Selil,
I appreciate there is a difference between knowledge within the parts of LE and intel communities compared to the public domain - itself a spectrum of knowledge. This article refers to a court case and so is important in placing this surveillance technology in the public domain. Maybe there are other court cases in the USA, I know not.
Yes, professional criminals and terrorist suspects may consider LE and intel surveillance options, it is a moot point whether they exercise caution in using mobilephones and more.
In the UK there is a long running debate, sometimes in public, over whether phone tapping should be admissible in evidence; with a few exceptions it is not. Having recently discussed this issue the US press article - for me - provided an example of the value of using this technology in LE and in court.
Communication is a requirement for most collective crime and terrorism, with an emphasis on rapid communication, for example the reported use of standard hi-tech items in the Mumbai attacks. The use by prison inmates of mobilephones is a common issue and the reluctance to use jammers is another.
davidbfpo
Bookmarks