When Not Hiding Cameras In Traffic Barrels And Streetlights, The DEA Is Shoving Them Into... Vacuums?
from the DEA-surveillance-sucks dept
If it exists, the DEA probably wants to stash a camera in it.
A Denair, California-based company called the Special Services Group, LLC won a $42,595 DEA purchase order at the end of November for a “custom Shop Vac concealment with Canon M50B.” Canon describes the M50B as a “high-sensitivity…PTZ [Pan-Tilt-Zoom] network camera” that “captures video with remarkable color and clarity, even in very low-light environments.” The M50B retails for about $3,400; the acquisition is being funded by the DEA’s Office of Investigative Technology and is presumably intended to assist agents in a specific operation, rather than for wider, passive monitoring.
This almost sounds like an ultra-low tech version of the NSA's hardware interdiction program. The NSA intercepts computer equipment to install hardware/software backdoors. The DEA's vacuum camera possibly could be stashed in a Shop Vac en route to a targeted person/business. Either that or a DEA agent/informant is going to pretend to be a janitor and wheel around a loaded Shop Vac to capture footage.
It's weird but it's pretty much in line with the DEA's procurement history. A report from Quartz last month showed the DEA was buying cameras concealed in streetlights, traffic barrels, and speed-display road signs. The last one on the list doesn't house ordinary cameras, but rather automated license plate readers.
Are there Constitutional concerns? Sure. They're pretty minimal in areas where any activity could be observed by a member of the public. But they're not nonexistent. And much of this surveillance activity occurs with the silent blessing of the city governments that own the repurposed streetlights. The government has occasionally pushed for upgraded streetlight systems, with the main "improvement" being the addition of surveillance devices.
Chad Marlow, a senior advocacy and policy counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union, says efforts to put cameras in street lights have been proposed before by local law enforcement, typically as part of a “smart” LED street light system.
“It basically has the ability to turn every streetlight into a surveillance device, which is very Orwellian to say the least,” Marlow told Quartz. “In most jurisdictions, the local police or department of public works are authorized to make these decisions unilaterally and in secret. There’s no public debate or oversight.”
The Shop Vac+camera is more problematic. Vacuums are typically used in areas not readily visible to the public. This narc vac deployment hopefully comes with a warrant attached. Someone consenting to having an area vacuumed isn't the same as consenting to a search. This device can do both at the same time, which would appear to be a Fourth Amendment issue if there's no accompanying paperwork.
Of course, it could be argued allowing someone like a DEA agent/informant into a private area is tacit consent to be searched. After all, anything seen by the camera would be seen by its operator. Anything illegal observed by this third party could be reported to law enforcement. Utilizing a camera as another set of eyes doesn't undercut this Fourth Amendment end-around. (If it's a DEA informant deploying the vacu-cam, the government can't claim it was a private search, so there's that...) The best solution is don't do illegal stuff where it can be observed by anyone -- or anything -- you don't know inside and out.
I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for this tactic to be discussed in court. There's nothing particularly secretive about the tech angle, especially when there's publicly-available acquisition documents directly referencing both the mean and the method. But I'm sure the DEA will still argue discussing a camera in a Shop Vac in open court will jeopardize future/ongoing investigations. However this procurement pans out, it's probably safe to say more than a few pieces of cleaning equipment underwent exploratory disassembly following the publication of the DEA's acquisition
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: cameras, dea, hidden cameras, surveillance, vacuum cleaners
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
You could have just stopped there...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
a honeypot perhaps?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: a honeypot perhaps?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Angle not considered
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Best Solution
> be observed by anyone -- or anything -- you don't know
> inside and out.
Really, Tim? How about the *best* solution being "not doing illegal stuff at all"?
The more I read from you, I really get the impression that your hate-on for cops doesn't stem from the frequent overreach of law enforcement, but rather you don't just like the idea of having to obey laws and rules at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Best Solution
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Best Solution
And let's not forget all those "welfare" checks that cops routinely perform at the request of concerned family members, home visits that often end up with the person being shot and killed. That's not even "law" enforcement, as no laws are broken or being enforced when a guy reaches into his pocket in response to being confronted by a cop (or even immediately afterward when he gets turned into hamburger meat).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Best Solution
They are eye-opening to a barf-a-bucketful degree...truly, what you don't know -will- hurt you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Best Solution
Or perhaps he is critical of LEOs for the same reason I am, because of their penchant for to considering...just anywhere at all...to be their Constitution-optional, Rights-free dominion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Best Solution
"...I really get the impression that your hate-on for cops doesn't stem from the frequent overreach of law enforcement, but rather you don't just like the idea of having to obey laws and rules at all."
It doesn't take many brain cells to see the common theme in Tim's writing. It's when law enforcement doesn't like the idea of having to obey laws and rules at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Best Solution
> having to obey laws and rules at all.
That's not the implication of comments like this: "The best solution is don't do illegal stuff where it can be observed by anyone -- or anything -- you don't know inside and out."
That suggests he's all for breaking the law and just doesn't like law enforcement finding ways to catch people who do it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Best Solution
Or ... maybe he is saying that some laws make no sense and therefore are not worth adhering to unless seen by the draconian self righteous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Best Solution
> and therefore are not worth adhering to
Nope. He didn't qualify it the way you did. He didn't say 'some'. He said the "The best solution is don't do illegal stuff where it can be observed..."
That clearly indicates he has no problem with illegal activity, full stop, and is just advising people to do it where they won't get caught.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Best Solution
That's kind of implicit in the blatant Libertarian ideology he makes no attempt to conceal. That's the very core of what Libertarianism is: "I don't want to and you can't make me!" It's the "philosophy" of the five-year-old dressed up in sophisticated words to make it appear more palatable to adults capable of moral reasoning.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No problem at all
It's not problematic at all. A judicious application of parallel construction, and no one will ever guess there was a camera involved.
Especially not those constitution-thumping judges.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
More likely
Or, knowing the DEA, they'll swap out one on a real janitor without them knowing, and then wash their hands of the matter when someone ends up dead. "Sorry we got your husband killed, but we were after bad guys. If it's any consolation, we now have them for murder, too."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Next up...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Next up...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The real question for todays politically [in]correct world...
vacuum before inserting the camera ???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]