Cameras Watching Cops: Still A Good Idea

from the the-bad,-the-worse-and-the-bumblefuck dept

Marlene Pinnock, the 51-year-old grandmother with bipolar disorder who was politely asked to refrain from walking on Interstate 10 with the judicious application of California Highway Patrol officer Daniel Andrew's fist (no less than nine times), has been awarded a settlement of $1.5 million from the city of Los Angeles. Further details on the settlement aren't forthcoming, but the issuing of a settlement generally means never having to say you're sorry -- most settlements are awarded without an admission of wrongdoing.

The CHP's statement notes that the officer involved has elected to resign, but that doesn't necessarily mean he'll avoid facing criminal charges.

The CHP forwarded the results of its investigation of the incident to Los Angeles County prosecutors last month, saying he could face serious charges but none have been filed yet.

Left unaddressed entirely is the CHP's seizure of Pinnock's medical records, which occurred shortly after it became apparent she would be suing over the beating she received. Here's the recording of Officer Andrew's life-saving beating. Ask yourself whether this settlement would have arrived this quickly without this recording. (You already know the answer.)


Speaking of cops and cameras, it's a damn good thing State Trooper Sean Groubert didn't have the presence of mind to disable his dashcam before shooting a man in the hip for following his instructions.


Sean "Jumpy" Groubert may have thought the driver was reaching for a weapon, but he did just instruct him to get his license -- which happened to be in his wallet -- which happened to be in the car -- and presumably, the rest of his vehicle documents. Instead of allowing Levar Jones to comply, Groubert's weapon discharged (to use the Police Passive Tense) at least four times, hitting Jones in the hip and leading to a very surreal conversation in which the victim asks a perfectly logical question: "Why'd you shoot me?"

Fortunately, there was no extensive, drawn-out investigation. Groubert has been fired and charged with aggravated assault. Again: would Groubert still be employed if his camera hadn't been on or if the recording had vanished?

Finally, courtesy of PINAC, here's one of the nation's most incompetent cops hard at work.

It took almost eight painstaking minutes for the dimwitted cop in this video to realize he was being recorded, which was when he turned to the man with the camera and told him it was “technically illegal.”

But it also took the cop 24 hours before realizing he had forgotten to issue a citation to a man he had pulled over the prior evening, which is why he had the man meet him at the gas station the following night in an attempt to get the man to sign it.

"Technically illegal." Which means not illegal at all, but also means that the cop knows it (or thinks he does) but desperately wants the person recording to be more ignorant than he is and think that Officer Better Late Than Never is cutting him a break. Ridiculous.

The person who actually obliged this poster boy for law enforcement IQ tests points out that he really shouldn't be cited for something that happened 24 hours ago -- an interaction in which he was released by this same cop without a citation. The retort?

He also admits he routinely forgets to issue citations to people he pulls over, requiring him to track them down the following day to do so.

Um. Touché.

Again, the camera is the public's best friend. Hopefully this circulated footage will make its way back to the officer's superiors, who will hopefully assign him to an immovable desk that will never not be right where he expects it to be, even 24 hours later.

Filed Under: cameras, police, police brutality

Cop To Cameraman: 'If You're Invoking Your Rights, You Must Be Doing Something Wrong'

from the we'll-let-you-know-when-you-have-some-'rights'-you-can-use dept

The notion that certain rights are guaranteed to citizens is being proven false every day. For instance, you have the First Amendment right to film police officers and other public officials, but it often takes an official policy change (usually prompted by lawsuits) before these public servants will begrudgingly respect that right.

You also have certain rights guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment, but even these aren't innate. You can't simply remain silent while detained or arrested. You have to invoke these rights (often repeatedly) or risk having your silence (things you didn't say) used against you.

In the case of photographing police officers, you'll notice that activists and others who are recording will invoke their rights repeatedly. In some cases, this forces those being recorded to back off and reconsider their attempts to shut down recordings or seize cameras. It doesn't always work but it works often enough to show that these police officers know you have this right but won't respect it unless you invoke it.

Techdirt reader timlash sends in this video of two citizens filming a sally port (where prisoners are shuttled in and out of the courthouse) in Jacksonville, Florida. As is to be expected, police officers show up and try to shut down the recording of a public building from a public sidewalk. But the most amazing part of the video is the police officer's statement in response to the cameraman invoking his rights.

