by Kelsey Atherton, Pop Sci, March 6, 2013
Yesterday morning, an Alitalia pilot reported seeing a remote-controlled aircraft near New York’s JFK airport, where he was landing. The drone was flying about 4 to 5 miles west of the airport at an altitude of about 1,750 feet, and it came within just 200 feet of the Alitalia plane, the pilot said. … But was it legal?
…Law is slow to catch up to new technology, so drones are not currently regulated in U.S. air space. The FAA is in the process of picking drone-testing sites, which will be used to help develop domestic drone rules. Until then, unmanned aircraft are governed by model airplane rules, and model airplane rules are pretty lax….
For full text of this article, please visit A Drone Flew Within 200 Feet Of A Commercial Jet. How Legal Was It? | Popular Science.
Alex Fitzpatrick, Mashable, Dec 17, 2012
Sen. Al Franken of Minnesota is championing the cause of data privacy — specifically, he wants to keep the smartphone locations of women and children a secret from stalkers and third-party companies. Franken’s new bill, the Location Protection Privacy Act of 2012, would outlaw so-called “stalking apps,” software specifically designed to track a person’s movements via their phone’s GPS signal and which is marketed for nefarious purposes. What are stalking apps used for?During testimony last week to the Senate Judiciary Committee, Franken told the story of a Minnesota woman whose abuser was sending threatening text messages based on her location.
For full text of the article, visit Senator Wants to Keep Women’s GPS Data Away From Stalkers.
Congressional Research Service Summary
Latest Title: Location Privacy Protection Act of 2011
Sponsor: Sen Franken, Al [MN] (introduced 6/16/2011) Cosponsors (6)
Latest Major Action: 12/17/2012 Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 567.
Location Privacy Protection Act of 2011 – Amends the federal criminal code to prohibit a nongovernmental individual or entity engaged in the business of offering or providing a service to electronic communications devices from knowingly collecting, obtaining, or disclosing to a nongovernmental individual or entity geolocation information from an electronic communications device without the express authorization of the individual using the device. Defines “geolocation information” as any information concerning the location of an electronic communications device and used to identify or approximate the location of the electronic communications device or the individual using the device. Makes exceptions: (1) necessary to locate a minor child or provide fire, medical public safety, or other emergency services; (2) for the sole purpose of transmitting the geolocation information to the individual or another authorized recipient; or (3) expressly required by state, regulation, or appropriate judicial process.
by Kashmir Hill, Forbes, Jan 3, 2012
In 2012, we can look forward to a decision from the Supreme Court in U.S. vs. Jones, about whether law enforcement need to get a warrant to slap a GPS tracking device on a person’s car. A judge in St. Louis is not waiting to hear what The Nine think of the issue, though. U.S. Magistrate Judge David Noce ruled last week that the FBI didn’t need a warrant to put a tracker on the car of a government employee back in 2010. …
For full text of the article, visit St. Louis Judge Not Waiting For Supreme Court’s GPS Tracking Decision – Forbes.
- St. Louis Judge Not Waiting For Supreme Court’s GPS Tracking Decision (forbes.com)
- New CRS Report on Governmental Tracking of Cell Phones and Vehicles (geodatapolicy.wordpress.com)
- FBI allowed to add GPS device to cars without warrants (rt.com)
- Judge Doesn’t Care About Supreme Court GPS Case (yro.slashdot.org)
- No Warrant Needed for GPS Monitoring, Judge Rules (wired.com)
- Judge: No Warrant Needed for GPS Tracking on Vehicles [VIDEO] (mashable.com)
- CDT Summary of Supreme Court Case, Does GPS Tracking Require a Warrant? (geodatapolicy.wordpress.com)
By Aliya Sternstein, NextGov, October 7, 2011
The FBI by mid-January will activate a nationwide facial recognition service in select states that will allow local police to identify unknown subjects in photos, bureau officials told Nextgov. The federal government is embarking on a multiyear, $1 billion dollar overhaul of the FBI’s existing fingerprint database to more quickly and accurately identify suspects, partly through applying other biometric markers, such as iris scans and voice recordings.
For full text of the article, visit FBI to launch nationwide facial recognition service – Nextgov.
- 7 surprising ways facial recognition is used (cbsnews.com)
- Does Facial Recognition Technology Mean the End of Privacy? (futurelab.net)
By JENNIFER VALENTINO-DEVRIES, Wall Street Journal, September 22, 2011
For more than a year, federal authorities pursued a man they called simply “the Hacker.” Only after using a little known cellphone-tracking device—a stingray—were they able to zero in on a California home and make the arrest. Stingrays are designed to locate a mobile phone even when it’s not being used to make a call. The Federal Bureau of Investigation considers the devices to be so critical that it has a policy of deleting the data gathered in their use, mainly to keep suspects in the dark about their capabilities, an FBI official told The Wall Street Journal in response to inquiries.
- ‘Stingray’ Phone Tracker Fuels Constitutional Clash (online.wsj.com)
- Tech Today: Phone Tracker Tests Fourth Amendment (blogs.wsj.com)
- Keeping ‘Stingrays’ Secret Makes Case Tougher for Prosecutors (blogs.wsj.com)
- How Technology Is Testing the Fourth Amendment (blogs.wsj.com)
- The StingRay Is The Virtually Unknown Device the Government Uses to Track You Through Your Phone [Privacy] (gizmodo.com)
Panel debates ways to update surveillance to new technologies
By Juliana Gruenwald, National Journal, NextGov 02/17/2011
The FBI came to Congress Thursday to outline the problems law enforcement officials are increasingly facing in executing court ordered wiretaps, but did not offer a proposed solution for lawmakers to consider. During a hearing before the House Judiciary Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security Subcommittee, even critics acknowledged law enforcement faces a problem but there was much debate over what should be done to address it. Under the 1994 Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, telecommunications companies are required to develop and deploy solutions to enable court-ordered wiretaps. …
Full article available via Panel debates ways to update surveillance to new technologies – Nextgov.
- Panel Debates Ways To Update Surveillance To New Technologies (techdailydose.nationaljournal.com)
- Newly Released Documents Detail FBI’s Plan to Expand Federal Surveillance Laws (eff.org)
- Action needed to assure new technology can be wiretapped, FBI says (cnn.com)
- FBI: Web-based Services Hurting Wiretapping Efforts (pcworld.com)
- Debate Over Internet Backdoors Heats Up in Congress and in Court (eff.org)
- FBI, DOJ and DEA Stall Release of Records on Bid to Expand Surveillance Laws (eff.org)
- FBI Pushes for Surveillance Backdoors in Web 2.0 Tools (wired.com)