Looking for another way to get to work, she began riding her bicycle, something she had never been allowed to do as a child growing up in the East Los Angeles neighborhood of Boyle Heights.
But her rides to work quickly turned into reminders of the culture that made her parents want to keep her home in the first place. "The catcalls felt worse than when I would walk," says De la X, a musician and artist in the Boyle Heights neighborhood who uses this name as a pseudonym. "People paid more attention to me simply because I was a woman on my bike in downtown."
The experience planted a seed. One day when she was traveling home from work, several traffic lights went out because of a power outage. Traffic ground to a halt. "But I was able to maneuver through the traffic without stopping,” says De la X. “And I remember thinking, ‘this is what freedom feels like. This is what it feels like not to have obstacles blocking your movement.’ And I wanted to feel like that again."
The documentary is an intimate glimpse into the lives of these women as they navigate personal struggles and difficult activist work. There is Xela’s fraught relationship with her mother, who failed to protect her from a sexually abusive father, and her struggle to raise her own daughter Yoli in a way that makes her feel strong and whole and loved. There is Andi’s endeavor to connect with her mother and sister, who don’t seem to really understand her involvement with the group. And there is Evie’s internal conflict as her family falls into financial trouble and she has to decide how much time she can give to the Ovas.
But behind this intimate personal story, there is a political one. Twice, the documentary cuts to news footage of the deaths of two young women from the neighborhood, one killed by her boyfriend in the parking lot of her school, and another found dead in Hollenbeck Park Lake in Boyle Heights. The women live surrounded by the threat of violence, many times from the men who are their neighbors. All of their families, too, have lived in fear that this violence will touch their lives someday.
“When I was a kid, I couldn’t do anything really except stay in my room and sometimes watch TV,” says De la X. “I wasn’t allowed on the front porch or in the backyard. Meanwhile, my brothers could go wherever they wanted. Growing up like that, it really gave me a sense of urgency [to change things], but I also had mad amounts of rage,” she says.
In the film, De La X visits the bedroom where she spent so many hours as a child. She almost cannot contain her sadness, breaking into tears before she can finish speaking to the camera. It’s a different kind of existence than the one she lives now, and the one that her daughter Yoli gets to enjoy, joining her mother on rides with the Ovas.
Every month, the collective hosts "Luna Rides," nighttime trips where riders roam the streets under the full moon. Before mounting, they have dialogues about problems they're facing in the community and in their personal lives. They usually have a speaker, and every participant gets a "spoke card" to put between the wheels of her bike, full of information on resources for victims of sexual or domestic violence, among others.
Every month, the collective hosts "Luna Rides," nighttime trips where riders roam the streets under the full moon. Before mounting, they have dialogues about problems they're facing in the community and in their personal lives. They usually have a speaker, and every participant gets a "spoke card" to put between the wheels of her bike, full of information on resources for victims of sexual or domestic violence, among others.
Once a year, the collective also organizes a 26-mile journey called the "Clitoral Mass," which has grown and now takes place in six cities. Hundreds of women come out and ride together, watching out for cars and shouting calls to one another, both joyful and rebellious.
"When we bike together, especially at night, we laugh in the face of fear," says De La X. "We laugh in the face of all these ideas about how women should be."Monday, March 27, 2017
Dozens of CA Cities, Counties Are Increasing Taxes April 1: LIST
Dozens of CA Cities, Counties Are Increasing Taxes April 1: LIST
Here are all the new rates consumers can expect to pay in sales and use taxes across the state.
By Renee Schiavone (Patch Staff) - March 27, 2017 10:21 am ET
California residents and visitors alike will soon be paying more for everyday goods in dozens of local cities and counties. On April 1, the sales and use tax rate will be changing in 42 cities and across seven counties.
Though the statewide sales tax rate is currently 7.25 percent, the overall amount paid in many areas is higher due to special district taxes — which are the rates increasing in April. The increases are the result of voter-approved initiatives in those communities, according to the California State Board of Equalization (BOE).
We've listed all the changes in the table and bullet points below. Keep in mind that the rates for the cities listed below apply only within the indicated city limits, while the countywide changes apply to all cities and unincorporated areas in those counties.
