Worried about government overreach? How about the pesky invasion of your privacy by law enforcement officials and agencies?

Does it bother you that the government has the capability to see practically every step you make and listen to nearly every word you speak? Or, does your next book need a cool high-tech twist? Yes or no, you might want to take a moment to ponder this bit of information regarding the government’s nearly insatiable quest to spy on … well, everyone.

• Homeland Security and the Justice Department have spent nearly $100 million on secret cellphone tracking technology. Together, the two agencies own more than 400 cell-site simulators that can be used to zero in covertly on the locations of cellphones. Covertly = the phone user has no idea that someone is secretly listening to their calls, and/or the same “spy” knows the location of each cell phone.
• The FBI has 194 cell-site simulators (see below for descriptions of cell-site simulators).
• The U.S. Marshals Service has 70.
• U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement has 59.
• U.S. Customs and Border Protection has 33.
• The  Drug Enforcement Administration has 33.
• U.S. Secret Service has 32.
• The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has 13.
• The Internal Revenue Service Criminal Investigations division has two.
•  The Treasury inspector general has one.
• Some of the devices are small enough to use in vehicles, meaning that as the “spy” drives through a neighborhood, he can collect phone data from every user he passes.
• Nearly $2 million in grant money has been awarded to local law enforcement agencies specifically for the purpose of purchasing cell-site simulators.
• Currently, federal policy requires that all federal law enforcement officials obtain a warrant prior to utilizing a cell-site simulator. However, the rule does not apply to local police, who may freely use these devices.
• Current law requires nondisclosure agreements that require prosecutors to abandon criminal charges rather than disclose local police use of cell-site simulators. A bipartisan reports indicates a need to eliminate this nondisclosure agreement.
• A bill has been introduced to mandate that all law enforcement agencies, including local police, obtain a warrant prior to utilizing a cell-site simulator.

The costs of these devices range between a few thousand to $800,000, each.

1. Cellbrite Battlefield Recovery – a portable handheld device used to suck a device/phone dry of its data. Extracts photos, text messages, videos, and call logs. You could purchase this cool thingamajig for $9,920, plus a 1 year fee of $900 to cover support and maintenance.

2. Raven – used to interrogate and geolocate target phones. *To interrogate a phone means to trick the target phone into sending its identifiers. Geolocate is to determine the location of a target phone. The Raven can be utilized from fixed wing aircraft or on the ground. The Raven price tag is a modest $800,000.

3. Blackfin – for listening in on calls and viewing text messages. For the low, low fee of $75,000, you, too, can own one these little darlings.

4. DRT (aka “dirt box”) – targets and locates up to 10,000 devices (phones) and tricks them into “thinking” the DRT is a cell tower. DRT then collects and analyzes data, including voice data. Can be used from aircraft or ground. DRT, a soup-up version of the Stingray, has the capability of capturing data from up to 10,000 devices during a single flight/operation. DRT = $100,000. Stingray = $134,952.

5. Stargrazer III – locates devices, captures their data, and jams their signals preventing users from making and receiving calls.

6. Thoracic – handheld cell phone tracking device. Pinpoints location of target phones. $7,500.

*It is believed (it’s true, but you didn’t hear from me) that devices such as the Stingray and DRT are capable of intercepting private conversations by using the person’s cell phone as a “bug.” Simply use the phone’s firmware remotely and it’s like becoming the “fly on the wall.” Some of you may remember the old party-lines where you could pick up your receiver and listen in on the conversations of your neighbors? Yeah, it’s like that.

Spies Are Listening!

If our law enforcement agencies are using these devices, well, foreign spies are most likely using them too. If so (and I’m 99.999999% sure they are), foreign governments are intercepting and listening to U.S. cell phone calls and text-type messages.

Party Lines

Isn’t it funny how we’ve traveled full circle, from people wanting to move away from party line phones because they weren’t private, to sophisticated cell phone technology that requires expensive high-tech equipment and resources to transform our newfangled and complicated gadgets back into party line phones.

*By the way, there’s practically no end to the surveillance citizens are subjected to each day. For example, We-Vibe, the sex toy maker, has agreed to pay customers up to $7,600 each for selling them a “smart vibrator.” Not a big deal you say? Well, these “toys” tracked the customers’ sexual habits without their knowledge.

The device comes with an app-enabled function that allows the “item” to be remotely activated and controlled. However, security flaws within the app allowed anyone within Bluetooth range to gain control of the device. The app also collected information such as the temperature of the device, the vibration intensity, the number of times it was in use, etc. This extremely personal data was immediately sent to the manufacturer.

So yeah, “they” are watching and listening.

Are we ever truly alone?

If only police wore body cameras…

“Body cameras will reduce violence.”

“Wear a camera and assaults against officers will decrease.”

“There will be less incidents of force by officers if they’re forced to wear body cameras.”

