Source: http://pcjc.blogs.pace.edu/tag/security/
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 11:25:36+00:00

Document:
The fallout from the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Riley v. California, 134 S. Ct. 2473, 189 L. Ed. 2d 430 (2014), has already changed police practices regarding the search and seizure of a cell phone that is held incident to an arrest. Before Riley, a police officer could search the cell phone of an arrestee for incriminating information or to expose the identities of accomplices. The Riley decision held that “[m]odern cell phones are not just another technological convenience. With all they contain and all they may reveal, they hold for many Americans ‘the privacies of life.’” The fact that technology now allows an individual to carry such information in his hand does not make the information any less worthy of the protection for which the Founders fought.” Riley, 134 S. Ct. at 2495. In so doing, the court made clear that the vast quantities of personal information could only be searched when accompanied by a proper warrant.
However, recent advances in encryption technology are out-pacing the ability of courts and legislatures to adapt, increasingly putting the contents of smartphones outside the reach of the police and courts even when searches are authorized by warrant. The stated aim of this new technology is to “lock out the government,” regardless of the Riley decision.
Apple, maker of the iPhone, which uses the iOS software platform, has upgraded its encryption standard to the point that it claims is “unbreakable,” and the company does not have the ability to unlock a user’s phone even when requested to do so by government entities. Google, which distributes the competing Android platform to smartphone manufacturers, has also decided to encrypt its phones by default.
This has lead to a situation that the FBI has termed “The Black Box” or “Going Dark.” The argument goes, that if a smartphone cannot be accessed even under a lawful court order, then kidnapped children will go un-rescued and drug kingpins will go un-caught. Criminals’ secrets can then be stored worry-free, in these “black boxes” far from the reach of the police and courts. The FBI has gone so far as to demand that the tech companies implant “back door” access for police and courts to ensure continued access to users’ data.
The tech companies have responded that such scare scenarios are “inflammatory and inaccurate,” and that any “back doors” provided to the government would inevitably be exploited by opportunistic hackers. They point out that the “metadata,” data about who a person calls and texts from a smartphone, is accessible elsewhere, and that society’s expectations of privacy have fundamentally changed as more and more people shift a greater portion of their private lives onto their smartphones.
In the ongoing debate between security and privacy, the inexorable forward march of technology may leave the courts behind.
Steven Lapkoff, Security and Privacy for Every Attorney, Pace Criminal Justice Blog (Oct. 17, 2013).
POST WRITTEN BY: Michael B. Mushlin, Professor of Law at Pace Law School, Scholar, and Renowned Expert on Prisoners’ Rights.
Just a few days ago a rare, if not unprecedented, event occurred: the United States Supreme Court ruled unanimously in favor of a prisoner. The case, Holt v. Hobbs, was an Arkansas prisoner’s challenge to a state prison policy that forbade him from growing a beard. Holt, who is Muslim, asserted that his religion requires that he grow a beard of at least a half- inch. His request to grow a beard was denied because of a prison rule that prohibited inmates, aside from prisoners with medical problems, from growing beards of any length. Holt sought an exemption for himself on religious grounds. When the prison denied this exemption he sued.
The Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice Alito, upheld Holt’s right to grow a beard over the strong objections of prison officials who insisted that the no beard rule was essential to the security of the institution. The Court subjected the prison officials’ security arguments to close scrutiny. It ruled that it was “hard to take seriously” the state’s argument the rule was needed to prevent Holt from hiding weapons in his beard. It is impossible to hide most items in a beard so small and even small items could be detected by running a comb through Holt’s beard. Defendant’s argument that the no beard rule is needed to prevent inmates from changing their appearance thereby avoiding detection if they escape was similarly found to be without merit. This danger could be easily prevented by photographing the inmate without the beard and then later with the beard. The fact that the prison allowed prisoners with skin problems to grow quarter-inch beards also demonstrated that some facial hair on prisoners was not a serious security problem. In addition the Court emphasized, the “vast majority” of other states and the federal government permit inmates to grow at least a half-inch beards.
This ruling, which was based on the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RILUPA) 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1(a), was not a constitutional decision. Instead it was based on Congress’ direction that a prisoner’s sincere claim to practice religion can only be burdened when the prison has a compelling state interest in a rule that restricts the prisoner’s religious practice and when the prison rule burdening religion is the least restrictive means of advancing its interest. Nevertheless, the Holt decision indicates that the Supreme Court will not always simply defer to prison officials when they proclaim – as they often do – that security needs require diminution of prisoners’ rights. Whether this signals that the Court will now begin to give meaningful review to prisoners’ claims that are not based on religious liberty rights remains to be seen. But the decision gives some cautious cause for hope that a new day is dawning for prisoners’ rights.
