On Q Professional Investigations

A lengthy investigation and surveillance videos led to a 47-year-old former prison guard being charged with fraudulently collecting more than $2.7 million in workers’ compensation payments. David Brownell was arrested Wednesday in Tampa and freed from the Hillsborough County Jail on $50,000 bail.

As a state of Florida employee, Brownell’s claim was paid by the state Division of Risk Management, which reported he received more than $563,000 for alleged lost income.

Brownell filed a workers’ compensation claim in 1995 claiming that his work had exposed him to rats and rat feces that resulted in respiratory problems and 24-hour-a-day dependency on oxygen. However, investigators for the Department of Financial Services said extensive video surveillance over several years show that not only was Brownell not oxygen-dependent but was able to play guitar in a band, drive vehicles and smoke cigarettes.

“It is very disheartening to think that someone sworn to uphold the law may have violated it, and to such a costly degree,” CFO Jeff Atwater said in a prepared statement announcing Brownell’s arrest.

Brownell was arrested while wearing an oxygen mask. If convicted, he faces up to 30 years in prison.

Officials estimate such forms of fraud raise premiums for businesses and take an estimated billion dollars a year out of Florida’s economy. The Bureau of Workers’ Compensation Fraud reports that this year through the end of September its fraud unit has built cases leading to 121 arrests and 78 convictions resulting in $1.5 million in court-ordered restitution.

View Source

I think having a child get lost or kidnapped would be any parent’s worst nightmare.

The closest thing I have to a child is my dog and I know if she went missing I wouldn’t be able to function.

Now that the holiday season is upon us, it’s likely you’ll be out in crowded malls, busy public places, airports or doing holiday activities.

It’s easy for kids to slip away in a toy store or get separated in a big crowd.

It’s also possible that you could lose your luggage on a trip or get your purse stolen while out shopping.

I thought this might be a good time to review some personal GPS device trackers.

The idea came up during Halloween because of trick-or-treating but I’ve decided that when it comes to things that are most precious to you, keeping those things safe is important any time of year.

I’ve tested two small devices that you can use for your child, your pet, your car, your purse, your luggage, elderly people, anything you want to keep track of.

The two devices are are about the size of your keys, fun size candy bar, or a stick of gum.

Read More

Cell phones long ago ceased to be a luxury and became something we can’t leave home without. But even when your device is idle or turned off, it’s sending information about your location to a cell phone tower every seven seconds. One thing most of us don’t consider is access to that information isn’t limited to your cell phone carrier.

“Police and the government can use that ping to track your whereabouts. There is no expectation of privacy in carrying that cell phone,” said Savannah attorney Bates Lovett of Hunter Maclean. Lovett said carriers can give out this information without your knowledge or permission, and in some cases without a court order.

“They can pull your text messages. They can pull your search history. Those are the types of data and information that they’re being able to pull off now that they don’t always need a warrant for,” said Lovett.

Cell phone companies are now answering more demands for your data than ever before. Nine U.S. carriers responded to questions from U.S. Rep. Ed Markey (D – Massachusetts) earlier this year. According to Markey, the group reported receiving more than 1.3 million requests for information from law enforcement in 2011.

There is no denying that cell phone data is useful and often essential for investigators working to solve crimes. Privacy advocates question whether law enforcement is being allowed too much leeway with what should be protected information.

“They’re going after one person but get information on anyone who was around a cell phone tower at a certain time. Even though they’re investigating one person, they have information on hundreds or thousands of people,” said Trevor Timm of the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

Experts say the problem is the law hasn’t kept up with technology.

“That’s certainly an issue that legislatures are taking into consideration now is what level of requirement must the government go through to get that type of information,” said Lovett.

A bill called the GPS Act that would require warrants for the data has stalled in the U.S. Senate. U.S. Rep. Jack Kingston said he believes it is time for Congress to act.

“There should be a very high firewall in terms of personal information and what can be done with that information, who gathers that information, who sells, who buys that information,” Kingston told News 3.

