Posts Tagged ‘information gathering’

« Older entries
Newer entries »

FTC Warns Marketers That Mobile Apps May Violate Fair Credit Reporting Act

By Dawn in Background Checks, Criminal Records, invasion of privacy, Privacy, Private Investigator, Screening at February 9th, 2012 | No comments

Agency Sends Letter to Marketers of Six Apps for Background Screening

Personally, I am glad to see that these practices are being scrutinized (see my comments below).

The Federal Trade Commission warned marketers of six mobile applications that provide background screening apps that they may be violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The FTC warned the apps marketers that if they have reason to believe the background reports they provide are being used for employment screening, housing, credit, or other similar purposes, they must comply with the Act.

The companies that received the letters are Everify, Inc., marketer of the Police Records app; InfoPay, Inc., marketer of the Criminal Pages app; and Intelligator, Inc., marketer of Background Checks, Criminal Records Search, Investigate and Locate Anyone, and People Search and Investigator apps.

According to the FTC, some of the apps include criminal record histories, which bear on an individual’s character and general reputation and are precisely the type of information that is typically used in employment and tenant screening. ”If you have reason to believe that your background reports are being used for employment or other FCRA purposes, you and your customers who are using your reports for such purposes must comply with the FCRA,” the letters say.

The FCRA is designed to protect the privacy of consumer report information and ensure that the information supplied by consumer reporting agencies is accurate. Consumer reports are communications that include information on an individual’s character, reputation, or personal characteristics and are used or expected to be used for purposes such as employment, housing or credit. Read the full article »

Tags: , , , , , ,

Spying in the Name of Love

By Dawn in Cheaters, Cheating spouse, gps tracker, Infidelity, MSI Detective Services, stalking, Surveillance Services, Technology at February 2nd, 2012 | No comments

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Have you ever wondered if your significant other or spouse is cheating and been tempted to play sleuth? People have been catching their spouses or boyfriends/girlfriends cheating for centuries, but it took some real effort. Nowadays, it has become so easy due to technology.

Thirty-three percent of dating couples and 37 percent of spouses — slightly more women than men — say they have checked their partner’s email or call history on the sly, according to a survey last year by the gadget shopping site Retrevo.com, which queried more than 1,000 people online. Among those under 25, almost half reported snooping. Just 9 percent discovered evidence of cheating.

Retrevo.com spokeswoman Jennifer Jacobson said she doesn’t think young couples are less trusting. “It’s just that technology has made everyone’s communications highly accessible and people probably don’t see it as a violation of trust, because of how easy it is to do.”

When Patricia Masterson’s boyfriend broke into her email account in search of evidence that she had been cheating, she was deeply offended by the violation of her privacy. The fact that she had, indeed, been cheating hardly seemed like a good excuse.

She changed her tune 10 years later, when, married and pregnant, Masterson innocently spotted a text message on her husband’s cellphone from a woman regarding a baby. Her husband said it must have been sent to him by mistake, and Masterson, sensitive to privacy, left it alone — until a few months later, when the woman contacted Masterson through Facebook to reveal she’d recently given birth to her husband’s child.

Masterson said, “I became a snooper.” She poured through cellphone records and installed software to recover deleted emails, gathering all the details she could. “It was so not me; up until that point I had believed in absolute privacy.”

When, if ever, is it OK to invade a romantic partner’s privacy? Many say it’s often the only way to confirm suspicions of infidelity when all else fails. I am not sure what “all else” includes – asking and hoping for an honest answer? Hiding behind closed doors and eavesdropping on phone conversations? Following your partner? Hiring a private detective to perform surveillance on your partner? Place a GPS tracker on their car? Read the full article »

Tags: , , , ,

Why the Supreme Court GPS Decision Won’t Stop Warrantless Digital Surveillance

By Dawn in court cases, Debugging - Electronic Countermeasures, gps tracker, invasion of privacy, MSI Detective Services, Technology at January 27th, 2012 | No comments

So much is being written about people’s fears of losing their privacy. People who live in democratic societies are starting to feel as if they are slowly, but surely being transitioned into a police state. These fears are real and valid with the advancements of technology. However, laws being passed to protect the privacy of our citizens are not keeping up with these advancements.

