| |
|
The most interesting latest news on the topic: Crime & Punishment |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A California student tried to win a college government election by hacking into classmates' accounts, which may lead to federal charges and increased privacy for not only colleges, but national and state elections as well. |
|
|
|
|
Jurors in the infamous Rutgers bullying trial relied heavily on digital evidence to convict the defendant, highlighting the permanence and public nature of digital communications. Former Rutgers University student Dharun Ravi was found guilty of all charges, including invasion of privacy and bias intimidation, for filming his roommate, Tyler Clementi, having intimate relations with another man. Ravi then posted about it on Twitter and invited others to spy on the unsuspecting couple. Clementi committed suicide two days later, in part as a result of Ravi's actions. The case marks the first time Twitter, Facebook, text messaging, e-mails, surveillance cameras, and swiped University I.D. cards combined to play such a major part in a conviction, and could set precedent for other upcoming cases in an increasingly digital age. The public nature of social networking sites is increasingly making headlines. Recently, job applicants, high school students, and college sports players were asked to hand over their Facebook and Twitter passwords for review, fueling the debate over whether any information posted online is truly private. "There's a perception, and I think it's a misperception, that posting a tweet is just like talking," says Professor Greg Lastowka of the Rutgers School of Law. "I don't think the younger generation realizes that they are creating a permanent data trail." The confusion extends beyond youth, however. In Connecticut, a woman's Facebook posts were used as evidence against her in a child custody case, further evidence that electronic evidence is a growing trend. Digital records are unique, providing time-stamped records of users' whereabouts and permanent records of their opinions. The nearly indisputable evidence those records provide allow lawyers to present an effectual history of their client's mindset, something difficult to prove, which played a major factor in Ravi's conviction. Ravi was not prosecuted directly for Clementi's death, but was also found guilty of lying to investigators, trying to influence a witness and tampering with evidence, and could face penalties of up to 10 years in prison when sentenced on May 21. Ravi, originally from India, surrendered his passport and could be deported. Ravi's tweeting created an incriminating trail of evidence for prosecutors. One tweet stated he saw Clementi "making out with a dude," and ended with the word "Yay." Another tweet let his followers know a dorm neighbor was coming over so they could use video chat and webcam to watch Clementi. Other messages indicated an alleged cover-up attempt by Ravi, helping to create a case for the state prosecutors. Courts and lawmakers will continue to struggle with what is admissible, but as the growing number of cases using digital evidence show, anything posted online is increasingly fair game in a court of law. Eric Nemecek, co-chairman of the American Bar Association's Criminal Justice Cybercrime Committee, said, "It demonstrates that there are consequences for somebody's use of technology. This should be a cautionary tale for a lot of people. You often don't think what you're doing could lead to criminal prosecution." |
|
|
|
|
Neighborhood watch programs are going high-tech, with a new app that allows citizens to report suspicious activity to law enforcement. The West Virginia Division of Homeland Security developed the "Suspicious Reporting Activity" app, which lets users send tips on suspicious criminal or terrorist activity with accompanying location data and a smartphone photo or video. The app is not intended for emergency purposes, but rather lets citizens report suspicious situations, giving attention to circumstances that may need investigation but may not merit a 911-response of sirens, squad cars and barricades. This 21st-century tip line helps round up information the police wouldn't get otherwise, and is the latest in a wave of citizen-to-government interaction programs as apps becoming increasingly used for civic or public purposes. But it opens new avenues for pranksters, or the potential for a wild goose chase if a tip winds up misguided, possibly pegging non-criminals as suspicious. The app also illustrates another way police can get valuable information from the community. Often, citizens aren't comfortable coming to police for fear of retaliation by criminals, or because they don't want the hassle of dealing with police in a follow-up investigation. The app lets these people contact police in a way they are comfortable with -- through their smartphone -- and it's as easy as uploading a photo through Instagram or checking in on FourSquare. The idea of government using smartphones and other mobile devices to aid its missions is catching on, in the form of a FDA notification system and watchdog apps for local government. The tech-toting generation may welcome the government going high-tech, and the country is likely to see more apps of this kind as law enforcement and security forces catch on. Despite the benefits of technology, citizens reporting one another to police with this kind of ease of access means privacy rights could be jeopardized, especially if a police investigation ensues. A "suspect" potentially could have their world turned upside down by investigators because of a well-framed or manipulated smartphone photo making them appear to engage in criminal or terrorist activity. Smartphone users are already accustomed to snapping pictures and posting updates, and agencies want to take advantage of the behavior for the public interest. The beginning will likely see some downsides in over-reporting or miscommunication, but a well-vetted system could lead to an era of more active civic participation. |
