Spy stuff. Moral, ethical and legal

With all the power the police have at their disposal you would think it was possible for a couple of grown up fully trained law enforcement officers to curtail an 8 year old boys tanty... wouldn't you? I've dealt with raging monster looney kids from 4 to 14 and even if I had the right to use a pepper spray on them I would have felt somewhat ashamed and disgusted with myself if I had ever felt the need to use the stuff. I mean... really!! But that's exactly what happened to an 8 year old boy in the Bay Area of San Franscisco USA. This kid weighing in at no more than two peoples airline carry on baggage was ... oh wow! Spitting at teachers! And oh calamity threatening to kill them with his bare hands! Three of them! The child does suffer from behavioural problems and is seeing a doctor about his anger, but since when do two fully trained cops deem it necessary to PEPPER SPRAY an 8 year old child who comes up to their knees? Every year cops get away with doing things that ordinary people would spend long periods in jail for. How long will it be before they begin to use Tasers and stun guns on children? (I BET it will happen before too long.) Amazingly the police department defended the office who used the pepper spray on the child, saying "something had to be done to calm the situation'. Well how about picking the child up under this arm and restraining him with a hug? I'm a disiplinarian from the old school. I've dealt with some absolute horrors of children but never ever ever have I had the need or the desire to use what amounts to a weapon on a child. What heppens when this police officer is called to a situation where someone has a psychotic break because they closed the institutions. Taser them to death? It's happened. If you are willing to pepper spray an 8 year old child I would say. GET SOME COUNSELLING, NEVER BE PERMIITTED TO CARRY A LETHAL WEAPON, AND UNDERGO SOME LONG TERM SUPERVISION BEFORE BEING LET OUT ON THE STREETS WITH THE PUBLIC.

Someone sent me a pic of one of my trick cameras. It's the usual ball point pen with a camera and microphone included and my reporter friend who uses it for her quick notes and observations thought that it might be interesting for people to know  what these trick pens are (apparently) made from. You see, the blue enamel paint was peeling off and underneath the paint was a rather attractive brass colour. So, using her fingernail she proceeded to remove the unsightly peeled paind and this was what was underneath. Now, do you see what it looks like?

 It looks  rather like a .762 brass cartridge case, and interestingly the bottom of the pen looks like... well you can see what it looks like. So I took one of my own pen cameras and peeled off the paint, and yes, underneath is a beautifully crafted AK47 projectile that polishes up to a stunning shine with a bit of brass cleaner. Here is the top bit. 

Those people who are the most deserving and able to hold substantial office in government are the least likely to accept such a role. These are people who will not be corrupted (or who are aware that they may become corrupted) by the wishes of the obscenely rich, and the indecently powerful. Most often, but not always the obscenely rich are also the indecently powerful.

Not that there is not a small proportion of people who enter politics for reasons of compassion, justice, and the preservation of freedom, but they are few, and while they may serve gloriously, they seldom achieve great heights.

Almost all, for better or worse enter politics so that they can set the rules rather than blindly follow them, and there is a disproportionate number of solicitors, lawyers, barristers, bankers, and accountants. It seems that law and money make complimentary bedfellows.

On. 26/05/99 The Hon. J. HATZISTERGOS gave his inaugural speech in the NSW Parliament in support of the Walsh Bay development. That speech contained the following paragraph which is quoted here verbatim.

“I take this opportunity to particularly record three names: Special Minister of State John Della Bosca,

former Senator Belinda Neal and ALP General Secretary Eric Roosendaal. All of us met in the Young Labor council many years ago. They remain active in politics. They remain my closest friends and have contributed immensely to my

development.

Anyone from my political background realises his immense debt to one other person, namely John”

See here for full details of the Della Bosca/Belinda Neal story.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/indepth/della-bosca

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/john-della-bosca-belinda-neal-rest-easy/story-e6freuy9-1111117031560

On 3rd September 2008 Della Bosca and his wife Belinda Neal were informed that they would not be charged with conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.