"You must be doing something wrong if you invoke your rights."

That's the prevailing attitude. Invoke your Fourth Amendment rights to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures and the government assumes you have something to hide. Invoke your Fifth Amendment rights and the government assumes you've committed a crime. Invoke your First Amendment right to record police officers and you're told that you're "obstructing" an investigation or creating a public disturbance.

You have rights as an American citizen. They just won't be respected by default. And when you invoke them, you'll be treated as an activist (at best) or a criminal (at worst). The land of freedom has tipped the balance away from the citizens and towards the government -- because whether we're fighting terrorism, drugs or illegal immigration, the respect of citizens' rights impedes the progress of the nation's many "warriors."

Filed Under: cameras, invoking rights, police, recording police, rights, threats

As New York Officials Unite Behind Police Body Camera Plans, Union Head Just Wants To Talk About 'Baseless' Lawsuits

from the always-the-public's-fault dept

It seems inevitable that NYPD officers will be wearing body cameras in the near future. As part of the remedies ordered by Judge Scheindlin in her stop-and-frisk decision, a trial program for body cameras is due to roll out, along with additional oversight.

I am ordering the NYPD to institute a pilot project in which bodyworn cameras will be worn for a one-year period by officers on patrol in one precinct per borough -- specifically the precinct with the highest number of stops during 2012.

The two former defenders of the cop status quo -- Mike Bloomberg and Ray Kelly -- both hated the idea. Bloomberg derided it in a press conference after Scheindlin's decision, saying the public would contest any body cam footage that didn't live up to preconceived notions.

A camera on the lapel or hat of a police officer... He didn't turn the right way. My god, he DELIBERATELY did it. It's a solution that's not a solution…

The city's lawyers, appealing Scheindlin's decision, made the disingenuous argument that the public's privacy would be damaged by police body cameras.

[I]mplementing a body camera pilot project itself poses significant harm in terms of time, resources and possible impingement on privacy rights of the public.

Somehow, the thousands of surveillance cameras deployed by the NYPD pose no threat to privacy. Only those worn (under protest) by officers do.

But Bloomberg and Kelly are no longer co-helming the NYPD. In a press conference following Eric Garner's death at the hands of NYPD officers, Mayor Bill de Blasio stated he felt body cameras are, for the most part, a "productive" idea.

The body cameras are part of the agreement we reached with the federal judge, but they are complicated[…] I think the basic reality is that it is a technology that we agreed to as part of that settlement, but it’s not something that has been perfected yet, and it’s something that has to be worked on quite a bit to be used on the kind of scale we’re talking about here. But I certainly think it’s a productive idea, and it will, I think, ultimately improve the relationship between police and community.

Police Commissioner Bill Bratton is also in favor of police-worn cameras.

In an appearance on MSNBC Wednesday morning, NYPD Commissioner Bill Bratton predicted officers around the country will eventually be wearing video cameras on their bodies to record interactions with the public.

"That's the direction where American policing is going. That's where we're going in the NYPD. We're working very closely with the LAPD, who's about a year ahead of us in putting cameras in place," he said.

What evidence exists as to body cameras and their impact on both police misconduct and baseless complaints is very limited at this point. But what has been gathered so far is largely positive -- both for police departments and citizens. Rialto, CA's police department ran a body camera test program and was pleasantly surprised by the results.

The Rialto study began in February 2012 and will run until this July. The results from the first 12 months are striking. Even with only half of the 54 uniformed patrol officers wearing cameras at any given time, the department over all had an 88 percent decline in the number of complaints filed against officers, compared with the 12 months before the study, to 3 from 24.

It doesn't just encourage police officers to behave better and with more restraint, it also heads off bogus misconduct complaints. If both parties know they're being recorded, both parties behave better and are less likely to misconstrue events.

New York's Public Advocate's office has just released a report supporting the use of body cameras by the NYPD. It notes that the investment required to outfit the entire NYPD is only a small fraction of the millions of dollars paid out every year to settle police misconduct cases.

