Your Cell Records For Sale Online, Cheap

AviN456 writes "The Chicago Sun-Times is reporting that your phone records are for sale online to the general public. From the article 'The Chicago Police Department is warning officers their cell phone records are available to anyone -- for a price. Dozens of online services are selling lists of cell phone calls, raising security concerns among law enforcement and privacy experts.' One of these sites is selling cell phone records for $110 for a month's worth of calls. No court order needed, no credentials required. If they want your records and have the money, they get 'em."

Comments

Why pay?

[Crilen007]

I'm sure its on Google for free somewhere.

Re:Why pay?

[teromajusa]

I doubt it. These companies aren't sucking this info from some public data source. They obtain the information from pretending to be the phone owner and getting the company to tell them that phone's history.

Re:Why pay?

[cdrguru]

More likely someone at the phone company is getting paid to send them the information. How much would it cost for you to deliver some information from your company? $50 an item? With a assured flow of cash as long as you keep the supply flowing?

The problem is that people are way too easily bribed into this sort of thing, and the information is just lying around at the cell phone provider for people to send out.

Re:Why pay?

[bhiestand]

More likely someone at the phone company is getting paid to send them the information. How much would it cost for you to deliver some information from your company? $50 an item? With a assured flow of cash as long as you keep the supply flowing?

Actually this is just the next step for phone companies. They'll launch a new feature in a few months that'll only cost $10/month: assured privacy of your phone records!

If people will pay $3 for a ringtone that expires in 45 or 90 days...

Old news, new info.

[TripMaster Monkey]

Unfortunately, this issue is nothing new.

Lots of good info on this problem can be found here, courtesy of the good folks at EPIC.

And finally, you can choose to opt-out of the releasing of your phone data here (at least you can try...opt-out information isn't listed for many of the companies). Also, many of these data brokers employ less-than-legal means to obtain the phone data anyway.

Re:Old news, new info.

[Anonymous Luddite]

Maclean's Magazine did a story on this in November. The magazine purchased the Canadian privacy minister's phone records.

Beautiful way to make a point.

Re:Old news, new info.

[symbolic]

The article was an interesting read, but I wonder why they chose one of the "good guys" - Stoddart is working in favor of privacy protection, not against it. I'd have much rather seen them acquire records of the Verizon CEO, or upper management of some other company that regularly pimps customer data.

Re:Old news, new info.

[sfjoe]

I was just thinking that it might be a worthwhile investment to buy a copy of my Senators' phone records and mail it to them. It might be the best way to make a point about privacy.

Re:Old news, new info.

[nbvb]

Excuse me?

http://phone.ioerror.us/2005/09/verizon-wireless-g ets-injunction-to-stop-data-thieves
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT= 104&STORY=/www/story/12-09-2004/0002592069&EDATE=

If you want to pick on someone, pick on someone other than Verizon Wireless... they're trying to protect you.

Re:Old news, new info.

[bill_mcgonigle]

How's Gitmo Orange look on 'ya?

$110 a month's worth of calls sounds expensive

[Anonymous Coward]

I bet the NSA might be able offer a reduced price on these kinds of lists.

Re: $110 a month's worth of calls sounds expensive

[kharchenko]

I hear our president gets them for free, with his morning coffee :)

re: $110 a month's worth of calls sounds expensive

[ed.han]

better, faster, more accurate and cheaper? through a government agency?

you're obviously not a libertarian. :>

ed

Re: $110 a month's worth of calls sounds expensive

[dynamo52]

I hear our president gets them for free, with his morning coffee :)

Better than that. The calls have already been transcribed

Re: $110 a month's worth of calls sounds expensive

[Ced_Ex]

Now if only they can teach him to talk!

And open doors

good news, everyone!

[User 956]

One of these sites is selling cell phone records for $110 for a month's worth of calls. No court order needed, no credentials required.

That's absolutely stalk-tastic. So, in addition to being able to buy SS#, satellite images of their house, and public property information, we can get phone records now. Sweet.

Anyone want to see what 1-900 numbers Jack Thompson's been calling?

Caution for everyone, not just cops

[CMiYC]

Both TFA and the /. post are slanted towards law enforcement agencies. There is nothing about the service or warning that shouldn't apply to everyone.

