Crockford testified that the government already has more tools to track and monitor suspects, including obtaining warrants to obtain GPS data and private text messages. Others urged lawmakers to change nothing at all. If they don’t like the wording of the bill, they said, find ways to make it better.
Prosecutors who support the legislature urged lawmakers to find consensus. Some lawmakers privately voiced skepticism, particularly because of the lack of support among civil liberties groups, lawmakers or people of color. It's unclear whether the bill will get enough support to get out of committee. “These requests are not common and are our last resort,’’ he said.
The law also requires petitioners to assert that they’ve exhausted other efforts before resorting to surveillance. Mason said the proposal would not change a requirement of the existing law that allows only officials from Office of the Attorney General or district attorneys to request permission from a Superior Court judge to wiretap a target. “Victims will be better served and Massachusetts will be a safer state,’’ he said. Christopher Mason, commander of the Massachusetts State Police, told lawmakers that the bill would help law enforcement secure justice for "victims of some of the most heinous crimes” without jeopardizing people’s privacy rights. Supporters of the bill include an array of state prosecutors and Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey, who said changes are long overdue.Ĭol. Attorney General weigh in on the issues on Greater Boston Worcester bans use of controversial facial recognition technologyĬandidates for Mass. "None of us would want to live in a society where virtually any citizen fears a vast intrusion into his or her privacy" because somebody reported allegations of criminal activity to authorities, he said. Harvey Silverglate, a Cambridge-based civil rights attorney, said the current law appropriately focuses on the “most dangerous” of criminals. Opponents included Kade Crockford, speaking on behalf of the ACLU of Massachusetts, who said the measure could have “far-reaching negative effects and open up a Pandora's box of potential unintended consequences, including political harassment and intimidation.”
On Tuesday, the state Joint Committee on the Judiciary held a three-hour virtual public hearing to discuss the proposal.
WIRETAP PODCAST UPDATE
Charlie Baker last month filed a bill to update the statute, saying that law enforcement should be able to use the tool to investigate other crimes, including murder, rape and trafficking. The law currently limits wiretapping to situations linked to “organized crime," which involve an “enterprise to supply illegal goods and services.” Gov. Civil rights attorneys, public defenders, privacy activists and some lawmakers warn that a state proposal to expand a 1968 wiretapping law would be an unnecessary and dangerous overreach of government surveillance.