Many politicians, judges, police officers magistrates and 'pillars of society' still believe, and lecture their 'clients' with the cliché “You will be defined by the company you keep.” Mr Hatzistergos' tenure as Justice Minister/Attorney General ended on 5th September 2008 and there are many who, believing in the veracity of the cliché have put two and two together to make five. It must have been a heart-sickening experience to be in the position to 'make things go away' and not be tempted to do so. When two of one's 'closest' friends' professional and personal lives are heading towards disaster of monumental proportions one would need the wisdom of Solomon to maintain both integrity and friendship.

A little over a year earlier, on 14th November 2007 The Hon. J. HATZISTERGOS sought leave to have the second reading speech of the SURVEILLANCE ACT 2007 incorporated into Hansard.

At the time HATZISTERGOS was the NSW Attorney General, and Minister for Justice. The time was 3.20pm.

Also speaking were the following individuals: The Hon Michael, Gallacher ex Police Senior Sergeant and Leader of the Opposition (liberal) until 2nd March 2007.

The Hon Fred Nile Reverend Founder Christian Democratic Party, Festival of Light, anti-Gay campaigner, Call to Australia (Fred Nile) Group

The Hon Brown Robert: Member of the Shooters and Fishers Party,

Ms Lee Rhiannon (Greens)

Hon Amanda Fazio (Chair. Labor)

It is my opinion that this is an ill-informed, ill-advised, lazy and cynical piece of legislation, already outdated by technology itself, impossible to police to any degree of satisfaction. I might stick a boot in here and suggest that there exists in this bill a total lack of vision. (Though who am I but a lowly writer with a big mouth.) What an opportunity lost. To return for a moment to the gentleman's inaugural speech. He said “For us as legislators the task is to formulate laws that govern (To control the actions or behavior of: To keep under control; restrain: To exercise political authority. To have or exercise a determining influence.)* our community. The task of the courts is to apply those laws in a large number of different circumstances, some of which might not have been even contemplated at the time the legislation was formulated.”

*My parentheses.

You can read the whole proceedings of the second reading of the Surveillance Act 2007 here:

http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/Prod/parlment/hansart.nsf/V3Key/LC20071114036

In a few years the Private Investigator could be extinct. While the Surveillance Act 2007 invests far greater power in the hands of the police, the only people who are rubbing their hands with glee are the thieves, thugs, murderers, rapists, and assorted scumbags. (To use a word popularised by the once Prime Minister Paul Keating.)

Under this act, any callow young police officer can covertly record you (so long as they say the right words to their boss) and you can be incriminated even without the traditional caution. A retired police officer having served many years in the service, who invests a decent chunk of their cash to train and obtain a PI license can do no such thing.

'clause 31 permits a law enforcement officer to use a surveillance device without a surveillance device warrant in limited circumstances when there is an imminent threat of serious personal violence or substantial damage to property or an imminent threat of a serious narcotics offence being committed.'

Police in all States are underfunded, understaffed and are completely unable to take on “a bunch of youths recording each other with their mobile phones and posting on the internet” Those are not my words, they are the words of a police officer.

Downloadable software is available right now for around $60 which is undetectable, and will work on any brand of cell phone. The surveillance act 2007 makes this illegal, BUT any crook or mischievous youth, or jealous spouse will not be stopped from buying and using it. It works anywhere in the world FROM anywhere in the world. So much for the following clause :

Part 2 of the bill replaces the offences concerning listening devices contained in part 2 of the Listening Devices Act with new offences relating to all of the new devices that will be covered by the scheme; namely, data surveillance devices, listening devices, optical surveillance devices and tracking devices. Clause 7 makes it an offence, with specified exceptions, to knowingly install, use or cause to be used, or to maintain a listening device to overhear, record, monitor or listen to a private conversation to which the person is or is not a party. The maximum penalty remains at five years imprisonment and/or 500 penalty units. This offence is consistent with the existing listening device offence in the Listening Devices Act.

Locater software which will give an exact location of a cellphone to or from anywhere in the world is also available. Many mobile phones come with locator software installed, (though this software tends to be subject to local laws of consent).