|
|
|
|
Twitter released user data to the Boston Police Department during a criminal investigation, fueling the online privacy rights debate. Boston authorities requested one user's information after a series of cyber attacks on the Boston Police force and a police union, sources say. Rumors linked the attempted hacks to a member of the Occupy Boston movement, but have not been confirmed. Twitter's legal help sparked outrage among critics like the American Civil Liberties Union, who say profiles on social networking sites are a user's private domain, and governments shouldn't have access to them. But regulatory agencies and law enforcement argue personal information could help save lives, locating victims and dangerous suspects when a crime occurs and improving public safety. The ACLU fought the police department's request on the grounds of free speech violation, but lost in Superior Court last week. The organization's lead attorney, Peter Krupp, said the ACLU believes its client "has a constitutional right to speak, and to speak anonymously," and that accessing his personal information "infringed our client's rights under the First Amendment." Across the nation, debates are raging over the state of privacy, both in social media and online. A Connecticut court admitted a woman's Facebook profile as legal evidence against her in a divorce case. A case about law enforcement's right to track suspects using GPS recently reached the Supreme Court, and major corporations like Amazon and Google face increasing scrutiny over how they collect, analyze, and store user data gathered via their services. The government cites concerns over cyber-hacking as another reason to maintain the right to infiltrate private, stored information, naming cyber-terrorism as a growing danger. But moves to increase government access and track data generally make users feel violated, like "Big Brother" is watching their every move. The Boston District Attorney's Office attempted to quell mounting public concerns, saying his office "requested and received only that information. This is a focused investigation, not a fishing expedition," and reminded the public the inquiry's focus was to examine "a specific criminal act," and not to launch a political investigation. But Twitter's cooperation in this case could serve as a precedent in other cases, which has free speech advocates worried about the privacy of users' online information, and how it could be used against them. As more personal information moves into cyber-space via wireless technology, how best to protect that information becomes an increasingly important question, and the debate over who can gain access to vast amounts of data is likely to rage on. |
|
|
|
|
Police arrested 25 suspected Anonymous members in South America and Europe, as international law enforcement continues its cat-and-mouse game with the hacking collective. Interpol collaborated with local police in Argentina, Chile, Colombia and Spain for Operation Unmask, which nabbed hackers suspected of attacking various military and political establishments. Columbia's defense ministry and presidential websites, as well as Chile's electricity network and national library were among alleged cyber targets. In addition, Spanish police may have captured the alleged head of Anonymous' operations in Spain and Latin America, known by the aliases "Thunder" and "Pacotron." "This operation shows that crime in the virtual world does have real consequences for those involved, and that the Internet cannot be seen as a safe haven for criminal activity," stated Bernd Rossbach, Interpol's acting director of police services. Despite Rossbach's warning, Anonymous members redoubled their activities after the arrests, even taking down the Interpol website yesterday in retaliation. The back-and-forth between Anonymous and international police shows no signs of stopping as each party continues to defend its position. Law enforcement insists Anons pose a serious threat to cyber and critical infrastructure security, as the U.S. National Security Agency chief Gen. Keith Alexander warned last week. Alexander is not alone in his fear of Anonymous, shared by James Lewis, a cyber-security specialist at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. "It's a real threat," Lewis stated. "You want to occupy Wall Street? How about turn Wall Street off? Even for a day." The NSA and FBI continue to monitor Anons, several of whom now face charges after being arrested last summer in a massive operation to nab hackers associated with Wikileaks. Anonymous, conversely, insists it exists only to support free speech and expose corruption, thereby justifying hacks against "any organization that fancies itself above the law and is willing to put ethics aside in order to make money." The collective's recent targets include Mexico's Zetas drug cartel and the Syrian defense ministry as well as the CIA and FBI, suggesting even the most powerful organizations in the world are not above Anonymous' scrutiny. Anons' reputation for hacktivism does not sit well with international police, however, who will likely pursue future arrests while the collective continues its activities in the face of such threats. |