Until regulations are in place, remember that what you do with your cell phone is more public than you think.

“Your expectation of privacy and what you and I would think of as private is just not the same thing as what the government thinks of as privacy,” cautioned Lovett.

Many of the cell phone carriers that responded to Markey’s inquiry said they don’t keep track of the law enforcement requests they reject, so the number of requests for data is actually more than estimated.

A study by the American Civil Liberties Union found that some cell phone carriers have manuals for police that explain what data the companies store, how investigators can obtain the data, and how much it would cost.

View Source

Store mannequins are meant to catch your eye. Soon you may catch theirs.

Fashion brands are deploying mannequins equipped with technology used to identify criminals at airports to watch over shoppers in their stores. Retailers are introducing the EyeSee, sold by Italian mannequin maker Almax SpA, to glean data on customers much as online merchants are able to do.

Five companies are using a total of “a few dozen” of the mannequins with orders for at least that many more, Almax Chief Executive Officer Max Catanese said. The 4,000-euro ($5,130) device has spurred shops to adjust window displays, store layouts and promotions to keep consumers walking in the door and spending.

“It’s spooky,” said Luca Solca, head of luxury goods research at Exane BNP Paribas in London. “You wouldn’t expect a mannequin to be observing you.”

The EyeSee looks ordinary enough on the outside, with its slender polystyrene frame, blank face and improbable pose. Inside, it’s no dummy. A camera embedded in one eye feeds data into facial-recognition software like that used by police. It logs the age, gender, and race of passers-by.

Read More

You’ve seen all of the signs, and now you’re looking for confirmation. When you’ve reached this point, to obtain the peace of mind you require you’re left with the decision as to whether you’ll engage the use of a professional service or alternatively invest in some modern day technology. To help you in your decision process, we’ve outlined the most common resources available to you – and the legalities you will face should you choose it.

Private Investigators:

“Honeytrap” investigators: For those who have been cheated on before or have concerns their partner may stray, they may turn to the services of these types of investigators. Better known as a ‘honeytrap’, these types of investigators will start a conversation with your partner in a social setting (either in person or online) with the intention of seeing how far they can take it (ie exchanging of phone numbers, request for intimacy etc) . A full report is then provided to you, sometimes with the inclusion of footage/recordings.

Legality: Although LEGAL, most investigators frown upon this type of entrapment situation. As the ‘honeytrap’ investigator used for these are based on your partners “ideal” (ie looks, interests, clothing sense), the argument is this type of scenario is creating a fantasy situation which may never actually occur in reality and does not actually prove whether your partner is currently being unfaithful.

Surveillance Investigators: The tried and true method of catching a cheating spouse out. If you’re looking for peace of mind as to what your spouse is doing during those ‘unexplained’ hours away from you, or alternatively what they are ‘really’ getting up to when they say they are going out with their friends – conducting surveillance remains the number 1 option for piece of mind. Using a licensed private investigator removes the emotion out of watching your partner and reviewing the investigators footage of your partners night out allows you to see exactly the type of interactions and body language your partner is displaying towards other individuals.

Legality: Surveillance undertaken by licensed, professional private investigators is LEGAL. Through training and experience surveillance investigators know the law (ie your States relevant surveillance and devices Act) and produce their findings by way of a detailed report and footage which are both admissible in Court. If you engage an unlicensed investigator or take matters into your own hands you could very well run the risk of being caught out, or having footage presented to you which has been obtained both unethically and in breach of State laws.

Online Investigators: Do you truly know your partner if you have no idea what they are doing online? Where once being secretive with your mobile phone was an immediate cause for concern of cheating, in this day age it is all about your online activity. As more and more people learn how to log on and interact with other people online, so does the old lingering thoughts of “I wonder what my high school sweetheart is doing these days?”, or “I wonder if I Google my secret desires what will come up / who will share my thoughts?”. Engaging an online investigator can uncover significant behaviours that are otherwise suppressed by your spouse in their everyday life and may just teach you something new about who your partner really is.