Depending on how paranoid you are, this information could be interesting. Worried about a partner cheating? Worried about your partner finding out? Worried your boss will find out you have frequent calls to your Cylon agent (or is she just in your head?) (Okay, the last one was a joke.)

But I wanted to make sure it was clear, this applies to everyone. Not just police.

Re:Caution for everyone, not just cops

[Kadin2048]

Maybe because for someone working undercover, who assumes that only the police (meaning, them) have access to cell phone call logs, this could easily get them killed.

Just think: you're a gang leader and suspect that someone in your organization is a narc. You have all of their cell phone numbers, because that's how you communicate, so you call up Locatecell and get the logs. The one who has the local PD in their logs gets a pair of cement shoes for Christmas.

While the rest of us could certainly be inconvenienced, or perhaps lose our jobs / marriages / etc., because of this, probably we won't have the same risk of ending up dead.

Re:Caution for everyone, not just cops

[Digital Vomit]

Just think: you're a gang leader and suspect that someone in your organization is a narc. You have all of their cell phone numbers, because that's how you communicate, so you call up Locatecell and get the logs. The one who has the local PD in their logs gets a pair of cement shoes for Christmas.

Sucks for the cop. If only there was some way he could have *two* cell phones: one for gang business and one for personal/police use...

So what?

[Doomedsnowball]

So what? Phone records have long been a way to track unorganized, unplanned crimes. Like shooting fish in a barrel. Cell phones have made it soooo tempting to make all your calls (legal, and possibly illegal) whenever you fancy, that it is certainly scary to unorganized, undiciplined criminals. Why would this even be an issue with the Patriot Act still out there? Obviously mere phone records aren't enough to catch Al Qaeda, so what do you have to worry about? Just run down to a different payphone, at different times, in disguise from the traffic cameras.

Re:So what?

[Doomedsnowball]

Yeah, but you are still calling the same numbers at the same times. When a warrant is issued, it is usually to access the records and audio from a specific sub-station, thus exercising due diligence in making the intrusive governmental access as specific to the warrant as possible. When arressting a dangerous criminal in an apartment building, the police will block off as little an area as is reasonable to take the criminal into custody. They don't shut down entire blocks at a time for petty criminals. The same can be taken to show your reasoning. If your switching phones is like switching cars (color, make, year), then they will just be watching for you to travel to the same houses (phone numbers you call) to catch you or record your actions. And just because they don't need a warrant now, doesn't change how easy it is to fool them. Their methods are so transparent and have been for years. That is why I reference a disguise and traffic cameras. I am pointing out that you should always act like you are on camera and you'll never be caught slipping up.

FBI Eh?

[Anonymous Coward]

To test the service, the FBI paid Locatecell.com $160 to buy the records for an agent's cell phone and received the list within three hours, the police bulletin said....

Frank Bochte, a spokesman for the FBI in Chicago, said he was aware of the Web site.

"Not only in Chicago, but nationwide, the FBI notified its field offices of this potential threat to the security of our agents, and especially our undercover agents," Bochte said. "We need to educate our personnel about the dangers posed by individuals using this site and others like it. We are stressing that they should be careful in their cellular use."

Who needs snitches when the phone companies kill your undercover agents for a fast buck? This is verging on leaking sensitive information. If the FBI can come up with data on agents, then other departments, hell, even important people could be at risk, which is a scary thing. I'm all for the freedom of information, but not when it could potentially cause harm to another person who is just doing their job (in the case of undercover agents). Sure you need the phone number first, but that's not all that hard to get these days...

What records?

[liangzai]

I have no fixed line. I only use cash cards for mobile. I haven't received a spam e-mail message in 8 years.

I mean, what the fuck is wrong with me? Why doesn't the corporate oligarchy like me? Why haven't I been offered to enlarge my reproductive tool, invest in Nigerian projects, or enroll in the US Gubmint Green Card lottery?

It is so fucking unfair.

Re:Oh no!!

[AllInOne]

I love how in the article they present the case of FBI agents being snooped on.

As if it's ok to snoop on regular people but you go too far snooping on FBI agents!

Why not?

