BIG BROTHER ON A CELL

A new technology challenge is before us. And the implications are far reaching. It presents dangers and it also provides a crucial tool in rendering life saving results. Before I describe it, let me just mention that those who control it today might not be the ones who will control it exclusively in the future. The new technology is a simulator, a fake cell phone tower. Its capacity was described in a Tallahassee Democrat report as follows: “government investigators and private individuals can locate, interfere with and intercept communications from cellphones and other wireless devices.”¹ Apparently, this capability has been in the hands of the FBI since 1995. The most recent twist is that the technology is available to local police forces.

Has this sharing been done in the open? Has it been announced with fanfare and gratitude celebrated in our local media? Not quite. The technology and its dispersing to local authorities came to light as a result of a 2008 rape case in which the accused rapist was identified as a result of the simulator's use. The problem was that its use was not authorized with a warrant or permission. The simulator was used to identify the person of interest and the officers, investigating the case, went to the person's domicile and they, in effect, broke in and found the suspect and personal items of the victim. But since they lacked the warrant or permission, the resulting conviction was thrown out and the court ordered a new trial. Now the question is whether the obtained evidence can be used in a new trial. But that's not the issue here.

My concern here is what this technology means to our sense of a mutual fate. How does a policy shrouded in secrecy help or hinder our ability to feel we are all in this together? And according to American Civil Liberties Union statements, the secrecy could be motivated to avoid complications with Fourth Amendment protections of privacy. Needless to say, government's ability to know what we say on a phone is quite invasive into our private affairs and can be used by unscrupulous politicians to advance their aims illegitimately. The point is if evidence is gathered by the use of this technology and a less than ideal investigative process – such as with the cited rape case – is followed, perhaps a lack of knowledge of its existence could save cases that would otherwise be lost on appeals. Also, if law enforcement capabilities are secret, would-be criminals will not be able to make arrangements to counter the entailed procedures. At present, 29 law enforcement agencies have use of the simulator technology. We now know all of these facts not due to officials informing the public, but because of the attention that the appeal on the above rape case drew and the request for information appeals that ensued by the news media outlets. So, there are two dangers: one, government having unconstitutional access to our private affairs and, two, unscrupulous agents – who some day might include private individuals or groups – having information that can be used to commit crimes, political or otherwise, that could victimize any one of us.

What about the positive uses? According to law enforcement officials, due to the ability to track and decipher cell phones, lives have been saved. The Florida Department of Law Enforcement official said that its uses of the simulator are always done with a warrant unless there is an emergency situation such as a murder, kidnapping, sexual assault, or other violent situation. According to a police spokesperson, in these extreme cases, lives have been saved due to the use of simulators. As it turns out, to use or not to use this technology is a classic case of weighing security versus liberty. Which way should we go? Obviously, this is a discussion we should have.

But how can you discuss something if you don't know that that something exists? And further, the negative effects of secrecy are compounded when the technology comes to light. We should assume that eventually such capabilities will be generally known – information is like water; it is bound to find those cracks that exist and work its way out of any enclosure. This is especially true in a relatively open society. When it is found out, then its attempted cover-up just adds to our collective sense of mistrust. In this case, should we be wary of public officials knowing too much about our affairs? Can we trust them if they are gathering personal information in ways that we have not been informed about, much less given our consent? Mistrust undermines federal unions. Yes, there are legitimate instances for secrecy – nuclear secrets come to mind – but, in general, we should limit access to public policy information in only the most sensitive situations – where lives are at stake if the information were known. The general goal should be to open up as much as possible even if political costs are involved. After all, we are all united for the common good as participating partners. Partners need to know what's going on.

1Portman, J. (2014). Invasive or essential? Tallahassee Democrat, March 16, pp. 1A and 4A. Quotation on p. 1A. The facts related in this posting are derived from this article.