Security Applications for Electronic Surveillance - Thesis Example

Security Applications for Electronic Surveillance of the of the Security Applications for Electronic Surveillance Introduction This work describes the advantages and disadvantages inherent in the various application methods of electronic surveillance. In this regard, application methods like wiretapping, bugging and videotaping, in the context of national security, intelligence and law enforcement have been examined. In the past, technology had facilitated inexpensive wiretapping. This changed with the new digital technologies relating to telephones. These technologies have made wiretapping quite difficult. In addition, the encryption technologies have made wiretapping very difficult. This has been appreciated by individuals who are fanatical about privacy. However, the law enforcement agencies of the US have become apprehensive. The law has permitted these agencies to resort to wiretapping since 1968. In addition, since 1978, the law has explicitly permitted US Intelligence agencies to wiretap foreigners (Hanson, n.d.). Bugging is a form of electronic surveillance. In this method information is relayed directly. Thus, it has the capacity to provide exceptionally reliable material. On the other hand, some of the other methods of electronic surveillance involve the indirect relaying of information. This can result in the corruption of the information so obtained. Some examples are; wireless listening devices, wireless cameras, microwave transmitters and infrared devices (FBIS International, 2008). Video recording equipment has developed tremendously, and it can be activated by motion detectors. Some of these devices can record in color, even during the night. This method of electronic surveillance has become immensely popular, as camera size is reducing, thereby facilitating their concealment. Moreover, these devices can magnify images to a great extent, and make sweeping, upwards and downwards movements (Pompano, 2014). The basic components of the intelligence challenge are enumerated in the sequel. The first of these pertains to the garnering of pertinent information at the opportune time, such information being preferably endowed with utility value. The second constituent is the collating of information from all the relevant sources. The third element is that of analyzing the information. The last factor is that of disseminating the information to law enforcement officials, policy makers and others who have to act upon such material. This information has to be conveyed in a manner that enables its users to fulfil their mission (Northouse, 2005, p. 40). Methods of Application for Electronic Surveillance Wiretapping Wiretapping enables a person to eavesdrop upon and record communications over the telephone or teletype. This process entails penetration into the communication channel between the transmitter and the receiver of the message. Some of the more familiar communication channels are telephone lines, private branch exchange cables, local area networks, closed circuit television systems, alarm systems, or other media of communications. The objective of wiretapping is to procure information without being discovered (BrickHouse Security, n.d.). As such, national security involves much more than the mere facilitation of intelligence and law enforcement investigations. The objective of the authorities to surreptitiously penetrate the telecommunications system is based on the presumption that it is beneficial if not indispensable for countering the Islamic terrorist menace (Diffie & Landau, 2009, p. 47). Despite the sizeable number of individuals who acknowledge the dangers inherent in wiretapping, there tend to be several people who regard the actual danger of abuse to be negligible. The latter contend that governance at every level has been rendered trustworthy due to elections, and the freedom of press and speech. These people also emphasize that law enforcement agencies had not abused power to any appreciable extent, and that these agencies were unlikely to do so in the future (Malin, 1955, p. 32). Bugging In addition, bugging or surveillance via microphones, had been a common and popular procedure with agents engaged in eavesdropping upon conversations and communications. This entailed the placing of an electronic transmitter cum receiver, in the vicinity of the person whose verbal communications were to be monitored and recorded. The chief user of this technique was the FBI, which undertook this practice in 1940, ostensibly to investigate cases involving espionage (Atkinson, 2013, p. 1359). Hoover used these methods to accumulate vast amounts of confidential information about the important public figures of the US. Some of the places subjected to this form or electronic surveillance, were the foreign embassies, hotels that were regarded as being frequented by spies, and some of the houses of ill repute. The latter were observed in this manner, with the express intention of obtaining evidence of diplomats in compromising positions, so as to compel them to become informants (Atkinson, 2013, p. 1360). This strategy would be useful in retrieving secret information from diplomats, in the interests of the nation. In addition, a rudimentary form of the hardwire bug is a microphone of small dimensions. This could be connected to a listening post, by means of barely visible wires or tracks of conductive paint. The listening post being connected to a high gain amplifier or recording device. The disadvantage of this arrangement is that upon discovery, the location of the listening post becomes known (Eyetek Surveillance, n.d.). Since this method is easily detectable, the secrecy of listening post cannot be secured. In addition, the state wiretapping laws endeavor to ensure protection against the recording of private conversations. All the same, in most of the instances, audio recording of private conversations, by the police, tends to be legal. Some of the states permit audio recording, where just one of the parties to the conversation provides consent. This permits individuals to legally record their conversation with police officers (American Civil Liberties Union, n.d.). Videotaping It is the never ending activity of law enforcement agencies to identify and adapt novel technologies that have the capacity to enrich their efforts to improve public safety. One of the contemporary devices, in this genre, is the use of public surveillance cameras. Public surveillance systems are based on the conjecture that individuals will avoid criminal activity, upon realizing that their actions are being observed and recorded, and that this enhances their possibility of being apprehended upon committing