[nietsch]

If there is a market for it, then why not let the phone companies make some bucks out of it? There is little information to be gained from the meta information of my phonecalls. But you would want some ways to opt out of it so persons and companies concerned about it could have the call to and from their number not listed.
The downside is offcourse that if this will be allowed, every phone company will make it their standard, and if you want out of it you have to pay more for the priviledge. So maybe restricting them from both ways (the info only goes out with a search warrant) is a better solution.
And now on to RTFA...

Re:Why not?

[monkeydo]

If you had RTFA first, you would have known that it isn't the cell companies selling the data, and in many cases it is being sold out the back door by dishonest employees.

Content versus caller data?

[dada21]

I personally don't care who knows who I am calling -- in fact I openly release my cell phone data to all my customers as I bill them by the minute when they call me (plus they can see who else calls me which helps when someone says I might have overcharged them).

My bigger concern has always been who could have the content of any calls recorded. I know the phone companies "don't" and I doubt government has any concern for what I talk about, but there is proprietary information we all discuss on the phone (nothing illegal, just ideas and other information I'd rather not share). Digital cell transmissions are already nicely compressed for transmission and those data streams are just perfect to stick on a huge hard drive and use in the future.

I have no political aspirations, so I guess my information would be totally useless in order to try to hurt me publicly, but for those who do think about the future -- is the cell phone a safe way to communicate?

Re:Content versus caller data?

[Red Flayer]

Are your customers aware that you are exposing their calls to you to outside companies?

Do your contracts include a confidentiality clause that this violates?

" is the cell phone a safe way to communicate?"

No. Not if you have information you want kept secret. No transmitted communication is entirely safe, and some are less safe than others.

Re:Content versus caller data?

[Secrity]

No phone should not be considered a secure way to communicate. Depending upon the security requirements of what is discussed, certain levels of insecurity are usually tolerated (or ignored) when using a telephone. One thing that many people are totally clueless about is that telephone calls placed using analog cell phones and many cordless phones are very easily intercepted with simple radio receivers (even though it is illegal to sell those receivers in the US). Digital cell phone conversations requires more elaborate equipment and are more difficult to intercept and decrypt. Then again, how do you know that your wired phone line isn't being recorded? Somebody used to sell cassette recorders that started recording when the phone when taken off the hook and stored something like six hours of conversation on one cassette. I wonder if somebody makes a digital version of those telephone line recorders that allows audio files to be downloaded via an ethernet connection.

Re:Content versus caller data?

[dada21]

I consult with financial broker dealers and they are often required to record "order line" phone conversations. We sell numerous "digital direct" recording packages for these clients. Some of them feed the information (via IP) to a central clearinghouse that stores and even analyzes orders. Sort of scary.

Re:Content versus caller data?

[_el_tuki_]

Last week, when talking to a rep from my bank, the first thing he said before asking anything important was "oh, wait, are you using a cell phone? because those are not secure and...", so I had to call from my regular land line. It was my first call to the bank's number, so maybe it's something everyone is supposed to know, but still, it surprised me.

Sprint had a checkbox for not sharing info

[linzeal]

When I signed up for the account I just called them and they said they can also stop sharing information within Sprint themselves, and I did that too.

Re:Oh no!!

[scheming daemons]

don't I have a civil right to keep my phone records private or something?

Your post is a troll, to be sure... but yes. You do have such a civil right. It's called the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. it reads:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

The Supreme Court, on several occasions, has read that to be an implicit Right to Privacy.

Just because the current administation (and to be fair, many past administrations) has wiped their collective asses with the 4th Amendment doesn't mean that it no longer applies.

My cell phone calls are my personal effects.

This has nothing to do with Bush... this time. But it again shows the erosion of our personal liberties. And your flippant response notwithstanding, you're going to regret it one day when you wake up and wonder why you can't do or say the things you used to be able to do and say in this "free country".

It didn't start under Bush.. but it's not being rolled back by the current crowd in Washington either. Neither Democrats nor Republicans, with the very notable exception of Russ Feingold, are fighting for our freedoms anymore.

Maclean's covered this

[AutopsyReport]

Two months ago, Macleans (Canadian magazine) ran a story on this, but they took it one step further: they bought the cell phone records of Canada's Privacy Commisssioner, Jennifer Stoddart. It was remarkably embarassing. Reading the Maclean's article was entertaining, so if any Canadian's missed it, check it out.

Re:Oh no!!