The public advocate's office estimates that equipping 15 percent of the city's police force would cost under $5 million, with each camera costing $450 to $900. Outfitting the entire department would run about $32 million…

The city paid roughly $152 million as a result of claims of police misconduct, the report states.

The cost for the entire NYPD is only one-fifth of one year's settlements. If the cameras are only half as effective as they were in Rialto in terms of reducing complaints, the corresponding savings in settlements should be enough to buy every cop in the city a new body cam every year. If a reduction in complaints tracks almost directly with the number of lawsuits settled, this would result in a minimum of a $50-60 million drop in settlements. And that's at half the 88% drop in complaints reported by Rialto's PD.

Guess who doesn't want to see police officers outfitted with body cams? Unlike last year, both the mayor and the police commissioner are on board with the idea. The holdout here is the walking embarrassment that is Pat Lynch, the president of the Police Benevolent Association (the largest union within the NYPD), whom we last heard decrying the cellphone-wielding citizens trying to "demonize" cops with their recordings of police brutality. Here's Pat on the issue of body cameras.

"We are reserving our decision on body cameras until we see some real evidence of their effectiveness and impact on the officers who carry them. The Public Advocate cites the $152 million that the city spends on lawsuits against police officers but what she fails to say is that the city refuses to fight even the most ridiculous and baseless of the claims. Instead, they settle these ridiculous suits when they should fight everyone of them to conclusion which would effectively put an end to quick buck lawsuits against our officers."

Hey, Pat: you know what else "effectively puts an end to quick buck lawsuits against officers?" Body cameras. When parties know the situation is being recorded, the quick bucksters are less likely to file complaints they know can easily be contradicted. Putting body cameras on officers actually helps shield them from bogus complaints.

And if your problem is that the city rolls over for "ridiculous and baseless claims," why not give your officers a weapon to help battle those? In this day and age, "your word against mine" just isn't enough, even with prosecutors and judges still more than willing to assume a police officer always tells the truth.

The "downside," of course, is that is that body cameras also record bad behavior by police officers. For Pat Lynch, this potential outcome is unacceptable. It's much, much harder to defend officers whose misconduct is caught on tape. (But not impossible…) And police union leaders are known for their willingness to defend the worst of the worst, even in the face of public outcry or, even worse, when police departments are trying to rid themselves of bad cops they can no longer afford to indulge.

If Lynch is tired of his officers being "demonized" by camera-wielding citizens, he should jump at this chance to give his officers a chance to fight back with recordings of their own. Instead, he just spins the Public Advocate's settlement numbers as an indicator of a city too willing to indulge baseless lawsuits. His cops can do no wrong and are oppressed by the tyranny of the public. But rather than give his men the technology to prove his theories, he argues against it, claiming this particular jury is still out.

Filed Under: cameras, lawsuits, new york, nyc, nypd, police

After Two Officers Are Indicted For Shooting Citizens, Dallas Police Dept. Decides Body Cameras Might Be A Good Idea

from the this-means-no-more-griping-about-citizens-filming-officers dept

Mandatory body cameras for police officers may not fix everything (see also: Albuquerque, NM), but it's a step in the right direction. The problem is that this directive usually follows preventable tragedies or years of systemic abuse (see also: New York City Police Department). The Dallas, Texas police department is next in line for body cameras, thanks to two of its officers being indicted following questionable shootings.

Dallas Police Chief David Brown called for body cameras for officers this week after two city police officers were indicted for shooting civilians, one of whom was a mentally ill man who was off his medications.

The Associated Press said that Officers Cardan Spencer and Amy Wilburn were both charged with aggravated assault by a public servant in cases where their testimony did not match up with video evidence.

Spencer was indicted by a Dallas County grand jury last week over the shooting of 52-year-old Bobby Bennett, which took place on October 13 of last year. Spencer claimed that Bennett lunged at him with a knife, prompting him to open fire. Video taken from a neighboring house’s surveillance cameras, however, showed Bennett standing stock still on the lawn of his mother’s home in Rylie, TX, before being struck by a bullet and crumpling to the ground.

Here's the video being referenced, which contradicts (former) Officer Spencer's report.


Putting cameras on officers will remind them that they are being recorded and won't be as able to rewrite narratives on the fly. (Of course, officers have ways of circumventing this technology and remaining unrecorded...)