a crime (La Vigne, Lowry, Markman, & Dwyer, 2011). Law abiding citizens could develop an increased sense of safety, due to the presence of surveillance cameras. A consequence would be the greater use of public spaces by these people. Therefore, these individuals would enact the role of informal guardians and potential witnesses. Moreover, such cameras could improve the capability of the criminal justice system. This would be the result of the police obtaining better and crucial information regarding crimes and situations that can become dangerous. Such information and forewarning would enable the police to decide upon the best response to adopt, in a specific situation (La Vigne, Lowry, Markman, & Dwyer, 2011). Furthermore, video recordings of criminal activity, and the identification of perpetrators of crimes and the related witnesses can provide considerable assistance to the investigation and prosecution of crime. In addition, the victims of crime would benefit as the video evidence would enable the closure of their case. At the same time, a large number of criminals would be identified and incarcerated, thereby preventing them from engaging in further criminal conduct (La Vigne, Lowry, Markman, & Dwyer, 2011). The phone call details of millions of Americans have been clandestinely collected by the National Security Agency. This has been facilitated by the data furnished by the AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth (Cauley, 2006). Electronic surveillance has protected several innocent individuals in criminal cases. It is of great use in making complaints in victimless crimes. Such surveillance is invisible and furnishes detailed information. Moreover, it provides evidence that is similar to that obtained in searches, without any physical intrusion (Cooper, 2011). The tactics utilized in corruption and drug cases have been extended by the federal law enforcement personnel to white collar crimes. Examples of white collar crimes include bank fraud, health care fraud, computer crimes and aggravated identity theft (Sheppard & Dougherty, 2012, p. 20). The recent developments in electronic, biochemical and database varieties of collecting and analyzing personal information have changed significantly, due to the surveillance of individuals. Moreover, video cameras, monitoring the workplace and computer databases have become commonplace. The novel technologies tend to disclose hidden, unknown and unseen information (Marx & Ungar, 2012, p. 72). Any individual who is alive and lives in society, necessarily transmits information. This assumes different forms, such as pressure, brain waves, sounds, heat, visible conduct and the more common forms of communication. Electronic surveillance devices can intercept several of these transmissions. Moreover, the devices of electronic surveillance have the capacity to unearth new meaning from raw data by correlating it with other information (Marx & Ungar, 2012, p. 73). Conclusion At the time of installing a public surveillance system, the stakeholders have to consider several important factors. It should be clearly understood that the implementation of a novel system constitutes an important intervention. At this juncture, while adapting methods of electronic surveillance, meticulous planning, integration and innovation enable the law enforcement agencies and their partners in local government to adequately address these issues. The outcome will be a properly functioning public surveillance system. In conjunction with other technologies, public surveillance systems have the capacity to improve the quality and quantity of the information available to attorneys, investigators and the police. Wiretapping, in the past, had been quite inexpensive and simple. At present, steganography and the advent of new technologies have made it very difficult and expensive to intercept telephonic conversations. Bugging is a reliable method of interception. Depending on the specific method employed, it can furnish accurate information, as it directly relays the intercepted information. Video recording is very popular, due to the development of sophisticated equipment. In addition, the camera size has reduced substantially. As such, video recording devices can enlarge images tremendously and provide different view of the same. References American Civil Liberties Union. (n.d.). Know Your Rights: Photographers. Retrieved April 8, 2014, from https://www.aclu.org/free-speech/know-your-rights-photographers Atkinson, L. R. (2013). The Fourth Amendments National Security Exception: Its History and Limits. Vanderbilt Law Review, 66(5), 1343 – 1405. BrickHouse Security. (n.d.). All About Wiretaps and Bugs. Retrieved April 8, 2014, from http://www.brickhousesecurity.com/category/counter+surveillance/about+wiretaps.do Cauley, L. (2006, May 11). NSA has massive database of Americans phone calls. Retrieved March 28, 2014, from USA Today: http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-10-nsa_x.htm Cooper, M. (2011, March 16). Privacy and Surveillance: What Are Your Rights? Retrieved April 9, 2014, from http://gator.ndm.edu/~mcooper/privacy.html Diffie, W., & Landau, S. (2009). Communications Surveillance: Privacy and Security at Risk. Communications of the ACM, 52(11), 42 – 47. Eyetek Surveillance. (n.d.). Types of Bugging Devices. Retrieved April 8, 2014, from https://www.eyetek.co.uk/types-of-bugging-devices FBIS International. (2008). TSCM Explained. Retrieved April 10, 2014, from http://www.fbis.com.au/tscm/tscm-explained.shtml Hanson, R. (n.d.). Can Wiretaps Remain Cost Effective? Retrieved April 10, 2014, from http://hanson.gmu.edu/wiretap-cacm.html La Vigne, N. G., Lowry, S. S., Markman, J. A., & Dwyer, A. M. (2011). Evaluating the Use of Public Surveillance Cameras for Crime Control and Prevention. Washington, DC, USA: Office of Community Oriented Policing Services. Malin, P. M. (1955). Is Wire Tapping Justified? The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 300(1), 29 – 35. Marx, G. T., & Ungar, G. (2012). Electronic Surveillance. In R. Chadwick (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Applied Ethics (pp. 72 – 80). London, UK: Elsevier. Northouse, C. (2005). Protecting What Matters : Technology, Security, and Liberty since 9/11 . Washington, DC, USA: Brookings Institution Press. Pompano, A. J. (2014). Privacy in the Age of Video Surveillance This Is Not Your Fathers Candid Camera. Retrieved April 10, 2014, from Yale – New Haven Teachers Institute: http://www.yale.edu/ynhti/curriculum/units/2000/3/00.03.05.x.html Sheppard, M. B., & Dougherty, E. C. (2012). "Tapping" into Wall Street: the government employs tougher tactics against money crimes. Criminal Justice, 26(4), 20 – 29. Read More