A Growing Problem..

Industrial espionage or corporate espionage is espionage conducted for commercial purposes instead of national security purposes.

The term is distinct from legal and ethical activities such as examining corporate publications, websites, patent filings, and the like to determine the activities of a corporation (this is normally referred to as competitive intelligence). Theoretically the difference between espionage and legal information gathering is clear. In practice, it is quite difficult to sometimes tell the difference between legal and illegal methods. Especially if one starts to consider the ethical side of information gathering, the border becomes even more blurred and elusive of definition.

Industrial espionage describes activities such as theft of trade secrets, bribery, blackmail, and technological surveillance. As well as spying on commercial organizations, governments can also be targets of commercial espionage—for example, to determine the terms of a tender for a government contract so that another tenderer can underbid.

Industrial espionage is most commonly associated with technology-heavy industries, particularly the computer and automobile sectors.

Espionage takes place in many forms. In short, the purpose of espionage is to gather knowledge about (an) organization(s). A spy may be hired, or may work for oneself.

 

 

Court Says Warrant Needed To Get Text Messages

An appeals court ruled Monday that Pennsylvania's wiretapping law applies to text messages, throwing out evidence police had obtained by sending fake messages over a suspect's phone.

The three-judge Superior Court panel ruled that police needed a warrant under the Pennsylvania Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Act when reading phone messages from a suspect who did not realize his replies were being read by investigators trying to draw him in.

Judge Correale Stevens wrote that the General Assembly should revisit the wiretapping law, saying the case showed how its current provisions presented "a major impediment to legitimate, effective law enforcement. The Legislature did not envision such a result."

The case began in March 2007, when a state trooper stopped a speeding pickup truck with Arizona plates on Interstate 80 in Clearfield County. The occupants gave conflicting stories about their travel plans, and consented to let the trooper search the truck.

Daryl Taylor, the driver, and Michael Amodeo, the passenger, were both arrested after police said they found 35 pounds of marijuana, methamphetamines, a .45-caliber handgun and a prepaid cell phone, according to the court opinion.

Investigators then used the phone to locate two other men suspected of being involved in the deal — Stephen J. Lanier, 42, of Tucson, Ariz.; and Jeffrey S. Cruttenden, 48, of Breesport, N.Y.

Lanier was initially suspicious of the incoming text messages — there had been a break in communication after the arrest — and asked questions that only Amodeo would be able to answer, the court opinion said. Amodeo fed answers to the investigators, which apparently satisfied Lanier, who directed them to a hotel off the interstate, authorities said.

Lanier was carrying $20,000 in cash.

Lanier and Cruttenden, who were arrested on drug and conspiracy charges, filed a successful legal challenge in Luzerne County court to how evidence against them was obtained. Prosecutors appealed to Superior Court, which resulted in the decision issued Monday.

Lanier's lawyer, Al Flora, said he had not seen the ruling but said it sounded as if the court agreed with his argument.

"The state police needed an appropriate warrant; they didn't have it," Flora said.

Phone messages were not immediately returned late Monday Cruttenden's lawyer. A message on the Luzerne District Attorney's Office phone system said it had closed for the day.

MARK SCOLFORO, Associated Press Writer
HARRISBURG, Pa. (AP) ―