[DarkIye]

A bit of a controversial issue, that. Most people (the government included) will see only the fact that an FBI agent's been snooped on, and that something important's gone awry. Of course, people won't often ascribe the same situation to themselves. The thing I think's a bit poor is that people don't really care if they're being swindled or not, unless somebody says "This is happening to you, and it's bad". A bit like terrorism in America - it's been going on around the world for years, but it's only when it comes to the hearth and home and the government starts telling people it's bad that people start to have any feelings about it.

I'm not trying to call names here, but that's sort of how a salesman works - he gives you a problem you don't usually think about, then says "This thing will solve your problem". Never thought of it like that before.

The underlying problem

[Schezar]

Once news of this hits the mainstream television media, I imagine the public outcry and following legislation will put the kaibosh on it.

Still, the underlying problem is far deeper than many will admit. I believe that we in the United States have a certain right to an expectation of privacy, but at the same time we cannot rely on that expectation to safeguard information regarding ourselves. Information exists beyond the scope of your personal effects, and you cannot reasonably expect others to protect it for you.

The problem is that most financial and personal transactions here rely almost entirely on security through obscurity: the identity thief can't steal your identity... until he gets ahold of your (trivial to obtain) SSN, and so forth. We rely on hiding information about ourselves as a means of securing our effects, despite the fact that such information is all but unprotectable in the face of modern technology.

No amount of legislation is going to stop people from uncovering information: the only way to mitigate this is to make the information on its own worthless.

A social security number should be useless to anyone but me. Same with a bank account number. The security needs to be seperate from the identification.

Re:The underlying problem

[Urusai]

The only "kibosh" that will be put is on government-related cell records. Just like cops, agents, politicians, and prosecutors get to carry guns but you don't, they will get special privacy protections that you don't. Put money on that fact.

Re:The underlying problem

[cayenne8]

"Just like cops, agents, politicians, and prosecutors get to carry guns but you don't...."

Dunno where you live...but I as a normal citizen (none of what you listed) can perfectly legally carry a concealed gun. Many states have CC licenses you can get quite easily.

Re:Of course

[skiflyer]

Well that's a very true statement... I think what I found disturbing about the article is how low the right price was, and how easy it was to approach the seller, and the lack of recourse for the individual.

It would be another matter entirely if getting caught using the service involved jail time or whatnot.

Re:Oh no!!

[Vesperi]

No, your phone records are your providors business records. They can do with them what they want. Go read your TOS.

Re:Oh no!!

[samyool]

we-eel, not exactly.

I can follow you, right? So, I can sit outside your house, wait for you to come out, follow you to the store, your office, etc, and wait outside until you come out and then follow you some more. I didn't impinge on your privacy because I didn't follow you _in_ or watch what you were doing or listen to your conversations.

So it is here. I can purchase a list of your telephone calls - in other words, follow the path your phone took. But, I'm not purchasing recordings or transcripts of the calls themselves.

I don't think the 4th amendment applies here.

-S

So What? I'll tell you what!

[ScentCone]

Why would this even be an issue with the Patriot Act still out there?

I'm one of those people that doesn't have too much trouble with the Patriot act's purpose and typical use. But I think I do have trouble with my customers, suppliers, or competition being able to see who I'm talking to. In a competitive industry (I don't know, say wholesaling wine to restaurants in a busy city), being able to look over which restaurants of "yours" that a rival wine rep has suddenly been making a lot of calls to would be seriously helpful/evil business intel.

On a more serious note, say a foreign or criminal entity was shopping around for people to blackmail/extort. Just the ability to use evidence of a stock broker's calls to his mistress as a way to get him to distort the value of some penny stock, etc... well, it's all bad movie-type stuff, except it's real. And real cheap.

Re:What? Cell phone companies need the money?

[Fred_A]

It's this way you see :

- selling the organs of their customers would make them a lot of cash but is considered to be *really* bad almost everywhere;
- selling every little bit of data they have about their customers is considered bad in much fewer places (and is apparently quite accepted in the US) so although it's not as lucrative, they went with that.

It's probably safe not to let them know you still have both your kidneys though.

Re:Oh no!!

[FellowConspirator]

The fourth ammendment is generally read to concern one's privacy with regard to government intrusion. In this context, the intruder is a private corporation, and thus the 4th ammendment wouldn't explicitly apply.

For that reason, we have a wide array of law with regards to tresspass, publication of personal records of various sorts, etc. It just so happens that cell phone records are not yet covered. That said, the described activity cited as "pretexting" is probably illegal since it involves a fraudulent transaction (if you had an arrangement with your carrier to keep the information private, and a thrid-party was subverting that arrangment by pretending to be you).

I have mixed feelings

[MarkusQ]

On the one hand, I am appalled at the erosion of our civil liberties and the almost-sedated non-response from the public. It reminds me of the way in which cancer kills you (the body ignores it when it's small, and as it only grows a little bit each day, the problem is put off until it's too late; a tumor that would have been actively fought if implanted full grown kills an otherwise health person because it's never that much worse than it was the day before).

But on the other hand, I'd love to see someone try to decipher my cell phone calls:

Me: Could you repeat that?
Them:If...the...ine when I...ick.
Me: No! Don't click on that! We need to log the error message.
Them:Hog...any..sausage?
Me:Not sausage. Message. Error message. Error message. Error message.
Them:...ot an err...hat about...age?
Me:Write it down. Write it down. Write it down.
Them:Could you...that? ...other...erver room...ception in here...od damn fans...!
Me:Write it down. Write it down. Write it down.
Them:...I just read...you? Zero zero...eff as in...apple, zero, ze...two. Got that?

Hey, maybe I could just ask the NSA for a cleaned up transcript!

--MarkusQ

If anyone wants...

[bhirsch]

I will sell my phone records for $110.

Re:If anyone wants...

[bhirsch]

I didn't say give. I said sell.

Steal my privacy, I dare you.

[interstellar_donkey]

Preemptive strike

I sleep well at night not worrying about privacy concerns or any of the other issues that are out there, and it helps me live in the modern age.

The first is to live an exceedingly dull life. My cell phone records, if anyone bothered to pay for them, would provide a list of short calls to other dull people, usually to arrange meetings to do dull things such as 'play skee ball' or 'watch star trek'. If someone wanted to invade my privacy, the would end up spending hours on end trying to figure out what I was hiding, because nobody's life is that boring. The jokes on them, because mine is.

The second is to have an abysmal credit rating. Go ahead and steal my identify. Trust me, you won't be getting any credit cards using *my* name.

The third is to have completely bizar purchasing habits. If you want to collect market data on me, fine. You'll think your computers, which approximate consumer behavior are broken with me. It's not that I try hard to be weird, it's just that, well, I'm going to purchase a DVD of Bergman's 'Wild Strawberries' in the same order as 'Dude, Where's My Car', and you'll jut have to live with it.

So go ahead, steal my data. Take my information. I'm just going to make your magin of error bigger.

Why call this a problem?

[simul]

In the past, just the privileged few could obtain phone records. Politically connected or wealthy people could bribe the right people and obtain anything they wanted.

Now, anyone can do it. Turnabout's fair play - as far as I'm concerned. I like seeing rich pols exposed.

I've been busy lobbying to get the video archives of the New York Police made public as well.

Why should the police be the only ones with access to this footage? (I'll tell you why... if enough of it was made public, lots of NY's finest them would wind up fired or in jail.)

Maybe I'm better off starting a data broker business overseas and publishing it myself.

Re:Oh no!!

[mooingyak]

The difference between you or me and an undercover FBI agent being snooped on is that there's a decent chance the snooping will get the FBI agent killed.

That doesn't mean it's not a problem for everybody, just that it's a REALLY BIG problem for undercover agents.

Prepaid cell phones

[caseih]

Most europeans won't ever have this kind of problem with privacy and information selling. In Europe you can just go to the kiosk, buy a sim chip, buy some prepaid sim minutes, all without ID or a credit card. Use the phone for a few days, then toss the sim chip and put in a new one if you're paranoid. Thanks to our greedy, monopolistic telecom corporations over here, you get locked into 2-year contracts and have to give the company all kinds of private information upon sign-up including social security number.

Re:Prepaid cell phones

[SW6]

Most europeans won't ever have this kind of problem with privacy and information selling. In Europe you can just go to the kiosk, buy a sim chip, buy some prepaid sim minutes, all without ID or a credit card. Use the phone for a few days, then toss the sim chip and put in a new one if you're paranoid.