This new policy is being greeted with doomsaying by the local police union.

Dallas Police Association President Ron Pinkston, who had criticized the firings of Wilburn and Spencer, said he is “disgusted and alarmed” by the decision, especially since Bennett did have a knife.

“The Dallas Police Department has the most restrictive deadly force policy in the nation,” he said. “I believe Dallas police officers will now be hesitant and reluctant to use deadly force, and the result will be more names on the police memorial wall.”

This is the usual bluster pushed by police unions any time someone finds an officer at fault. All hell will apparently break loose if civil liberties are respected and deadly force curtailed. The Dallas Police Memorial Wall features memorializes a total of 80 officers who died in the line of duty -- over the last 122 years. Only about 46 of these deaths can be potentially attributed to the deadly actions of others. (29 were accidental or natural causes.) The six deaths attributed to police pursuit could land in either column, especially as more people realize high speed pursuits endanger everybody, not just the cops or the person being pursued. This means Dallas cops are dying at the hands of criminals at a rate of about one every three years -- a rate much, much lower than those dying at the hands of officers, who have two unjustified killings since last October.

This is the same argument Mayor Bloomberg offered when it appeared "his" officers would be subjected to some actual oversight. Cops will die because they'll hesitate. Given these two indictments, it seems highly unlikely. The mentally ill man was shot while he stood still with his hands at his sides. The other person killed was unarmed.

And let's not forget that the Dallas PD has one of the most accommodating policies in the nation when it comes to officer-involved shootings, one that allows narratives to be created post facto, utilizing all available information at hand.

Any Dallas officer involved in a police shooting — whether the officer fired a weapon or witnessed the gunfire — will now have the right to remain silent for 72 hours under a new department policy.

And even before they give a statement about the shooting, the officers can watch any available video before they give a statement.

The Dallas PD snuck this one through during the 2013 Thanksgiving holiday, prompted by (former) officer Spencer's shooting. Or more accurately, prompted by the emergence of a recording disputing his account of the incident. Unfortunately, the DPD has yet to offer the same 72-hour "cooldown" period to members of the public who have fired a weapon or witnessed gunfire. I guess the "first 48" approach applies to public only.

The police union head also made the following claim in his plea for officers to remain unobserved and unaccountable.

“The video is just one part of the investigation,” he insisted to the AP. “But that’s not what the public sees. They only see the video and they make conclusions off the one piece of evidence.”

Video lies, or at least omits pertinent gut feelings, apparently. Remember, an officer's training and instinct outweighs contradictory video evidence, at least according to one court. The police union chief thinks that the public draws the wrong conclusions from video -- that public apparently also including the normally cop-friendly grand jurists, who saw that Spencer's statement was blatantly false and the shooting unjustified.

The first step is putting the cameras on the officers. The next step is ensuring the devices remain on and unaltered. The third is actually holding officers accountable when misconduct rears its ugly head. The presence of cameras should discourage both sides of the interaction from escalating unnecessarily and easily disprove false allegations about misconduct or excessive force.

This technology can be beneficial for cops as well, but those who prefer their cops unobserved tend to ignore this fact. That convenient logic hole indicates that union heads know their officers are abusing their position and power all too frequently -- and will fight any oversight attempt that might expose this.

Filed Under: cameras, dallas, dallas police department, police

History Repeating: Google Glass Getting Same Treatment As Walkman And Cameras Once Did

from the will-glassholes-look-better-in-hindsight? dept

There's just something about Google Glass that seems to... create a visceral emotional response among some people. For some it's excitement at the potential, but for many others it's pure hate, leading to things like the term "glasshole" and various reports of attacks or problems for Google Glass wearers. It's even to the point that Kash Hill at Forbes has an article based on all the various news stories about "places not to wear your Google Glass." Personally, I don't have (nor want) a pair right now, but I'm excited by the potential and opportunity for wearable devices (even as it seems fashionable to hate on the concept).