Get free real-time news alerts from the San Rafael Patch.
SUBSCRIBE
If your community isn't listed below, then the tax rate is not increasing. But if you're curious as to what the tax rate in your area is, head to the BOE website at boe.ca.gov and click on the Find a Tax Rate by Address link to find the tax rate for a specific address. The new tax rates will be available on this website on April 1. You may also call the BOE Customer Service Center at 1-800-400-7115 on weekdays, between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m.
Cities with New Tax Rates Old Rate New Rate
Belmont (San Mateo County) 8.75% 9.25%
Chula Vista (San Diego County) 7.75% 8.25%
Clearlake (Lake County) 7.75% 8.75%
Del Mar (San Diego County) 7.75% 8.75%
Downey (Los Angeles County) 8.75% 9.25%
East Palo Alto (San Mateo County) 8.75% 9.25%
El Centro (Imperial County) 7.75% 8.25%
Fairfax (Marin County) 8.75% 9.00%
Fortuna (Humboldt County) 7.75% 8.50%
Fountain Valley (Orange County) 7.75% 8.75%
Hemet (Riverside County) 7.75% 8.75%
Indio (Riverside County) 7.75% 8.75%
Isleton (Sacramento County) 8.25% 8.75%
La Palma (Orange County) 7.75% 8.75%
La Quinta (Riverside County) 7.75% 8.75%
Lakeport (Lake County) 7.75% 8.75%
Loomis (Placer County) 7.25% 7.50%
Lynwood (Los Angeles County) 8.75% 9.75%
Madera (Madera County) 7.75% 8.25%
Martinez (Contra Costa County) 8.25% 8.75%
Menifee (Riverside County) 7.75% 8.75%
Newark (Alameda County) 9.25% 9.75%
Orland (Glenn County) 7.25% 7.75%
Placerville (El Dorado County) 7.75% 8.25%
Pleasant Hill (Contra Costa County) 8.25% 8.75%
Ridgecrest (Kern County) 8.00% 8.25%
Riverside (Riverside County) 7.75% 8.75%
Santa Monica (Los Angeles County) 9.25% 9.75%
Santa Paula (Ventura County) 7.25% 8.25%
St. Helena (Napa County) 7.75% 8.25%
Stockton (San Joaquin County) 8.75% 9.00%
Suisun City (Solano County) 7.38% 8.38%
Temecula (Riverside County) 7.75% 8.75%
Tracy (San Joaquin County) 7.75% 8.25%
Ukiah (Mendocino County) 7.88% 8.38%
Ventura (Ventura County) 7.25% 7.75%
Visalia (Tulare County) 8.00% 8.50%
Wasco (Kern County) 7.25% 8.25%
West Sacramento (Yolo County) 7.75% 8.00%
Westminster (Orange County) 7.75% 8.75%
Yreka (Siskiyou County) 7.25% 7.75%
Yucca Valley (San Bernardino County) 7.75% 8.75%
The following counties are also getting new tax rates, as follows. (The cities listed below each county already have existing district taxes; their rates will also increase)
Merced County (applies to all unincorporated areas and cities including Dos Palos and Livingston): from 7.25% to 7.75%
Atwater: from 7.75% to 8.25%
Gustine: from 7.75% to 8.25%
Los Banos: from 7.75% to 8.25%
Merced: from 7.75% to 8.25%
Monterey County (applies to all cities and unincorporated areas): from 7.375% to 7.75%
Carmel-by-the-Sea: from 8.375% to 8.75%
Del Rey Oaks: from 8.875% to 9.25%
Gonzales: from 7.875% to 8.25%
Greenfield: from 9.125% to 9.50%
King City: from 7.875% to 8.25%
Marina: from 8.375% to 8.75%
Monterey: from 8.375% to 8.75%
Pacific Grove: from 8.375% to 8.75%
Salinas: from 8.875% to 9.25%
Sand City: from 8.375% to 8.75%
Seaside: from 8.375% to 8.75%
Soledad: from 8.375% to 8.75%
Nevada County (applies to all cities and unincorporated areas): from 7.375% to 7.50%
Grass Valley: from 7.875% to 8.00%
Nevada City: from 8.25% to 8.75%
Truckee: from 8.125% to 8.25%
Santa Clara County (applies to all unincorporated areas and cities including Cupertino, Gilroy, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Milpitas, Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill, Mountain View, Palo Alto, Santa Clara, Saratoga, and Sunnyvale): from 8.50% to 9.00%
Campbell: from 8.75% to 9.25%
San Jose: from 8.75% to 9.25%
Santa Cruz County (applies to all cities and unincorporated areas): from 8.00% to 8.50%
Capitola: from 8.50% to 9.00%
Santa Cruz: from 8.50% to 9.00%
Scotts Valley: from 8.50% to 9.00%
Watsonville: from 8.75% to 9.25%