Holt v. Hobbs, No. 13-6827, __ U.S. __ (Jan. 20, 2015).
Eugene Volokh, Holt v. Hobbs: Unanimous Victory for Muslim Prisoner in Religious Rights Cases, The Washington Post (Jan. 20, 2015).
Holt v. Hobbs, ACLU (Jan. 20, 2015).
Adam Liptak, Ban on Prison Beards Violates Muslim Rights, Supreme Court Says, The New York Times (Jan. 20, 2015).
Jesse Wegman, A Prisoner and His Beard Win at the Supreme Court, The New York Times (Jan. 20, 2015).
Technology helps law enforcement agencies and justice personnel stay one step ahead of criminals, furnishing new ways to detect and prevent crimes, as well as helping prosecutors convict offenders. And since emerging technology is available on both sides of justice, the cat-and-mouse game between perpetrators and police is never-ending, requiring continual adjustments from law enforcement agencies.
The good news for public safety is that crime rates have generally decreased over the past two decades, due in part to advancements in crime detection and deterrent technology. Since effective policing leans heavily on the rapid sharing of sensitive crime-related data; the recent explosion in information technology is a positive development for law enforcement agencies. Identification technology, social media, and mobile capabilities also enhance public safety, enabling justice staff to do their business more efficiently and respond to unfolding investigations in real-time.
While technology poses challenges for law enforcement agencies, which continually strive to keep up with technology-based criminal enterprises; it does more good than harm in the fight against crime. Tech advancements in law enforcement include the following capabilities, which illustrate how quickly things change alongside technology.
Law enforcement agencies are spread throughout a national criminal justice system that involves, regional, state, and local authorities, each administering their policing efforts independently. Too often in the past, lack of access to timely information prevented various agencies from coordinating their efforts adequately. Advances in the way agencies share information and use criminal identification systems have led to tighter connections between independent law enforcement organizations and universal enforcement standards across jurisdictions. Sharing information about offenders also has a positive preventative impact, helping keep guns out of the hand of dangerous criminals and barring offenders from certain types of employment.
Property crimes continue to decrease statistically, so security and video surveillance upgrades have improved public safety dramatically. Camera technology, for example, produces modern models with higher image quality than past versions, and the size of high-quality cameras has also diminished, allowing them to be concealed for covert surveillance. Face-recognition technology is particularly rewarding, enabling law enforcement officials to literally pick faces from crowds. In fact, the technology is so accurate as to create privacy-rights controversies among those who feel it is too intrusive.
Though it is a social trend as much as it is a technological breakthrough, social media use nonetheless furnishes law enforcement advantages for agencies that use the technology effectively. For example, criminals leave trails using social media platforms, so justice agencies turn to Facebook, Twitter and other channels for vital clues and insight into criminal behavior. The technology also enables officers to distribute information directly to concerned citizens, informing them of unfolding crimes and dangerous developments.
Social media links law enforcement directly to the public at large, so it is a great tool for spreading descriptions, videos and other information about criminals. Communicating in real-time closes the crucial gap between the point at which crimes occur and when investigations begin, enabling citizens to respond with timely information.
Modern computing power speeds up data analysis and enables law enforcement to track crime trends geographically. What was once accomplished through countless man-hours pouring over data is now a matter of a few mouse clicks. Crime mapping enables agencies to zero-in on problem areas, stepping-up enforcement efforts and assisting in bringing in fugitives. Like highly sophisticated “pin-maps” highlighting crime location, mapping and geographic profiling give enforcement officers clear snapshots of crime trends.
Mobile technology furnishes an electronic trail of texts, emails, calls and GPS location information that law enforcement uses to solve cases. Smartphones are so widespread the contact information and other data they contain give officers a starting point for their investigations, which often unfold in arrests directly related to information gleaned from mobile devices and usage. Using advanced digital forensics technology, investigators find links between suspects and their crimes, which might go unnoticed without mobile connections. In addition to investigative benefits, mobile technology speeds communication between officers, agencies and citizens.
Technology will never replace solid investigative work, but modern advances assist law enforcement efforts to stay ahead of criminals. Mobile technology, social media, and rapid access to information contribute to better enforcement and prevention. And crime-mapping and video surveillance breakthroughs also increase public safety, enabling justice agencies to direct resources to where they are needed most.
*Daphne Holmes is a writer from ArrestRecords.com. She can be reached at daphneholmes9@gmail.com.
Opinions expressed in this post are those of the author and do not reflect the position of the Pace Criminal Justice Center or its Board of Advisors.

References: v. 
 v. 
 § 2000
 v. 
 v. 
 v.