Tech tools vs. terrorism

One day at a time, New York City averts terrorist attack and grows steadily safer thanks to ever-more technologically sophisticated policing by the NYPD. They do so with what it’s fair to say is more regulation from courts and watchdogs, internal and external, than any other law enforcement agency in America.

Now along comes the City Council to meddle — with sweeping legislation that would force the police to publicly catalogue all the advanced means by which they home in on criminal activity.

Councilman Dan Garodnick must be out of his gourd. He would mandate what amounts to a detailed sources-and-methods directory of the means employed by the front-line terror fighters in the nation’s top target city.

Lookee here, ISIS affiliates! Want to know how cops are combing internet chats, and what software they might be using, the better to evade detection? Check the NYPD’s website. Want to figure out exactly what scanning devices they use and where, the better to sidestep them? Check the NYPD’s website.

Keep in mind: In this age of ubiquitous technology, would-be terrorists are already running a step or two ahead of cops, thanks to encryption technology, on nearly every smartphone and chat app, that’s tougher than a diamond to crack.

This is not to say that concern that privacy and other civil liberties could be put at risk by the NYPD’s evolving practices, including forays into facial recognition tech, license plate readers, decoy cell phone transmitters used to locate mobile devices, etc., is entirely unwarranted.

But the NYPD isn’t the KGB, or even the NSA. It’s a domestic law enforcement agency. Checks, we’ve got ’em. Balances, we’ve got more.

For starters: Any surveillance of individuals involving intrusion into their homes, phones or other personal space must first undergo review by a judge in court, approved only when the police submit evidence supporting a finding of probable cause that a crime has been committed.

What are known as Handschu guidelines greatly restrict the NYPD’s monitoring of anyone for political activity.

And where there’s ambiguity, it gets ironed out. The U.S. Supreme Court, for instance, will soon consider a case on whether a search warrant should be required before authorities get location information from cell phone towers.

But forcing cops to systematically expose crimefighting methodology is dangerous micromanagement in the name of transparency.

If the Council — or the state Senate or Assembly — sees a specific tool as so threatening to privacy, they should have the guts to ban or restrict its use.

Otherwise, give police, who are doing the toughest imaginable job to protect New Yorkers from the worst people on the planet, the room to outwit evildoers.