|
|
|
|
The future of cell phone privacy is under question, as judges struggle with the legality of searching and tracking suspects through mobile devices without a warrant. The Department of Justice is arguing law enforcement doesn't need a warrant to search phones purchased under a fake name. The argument comes from an Arizona criminal case, where law enforcement used a stingray device to ping defendant Daniel David Rigmaiden's cell phone to find him. Rigmaiden argued the search violated his Fourth Amendment rights. Because Rigmaiden purchased the mobile broadband card, mobile service, and computer -- all under a fake name, law enforcement fired back with a January 27 filing saying Rigmaiden gave up his constitutional right to privacy. The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable search and seizure of private property, and current interpretations are struggling to see where mobile devices fit under these broader descriptions. Phone privacy cases like this test boundaries of what government can access on a personal cell phone, and if a warrant is necessary. The fake name exception may lead to more precedents on how far law enforcement can go using today's technology in investigations. Mobile data aids law enforcement in cracking cases at an increasing rate, as text messages, locations, and saved information can stand up as evidence in court if they are legally obtained. Past cases remain divided over the matter, but support is growing for the idea that tracing suspects requires warrants. For example, a judge in a recent federal case ruled a warrant is necessary to search phone call records. The Supreme Court also tackled the issue regarding GPS monitoring of suspects, and unanimously decided law enforcement violated Fourth Amendment rights when it tracked a suspect for 28 days without a warrant. Fourth Amendment policies are upheld when searches require warrants, but the fake name argument has potential to expand government access to citizen property. Opponents to this reasoning argue that the use of a false identity isn't necessarily an illegal act that should allow police to strip someone's rights. A ruling in favor of the false-name argument may result in broader search requirements down the road. Officials may find more ways to use technology against suspects and courts sift through the arguments to ensure public safety while at the same time protecting individual rights. |
|
|
|
|
Federal authorities recently arrested a man for sending a Buddhist leader threatening tweets, prompting questions over freedom of speech on social networking websites. The FBI this weekend jailed William Cassidy of California on charges of online stalking, after the FBI accused him of sending 8,000 Twitter messages to Maryland-based Buddhist leader Alyce Zeoli and her religious group. According to the New York Post, Cassidy's tweets included messages predicting horrible disasters for Zeoli and her group, in addition to other tweets such as "Do the world a favor and go kill yourself. P.S. Have a nice day." The FBI said the tweets made Zeoli fear for her life, and she hid at home for 18 months and hired armed security guards. In addition to the 8,000 messages on Twitter, Cassidy also allegedly posted blog entries threatening Zeoli. Zeoli reported Cassidy had joined her Buddhist group for some time, but she and the group asked him to leave after questions surfaced about his claimed illness. The threats started after the group asked Cassidy to leave, Zeoli alleged. Authorities tracked Cassidy through his IP address to his California home. The FBI said Cassidy had used an ever-changing series of user names on Twitter, making it difficult for them to track him down. Cassidy's case has sparked a debate over the issue of free speech on Twitter, as legal authorities attempt to ascertain what the lines are governing social media. Cassidy's attorneys say the government should protect tweets the same way the First Amendment protects even offensive speech, even when it's on a public platform such as Twitter. Legal scholars say the case argues what can be said online about a public figure, such as a religious leader, because Twitter and other social media sites can be compared to other forms of public speech. Courts have upheld the speech rights of controversial groups when their comments were made in a public forum, saying people have a right to criticize public leaders. Free speech advocates are concerned about Cassidy's arrest because they believe it may violate First Amendment rights and say the arrest may hinder free speech online. "While not all speech is protected by the First Amendment, the idea that the courts must police every inflammatory word spoken online not only chills freedom of speech but is unsupported by