For example: Could the data be sold to nongovernment agencies that in turn could sell it to the public? How many wives or husbands would pay to know whether their spouse actually attended a public event, and whom they called while there?
Another example: Could the state police use their Stingray to determine whether someone was texting and driving, or speeding, both illegal? One supposes cellphone data could be linked to the owner of a motor vehicle and a ticket issued through the mail, maybe over the very cellphone used to track the infraction.
If that sounds far-fetched, so did the idea of tracking people’s cellphone use a few years ago.
The Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures seems to be the biggest casualty of the technological age. There has to be middle ground to allow police to conduct necessary surveillance, but to do it legally, and without deploying a dragnet that places a blanket suspicion on the innocent and the guilty.
It’s impossible to find that middle ground when information to begin a conversation and debate on this technology is not forthcoming. That needs to change and we hope the conversation will begin with the introduction of legislation next year.
Our state police and leadership must do a better job of explaining how this technology protects us, and how they protect us from the technology.
— The Star Press, Muncie