Contrary to the popular novel, Private Investigators and Police officers can and do work well together. It's often a case of cops, and ex-cops, and, left to their own devices there would be little or no jealousy or foot treading if PI's were to be able to access locator databases, or use covert surveillance devices. Essentially PI's do work that cops can't or won't do and occasionally their work overlaps.

However the Private Investigator will almost certainly become extinct unless radical changes are made both to the way Private Investigators work, and the surveillance Act. Radical changes do not include the illogical, kneejerk 'ban everything and give law enforcement greater powers” approach to legislation. In 2011 technology has moved on exponentially since 2007. A computer for example purchased in 2007 is generally considered to be near obsolete in 2011. Surveillance equipment and software is now a part of everyday life in the form of affordable, easy to use, practical and labour saving forms from mobile phones in a variety of shapes and sizes, including wrist watches and tablet pc's. Undetectable surveillance devices are now available as RDIF's (Radio Frequency Identification Devices) so small that they can be be incorporated into the dot of an i.

When one enters politics one is confronted by the greasy pole of ambition. To begin to climb that greasy pole, one must make allegiances, curry favour, and open up to the idea that it is not a profession for idealists. Politicians make the rules that others must live by, and, wherever possible, whenever possible, circumvent those same rules if it is to one's benefit or survival.

There is a Police Service to ensure that the rules set down by politicians are conformed to. Because the Police Service is a bureaucracy, under instruction from, and control of. a government those who make the rules, get to give themselves a level of protection. They can tell the bureaucracy through it's senior levels, to cover up with the left hand what the right hand has uncovered.

Private Investigators will never be permitted access to and use of locator databases or surveillance equipment regardless of how qualified the are, or how much integrity they have. The simple reason behind this is that they are PRIVATE. They have CLIENTS. The surveillance act 2007 (and other legislation) is not about the privacy and protection of the society. In fact, the surveillance act 2007 can be reasonably argued to be a danger to society at large. Current legislation allows that the villains benefit most of all. It would take a very radical, ethical, and brave politician to advocate that while each and everyone of us is entitled to privacy, we also have a right to personally protect our possessions, our loved ones, our very existences. If that means using recording devices, listening devices, trackers, scanners, perhaps even jammers (though using jammers would perhaps be stretching the issue,) providing they are used with a genuine positive INTENT such use should be defensible in court. It would then be a brave villain who would argue that their privacy had been breached.

A law ceases to be an effective law when that law is breached by accident or design by the majority of citizens every day. When Private Investigators and media are unable to perform duties both condoned and expected of them by the public, then the reasons for that inability to perform must be examined with alacrity and a sense of moral purpose.

It is time to recognise and empower Private Investigators for the service they provide to the community where law enforcement cannot or will not act satisfactorily. It is time to reflect on the many valid and necessary uses for personal surveillance devices and equipment. It is time to call to account politicians who manipulate legislation which serves no purpose other than to protect politicians, and their powerful and rich allies.

More stupid clauses:

Clause 8 creates a new offence of installing, using or maintaining an optical surveillance device to record or observe an activity if the installation, use or maintenance of the device involves entry onto or into premises or a vehicle without consent. Clause 9 creates a new offence of knowingly installing, using or maintaining a tracking device to determine the geographical location of a person or an object without the consent of the person or the person having lawful possession or control of the object. Clause 10 creates a new offence of installing, using or maintaining a data surveillance device to record the input or output of information from a computer without the person having the consent of the owner of the premises or the person having control of the computer or computer network

schemes will also apply in specific situations, such as the Workplace Surveillance Act. Of course, none of the offences created by clauses 7, 8, 9 or 10 will apply if the surveillance device is used under a warrant or under an emergency authorisation. Clauses 11 to 14 create offences in relation to the publication and use of illegally gained material and also the manufacture and use of devices for unlawful use.

PASSIVE PERSONAL SECURITY.