decades of First Amendment jurisprudence," said the San Francisco-based Electronic Frontier Foundation, which is calling for the case to be dismissed. According to the FBI, though, officers didn't arrest Cassidy for his opinions, but because his tweets caused Zeoli "substantial emotional distress." Cassidy's weekend arrest is one of a series of crackdowns in recent months that have also raised questions about freedom of speech online. For example, rapper "The Game" is in trouble over tweeting a phone number to more than a half million followers, telling them to call the number if they were interested in applying for an internship with him. The number was actually that of the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, and "The Game" was charged with obstructing police officers and interrupting communications. While more young people and adults sign up for social network sites every day, such arrests may well become more commonplace. In response to escalating cases, the courts and society will need to navigate the nature of online speech, public forums, and harassment. Judging from recent arrests, those who believe they can threaten others online because they either feel they can say whatever they want -- or because they think they're anonymous and won't be caught -- may increasingly find themselves in trouble with the law. |
|
|
|
|
Cell phones may be weapons of war even after Libya's uprising is over, as photos and videos of the conflict might be used as evidence in upcoming war crimes cases. While rebels often used the phones to communicate, a group of lawyers working with the rebels has been gathering evidence about crimes that Muammar Gaddafi's forces allegedly committed, after the International Criminal Court, or ICC, said it needed evidence to prove war crimes against him. "In the beginning when there were snipers we had to move around carefully," said Omar Abulifa, head of the Misrata-based Human Rights Activists Association. "It was hard to get the evidence, but we did what we could." The association set up a system to gather evidence as rebels gained control of Misrata, for example, filming bombings that killed civilians. According to Reuters, the lawyers gathered footage from rebel fighters' cell phones, as well as from citizens and captured government troops citizens. Abulifa said some of courts may be able to accept the footage as evidence. Abulifa said the Misrata group has already started working on 150 war crimes cases against the Gaddafi regime, and may add more as more cell phone evidence comes in. Gaddafi's government denies charges of war crimes. The ICC could preside over the trials, or they could be held in Libya itself. The ICC says it will determine on a case-by-case basis whether it can use cell phone footage can be used as evidence. The attorneys were able to gather the evidence even though Gaddafi's government shut off his country's cell phone network to stop rebel forces from communicating with each other. In spite of this, the rebels built a new phone network, and kept using their phones. In mid-March Libyan-American telecom executive Ousama Abushagur, a supporter and fundraiser for the rebel effort, helped to split off a section of the country's cellphone network so calls could be made without being routed through Tripoli, where intelligence agents were intercepting them. If the courts can use the cell phone footage, it will mark yet another way technology is changing history in the Middle East and North Africa. Beginning with uprisings in Tunisia and spreading to other countries, rebels have turned to mobile communications as well as social networking to organize their movements as well as to document them. In Tunisia, mobile phone users documented rising unrest with their smartphone cameras and used social media to transmit evidence of government wrongdoing, which caused the unrest to spread among Tunisian citizens faster. In Egypt, however, the government shut down the entire country's Internet and cellular service in an unsuccessful attempt to thwart the rebels. Earlier this month, British carrier Vodafone was accused of letting then-Egyptian President Hosni Mubarek's government take over its systems and block phone and Internet service to rebel forces. In Libya, while smartphones and social media sites undoubtedly helped rebel forces coordinate their movements, the devices may serve an even more important role after the troops lay down their arms, and their smartphones may well be an important tool for documenting history. |
|
|
|
|
California's State Assembly approved a bill that would require law enforcement officers to secure a warrant before searching cell phones, another example of how state governments grapple with balancing mobile technology privacy and public safety. If the measure makes it to the desk of Governor Jerry Brown and he signs it into law, it would overturn the January California Supreme Court ruling allowing officers to search cell phone contents from anyone who is arrested. "This will not interfere with the legitimate needs of police," said Assemblyman and former police officer Steve Knight. "All established exceptions that currently exist will still apply." Knight is referring to the fact that the new measure will still allow police to search phones without a warrant if they believe it necessary to prevent injuries, stop