On January 23, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously that law enforcement authorities do not generally have a right to affix a GPS tracking device to a suspect’s car without first obtaining a valid warrant. This case, United States v. Jones, is being referred to as one of the most important Fourth Amendment tests in a decade. However, the court’s decision only begins to address how the privacy rights of citizens will be protected in our technological world.

There are many more ways today to perform surveillance without physically trespassing on private property, a point recognized by Justice Samuel Alito in a concurrence joined by three other justices. Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in another concurring opinion, “the Fourth Amendment is not concerned only with trespassory intrusions on property.”

Justice Alito said the court should address how expectations of privacy affect whether warrants are required for remote surveillance using electronic methods that do not require the police to install equipment, such as GPS tracking of mobile telephones.

In his opinion, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote: 

“It is important to be clear about what occurred in this case: The Government physically occupied private property for the purpose of obtaining information. We have no doubt that such a physical intrusion would have been considered a ‘search’ within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment when it was adopted.”

Let’s consider our mobile phones. Mobile phone service providers log the list of cell sites to which our cell phones connect throughout the day. Mobile apps gather data on the usage patterns of our wireless devices and often track device location to the accuracy of a specific residence or office building, undermining the oft-cited claim that the data gathered is not “personal.” Much of this data is collected and then sold with our consent, in accordance with privacy policies that few of us read before accepting, to a complex ecosystem of mobile application providers and advertisers. Read the full article »

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Big Brother is Coming to Chicago

By Dawn in eavesdropping, hidden cameras, Illinois, invasion of privacy, MSI Detective Services, Privacy, Safety, Security, Technology at January 26th, 2012 | No comments

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

New street lights called “Intellistreets” are coming to Chicago. These are not your average street lights. These lights also double as surveillance monitors. They can play music, direct traffic, monitor conversations, take pictures, and send emergency signals. The lights include “Homeland Security” applications and are being installed in a few cities, including Chicago, Pittsburgh and Detroit, with the aid of government funding. The first concept installation of the system was launched in Farmington Hills, Michigan.

Some say these lights should be called, “Spying Street Lights.”

The system detects movement and can identify whether the movement is a car, person or animal. If too much movement is detected, the police are notified.

As you can imagine, some view this as an invasion of privacy, “creepy” and the feeling that Big Brother is watching. Others see the system as a way to keep their neighborhoods safer. One example is that some believe such a system could have prevented a deadly shooting that took place in the Uptown area of Charlotte, NC, last May. The shooting is believed to have been gang related.

The Deputy of Charlotte, North Carolina Homeland Security chief was quoted as saying, “If the City installed street lights with surveillance abilities…you would never know.”

The founder of the system, Ron Harwood, said he came up with the idea after 911 and Hurricane Katrina. He is the president of the company that manufactures these lights – Illuminating Concepts. In an interview with Fox News, Harwood said that if speakers are installed in the poles, authorities could speak to people to tell them what to do if there is an emergency. He also said that access to pictures/images would not be available to just anyone. He said that a police officer, city official or city employee would have to “ask” to retrieve an image from a pole and that image would be in the form of a “picture.” It was after Harwood’s development that he began discussions with Homeland Security.

It seems to me that law enforcement or investigators would need more than a picture if they were trying to analyze a crime – who did what and when, etc. It would seem you would need active surveillance to determine what took place during a crime. When people don’t feel they are being told everything, they aren’t going to trust the system. If the system is capable of surveillance and monitoring conversations, why would one believe that only a picture would be released to authorities? Read the full article »

Tags: , , , , ,

« Older entries
Newer entries »