Legality: Online investigations conducted by licensed private investigators are LEGAL. Using the skills, experience and resources these types of investigators are able to provide a detailed report on their findings based on information which has been legally obtained. Don’t be fooled by databases online which offer similar type of services for a fraction of the cost – like most things these days, you certainly get what you pay for.

Modern Technology:

Forensic Recovery: Does your partner never leave their phone out of their sight? Do they delete text messages as soon they receive them? Is their call history always blank? Certainly one of the biggest red flags for suspicious spouses is the sudden change in their partners phone habits. With the introduction of a wide range of mobile forensic software those deleted messages may still be able to be recovered. Certainly the hardest part of using this technology is getting access to the phone itself – particularly when they don’t leave the phone out of their sight!

Legality: Lets be clear on this – if you don’t have the permission of your spouse to undertake this, then it is ILLEGAL. Even if you do have permission from your spouse there is certainly no guarantee of recovering everything off the phone leaving you with the same unanswered questions and wondering why you didn’t leave it to the professionals in the first place.

Spyware: With applications such as Stealthgenie and Spectorsoft on the market, once downloaded on a phone or computer, every single keystroke, website, text message and phone call are recorded and sent to your own inbox for your viewing pleasure. Originally created with the intention of tracking your child’s or an employees online activity, suspicious spouses everywhere have seen the benefit of utilising these to discreetly check on their partners activity without their knowledge.

Legality: ILLEGAL. Even if you own the computer/phone your spouse may be using – it’s safe to say if you’re using spyware for confirming infidelity then you will not have the permission of your spouse to record their activity.

GPS applications: With GPS technology becoming smaller and more affordable this has resulted in many suspicious spouses utilising this type of equipment to confirm their partners movements. Certainly with the invention of smart phones having built in GPS systems, iphone applications such as “Findmyphone” have spouses desperate for the truth ‘accidentally’ leaving their phone in their partners’ cars in the hopes of tracking where they go.

Legality: While tracking an individual without their knowledge (or a Court Order!) is ILLEGAL, most individuals who have tried the cheaper applications will tell you the GPS location is typically unreliable and you may end up breaking up your relationship based on incorrect information. Furthermore these pieces of equipment may tell you where your spouse my be but they certainly won’t identify who they are there with, and more importantly what they are doing. Only a surveillance investigator can obtain this information for you. **Editors note: Please check the laws of your State as the legalities of GPS tracking may differ in your location.

Hidden cameras: Once reserved for the likes of James Bond, these days a quick search online for ‘purchase hidden camera’ returns over 26,600,000 results! The fast pace of technology has allowed video and recording devices to become smaller, more affordable and the quality even better. With battery life lasting even longer, these days you can hide a hidden camera in almost anything – clocks, watches, pens, power plugs, teddy bears, smoke detectors – the list is endless! For those who are concerned about who may be visiting their spouse when you’re not home, this type of equipment has allowed many to become their own DIY spy.

Legality: ILLEGAL (in the majority of circumstances) for this type of use. For example, it is illegal in most states to record an individual without their express consent and it goes without saying that everyone should expect a reasonable sense of privacy particular in rooms such as the bedroom. Setting up hidden cameras / recording devices at your partners house will most likely end up in you seeing the footage played back via a Courtroom setting.

View Source

Ever needed to snap a picture in a quiet building without anyone noticing? Or maybe you need to document misbehavior without getting caught? Taking snapshots on the sly isn’t easy, but a few tricks can help you capture a moment without another soul noticing.

A true spy’s main goal with snapping photos is to document a situation without ever being noticed. For the average person, this comes in handy in all sorts of circumstances, including visits to the museum, snapping photos of a chalkboard in class, concerts, the guy in the robot costume on the train, or even just when you want to capture a true “in the moment” photo and not a staged shot. With that in mind, here are a few things we can learn from how spies take pictures.