Those were just some of the comments we heard when the issue of police body cameras first began to emerge. So yes, police officers across the U.S. have begun to wear cameras as part of their duty gear, but the results of their use are a bit surprising.

Researchers at the University of Cambridge worked with eight police forces across the UK and US—West Midlands, Cambridgeshire and Northern Ireland’s PSNI, as well as Ventura, California and Rialto, California. The research (a large study involving 2,122 officers, 2.2 million officer-hours, and interaction with 2 million citizens) was comprised of ten randomized-controlled trials where officers either wore body cameras that were switched on the entire time of their shifts, did not wear body cameras, or they wore cameras but were permitted to switch them on or off at the officers’ discretion.

The results:

• Use of force incidents by officers wearing cameras fell by 37% (suspects readily complied with officer commands).
• Use of force rose by 71% among officers who were permitted to switch cameras on and off at their discretion.
• The rate of assaults against officers wearing cameras increased by 15% as opposed to non-camera-wearing officers.
• Assaults against officers were greater in number when the officer told a suspect they were being recorded or when they announced they were switching on their cameras.
• Officers wearing cameras reported more assaults against them as opposed to the officers who were not wearing cameras. It’s thought that officers wearing cameras felt they could report assaults because they had video proof of the incidents.

Further study is needed to determine if wearing a body camera causes officers to feel less confident/self-assured which could result in being more vulnerable and susceptible to assault. This could be the cause for the increase in number of attacks against camera-wearing officers.

An odd thing about the study is that it showed the results varied from one area to another, meaning that camera use in one location within a city may produce a different reaction in another. For example, the presence of a body camera could be welcomed in the south side of AnyTown, but in the north side the presence of a body camera they might anger those residents. The same is true from town to town. Town A citizens might love seeing their officers wearing cameras. However, Town B citizens may feel resentment or enticed to use violence against the officers who’re recording their actions.

My take on the study results – body cameras may or may not be a good thing, and whether they are or are not is controlled by a number of influences over both the police and citizens, including human judgement, human error, and even human emotion—fear, shame, pride, etc. So, like anything else where split second decisions are made…it depends. That’s my answer and I’m sticking to it…maybe.

Body Cameras. The cry for their use by police officers has been loud and strong, along with a demand that they be switched on nearly every second of an officer’s shift, without any means whatsoever for the officer to switch it off. Tamper proof. No access by anyone. Etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.

Well, many of those tamper-proof cameras that are supposed to record every step of an officer’s day without outside intervention, have been hacked.

Yes, many police body cameras are infected with Cornficker, a worm that has infected millions of computers in over 190 countries. Typically, the worm uses the OS system to paw around inside a computer searching for and stealing important data, such as credit card information, passwords, and other personal information.

Body cameras used by police departments, as is the case with any other type of device or item that can be used as evidence in court cases, must be completely tamper proof. Otherwise, the evidence contained within isn’t worth the price of what you paid to read this article.

So far, I believe, the Cornficker virus/worm is limited to the $499 body cameras manufactured and sold by Martel. And yes, Martel has sold these units to agencies all across the country. This particular worm infestation initiates when the data from the cameras is uploaded into department computers via USB. The virus then makes its way throughout the computer system.

A worm eats into the camera, ruining the data inside. The information within is then bad. And we all know what comes next… One bad camera can indeed spoil the whole bunch.

Cornficker is so problematic that it has caused temporary grounding of military aircraft, infection of computers in Naval vessels, including submarines, and the theft of scores of personal and secret data. Just think of the damage other hackers could inflict on a high-profile criminal case that heavily relies on the video evidence captured by an officer’s body camera, such as altering or erasing key parts of the recording.

At the very least, having the Cornficker worm, or other viruses…well, worming its way around the inside of a police officer’s body camera is cause for reasonable doubt. In other words, the dismissal of a very important criminal case.

This information, my writer friends, is excellent fodder for countless plot twists. Imagine the look on the faces of jury members when they view an altered body camera recording. Hmm… What could you dream up for them to see? I wonder…

Ranger-R, like other handheld radar units of similar design and type, allows officers and other first responders to “see” through walls and other obstructions.

The device works by detecting movement, even an action as slight as someone breathing. Its capabilities include detecting movement behind walls, floors, concrete, steel, concrete blocks, and more.

The technology is quite similar to a contractor’s stud finder, a handheld device used to locate wall studs (2×4’s, etc.), water pipes, and electrical wiring. When a stud finder locates its target it alerts the user with a bright light and by sounding a tone.

Units used by first responders are far more sensitive and are utilized to determine the locations of hostages, assailants, and injured people. Firefighters also use these devices to locate people trapped inside burning buildings and rubble.

Here’s how the technology works.

Of course, as with all products there is a certain margin of error. For example, I’m not so sure my “stud” finder is working properly today. I set it to “stud scan” and it alerted, but…

NYPD Detective/WPA instructor Marco Conelli

WPA instructors ATF Special Agent Rick McMahan and Secret Service Agent Mike Roche