Sonoma County (applies to all unincorporated areas and cities including Cloverdale, Petaluma, and Windsor): from 8.00% to 8.125%
Cotati: from 9.00% to 9.125%
Healdsburg: from 8.50% to 8.625%
Rohnert Park: from 8.50% to 8.625%
Santa Rosa: from 8.50% to 8.625%
Sebastopol: from 8.75% to 8.875%
Sonoma: from 8.50% to 8.625%
Stanislaus County (applies to all unincorporated areas and cities including Hughson, Modesto, Newman, Patterson, Riverbank, Turlock, and Waterford): from 7.375% to 7.875%
Ceres: from 7.875% to 8.375%
Oakdale: 7.875%
For more information about sales and use tax rates, including help for consumers who may have been overcharged, visit boe.ca.gov/knowyourrate or watch the above 'Know Your Tax Rate' video.
Editor's Note: Marin County already pays MORE TAXES than most counties in California. Thanks to some alert citizens, the TAM Tax Scam to increase Sales Taxes was foiled by COST MARIN
Pension Will Be At The Center Of America's Next Financial Crisis (AT MARINWOOD CSD TOO!)
Pension Will Be At The Center Of America's Next Financial Crisis
I’m not a fan of the “greed is good” mentality of Wall Street investment firms. But the next financial crisis that rocks America won’t be driven by bankers behaving badly. It will in fact be driven by pension funds that cannot pay out what they promised to retirees. According to one pension advocacy organization, nearly 1 million working and retired Americans are covered by pension plans at the risk of collapse.
The looming pension crisis is not limited by geography or economic focus. These including former public employees, such as members of South Carolina’s government pension plan, which covers roughly 550,000 people — one out of nine state residents — and is a staggering $24.1 billion in the red. These include former blue collar workers such as roughly 100,000 coal miners who face serious cuts in pension payments and health coverage thanks to a nearly $6 billion shortfall in the plan for the United Mine Workers of America. And when the bill comes due, we will all be in very big trouble.
It’s bad enough to consider the philosophical fallout here, with reneging on the promise of a pension and thus causing even more distrust of bankers and retirement planners. But I’m speaking about a cold, numbers-based perspective that causes a drag on many parts of the American economy. Consider the following.
Pensioners have no flexibility
According to a Bureau of Labor Statistics report from 2015, the average household income of someone older than age 75 is $34,097 and their average expenses exceed that slightly, at $34,382. It is not an exaggeration, then, to say that even a modest reduction in retirement income makes the typical budget of a 75-year-old unsustainable — even when the average budget is far from luxurious at current levels. This inflexibility is a hard financial reality of someone who is no longer able to work and is reliant on means other than labor to make ends meet.
Social Security is in a tight spot
So who will step up to support these former pensioners? Perhaps the government, via Social Security, except that program itself is in crisis and will see its trust fund go to zero just 17 years from now, in 2034, based on the current structure of the program. If millions of pensions go bust and retirees have no other savings to fall back on, it will be nigh impossible to cut benefits or reduce the drag on this program. But won’t a pension collapse mean we desperately need Social Security, even in an imperfect form, well beyond 2034?
The guaranty is no solution
There is an organization, the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC), which is meant to insure pensions against failure. However, it was created in 1974 as part of a host of financial reforms and is far from a perfect solution, primarily because it is funded by premiums from defined-benefit plan sponsors and assets seized from former plan sponsors that have entered bankruptcy.