the destruction of evidence or prevent a crime from occurring. While these exceptions alleviate some of the state's public safety community's concerns, many still stand in opposition to the bill. "There are circumstances where it's just not practical to get a search warrant, no matter how expedited the process is in that county," said Ron Cottingham, president of the Peace Officers Research Association, California's largest public safety organization. "We still believe that the California Supreme Court was correct, and that subsequent to an arrest (searching a cell phone) is appropriate." Because smartphones can, and often do, store unlimited personal data, supporters of the bill compared searching cell phones to combing through a person's bedroom or office desk. "If you are caught with a laptop, they need a warrant. If they come to your home for some reason, they can't walk into your bedroom, personal office or look at your computer without a warrant," said the bill's author and state senator Mark Leno. "Everything inside your phone requires a warrant wherever else it can be found, so why should the smartphone be different?" The legislative news regarding warrants for cell phones in California comes at a time when other states are examining similar measures. This past spring, Michigan State Police reportedly searched drivers' cell phones, accessing contacts, pictures, texts, and even geo-location data, using specialized devices from Cellebrite. The news sparked debate, with advocacy groups taking sides. "Cell phones contain information that many people consider to be private, to be beyond the reach of law enforcement and other government actors," said Mark Fancher, ACLU attorney. "There is great potential for abuse here by a police officer or state trooper who may not be monitored or supervised on the street." The Michigan practice raises questions on how and when law enforcement can and should collect mobile data, an area that is arguably fuzzy since technology has far outpaced legislation in recent years. For example, one guideline for law enforcement, the Electronics Communication Privacy Act, is 25 years old and doesn't cover Twitter, Facebook or smartphones. Despite the controversy, states aren't standing still. California's 68-0, bipartisan assembly vote calls into question law enforcement groups' argument that the bill would thwart police officers as they investigate crimes. Amendments to the bill may reduce this likelihood and at the same time protect citizens' safety and privacy rights, but the question of protecting information on cell phones while protecting public safety will continue to arise. |
|
|
|
|
A Pennsylvania woman who asked someone to kill her husband on Facebook, and the man who agreed to do so, were in custody when someone else killed the purported victim, as the social network finds itself entangled in a complex crime. London Eley and Timothy Bynum were jailed in June for using the social network to discuss a plot to kill the father of Eley's baby, a man named Corey White. Eley in May allegedly wrote on Facebook, "I will pay somebody a stack to kill my baby father." A stack is slang for $1,000. For his part, Bynum reportedly responded to the post, saying, "Say no more... what he look like... where he be at... need that stack 1st." The alleged victim's family saw the post on Facebook, read the exchange and notified authorities. Both Eley and Bynum were arrested and have remained in jail since, since neither could post bail for release. However, this Monday, hours after a judge upheld charges against the two in court and set an arraignment for early next month, the original target White was shot to death in Philadelphia. The latest development has police sifting through several theories on the killing, including the idea it was a Facebook conspiracy. On the other hand, detectives are also following leads that White may have been the getaway driver at a nightclub shooting last month, which may make his death a strange coincidence. Defense attorney Gerald Stein, who represents Eley, said he understood the speculation about his client. "The hearing being yesterday and then, boom, the guy's dead a couple of hours later?" said Stein. But he said his client had an ironclad alibi, since she was in jail at the time of the shooting. Besides having alibis, attorneys for both Bynum and Eley's attorneys strongly dismiss their Facebook exchange was anything more than idle conversation and they never intended on going through with the hit. Eley's attorneys say their client was just "venting" after a heated argument with her baby's father and noted she never gave Bynum White's name, age or address. Bynum's attorney described his client as a good kid from a good family with no prior criminal activity and said he, too, had no intention of killing anyone. And, to authorities who pointed out the gun Bynum reportedly held in his Facebook profile picture, the attorney said it is actually a BB gun. "People try to be something that they are not on Facebook," said Lopez Thomas, attorney for Bynum, of his client. While authorities try to untangle the tangled web, they are also expected to charge Alexander Solomon, 24, with stealing an Oldsmobile Monday night that was later seen fleeing the scene of White's fatal shooting. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tags: