New Limits to FBI Tracking of Cell Phone Users

EvilTwinSkippy writes "According to the Washington Post (free registration), Two Federal Courts have seperately ruled that the FBI may not track the location of cell phone users without proof that a crime has been committed, or is in progress. The cases involve the FBI seeking court orders to track suspects in real-time using the mobile phone network as part of an ongoing investigation."

Comments

Terrorist

[ZeroExistenZ]

Isn't any tourist ("foreign body") in the US by definition a suspect terrorist under the new definition?

Re:Terrorist

[aj50]

The article would suggest that they have to show evidence that a crime has been comitted before they're allowed to track you, just suspecting you isn't enough.

Crime

[panxerox]

But I thought that in the eyes of the Federal Government we were all guilty of a crime anyway?

Re:Crime

[MyLongNickName]

Power Corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Everyone from Microsoft would be banished to Alcatraz, and Linux would be the state enforced religion with Linus as His prophet (non-profit?).

Useless against crime

[dada21]

In the last year or so, cell phone tracking of criminals has lost its value more and more.

As more cell phone evidence has been submitted in court, the more loopholes have opened up.

One of my importer/exporter customers already pulls his battery when hitting the road. Before dumping the battery back in, he picks a random sim card. I set every sim card to ring the same voice mail on "Missed Calls" so he can easily find out what he missed.

No black market businessman is stupid anymore. Hell, there are entire newsletters now offering advice on how to avoid mistakes that might get you in trouble.

Re:Things that...

[Anonymous Coward]

I certainly went "HMM", but not at the ruling. I went "HMM" at the submitter who didn't read the fracking article.

The FBI may not track the locations of cell phone users without showing evidence that a crime occurred or is in progress, two federal judges ruled, saying that to do so would violate long-established privacy protections.

Showing evidence is not proving a crime.

Just turn it OFF

[tomhudson]

or if you're REALLY paranoid, do one or more of these:

1. remove battery
2. wrap in tin foil
3. "forget it" in neighbours' car

So if you want to commit a crime and have an alibi, AND frame someone else:

1. leave your phone turned on at home but with the ringer off
2. get another phone, clone the sim card of the person you want to frame
3. just before its time to do the crime, borrow their phone to make a quick call, then TURN IT OFF!
4. go to the location where you
   1. insert battery into cloned phone
   2. do the nasty deed
   3. make a call to your real cell phone, leave 20 sec of dead air.
   4. remove battery from cloned phone
5. return home

"You" have never left home. "They" were at the scene of the crime. If their phone has roaming, and it was out of their primary area, their cell bill will "prove" they were there with the call to your phone. You==alibi, them==fucked.

Re:Just turn it OFF

[j1mmy]

Not quite. All cellphones have this thing called an IMEI number, which is unique per phone. It's also broadcast to the cellular network.

Explaination and link to one decision.

[will_die]

Here is the New York decisions.

Unfonatly that link in the OP is very lacking on specific and explaining some details. Here is a quick description and judges reasoning.
1) the FBI asked for the cell towers used so they would have a rough idea of the location the person was located.
2) In most cases this has been easy to get since the Supreme Court has declared that a person has no expectation of privacy with the numbers that are dialed so also as the FBI says the information is relavent the courts allow easy access. The FBI claims that the tower being used for "control codes" is at the same level of expected privacy as phone number, they also used some other laws such as the Stored Communication Act to prove they should have that level of access.
3) in the New York case the judges ruled that this was not the case and the tower being used is different. "When the government seeks to turn a mobile telephone into a means for contemporaneously tracking the movements of its user, the delicately balanced compromise that Congress has forged between effective law enforcement and individual privacy requires a showing of probable cause,"

So it looks like Congress will probaly need to give some more specifications on what they mean.

Re:Oh nothing officer, just some innocent skulking

[dada21]

As a business owner, even if you have no criminal intent, you have way more reason to hide your tracks.

There are so many conflicting or vague laws on the books. Now that years of your past can be discovered with a click, and jury nullification practically illegal, any future mistake might be wrangled into a harsher penalty through digging by our crazed public prosecutors.

I've seen many innocent and honest people go to jail over an accountant's error. I've seen bail withheld in a tariff case because the distributor bought locally-made products containing 'tainted' products, and the feds dug up evidence of past sales online that MIGHT have been illegal.

RICO, PATRIOT, Magic Lantern, EPIC and other legal tools are used hundreds of times more against non-criminals. If you're seeing slow business or are broke, dump F/OSS and help people express their fourth amendment rights. You'll never go hungry again.

Re:Battery

[dada21]

No batteries, SIM cards.

I recently found a huge phone company selling 5000 $50 prepaid SIM cards for $50,000 with NOTHING MORE than filling out a form that isn't verified. $50,000 gets you 5000 anonymous sim cards with nearly 500,000 minutes. $1500 cash gets you 100 used phones with 100 IMEI numbers.

So a gang has nothing to worry about, yet an innocent person can easily break hundreds of laws without realizing it.

I'm no tin foil conspiracy theorist, but I work 2 days a month near a federal courthouse and love to sit in on trials. Sit through just one and you'll never vote again.

Want More Rulings Like This?

[Landaras]

Want more rulings like this?

Donate to the EFF They wrote briefs for these cases.

Remember: the rights you save may be your own.

- Neil Wehneman

P.S. More information is at the EFF coverage of the cases.