A few months ago, though, the folks at On the Media's TLDR blog posted a story comparing the launch of the Walkman to the launch of Glass that I keep thinking about. The basic idea was that with the Walkman there was a similar reaction to the idea of people walking around wearing headphones all the time. Of course, today, you basically can't walk anywhere without seeing people with headphones on -- but, as they note, in the early days, people really didn't like it. That link takes you to an NPR story from 1981 about people reacting to the original Walkman. And the quotes could almost all be applied to much of the haters of Google Glass today:

Unidentified Man #1: They're obnoxious.

Unidentified Man #2: It looks stupid to me. Some people approve of it, you know. It's fine if - privacy your home, you know? A closet radio listener.

(Soundbite of laughter)

PROFITT: You know what? I love these big radios.

(Soundbite of music)

PROFITT: But there's something weird about these little headphones, isn't there?

Unidentified Man #2: Yeah, people do kind of look funny and they kind of look, like, you know, pretty smug when I'm wearing them and everything.

Unidentified Man #1: With a radio, it's a power impulse, because I used to have big radio and everybody admires you with the radio. But as far as the little Walkmans is concerned, you're keeping all the sound to yourself.

PROFITT: What, pray tell, are you listening to on your headphones?

That "smug" line is really the killer one, given that's the biggest complaint about "glassholes." I have no idea if Glass itself will catch on. Certainly plenty of the reviews point to significant problems with the current versions. But it seems likely that something like Glass, if not Glass itself, will eventually catch on. Even if they look dorky and make people look smug. I recently saw, for example, a Kickstarter project for some interesting looking augmented reality glasses that have many similar features to Glass. And the product video made it look really cool... until they actually showed someone wearing the damn thing, and my emotional response was the same as folks above. It just looks ridiculous.

Of course, the more you look, the more you realize that such fears aren't a new phenomenon or a rare thing either. The Walkman/headphones example is just one of many. For example, back when Eastman Kodak released its first cameras, there was a similar freakout:

The appearance of Eastman's cameras was so sudden and so pervasive that the reaction in some quarters was fear. A figure called the "camera fiend" began to appear at beach resorts, prowling the premises until he could catch female bathers unawares. One resort felt the trend so heavily that it posted a notice: "PEOPLE ARE FORBIDDEN TO USE THEIR KODAKS ON THE BEACH." Other locations were no safer. For a time, Kodak cameras were banned from the Washington Monument. The "Hartford Courant" sounded the alarm as well, declaring that "the sedate citizen can't indulge in any hilariousness without the risk of being caught in the act and having his photograph passed around among his Sunday School children."

Even if these kinds of reactions may be perfectly normal emotional responses to new technologies, these days, I'm trying to keep in mind that recognizing the real possibility of such devices can take some time. So, the next time you're tempted to make fun of someone for wearing Glass or something similar, think about whether you'd make fun of the same person for popping in earbuds to listen to some music or a podcast, or for carrying a camera around her neck, and remember... things change.

Filed Under: awkward, cameras, culture, google glass, history, innovation, walkmen

DailyDirt: Algorithms + Cameras = Awesome

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

Digital cameras are almost everywhere, and they're getting smaller and smarter. Whole new categories of cameras are being developed that don't need lenses or don't need large sensors. Instead, algorithms are being used to manipulate digitized light rays to create impressive images without traditional camera components. Here are just a few examples.

• Rambus is developing a super tiny camera that could be embedded in almost anything. The imaging from this lensless sensor is pretty low resolution, but it's good enough for many situations, and it could even record video. [url]
• Capturing 3D images with a single lens camera can be done without moving the camera. The trick is done by taking a picture of the same object but focused at different depths. The technique is called "light field moment imaging" and uses an algorithm to create the stereoscopic images. [url]
• Bell Labs is working on single pixel, lensless cameras. The technique used here is called "compressive sensing" and relies on a randomized array of apertures to collect multiple snapshots that can re-create a high-resolution image. The applications aren't exactly obvious, but perhaps astronomers or photographers of slow-moving subjects would be interested. [url]

If you'd like to read more awesome and interesting stuff, check out this unrelated (but not entirely random!) Techdirt post via StumbleUpon.

Filed Under: 3d images, algorithms, camera gear, cameras, compressive sensing, lensless camera, light field moment imaging, photography, sensors, video recording
Companies: bell labs, rambus

DailyDirt: That Fancy New Camera...

