St. Rep. Elaine Nekritz, D-Northbrook, IL

Recent court case rulings in Illinois regarding the constitutionality of Illinois’ eavesdropping law have placed this topic at the agenda forefront of some Illinois legislators and the ACLU.

Illinois’ eavesdropping law is one of the strictest in the country. The law makes it illegal to audio-record police without their consent, even when they’re working in public. Illinois is one of a handful of states in which it is illegal to record audio of public conversations without the permission of everyone involved.

Breaking this law carries a harsh penalty. It is a felony punishable by up to 15 years in prison. This law has come under increased scrutiny in the last few years in courts throughout the state.

State Representative Elaine Nekritz, D-Northbrook has filed a bill that would allow people to audio-record a police officer working in public without the officer’s consent. In an interview last Thursday, Rep. Nekritz said, “I believe that the existing statute is a significant intrusion into First Amendment rights, so with the prosecutions and the court cases that have been reported about, it just seemed that this is a problem in need of a swift solution.”

Last August, a Cook County jury acquitted a woman who had recorded two Chicago police internal affairs investigators she believed were trying to dissuade her from filing a sexual harassment complaint against a patrol officer.

In another Cook County case, Chicago artist Chris Drew is facing trial for allegedly making an illegal audio recording of Chicago police during a 2009 arrest for selling art on a downtown street without a permit.

In September, a Crawford County judge ruled the law unconstitutional and dismissed eavesdropping charges against a man accused of recording police and court officials without their consent.

The latter ruling prompted Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan to file notice that she will appeal directly to the state Supreme Court. Lisa Madigan said she wants to delay arguments until after a ruling from the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago regarding a suit against the law filed by the ACLU in 2010.

In support of the current law are officials from the Fraternal Order of Police in Chicago. They have said the union backs the current law because it prevents people from making baseless accusations against officers by recording them and then releasing snippets that don’t reveal the full context of the incident.

Rep. Nekritz proposed legislation, HB 3944, would allow a person to record a phone conversation with a business if the business says it may record the call, but she said police officers working in public should not consider their actions private.

Clearly, both sides make valid points in defending their arguments. However, given recent court rulings and the fact that Illinois is only one of a few states with this law on the books, it appears it may be difficult to defend its continued existence. Then again, Lisa Madigan has tremendous political clout. It will be interesting to see how this all shakes out.

Read story@ chicagotribune

Much has been written about the security concerns of the President of the United States using a Blackberry – in particular about President Obama as he is more tech-savvy than previous Presidents.

I don’t claim to be an expert on how hackers do their thing, but I find it disturbing when journalists/media print or talk of the ways in which security can be breached. Why would we want to give the crazies of the world any tips on how to breach our national security? Exposing techniques for hacking or eavesdropping  on the President of the United States is quite irresponsible - whether you know what you are talking about or not. Even if there is a justified vulnerability concern, don’t publicize it!

Two such articles do just that (links provided at the end of this story). My head was spinning after reading about the various technologies, the proposed vulnerabilities written by non-security experts, and the comments written by readers explaining why/how it would be virtually impossible to hack into the President’s Blackberry.

Both stories seem more focused on concerns that carrying around a Blackberry places the President at risk because his location could be determined either via GPS tracking of his device or by hackers being able to hone in on which device belongs to the President by discovering the serial number (IMEI) of his device.

One author gave an example of how this could be accomplished by saying, “By pointing an antenna at the White House, it’d be possible to instantly determine if the president was inside.” I think it’s safe to say that if you point an antenna, or anything at the White House, the Secret Service will be pointing guns at you. Is this author serious? Considering loitering by the south lawn can be a dangerous hobby, the likelihood of anyone snatching Obama’s data with a Pringles can hidden in a sleeping bag is unlikely. Besides, we already know he is living in the White House and his traveling schedule is public knowledge.

The author’s speculation of Pennsylvania Avenue vulnerability is considered amateur by real exploiters that spend time grabbing useful data in other countries.

The author also writes, “With a sophisticated-enough antenna, it might even be possible to determine which vehicle the president is sitting in while traveling in a motorcade…” I dare anyone to get close enough to a Presidential motorcade and see if they go undetected. What are you going to do? Follow the motorcade in your vehicle with your antenna sticking out your window? If you are getting close enough that an antenna can pick up which car the President is riding in, the Secret Service is not doing its job.

Besides, you can be assured that SIM Cards, IMSI’s, IMEI’s and other ID’s are being changed like socks. This brings me to an article published that hopefully puts to rest the paranoid and sensationalist writings about the security of the President’s Blackberry. The article talks of the team who invented the Presidential Secure Blackberry. Yes, someone actually thought this one through. Maybe now some journalists will be able to sleep at night. I know I won’t lose any sleep over this one.

Sources:
cnet
cnet
infosecurity

Here is one company’s promise on its website to anyone who wants to eavesdrop on someone else’s cellphone: “You could now listen in 100% completely undetected.”

The average person now has easy access to spy technology allowing them to gather cellphone information, read private emails, and track someone’s location using GPS. Experts say that the technologies are being used by spouses and partners to track, harass and stalk. “Technology has just exploded. It’s so sophisticated now and it’s very easy to utilize these different technologies to keep tabs on a person and find out where they’re going,” said Gina Pfund, chief assistant prosecutor of the Domestic Violence Unit in Passaic County.