Silence Your Shutter Sounds and Disable Flash

First things first. If you want to start taking pictures on the sly, you need to disable any sounds and flash your camera might make. For smartphones, this is usually done by flipping the volume mute button, and disabling the flash in the camera app itself.

For other cameras, you’ll need to dig into your settings menu to disable the shutter sound effect and the automatic flash. If you can’t find that menu, you might try snagging your camera’s manual from Manuals Online so you can find and disable the settings.

The goal here is simple: don’t draw attention to the fact you’re taking a picture. Keep it silent and don’t let the flash go off under any circumstance.

Hide Your Camera Inside Something Else

As any good purveyor of spy movies knows, hiding a camera inside of something else is a classic trick. You can stick a camera in a bow tie, contact lenses, and of course, watches. The point is, if nobody knows you even have a camera, they won’t think you’re taking pictures.

Throughout history, cameras have been stuck inside all sorts of things, from pockets, to books, and even hidden behind newspapers. Here are a few ideas to make your own:

USB Powered Spy Shirt: Instructables user Tetranitrate shows off how to use a laptop, laptop bag, and a USB camera to convert your button-up shirt into the perfect spy camera. The whole system threads through the shirt itself, and then attaches to the computer inside the bag. It’s bulky, but it’s cheap and easy to do.

Spy Glasses: Google’s Project Glass are still a little ways off for public consumption, but if you want to build your own it’s possible. In fact, Instructables user Kipkay’s build mounts a cheap camera right into any pair of sunglasses so you can record everything that happens everywhere you go.

Hide a camera in a book: The hidden camera in a book is an old trick, but this particular build takes it a step further—it’s an iPad hidden in a book with a small slot for the camera. It’s a little ridiculous, but considering you can always play it off as a “funky case” if you’re caught, it might come in handy.

On the flipside, if you’re worried about something spying on you in your house, all you need to find a pinhole camera is a flashlight. Theoretically, you can stuff a camera in any everyday object and call it a day, so use your imagination.

Conceal the Fact You’re Taking Pictures on Your Smartphone

Of course, most people use their smartphones for pictures the majority of the time, and thankfully, it’s pretty easy to disguise what you’re doing on a phone.

First and foremost, when you’re snapping hidden photos with your camera, make sure you’re holding it like you’re using it to do anything but take a picture. Position the camera like you’re texting, playing a game, or whatever else might natural in the situation you’re in. Personally, I prefer the texting position, even though it’s often difficult to get a good shot.

Second, if you want to conceal what you’re doing from anyone behind you, it’s important to hide your screen. On a jailbroken iPhone this is easy with SlyCam since it allows you to take pictures from the Notification Center without anyone behind you seeing the camera screen.

For non-jailbroken iPhone users, we like Real Spy Camera. Not only does the app icon call the app “Easy Calc,” you can also shoot video, and use either your front facing or rear facing camera. However, the best feature is the fact you can set up a fake background as well, which means you can actually make your screen look like you’re text messaging.

On Android, we like Mobile Hidden Camera. Its app icon is a notebook, so nobody will suspect a thing, but it’s also filled with features like video recording, burst-mode, customizable screens, and the incredibly handy feature to block incoming notifications so you don’t accidently draw attention to yourself. Photo by Cory Doctorow.

Know Your Rights of When You Can Pictures and Use This Information Wisely

Public photography is tricky business, and it’s good to know your rights. You can’t just walk around taking pictures of everything under the sun—people do have a right to privacy in some circumstances. So, learn up on the rules before you go snapping photos on the sly.

And this should go without saying, but be responsible. Unless you’re documenting an important event, don’t snap pictures of people who have a reasonable right to privacy, don’t be the obnoxious person at the museum snapping pictures of everything, and respect any safety rules you might come across.