What happens when a handful of troubled pension funds turns into dozens or hundreds? Remember, the PBGC guarantees a certain amount that is decidedly lower than your full pension — as members of the Road Carriers 707 pension fund learned when the group “protected” their pensions by helping to pay benefits, which had been reduced from $1,313 per month to $570. That’s better than zero, but hardly encouraging.
This is not about helping Baby Boomers fund an annual cruise to the Caribbean. Older, low-income pensioners are not saving their money. Instead, they’re spending it on necessities such as food, housing, healthcare and transportation. That means every penny you reduce from their budget means a penny in spending that is removed from the U.S. economy.
Anyone who has taken Econ 101 knows about the “multiplier effect” where $1 in extra spending can produce a much larger amount of economic activity as that dollar circulates around businesses, consumers and banks … or in this case, how $1 less in spending causes a an equally powerful cascade of negative consequences.
By helping ward against a pension crisis, America will be protecting its economy for everyone — plain and simple. But that requires some tough decisions on all sides. For instance, the U.S. Treasury denied a cut to New York Teamsters’ pension plan that was proposed last year. But now the fund is on the brink of collapse, and its recipients are facing benefits that are in some cases one-third what they were 15 years ago.
Like Social Security, current workers can’t contribute enough to offset the big obligations owed to retirees. And as with the flagship entitlement program, it’s up to regulators and legislators to step in — even when it may not be easy — in order to keep the system from collapsing. Let’s hope they make both pension reform and Social Security reform a priority in the near future.
Jeff Reeves is a stock analyst and executive editor of InvestorPlace.com. His commentary has also appeared on CNBC, Fox Business, USA Today, and the Wall Street Journal network.
Sunday, March 26, 2017
Saturday, March 25, 2017
Congress Moves to Strike Internet Privacy Rules From Obama Era
Congress Moves to Strike Internet Privacy Rules From Obama Era
By CECILIA KANGMARCH 23, 2017
The Senate vote on Thursday foreshadowed a broader rollback of tech and telecom policies that have drawn the ire of conservatives and companies such as AT&T and Verizon. CreditTodd Heisler/The New York Times
WASHINGTON — Republican senators moved Thursday to dismantle landmark internet privacy protections for consumers in the first decisive strike against telecommunications and technology regulations created during the Obama administration, and a harbinger of further deregulation.
The measure passed in a 50-to-48 vote largely along party lines. The House is expected to mirror the Senate’s action next week, followed by a signature from President Trump.
The move means Verizon, Comcast or AT&T can continue tracking and sharing people’s browsing and app activity without permission, and it alarmed consumer advocates and Democratic lawmakers. They warned that broadband providers have the widest look into Americans’ online habits, and that without the rules, the companies would have more power to collect data on people and sell sensitive information.
“These were the strongest online privacy rules to date, and this vote is a huge step backwards in consumer protection writ large,” said Dallas Harris, a policy fellow for the consumer group Public Knowledge. “The rules asked that when things were sensitive, an internet service provider asked permission first before collecting. That’s not a lot to ask.”
How did this slip by us? I can't keep up with all of the rights I am losing day by day. While I hope this will soon be at the Supreme...
JG 1 hour ago
Internet privacy, that's an oxymoron. If you want privacy, keep all info on a separate computer that is not connected to the Internet. If...
jkw 1 hour ago
This is bad, but what are Verizon etc. going to do with the data. Try to sell us things they think we'll like?It's much more worrying that...
The privacy rules were created in October by the Federal Communications Commission, and the brisk action of Congressional Republicans, just two months into Mr. Trump’s administration, foreshadowed a broader rollback of tech and telecom policies that have drawn the ire of conservative lawmakers and companies like AT&T, Verizon and Charter.
Republican lawmakers and the new chairman of the F.C.C., Ajit Pai, have said the privacy rules were onerous and unfairly strapped regulations on telecom carriers, but not on web companies such as Facebook and Google that also provide access to online content.
