Redgum hearings are also occurring in other states and cities as police departments review their use of the devices.
The most popular model on the market, the StingRay, was developed by the FBI under federal supervision.
While the device is still technically classified as an interception device and under the rules governing its use, the agency and others agree that its operation and use fall within the legal framework set out by federal law.
While police agencies across the nation are examining new surveillance tools and using them as a tool to help catch bad guys, U.S. surveillance officials want to avoid포항출장마사지 using them to target suspects who could not be apprehended on their own.
"If we want to get a better picture of who's committing crimes, what's going o더킹 카지노n behind the crime scene, the more sophisticated the techniques that are being used," says퇴폐 마사지 Dan Coats, director of the National Counterterrorism Center.
In other words, police might need technology to see through walls, but not inside of it.
The FBI also says it is working with other agencies to address the technical shortcomings of previous models and the fact that some devices are used outside of traditional criminal operations — for surveillance in a way that could undermine a suspect's ability to effectively fight against a crime.
The agencies agree that using the StingRay, and other surveillance tools, for routine criminal investigations — such as criminal records cases — does not raise privacy concerns.
"It's a very common tool and so there is no reason why it couldn't be used to get at other criminal activity, such as theft, drug dealing, the like," Coats says.
But other U.S. law enforcement and privacy groups worry about the legal questions raised by allowing police to tap into a person's private information without court approval.
The American Civil Liberties Union of Wisconsin has led a campaign to rein in the use of this type of tech, a campaign also supported by some high-profile civil liberties organizations.
The ACLU has been leading a national campaign to educate the public about the "suspicionless and illegal use of technology to track or spy on innocent Americans."
The group's executive director has been to the University of Wisconsin law school to lecture students on the dangers of these devices.
"There are very strong privacy concerns to be had," says Mark Jurewicz, a privacy expert who was a staff lawyer in the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs until leaving the office in January.
But he also say