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

Not too long ago, cameras seemed to be integrated into nearly everything -- with some folks wondering when toasters or dishwashers would come with built-in cameras. Thankfully, though, the upcoming "internet of things" doesn't seem to want to take photos of everything (yet). We've covered a few new-fangled cameras before, so here are just a few other camera systems that might get popular soon.

• A German-based company called The Marmalade is using robots to capture some cool high speed video. Robots as camera operators are becoming more and more common with companies like Bot&Dolly and others making some high-profile movie scenes. [url]
• KMel Robotics creates some neat quadcopters that can be used for aerial photography. Similar quadcopters have been used for recording events like weddings -- with some technical glitches that might need to be edited out of the final cut. [url]
• A throwable panoramic ball camera can take 360° photos when it gets to the apex of its trajectory. This camera's indiegogo campaign is over, but you can still pre-order (and get the discount) at panono.com. [url]

If you'd like to read more awesome and interesting stuff, check out this unrelated (but not entirely random!) Techdirt post via StumbleUpon.

Filed Under: camera gear, cameras, cinematography, panoramic ball, photography, photos, quadcopters, robots, videography
Companies: bot&dolly, indiegogo, kmel robotics, the marmalade

Canadian Cop Puts On An Impromptu Clinic On How To Deal With Critics And Cameras

from the timcushinglovescops.com dept

timcushinghatescops.com brings you the following special holiday message:

When I call out law enforcement officers for brutality, excessive force, moral turpitude and a general contempt for citizens' rights, it's not because I think all cops are bad. In fact, I know the job is often thankless and unpleasant. Many officers only deal with the kind of people we all hope we'll never run into, and they do it day after day. Even when a cop does his or her job well, there's a chance he or she will be criticized for any perceived missteps. (Quite possibly by me...)

When I cover stories of police misconduct, it's not because I believe that the mindset and actions on display are present in a majority of law enforcement officers. I don't think it is. The problem is that it's still far too prevalent and will only increase as long as cops are shielded by other officers, supervisors and friends in the judicial system. Law enforcement members wield a great deal of power with very little accountability.

But not all cops are bad cops, just like all cops aren't saints. But underneath it all, they're all human beings dealing with the day-to-day rigors of a job most people would never take.

Via Photography Is Not A Crime comes this video of a Canadian cop, Mark Morelli, who makes the best of what could easily have become a bad situation -- an arrest featuring several onlookers with cameras and one very uncooperative suspect. How does he keep this from becoming something more in line with the stories I usually cover? Watch. (The first 4:30 is the arrest. What follows after that is worth sticking around for.)

There's nothing more powerful than using your position and experience to inform, and to do so patiently in the face of vocal critics. The only one who comes off as a jerk is the cameraman, who is so "disturbed" by what he's seeing that he wants to go back inside where it's warmer.

The suspect knows there's an audience and that fact undoubtedly colors her performance. (And it is a performance -- at 3:07 she adjusts her hair with her handcuffed hands, almost unleashes a smile and then returns to making a whole lot of noise.)

Morelli should be held up as an example for other officers all over his nation and ours (meaning the US in this case, but feel free to apply it to your own). Rather than view onlookers "armed" with cameras as an enemy, he treats them as a simple fact of life. The job of policing is no longer private or purely subject to opinionated eyewitness accounts.

Cameras can be a cop's best friend, even when wielded by antagonistic onlookers. Morelli seizes the opportunity afforded by this recording to explain what he's done, why he did it and all without tossing out threats or condescension. He exits the situation gracefully, having gained the respect of most of the viewers. That's how you "win" at being a cop. Communication -- communication that asserts authority without using it as a weapon. "These are the facts." "This is what I do." It's professionalism at its best.

Filed Under: cameras, canada, mark morelli, police, police brutality

FBI Bungles Malware Attempt As Courts Begin To Question Its Legality

from the fbi-as-script-kiddies dept

Back during the summer, we wrote about how the FBI was increasingly using malware to spy on people (though they apparently tried to avoid using it with technically savvy people to avoid having its capabilities "discovered"). However, the Washington Post has more details on how the FBI uses malware in trying to track down someone, based on court documents -- though it also notes that at least some courts have balked at such techniques, pointing out that they go way too far and probably violate the 4th Amendment.