“It is unnecessary, confusing and adds another innovation-stifling regulation,” Senator Jeff Flake, Republican of Arizona, said this month when he introduced the resolution to overturn the rules using the Congressional Review Act procedure that lets Congress overrule new agency regulations.
The Senate’s vote was a victory for giant telecommunications and cable companies. The F.C.C. chairman under the Obama administration, Tom Wheeler, had declared that broadband would be regulated more heavily, by categorizing the service in the same regulatory bucket as telephone services, which are viewed as utilities.
That move acknowledged the importance of the internet for communications, education, work and commerce and the need to protect online users, Mr. Wheeler had said.
Under the internet privacy rules that Mr. Wheeler passed, apart from broadband providers having to ask permission to track browsing and other online activities of a user, the companies were also required to use “reasonable measures” to secure consumer data against hackers. The privacy rules were scheduled to go into effect at the end of this year
Broadband providers had balked and ramped up lobbying against the rules. Comcast and other broadband providers created the lobbying group 21st Century Privacy Coalition, led by a former Federal Trade Commission chairman, Jon Leibowitz, to defeat the broadband privacy rules.
“We appreciate today’s Senate action to repeal unwarranted F.C.C. rules that deny consumers consistent privacy protection online and violate competitive neutrality,” the cable industry lobby group, NCTA-The Internet & Television Association, said in a statement on Thursday.
With Republicans now in charge across the government, AT&T and Comcast are also poised to benefit from further deregulation. Since the presidential election, the companies have pushed the new Republican-led F.C.C., lawmakers and the White House to roll back net neutrality, the requirement that broadband providers give equal access to all content on the internet, saying the rules hamper their ability to invest in new networks and jobs.
The F.C.C. chairman, Mr. Pai, has also talked with Republican allies in Congress about privacy and broadband classification. Mr. Pai has already chipped away at more than a dozen regulations, including aspects of net neutrality and the program, known as Lifeline, that provides subsidies for broadband users in low-income households.
Consumer groups warned that internet users would suffer from the changes. The Federal Trade Commission, the consumer protection agency, is barred from overseeing broadband providers, so without the F.C.C. privacy rules, the federal government will be a weaker watchdog over internet privacy, supporters of the regulations said.
“Senate Republicans just made it easier for Americans’ sensitive information about their health, finances and families to be used, shared and sold to the highest bidder without their permission,” said Senator Edward J. Markey, Democrat of Massachusetts.
Democrats had taken to the Senate floor on Wednesday and Thursday to warn that without the rules, broadband providers will now have free range to peer into their customers’ lives. A company like AT&T or Sprint can tell the time people wake up by when they check the clock on their phone, or see where users go to lunch or whom they visit. By tracking a user’s browsing of medical websites, a carrier can also determine if that person might have an illness.
The Senate’s action also signaled a philosophical shift on tech regulation. Lawmakers and Mr. Pai have said regulations should be created only when there is proof of harmful activity. They also argue that the telecom industry competes with internet firms such as Facebook and Google for access to online content, so any rules should also include those companies. Republicans have said the F.T.C. should be the watchdog for all online privacy.360COMMENTS
But Democratic regulators have said the key difference is that consumers do not have many choices for broadband access, which makes them vulnerable to data collection by internet service providers.
“Subscribers have little or no competitive choice as to which provider to use,” said Terrell McSweeny, a Democratic commissioner of the F.T.C. Yet broadband providers “know our identities, and their position gives them the technical capacity to surveil users in ways that others cannot.”
Friday, March 24, 2017
The National Security Agency isn't the only government entity secretly collecting data from people's cellphones.
 |
| The Transportation Authority of Marin (TAM) recently revealed that cellphone and GPS data was used to track locations and travel patterns of thousands of drivers on the 101 Freeway. See Marin IJ story HERE |
The National Security Agency isn't the only government entity secretly collecting data from people's cellphones. Local police are increasingly scooping it up, too.
Armed with new technologies, including mobile devices that tap into cellphone data in real time, dozens of local and state police agencies are capturing information about thousands of cellphone users at a time, whether they are targets of an investigation or not, according to public records obtained by USA TODAY and Gannett newspapers and TV stations.