This is very scary stuff when this type of technology gets into the wrong hands or is abused. I know of one woman who was being stalked by her ex-boyfriend and eventually learned he was tracking her whereabouts via her cellphone.

Experts say the person watching or listening is often a family member and frequently a suspicious or controlling partner. They have scanned Facebook pages, viewed online web-browsing histories, and exam­ined cellphone records for proof. However, some take it a step further, planting spyware on smart phones and computers.

Spyware is being aggressively marketed online as a means to find out if a spouse is cheating. It can be in­stalled on computers to monitor keystrokes, emails and passwords and to take screen snapshots. Spy software can also be installed on a smart phone to allow a third party to monitor calls, view text messages and photos, and track a person’s location and movement via GPS. A built-in microphone can also be remotely activated and used as a listening device, even when a phone is turned off. Technology experts say the phone user has no idea they are being spied on.

Richard Drobnick, director of the Teaneck ­based Mars & Venus Counseling Center, said some forms of snooping can be justified because “people need to know the truth.” For people who fear a partner is cheating, technology may be used as a way to put that suspicion to rest or to gain proof. “Try to talk about it, but if you still have very strong doubts and you find one of these other methods, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that,” Drobnick said.

For those who are victims of abuse or stalking, here are some tips:

Recommendations to protect a smart phone from spyware:

• Use passwords for access to the phone and its SIM card
• Restrict access to the phone by others
• Never download suspicious software
• Know how to remotely erase all stored information should the phone be lost or stolen
• Shop around for a phone that can support a full range of security options

For victims of stalking and domestic violence:

• Use a “safe” computer, such as one at a library or a friend’s house. Also, change phone passwords often and use new or disposable cellphones not within a family plan.
• For more safety tips on Inter­net and phone security, visit the Network for Surviving Stalking at nssadvice.org or the National Network to End Domestic Vio­lence at nnedv.org

MSI Detective Services provides Degugging Services. We can detect and remove spyware from computers and phones. In addition, we conduct professional investigations involving cheating and infidelity.

Read full story@ northjersey

Listening Device Disguised as a Fob

It would come as no surprise that most politicians would prefer to run unopposed for election. This is a story of a political nobody who says he secretly recorded for the FBI an incumbent state senator offering him a state job and cash to drop out of the race.

The candidacy of Little Village community activist Raul Montes Jr. would seem to pose no danger to the election hopes of state Sen. Steve Landek, who also is the mayor of Bridgeview. Montes, 36, has never held political office, has raised no campaign donations and, judging by his one-man effort to circulate nominating petitions, has no network of volunteers behind him.

Yet Landek has waged a full-bore legal campaign to challenge Montes’ nominating petitions and remove him from the ballot.

Montes says that Landek followed up that effort last week by inviting him to a skybox at Toyota Park, owned by the village of Bridgeview, where he says Landek used a carrot-and-stick approach to try to back him out of the race — alternately threatening to dirty him up in the petition challenge while also offering financial inducements.

Neither tactic is considered all that unusual in the cutthroat business of petition gathering and petition challenges overseen by a small cadre of election lawyers who make it their specialty to keep candidates on or off the ballot. It’s a world where incumbents almost always have the upper hand.

However, in this case, Montes brought in the FBI to secretly record his conversation with Landek. According to Montes, he said Landek promised him a job working on his campaign and later with his Senate staff if he agreed to withdraw from the race. Landek isn’t commenting, but his lawyer, election law specialist Burt Odelson, said Landek understood his legal bounds and offered Montes nothing improper.

Montes says, that he had brought along an FBI eavesdropping device, disguised as a fob on his key ring, to record what turned out to be their 2½-hour conversation. He said he met two female FBI agents before the meeting with Landek, then followed them to a residential neighborhood near the stadium where they put the recording device on his keychain.

Landek is an important suburban political power. So why would Landek, who can expect to have the entire Democratic establishment behind him, be intent on eliminating a rival who by all appearances stacks up as a non-contender?

Although Landek currently represents the 11th Senate District, legislative redistricting has pushed him into the 12th District, where Montes is his only would-be opponent. For one, if you have an opponent, there’s always a possibility, however remote, that you could lose. Also, when you have an opponent, you are put in a position to mount a campaign. Campaigns require time, energy, and most importantly, money.

Montes said Landek remarked on the cost of running a campaign several times during their talk to explain why it was worth his while to strike a deal.

Redistricting also creates uncertainty for incumbents. While Landek has only been in office a year, now he’s faced with running on new turf where Montes is bound to get some traction because of his Hispanic heritage.

As you would expect, the FBI is not confirming or denying any involvement with Montes. It is unknown as to what the outcome will be if the FBI did indeed set him up with an eavesdropping device for this meeting. I guess we will have to wait and see what transpires on this one.

This would be at least the second time Landek found himself on the receiving end of an FBI wiretap. The Sun-Times reported in 2006 that Landek was secretly recorded by a businessman who said he was being harassed to sell a real estate parcel that Bridgeview needed to build Toyota Park for use by the Chicago Fire.

Some information for this story was obtained @ suntimes