Another trade of freedom for "security"

[Scrivener]

From the Providence RI Journal:

State Police, ACLU at odds over phone records legislation

May 14, 2007

PROVIDENCE, R.I. --Police departments would be able to obtain Rhode Islanders' telephone and Internet records without court review or a warrant under legislation pending before the General Assembly.

The Rhode Island State Police, which is pushing the legislation, said it is too time-consuming when investigating Internet crime to appear before a judge to get a warrant. But critics say the bills would infringe on citizens' privacy rights and do not guarantee that the records are needed for a legitimate purpose.

"It amounts to a wholesale invasion of Rhode Islanders' privacy," said Steven Brown, executive director of the Rhode Island affiliate of the American Civil Liberties Union.

Under the legislation, any police chief, the state police superintendent and the attorney general would be able to issue subpoenas requiring companies that provide communications services to turn over names, addresses, local and long-distance telephone records and other information.

Though the police currently must receive a warrant from a judge before getting the records, the proposed legislation would do away with that requirement.

Craig Berke, a spokesman for the state court system, said a search warrant can typically be obtained in less than an hour and that the police are able to call judges at home if there's an urgent need at night.

The bills are pending before the House and Senate judiciary committees but may be revised. Identical legislation died in the General Assembly last year after sharp criticism from civil liberties groups.

Gov. Don Carcieri would not back a bill strongly opposed by civil liberties groups, spokesman Jeff Neal said, but has not taken a position on whether the police should be required to go before a judge to obtain the records

 

[Admin]

it is too time-consuming when investigating Internet crime to appear before a judge to get a warrant.

Wow........... Takes too long???

Craig Berke, a spokesman for the state court system, said a search warrant can typically be obtained in less than an hour and that the police are able to call judges at home if there's an urgent need at night.

This doesn't make sense...

 

[pdm]

Remind me to never live in Rhode Island.

 

[Admin]

Under the legislation, any police chief, the state police superintendent and the attorney general would be able to issue subpoenas requiring companies that provide communications services to turn over names, addresses, local and long-distance telephone records and other information.

Believe me when I say this, the only good sex offender is a dead one. I imagine they are trying to catch the perps who use the internet to meet kids.

However I would imagine when they "subpoena" this information, I doubt it would be about a specific IP address.

"Why don't you give me the logs from the entire subnet... We are not sure which IP he is using..."

 

[Gabe]

In general, granting the government more power or rights is a really bad idea. Before long, we'll see a new bill of rights, exclusively for the government, and the sick thing is that most people won't see any problem with that.

 

[Ripach]

Craig Berke, a spokesman for the state court system, said a search warrant can typically be obtained in less than an hour and that the police are able to call judges at home if there's an urgent need at night.

Why is under an hour not quick enough? If they have probable cause to believe someone is in imminent danger they can act on that and the need for a search warrant is moot. If not follow the rules and wait the hour, seems simple to me.

 

[kevin9]

Seems fair to me that they should be able (required?) to use the same technology to "appear" before a judge as they are trying to obtain records for.

...police are able to call judges at home...

OK, looks like they already can do that. Kill the bill, and figure out if there is some way to b-slap the head of the state police for such a stupid, unlawful idea.

 

[drgrant]

Why is under an hour not quick enough? If they have probable cause to believe someone is in imminent danger they can act on that and the need for a search warrant is moot. If not follow the rules and wait the hour, seems simple to me.

+1.... Of course, that makes too much sense.

In a perfect world a legislator would tell the LE org "this is a non problem, work around it".

Of course there might be something we're not being told here, and
maybe the court system is putting these kind of warrant requests low on
the totem pole. Or judges are rejecting them based on a lack of
evidence... although IMO the investigators are probably not that
dumb, if they're building up logs from chats and the like.

One HUGE problem with just letting them go carte blanche on the records
is possible mistaken identity; eg, no judicial restraint means a lack of
eyes reviewing the evidence.... Nobody thinks about this angle, but what
if the IP address had a number transposed, and the cops are bashing
your door down because of an over-eagerness to prosecute? (as opposed
to the door of the diddler, who lives two cities away and has a different
address by one digit off in the same IP block)

I think the only clean way to catch these scumbags is to do the
"to catch a predator" thing. If you can't get them live and in the
flesh, then there is a lot of doubts raised about guilt, etc. Setting up
stings like that circumvents the whole need for a records search, just arrest
the guy when he shows up. I mean there is probably a lot more to it than
that, but the method is tried and true- and it leaves little doubt about the
guilt of the perpetrator.

-Mike