The records, from more than 125 police agencies in 33 states, reveal:
• About one in four law-enforcement agencies have used a tactic known as a "tower dump," which gives police data about the identity, activity and location of any phone that connects to the targeted cellphone towers over a set span of time, usually an hour or two. A typical dump covers multiple towers, and wireless providers, and can net information from thousands of phones.
MORE: Examples of data-gathering abuses
MORE: Cell data dumps: A legally fuzzy area
INVESTIGATION: How we did it
• At least 25 police departments own a Stingray, a suitcase-size device that costs as much as $400,000 and acts as a fake cell tower. The system, typically installed in a vehicle so it can be moved into any neighborhood, tricks all nearby phones into connecting to it and feeding data to police. In some states, the devices are available to any local police department via state surveillance units. The federal government funds most of the purchases, via anti-terror grants.
This is a modal window.
CLOSE
The National Security Agency isn't the only government entity secretly collecting data from people's cellphones. Police are increasingly scooping it up, too.VPC
• Thirty-six more police agencies refused to say whether they've used either tactic. Most denied public records requests, arguing that criminals or terrorists could use the information to thwart important crime-fighting and surveillance techniques.
Police maintain that cellphone data can help solve crimes, track fugitives or abducted children or even foil a terror attack.
Organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union and Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) say the swelling ability by even small-town police departments to easily and quickly obtain large amounts of cellphone data raises questions about the erosion of people's privacy as well as their Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure.
“I don't think that these devices should never be used, but at the same time, you should clearly be getting a warrant”ALAN BUTLER OF EPIC
"I don't think that these devices should never be used, but at the same time, you should clearly be getting a warrant," said Alan Butler of EPIC.
In most states, police can get many kinds of cellphone data without obtaining a warrant, which they'd need to search someone's house or car. Privacy advocates, legislators and courts are debating the legal standards with increasing intensity as technology — and the amount of sensitive information people entrust to their devices — evolves.
VAST DATA NET
Many people aren't aware that a smartphone is an adept location-tracking device. It's constantly sending signals to nearby cell towers, even when it's not being used. And wireless carriers store data about your device, from where it's been to whom you've called and texted, some of it for years.
The power for police is alluring: a vast data net that can be a cutting-edge crime-fighting tool.
In October 2012, in Colorado, a 10-year-old girl vanished while she walked to school. Volunteers scoured Westminster looking for Jessica Ridgeway.
Local police took a clandestine tack. They got a court order for data about every cellphone that connected to five providers' towers on the girl's route. Later, they asked for 15 more cellphone site data dumps.
Colorado authorities won't divulge how many people's data they obtained, but testimony in other cases indicates it was at least several thousand people's phones.
The court orders in the Colorado case show police got "cellular telephone numbers, including the date, time and duration of any calls," as well as numbers and location data for all phones that connected to the towers searched, whether calls were being made or not. Police and court records obtained by USA TODAY about cases across the country show that's standard for a tower dump.
The tower dump data helped police choose about 500 people who were asked to submit DNA samples. The broad cell-data sweep and DNA samples didn't solve the crime, though the information aided in the prosecution. A 17-year-old man's mother tipped off the cops, and the man confessed to kidnapping and dismembering the girl, hiding some of her remains in a crawl space in his mother's house. He pleaded guilty and last month was sentenced to more than 100 years in prison.
Not every use of the tower dumps involved stakes so high.
“We had to find out as much information as we could.”RICHLAND COUNTY SHERIFF LEON LOTT
Richland County (S.C) Sheriff Leon Lott ordered four cell-data dumps from two towers in a 2011 investigation into a rash of car break-ins near Columbia, including the theft of collection of guns and rifles from his police-issued SUV, parked at his home.
"We were looking at someone who was breaking into a lot of vehicles and was not going to stop," Lott said. "So, we had to find out as much information as we could." The sheriff's office says it has used a tower dump in at least one prior case, to help solve a murder.
Law-enforcement records show police can use initial data from a tower dump to ask for another court order for more information, including addresses, billing records and logs of calls, texts and locations.
Cellphone data sweeps fit into a broadening effort by police to collect and mine information about people's activities and movements.
Police can harvest data about motorists by mining toll-road payments, red-light cameras and license-plate readers. Cities are installing cameras in public areas, some with facial-recognition capabilities, as well as Wi-Fi networks that can record the location and other details about any connecting device.
SECRET STINGRAYS
Local and state police, from Florida to Alaska, are buying Stingrays with federal grants aimed at protecting cities from terror attacks, but using them for far broader police work.
With the mobile Stingray, police can get a court order to grab some of the same data available via a tower dump with two added benefits. The Stingray can grab some data from cellphones in real time and without going through the wireless service providers involved. Neither tactic — tower dumps or the Stingray devices — captures the content of calls or other communication, according to police.
Typically used to hunt a single phone's location, the system intercepts data from all phones within a mile, or farther, depending on terrain and antennas.
The cell-tracking systems cost as much as $400,000, depending on when they were bought and what add-ons they have. The latest upgrade, code-named "Hailstorm," is spurring a wave of upgrade requests.
Initially developed for military and spy agencies, the Stingrays remain a guarded secret by law enforcement and the manufacturer, Harris Corp. of Melbourne, Fla. The company would not answer questions about the systems, referring reporters to police agencies. Most police aren't talking, either, partly because Harris requires buyers to sign a non-disclosure agreement.
"Any idea of having adequate oversight of the use of these devices is hampered by secrecy," says Butler, who sued the FBI for records about its Stingray systems. Under court order, the FBI released thousands of pages, though most of the text is blacked out.
"When this technology disseminates down to local government and local police, there are not the same accountability mechanisms in place. You can see incredible potential for abuses," American Civil Liberties Union lawyer Catherine Crump says.
PRIVACY CONCERNS
Crump and other privacy advocates pose questions such as "Is data about people who are not police targets saved or shared with other government agencies?" and "What if a tower dump or Stingray swept up cell numbers and identities of people at a political protest?"
When Miami-Dade police bought their Stingray device, they told the City Council the agency needed to monitor protesters at an upcoming world trade conference, according to purchasing records.
Most of the police agencies that would talk about the tactics said they're not being used for intelligence gathering, only in search of specific targets.
Lott, the sheriff in the South Carolina gun-theft case, said police weren't interested in seeing data about the other residents whose information was collected as a byproduct of his agency's tower dumps.
"We're not infringing on their rights," Lott said. "When they use that phone, they understand that information is going to go to a tower. We're not taking that information and using it for any means whatsoever, unless they're the bad guy or unless they're the victim."
Brian Owsley, a former magistrate who reviewed many police requests for bulk cellphone data, grew skeptical because authorities were not always forthcoming about the technology or what happened with "collateral data" of innocent bystanders.
"What is the government doing with the data?" asks Owsley, now a law professor at Texas Tech University.
“What is the government doing with the data?”BRIAN OWSLEY, LAW PROFESSOR AT TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY
Surveillance regulation is being tinkered with piecemeal by courts and legislators. This year, Montana and Maine passed laws requiring police to show probable cause and get a search warrant to access some cellphone data, as they would to search a car or home. State and federal courts have handed down seemingly contradictory rulings about which cellphone data is private or not. Seattle's City Council requires police to notify the council of new surveillance technology deployed in the city.
"We have to be careful because Americans deserve an expectation of privacy, and the courts are mixed right now as to what is an expectation of privacy when using a cellphone," says U.S. Rep. Dennis Ross, R-Fla., who says Congress needs to clarify the law. "More and more, we're seeing an invasion of what we would expect to be private parts of our lives."
Legislative and judicial guidance is needed to match police surveillance rules to today's technology, says Wayne Holmes, a prosecutor for two Central Florida counties. He has weighed frequent local police requests for tower dumps and Stingray surveillance. "The clearer the law, the better the law is."
Americans "are sensitized right now" to cellphone surveillance because of reports about potential abuses by the NSA, said Washoe County Sheriff Michael Haley of Reno. He is opting not to use the Stingray.
"I'm being cautious about how I access information, because at the end of the day I know that I will be in court if I access information using systems and techniques that are not constitutionally vetted," Haley said.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)