View Source

Electronic eavesdropping capabilities have reached new heights with the ongoing development of technology. With high stakes and hot emotions surrounding family law litigation, finding evidence of infidelity, hidden assets, or information about legal strategies often becomes an obsession of spouses, and obtaining it through electronics may seem like a really great idea in the heat of the moment. However, there are important statutory prohibitions and constitutional safeguards for privacy rights that can apply to electronic eavesdropping. The potential criminal and civil implications of hi-tech snooping are serious business.

Electronic Communications Privacy Act

The Electronic Communications Privacy Act and the Stored Wire and Electronic Communications Act (collectively referred to in this article as the “ECPA”) are the two primary federal laws that make certain types of electronic eavesdropping illegal acts. Communications that are covered by these federal statutes are broad and include, but are not limited to, wiretaps, telephone interceptions, electronic mail, voice mail, instant messaging, and recording face-to-face conversations.

The ECPA prohibits the unauthorized and intentional interception, use, or disclosure of covered communications via electronic, mechanical, or other devices, and access to the stored wire or electronic communications of another person. “Interception” is the “aural or other acquisition of the contents of any wire, electronic, or oral communication through the use of any electronic, mechanical, or other device,” and electronic “storage” is defined as “any temporary, immediate storage of a wire or electronic communication incidental to the electronic transmission thereof; and any storage of such communication by an electronic communication service for purposes of backup protection of such communication.” Courts have struggled about the difference between interceptions and access to stored information, and the resulting penalties can differ.

Secret Agent Tools

Two newer methods of monitoring or collecting the electronic information of another person include Spyware and keystroking. “Spyware” is software installed on the hard drive of a computer that records every detail of what is done on the computer. Some vendors even claim that the software can capture screenshots of exactly what is done on a computer, in the exact order it was done. “Keystroking” refers to the use of a small recording device that clips onto a computer keyboard cable and records all keystrokes made on the keyboard. Conflicting outcomes have been reached in cases across the country on the use of these devices and whether their use is illegal under the ECPA. Just because a computer product is available on the open market for consumers to buy does not make it legal to use, any more than the fact that you can buy a gun at Wal-Mart means you can legally shoot someone.

That is Highly Offensive!

North Carolina recognizes the tort (an enforceable legal claim) of intrusion into the seclusion or solitude of another. There are several elements of this tort claim, but the primary issue is whether the intrusion is “highly offensive to a reasonable person.” Answers can be revealed through examples, such as whether a reasonable person would be justified in expecting her cellular telephone calls taken in public to remain private, or whether a reasonable person would be justified in expecting his chat room conversations to remain private. One’s reasonable expectation of privacy is viewed objectively (meaning it’s based on what a jury would find to be the expectation of a hypothetical “reasonable person,” not on the basis of what a particular person, such as the plaintiff, would expect), and the main issue turns on the reasonableness of the expectation, not whether the violation of privacy was understandable or justified.

But I Have the Password?!?!

A determination of whether the interception or access to electronic storage was unauthorized is examined by the courts on a case-by-case basis. For example, a long-standing practice of an account holder of giving free access to his or her passwords and e-mail accounts can, depending on the circumstances, be viewed as explicit consent by the account holder to the interception of the account holder’s messages or access to the account holder’s stored communications. There may also be situations that provide evidence of implied consent. However, if the plaintiff provided the password to a person for a specific reason, the authority of interception/access cannot be exceeded. For example, if the password to an online bank account was provided for access to transfer funds on one particular occasion, use of the password on another occasion to review the account holder’s account history would be in excess of the authorized access. The issue of whether an interception or access is authorized is very complex, and care must be taken to act only in accordance with specific legal advice.

I’ve Been Violated: Now What?

If you believe that your covered communications have been intentionally intercepted or your stored communications have been accessed without your consent, there are multiple avenues available to you to pursue remedies. Under the ECPA, injunctive relief may be available to you, as well as actual and punitive damages and reimbursement of your attorneys’ fees. You may also be entitled to pursue criminal charges and/or a civil lawsuit under state law for invasion of privacy. Finally, “evidence” that has been obtained in violation of the applicable federal and state laws may be excluded in your underlying suit; for example, intercepted communications that confirm extramarital sexual activities could be excluded and not admitted in an alimony or custody lawsuit.

Conclusion

There are specific deadlines one has to meet in seeking legal claims, and if you have discovered, or have had a reasonable opportunity to discover, a possible violation, you should take immediate action to assess your legal options. This area of the law is not “black and white” and many aspects of eavesdropping claims are fact dependent and complex. Therefore, it is always a good idea to seek legal counsel prior to engaging in conduct that could be illegal or if you think your rights have been violated. Remember, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure!

View Source

People quite rightly fear new forms of state surveillance that might possibly emerge in everyday life. They fear the future use by police of holographic data screens, citywide surveillance cameras, and multiple dimensional maps and database feeds that monitor the movements of law-abiding citizens.

They fear the future as depicted by a popular online short film called “Plurality” that has taken YouTube by storm.

People fear the use of biometric data linked to government intelligence profiles because they do not like the expanded powers that Western countries have promulgated since the September 11 terrorist attacks, which expand policing, detention, and profiling powers with little independent legal oversight.

While law-abiding citizens understand and mostly endorse enhanced security measures, they expect such measures to be used within the traditional context of the “rule of law”, which includes habeas corpus. They also expect that their confidential data will not be used in a homogenous fashion. Data collected from merchants should not be shared and used by government agencies to construct risk profiles and assessments without warrants.

However, people are quite fearful that in a world of aggregated data, which includes varied sources such as credit card purchases, Web browser histories and healthcare records, personal information will be assembled to form gigantic data footprints about individuals to aid in state surveillance.

Read More

The days of sneaking out for three-hour lunch breaks will soon be over at a Bay Street law firm after it decided to install fingerprint-scanning technology to monitor its employees’ whereabouts.

Last month, McCague Borlack LLP announced plans for a revamped security system that will require staff (except lawyers who spend much of their time with clients) to clock in and out of the office with a finger swipe, keeping track of morning late-comers or those who try to jump-start their weekends by slipping out early on a Friday.

“Some people were abusing the system,” said founding partner Howard Borlack, 58. “We had people taking two to three hours for lunch and we had no way of knowing. . . . Some people were complaining.”

Other Toronto firms use security passes and honour systems to keep track of time worked. McCague Borlack, which focuses mostly on insurance law and employs about 200 people, has gone a step further with a system that not only provides office access via fingerprint, but also records employees as they enter and leave.

Come mid-November, when the system is expected to go live, the office will be equipped with finger-scanning machines supplied by Utah-based Qqest, Inc. that will keep a rolling record of the time spent in the office.

Read More

Police are allowed in some circumstances to install hidden surveillance cameras on private property without obtaining a search warrant, a federal judge said yesterday.

CNET has learned that U.S. District Judge William Griesbach ruled that it was reasonable for Drug Enforcement Administration agents to enter rural property without permission — and without a warrant — to install multiple “covert digital surveillance cameras” in hopes of uncovering evidence that 30 to 40 marijuana plants were being grown.

This is the latest case to highlight how advances in technology are causing the legal system to rethink how Americans’ privacy rights are protected by law. In January, the Supreme Court rejected warrantless GPS tracking after previously rejecting warrantless thermal imaging, but it has not yet ruled on warrantless cell phone tracking or warrantless use of surveillance cameras placed on private property without permission.

Yesterday Griesbach adopted a recommendation by U.S. Magistrate Judge William Callahan dated October 9. That recommendation said that the DEA’s warrantless surveillance did not violate the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches and requires that warrants describe the place that’s being searched.

“The Supreme Court has upheld the use of technology as a substitute for ordinary police surveillance,” Callahan wrote.

Read More