The FBI has been able to covertly activate a computer’s camera — without triggering the light that lets users know it is recording — for several years, and has used that technique mainly in terrorism cases or the most serious criminal investigations, said Marcus Thomas, former assistant director of the FBI’s Operational Technology Division in Quantico, now on the advisory board of Subsentio, a firm that helps telecommunications carriers comply with federal wiretap statutes.

The FBI’s technology continues to advance as users move away from traditional computers and become more savvy about disguising their locations and identities. “Because of encryption and because targets are increasingly using mobile devices, law enforcement is realizing that more and more they’re going to have to be on the device — or in the cloud,” Thomas said, referring to remote storage services. “There’s the realization out there that they’re going to have to use these types of tools more and more.”

The ability to remotely activate video feeds was among the issues cited in a case in Houston, where federal magistrate Judge Stephen W. Smith rejected a search warrant request from the FBI in April. In that case, first reported by the Wall Street Journal, Smith ruled that the use of such technology in a bank fraud case was “extremely intrusive” and ran the risk of accidentally capturing information of people not under suspicion of any crime.

Smith also said that a magistrate’s court based in Texas lacked jurisdiction to approve a search of a computer whose location was unknown. He wrote that such surveillance software may violate the Fourth Amendment’s limits on unwarranted searches and seizures.

Yet another federal magistrate judge, in Austin, approved the FBI’s request to conduct a “one-time limited search” — not involving the computer’s camera — by sending surveillance software to the e-mail account of a federal fugitive in December 2012.

Still, the report details how the FBI can insert malware in a variety of ways, and that the malware can often do things like turn on your camera without the light turning on. Most reports of malware concerning turning on cameras in the past still had the light go on. It appears that this is all the more reason for people to tape over their cameras. That said, it could be even worse. If they can turn on your camera remotely, they can almost certainly turn on your microphone remotely also. And, of course, with a microphone there is no light in the first place and you can't just cover it up. Voila, instant wiretaps beyond just phone calls. Seems extreme, but does anyone doubt that the FBI can do this, and likely does do this?

Of course, the Washington Post report also shows that while the FBI may be able to create and install malware like this, it also seems to make an awful lot of mistakes:

Federal magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya approved the FBI’s search warrant request on Dec. 11, 2012, nearly five months after the first threatening call from Mo. The order gave the FBI two weeks to attempt to activate surveillance software sent to the texan.slayer@yahoo.com e-mail address. All investigators needed, it seemed, was for Mo to sign on to his account and, almost instantaneously, the software would start reporting information back to Quantico.

The logistical hurdles proved to be even more complex than the legal ones. The first search warrant request botched the Yahoo e-mail address for Mo, mixing up a single letter and prompting the submission of a corrected request. A software update to a program the surveillance software was planning to target, meanwhile, raised fears of a malfunction, forcing the FBI to refashion its malicious software before sending it to Mo’s computer.

The warrant authorizes an “Internet web link” that would download the surveillance software to Mo’s computer when he signed on to his Yahoo account. (Yahoo, when questioned by The Washington Post, issued a statement saying it had no knowledge of the case and did not assist in any way.)

The surveillance software was sent across the Internet on Dec. 14, 2012 — three days after the warrant was issued — but the FBI’s program didn’t function properly, according to a court document submitted in February,

“The program hidden in the link sent to texan.slayer@­yahoo.com never actually executed as designed,” a federal agent reported in a handwritten note to the court.

It looks like this is the typical case of once law enforcement has a tool it's looking to use it more and more, even as it clearly has not yet worked out the kinks -- and there's been no real chance for a comprehensive look at whether or not the use of such tools is legal, beyond what individual judges are deciding on a case by case basis.

Of course, just the fact that the FBI is able to turn on cameras and microphones without letting someone know has some pretty serious consequences. Jon Schwarz pointed out the basic similarities to 1984 about what happens when the government can magically spy on just about anyone without you knowing about it. Making people live in fear is not what "freedom" is about, now is it? Raise your hands for those who expect that this technology won't be abused.

Filed Under: cameras, fbi, malware, microphones, surveillance