Wednesday, December 18, 2013

Pence Supports State Police Collection Of Bulk Cellphone Data Without A Warrant

I can't same that I'm surprised by his comments, but Gov. Mike Pence has finally spoken out about a recent Indianapolis Star report on surveillance software purchased by the Indiana State Police earlier this year that permits the agency to capture in bulk cellphone data within a particular radius from where it is being operated without a warrant. Pence thinks the unwarranted, unconstitutional snooping is acceptable, showing just how willing he is to violate the oath he took as governor to uphold the constitution, not to mention the oath he took as an attorney admitted to practice law in this state.
Speaking with reporters, Pence said he met with police officials last Thursday for a briefing after an Indianapolis Star report revealed the agency had acquired a “Stingray” device for $373,995.
“I believe this technology is in the interest of public safety, and I believe it has enhanced our ability to both protect and save lives,” Pence told reporters. “I was informed that in the limited number of cases where this technology has been used that it has only been used with strict judicial oversight.”
But when pressed, Pence didn’t answer repeated questions about whether the agency obtains search warrants before turning on the devices.
Pence’s press secretary Kara Brooks referred further inquires about the devices to State Police spokesman Dave Bursten, who didn’t immediately return a message this morning from The Star.
Previously, Bursten has declined to answer questions about the devices and would not say whether the agency uses Stingrays without a search warrant.
The NSA compels telephone companies to turn over telelphonic metadata in bulk, a step it claims is necessary to protect national security interests, which today means protecting us from terrorists. A federal district court ruled this practice unconstitutional. Of course, most terrorists are funded, trained and directed by the CIA so their activities are curiously never detected in advance by the NSA's snooping. The accused Boston Marathon bombing suspects are perfect examples. Despite being sponsored for immigration to this country by an uncle who works for the CIA and being placed under constant monitoring by the FBI, the two young Tsarnaev brothers we are told somehow managed to build, place and detonate two "bombs" in an area crawling with police and extra security. (Yes, I deliberately put the word in quotes because only made-for-movie special effect bombs were exploded next to crisis actors who were paid to pretend to have suffered injuries, which is self-evident to anyone who views the video of the blast scenes with open eyes).

It's total nonsense for Pence to suggest that a civil police agency has any need to collect cell phone data in bulk for any legitimate law enforcement purpose. It's an unchecked fishing expedition of the worst order that can be used for all sorts of nefarious purposes, not the least of which includes spying on political enemies. No citizen of this state should trust the Indiana State Police to use this spying capability responsibly. Legislation is clearly needed to limit its use strictly to instances where it has obtained an order from a court based on a finding of probable cause, and to impose harsh penalties on those who would use it otherwise.

10 comments:

Anonymous said...

Mike Pence has come a long, LONG way from his days at the Indiana Policy Review.

Mike, we hardly know you now.

Anonymous said...

"Pence thinks the unwarranted, unconstitutional snooping is acceptable..."

Proving, yet again, why I can no longer support the Republican Party.

Anonymous said...

Pence probably enjoys observing strip searches too. If a suspect might be carrying a nuclear bomb hidden in their ass, Pence wants to be texted so that he can get there real fast and observe the strip search to make certain that proper protocol is being followed. It is a matter of national security for him.

Anonymous said...

It appears that State Law prohibits this intrusion for political or social interest, now the question: Can those affected sue for the violations?

Indiana Code 5-2-4-5
Government Surveillance of Political, religious, or social views; associations or activities restricted
Sec. 5. No criminal justice agency shall collect or maintain information about the political, religious or social views, associations or activities of any individual, group, association, corporation, limited liability company, business, or partnership unless such information directly relates to an investigation of past or threatened criminal acts or activities and there are reasonable grounds to suspect the subject of the information is or may be involved in criminal acts or activities.

Gary R. Welsh said...

The referenced statute does not create an independent cause of action for violations of it, which is unfortunate. When the legislature makes it unlawful to do something, it needs to put teeth in the law to provide a remedy for violations of it if it's really serious about discouraging violations of the law.

Anonymous said...

Are we now a Stasi State?

Gary R. Welsh said...

Yes, we're now a Stasi state. People think the Nazis lost WWII. They're clueless about the fact that our government brought over the worst of the Nazis to this country, created "paperclip" identities for them, and placed them in high levels of our government and the military/industrial complex where they immediately began replicating their ways within our government under the guise of their successor regime known as the CIA, which is equally as evil as Hitler' SS forces and which has been responsible for the worst crimes against humanity the modern world has ever witnessed.

Anonymous said...

The ISP's mouthpiece Bursten speaks again! Somebody needs to ask him how the Pixie Grismore case is going!

Gary R. Welsh said...

Bursten flat out lied to me about the Gilmore case. He claimed it wasn't on the Cold Case list because the ISP was undergoing a revamp of its website. That was more than two years ago and still nothing.

Paul K. Ogden said...

I truly, truly hate that independent cause of action angle court's take. Gary's right about it. But it renders statutes meaningless if people can't have them enforced.