Response must be 150 words.
Save your time - order a paper!
Get your paper written from scratch within the tight deadline. Our service is a reliable solution to all your troubles. Place an order on any task and we will take care of it. You won’t have to worry about the quality and deadlinesOrder Paper Now
1. Discuss and explain the inherent conflicts associated with police as intelligence gatherers.
One of the conflicts associated with it could be police have never been in intelligence gathering business. This can make it extremely hard when it comes to looking to gather information about something that could be indicative of an apparent terrorist attack or even some other larger intelligence context. It would be nice for police officials to have the proper training, so they can gather valuable information and become better detectives to combat any type of terrorism.
2. Explain the Wiretap Statute and the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. Find and cite a case in which a person(s) is charged with abuse of either the Wiretap Statute or the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. Please give your opinion on whether you agree or disagree with the verdict or charges. (Use Findlaw or other online search engines to find case law).
The Electronic Communications Privacy Act is used to protect any and all wire, oral, and electronic communications while it is in transit and was passed in 1986 by Congress. This Privacy Act amended the Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968. These laws have been established to help maintain our rights, and because of these certain requirements are needed to acquire search warrants along with enforcement issues if any illegal activities are observed during the communication. The act is to uphold the constitutional provisions to privacy. It does this by instituting restrictions that regard the state’s abilities to track, listen, penalize, or observe forms of automatic communication.
The one I was able to find was the lawsuit settlement with AT&T. They had to pay 1.5 million dollars because of a wiretap that was done by a few employees who went rogue. As you now, it was done illegal snooping and wiretapping. And yes and no, I do not believe they got a fair shake. I believe the employees should have been made to pay the bill half because it was them that did the wiretap not the company itself. However, I believe the company is should have to pay half because they should have had some type of warning systems in place.
Electronic Communications Privacy Act. 2017. Laws. Retrieved from https://cyber.laws.com/electronic-communications-privacy-act
Wiretap Lawsuit Settlement Finalized – AT&T pays $1.5 mil. Exec Security TSCM Technical Services. 2018. Retrieve from https://execsecurity.com/news/wiretap-lawsuit-sett…
Discuss and explain the inherent conflict associated with police and intelligence gather.
The Intelligence and law enforcement have always maintained an uneven, unreceptive relationship. Even though these two communities have different roles and objectives there has been factors that has affected their interaction. Intelligence role are meant to gather information before an incidence occur where reasons of the incidence are private or closed. Law enforcement are including for local affairs where intelligence gathering is not needed most of the time. But according to the Patriot Act it has given rights to law enforcement to monitor and gather user’s information from the internet, they have power to request more information from Internet Service providers and hand it over that information about users without a warrant. So, I’m now curious if this practice is in accordance to the constitutional rights awarded to us the citizen and national of the United States.
Explain the Wiretap Statute and the Electronic Communication Privacy Act. Find a case in which a person is charged with abuse of either the wiretap Statute or the Electronic Communication Privacy Act.
The Electronic Communication and Privacy Act was created to expand and revise federal wiretapping and electronic eavesdropping provision that will promote the privacy expectation of citizens and the legitimate needs of law enforcement (ECPA,2013)
Konop v. Hawaiian Airlines, Inc., 236 F.3d 1035 (9th Cir.2001) This case is about an employee in the name of Robert Konop filed a law suit against his employer Hawaiian Airline for viewing secured website without authorization from him and the content from his website was disclosed. The district court granted summary judgment against him on all claim expect his retaliation under the railway labor Law. In my opinion I believe this case was not fair toward Konop even though with all the law and stipulation his privacy was invading in my point of view.
The Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), Part 2: Geolocation Privacy and Surveillance, House Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security and Investigations, April 25, 2013