Who watches the police watching us?
Expert says judges lack expertise to authorize high- tech surveillance
Judges may lack the technical expertise to properly oversee and approve the use of hacking software that city police were looking to buy last year, says a technology expert.
“I’m not sure how many techsavvy judges there are,” said Tom Keenan, a University of Calgary professor and writer on electronic privacy issues.
“They went to law school, not computer school.”
Keenan’s comments come in the wake of the release of leaked emails from an Italian company that reveal the Calgary Police Service looked seriously last fall at purchasing spyware that investigators could use to remotely hack cellphones and computers.
While the head of the force’s electronic surveillance unit insists CPS decided not to purchase the technology from Hacking Team, he refused to say whether his officers are using a similar product acquired from another manufacturer.
“Even though they claim they can’t tell us because of the need for operational secrecy,” said Keenan, “they are spending public money and there needs to be some kind of accountability.”
The remote control service ( RCS) software developed by Hacking Team at its Milan headquarters is capable of intercepting phone calls, text messages and passwords from compromised devices and can quietly turn on a target’s webcam and microphone.
Emails and documents posted on WikiLeaks show CPS was one of four law enforcement agencies in Canada who expressed interest in or tested the spyware.
Calgary Mayor Naheed Nenshi said Monday it would be inappropriate for politicians to comment on police operational matters, but he noted it was his understanding the force did not purchase the Hacking Team product.
However, when pressed that city police have not answered whether the department bought another, similar, program, Nenshi responded: “I noticed that myself.”
Likewise, Coun. Ward Sutherland, one of two sitting council members on the Calgary police commission, said the oversight body generally isn’t made aware of police operations.
“We’re not made aware of every operational thing police do,” Sutherland said.
“If they purchase it and use it they’re going to have to use it within the context of the law and if they don’t they’re in big trouble.”
The Ward 1 councillor said he will raise the issue of whether public officials should be notified of such purchases at next week’s police commission meeting.
“Maybe we don’t get the option to say, ‘ No you can’t use it, or yes’ but the fact is that we should know whether they have it or not.”
“I’d like to know whether they have it or not,” he said. “But public knowledge, that’s a fine line between catching people and not catching people, if they don’t know what we’re capable of doing, especially in the current circumstance.”
Ward 13 Coun. Diane Colley- Urquhart said the commission, of which she is a member, should use the same due diligence — such as consulting with Alberta’s privacy commissioner — it exercised before approving the use of bodyworn cameras for police officers.
“It is the job of the commission when we start treading into the use of technology that will infringe on people’s rights,” ColleyUrquhart said.
“They didn’t pursue it in this particular instance but I think it’s an area that we have to, as a commission, understand to a far greater degree as far as what its implications are and how far to we go with some of these things,” she said.
Staff Sgt. Ryan Jepson, who oversees the CPS surveillance unit, has said his officers would only use this type of product if it was specifically authorized by the courts.
Jepson refused to say how often his team uses wiretaps in its criminal investigations, but a recently released report shows that in 2013, police across Alberta applied for and received all 26 authorizations they sought from the courts to intercept electronic communications.
Even though they claim they can’t tell us because of the need for operational secrecy, they are spending public money and there needs to be some kind of accountability.