The Maricopa County Sheriff arrested dozens of people this week on charges they were attempting to get deputies to spy on their personal voicemails. The county has become a pariah in the fight against the collection of phone data, following the revelation that county officials were using a program called “fishing” to obtain private telephone records.
March 3, 2005 The Maricopa County, Ariz. , Sheriff’s Department said Thursday it filed a motion in court this week seeking to end a political corruption and civil rights-infringement battle between Phoenix and the United States, which will ultimately decide whether the county is a law-enforcement agency.
In a lawsuit filed Wednesday by the Department of Justice, the Sheriff’s Department said it’s “entering into this settlement agreement not to litigate” a series of allegations aimed at federal laws that say local law enforcement can’t intercept and read electronic communications, including those of people who aren’t the subject of the investigation.
The Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office says the agreement makes it clear that the agency will not use the federal law to obtain nonpersonnel information on its own people.
“We’re giving up nothing,” said Richard Schaffer, the agency’s chief information officer. “We’re just giving up part of an ongoing investigation, and we’re also giving up one of the primary tools we have, which is going against the law to find out what’s going on.
The Justice Department is expected to approve the agreement Thursday, leaving the Sheriff‘s Office to decide how it plans to use the information.
The department and the U. government were in a civil rights debate in the 1990s over whether local law enforcement could access subscriber data from electronic communication lines, such as telephone conversations as they’re being transmitted. These lines link the telephone poles along the sides of freeways to the rest of the state, but the government argues that they’re only used for law enforcement.
Law enforcement agencies say they only collect subscriber data to help determine who is a suspect, not to gain access to personal information, and do so in conjunction with phone companies for the purpose of preventing crime.
The Justice Department is seeking the permission of Phoenix police chief Tom Dart to use the subscriber data in the future, arguing that it’s vital to the investigation. The Arizona law that applies to the case doesn’t allow for such communications interceptions, but the federal government says Phoenix police can get this data by showing that a suspect has an “expectation of privacy” by using a subscriber line.
The Maricopa County Supervisors Board meets in Phoenix.
Title of Article: The Maricopa County Supervisors, elected Nov. 4, 2001, through Nov.
Source: CSC.
Comments: I have no comments.
This item has been flagged as Preview to Published.
The Content Properties provide information about the nature of the content of corresponding items included in a specific package.
FORTY years ago, the Maricopa County supervisors were elected to serve a generation of new jobs. In our day-to-day lives, the new jobs are easy to see; they grow by day and are often seen at our jobs. Those new employees are our friends and neighbors, and we want to make sure they are well-trained in computer security and technology. Our Maricopa County supervisors have worked hard to improve their own computer skills and the ability to maintain and enhance their computer network.
The Maricopa County supervisors’ Board of Supervisors has been meeting regularly since November of 2001, as part of its continuing efforts to ensure a sound technical system in which the County’s critical security and technology functions are coordinated and supervised.
The County Router Review.
There is little public awareness that the county router is an important component of security. It is not a common attack component because of its low complexity and low cost. It is a very useful security tool for any business including banks. However, the county router is used by a small number of very important enterprises. This paper presents a survey of the routers and their security vulnerabilities. It also provides a detailed review of recent state-of-the art security practices in the area of the county router.
The paper consists of 21 numbered sections of which 13 are related. The first section includes an overview of the county router, followed by a description of the design and development process. The sections describe the details of the county router and its design, including the software, hardware, operating system, and protocol. The second section describes the software used to control the county router. The third section provides an overview of the security features of the county router.
After describing the security features, the following sections cover methods that can be used to mitigate risks. The fourth section describes how to implement security-related practices, including security policies, network security, and business practices. The fifth section shows how to apply security-related techniques based upon specific business practices, including penetration testing, social engineering, and application security. The sixth section explores the security vulnerabilities of the county router. Each vulnerability is described with examples. Also, the seventh and the final section is a review of the state of art security practices for the county router.
The county router is an Internet protocol computer security tool that controls devices such as computers and devices that are connected to the Internet. It also controls routers that function as devices that connect to other devices. The county router is controlled by software. In addition to controlling the devices and routers, the software can be used to implement security measures in the network, such as encryption, authentication, and intrusion detection. The county router also controls an Internet fire wall, which controls access to the Internet by computers that do not meet a specific network security requirement.
The county router is used by businesses, which are in the business of providing data processing and application services, such as banking, insurance, sales services, and financial services.
The Senate and the Cyber Ninjas fought over the audit of the Florida election review in court.
This article is an update of an article that was on its original form last November (see “The Senate and the Cyber Ninjas fought over the audit of the Florida election review in court”, Computer Security). Today, I offer an update on the Florida election audit trial, and the state’s legal strategies in this and other elections. The article addresses the Florida court case between State of Florida and the Florida State Republican Party about audit software used to review Florida elections. The article discusses the trial that started on Nov. 17, 2012, and last week’s ruling in which the appellate court overturned a lower court’s ruling in favor of the plaintiffs. It also discusses the Florida State Republican Party’s legal and technical arguments about the audit software. The article explains how this case has a big impact on a number of political-campaign software companies. The reader is also encouraged to visit the article for additional information about the case. The post explains that the appeal court didn’t just overturn Judge M. Craig Wright’s legal ruling; it overruled the lower court’s findings that the audit software did not violate state election law. “The State of Florida and the Florida Republican Party appealed Judge Wright’s ruling on an alleged violation of Florida election law that they said required a full retrial in which the audit software was not used to review the electronic ballots for Florida’s 2012 U. Senate race,” the article states. “Citing the U. Supreme Court’s recent decision in the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission case, the parties argued that the case’s underlying purpose was to decide whether the federal law regulating campaign contributions did, in fact, ‘impose an undue burden on the political parties. ’ In doing so, the Supreme Court addressed the case differently from other cases that have addressed federal campaign-finance laws.
During the trial, the state argued that because of the nature of the software used by the Florida Board of Elections (FEBOL), its software violated state election law.
Spread the loveThe Maricopa County Sheriff arrested dozens of people this week on charges they were attempting to get deputies to spy on their personal voicemails. The county has become a pariah in the fight against the collection of phone data, following the revelation that county officials were using a program called “fishing” to obtain…