Wow! I've been checking the international sales of these little critters. It's not just about price. The majority of them are cheap as chips. Electronic chips of course. Your basic Protect Your Child, Pet, Bag, device can be as little as $10, or for a full-on GSM device with location tracking around the world under $100. They come in a huge range, from pretty little wristbands, to smart looking executive models.

I can see why these things are so popular. They simply work, and they work simply.

Maybe you are a school teacher taking a bunch of other peoples Billy Lids (come on keep up! Billy Lids= Kids). In recent years there has been a lot of media coverage about kids and youths getting lost and/or wandering away from guided groups. Doesn't matter if you're a teacher or a mountain guide, when you issue the group with one each to put on their wrists, you can ramble and enjoy without worrying/. You can set the distance, cheap ones up to 25 metres, and if the child/pet/guest/ whatever, wanders away, you'll get an alarm signal as soon as the distance you set for it is exceeded.

More expensive (but not expensive) devices will even send you an SMS with a tracking location, and with some, if the battery fails for any reason it will immediately send you the last location in latitude and longitude. No wonder they are so popular.

We live in a world of uncertainty. Whether or not the world is a more dangerous place than it used to be is debatable, but the perception is that it is. I won't argue with that/ If these devices protect one child from being abducted, or lost, or drowned; if just one girl or woman is saved from the terror and humiliation of rape; if just one bush walker can be rescued, then the low cost and sense of security is well worth it.

I was cynical about personal protection devices for a long time. The idea of being 'tagged' had a sense of people giving up their freedoms. To put a wristband on a child and lock it into place seems to be (or should I say seemed to be) authoritarian and big brotherish. Prisoners are tagged, junkies you can't put into jail are tagged. The technology is not that much different. I've changed my mind. When used for good and genuine purposes and a baby wandering away and falling into a pond or a pool can be saved quickly, or a school child can be saved from a potential abductor or from bullying, there is suddenly a strong argument in favour of passive personal security devices.

WIRED OR UNWIRED?

I've seen so many inappropriate security cameras in homes and businesses that I thought I'd make a few suggestions. Before you install security cameras or CCTV you really DO need to consult with a LICENSED security consultant and installer. If nothing else they will give you some food for thought because there are pros and cons for every situation.

It's so easy to buy CCTV security systems online, and there are stores everywhere who don't really give a damn about what you NEED. They'll sell you what you want... what you THINK you want. They'll even persuade you that unless you spend a load of money you won't be protected.

I've been to lots of companies selling CCTV and have never yet spoken to a sales person who took the time to sit me down and ask me what I wanted to do and what kind of protection I wanted. NOT ONE!. I'm not going to go into a consultation here because our needs are unique. But here are some sound suggestions.

Wired or Unwired? Think about it. If you want to protect your home outside and inside you are going to need a variety of equipment. Bear in mind that if I were a professional intruder, a burglar who makes a living out of it, (there are thousands believe me), I would carry with me a good infra-red lens finder and wireless detector., and a jammer. To any professional crook it does not matter one bit that wireless jammers and mobile phone jammers are illegal in Australia. In seconds I can disable your wireless cameras, you mobile phones, and just about any other wireless device you are using including your wireless internet. Easy. At the same time if your CCTV is wired, it takes no effort to cover my head and cut your wires. That's bad news you may think. Well, yes I guess it is, but it gives you a head start over the burglar. A high set CCTV camera probably won't identify an intruder. What it may do is put a few people off, and it will record EVENTS and body language, so it is still important evidence. A low set camera would have to be covert. Too easy to vandalise. A dab of vaseline on the lens, or a hammer comes in handy too, but most burglars won't come armed with a weapon. However, some intruders WILL come armed, so think about it. Use a mix of wired and unwired, covert and overt CCTV and if you can find the right place you can use a stand alone motion detect device that would have to be charged. However a good motion detect stand alone camera can go for over 25 hours and equipped with infra-red they usually get better result than the overt CCTV. If you put one or two CCTV cameras in a highly visible place, and a warning sign outside, an intruder might disable both of them BUT the little stand alone dvr usually gets missed. It's about misdirection. If they disable the visible security cams they usually stop looking for more.