You're not paranoid enough. The phone's serial number (the IMEI) is transmitted with the call. So even though you've changed your number, it can be associated with the old one because the IMEI hasn't changed.

Illegal or not?

[SiliconEntity]

There is an important issue being glossed over here: is the release of this information illegal or not?

The top article implies that it is illegal for the phone companies to share this data. They point to unscrupulous insiders, and acts of fraud on the part of private investigators and data miners.

But the information from EPIC and the FCC suggests a very different situation. According to these sites it is perfectly legal to share this data if the company adopts an "opt-out" policy and if the consumer has not exercised his right to opt-out. Well, of course most people have never heard of this and so they have not opted-out. Therefore it is completely legal for the companies to share your phone call lists!

I'm annoyed and frustrated that the press reports are getting this so wrong (as usual). By implying that the problem is a few illegal acts, necessarily commited furtively and relatively rarely, they hide the fact that this is a perfectly legal, above-board business which is presumably going along at a brisk rate selling everyone's call info!

Re:What's embarrassing

[AutopsyReport]

That our Privacy Commissioner, the representative of privacy issues within Canada, says this in response to her cell phone records being bought:

"Her mouth hangs open, and she appears near tears. 'Oh my God," she says finally. "I didn't realize this was possible. This is really alarming.'"

Just as you can form a google page rank...

[SIGFPE]

...using web pages and links you can form a 'person rank' from the calls people make. This has many applications. For example if you want to figure out how to influence the most people with the least money these may be the people whose opinions are the most widely sought and hence the people for you to call.

Social Engineering?

[scottd18]

I have seen the bulletin. In it they indicate that they conducted a test and placed an order to get the records of one of the agency's own cell phones. A little while later an unknown person called that cell number and said they worked for the cell phone provider. The person then asked for some information about the subscriber. Some time later they got an email with "call records".

A little social engineering can go a long way. If a "service technician" calls asking me for information, I'm going to tell him I'm George W. Bush.

Question:

[SoulMaster]

Do you think that if I contacted one of the firms that actually buys a months worth of records for $110, and told them that they are more than welcome to my records if they pay my $110/ month phone bill, they would?

For another $120 + $12.95(TIVO)/month, they can pay my cable/tivo bill for me and I'll tell them everything I watched on all my TVs.

For about $320 I'll detail for them every Kw/h of power I used in a month.

Kick in a final $400 amonth for gasoline, and I'll gladly catalogue everywhere I've driven.

As an added bonus, if they go with the whole package, I'll include at no additional charge a catalogue of everyone who uses my pool in the summers. This is a $75/month (pool guy + chemicals) savings!

Deal or No Deal?

no, it's a tool for finding undercover agents

[Anonymous Coward]

You've got it backwards. If you're doing something criminal and suspect someone you're dealing with *might* be an undercover agent then you use this to get their cellphone records (and possibly the cell phone records of people you already know they're close to and whose phone they might have borrowed) and see if they've called anyone with open connections to law enforcement.

And that's why it's threat to the safety of undercover agents.

Re:Oh no!!

[Warpedcow]

The Supreme Court, on several occasions, has read that to be an implicit Right to Privacy.

That's not a very good generalization. In fact, in 1972 the Supreme Court held that the Fourth Amendment's presumptive requirement of a judicial warrant applied to wiretaps in terrorism investigations involving purely domestic groups. The Court, however, took pains to the note that it was not purporting to define, much less restrict, the "scope of the President's surveillance power with respect to the activities of foreign powers, within or without this country." (Emphasis added.)

To get a broader view of the issue I suggest reading:

Clinton Claimed Authority to Order No-Warrant Searches
http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york20051220094 6.asp

September 10 America
http://www.nationalreview.com/editorial/editors200 512210614.asp

Why Bush Approved the Wiretaps
http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york20051219133 4.asp

and best of all: http://www.nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200 512201735.asp

Warrantless Searches of Americans? That's Shocking!
Except when it happens every day. ...
What makes this president think he can invade the privacy of Americans without a warrant?
I don't know. Could it be the powers, long recognized by federal law, to:

Detain American citizens for investigative purposes without a warrant;

Arrest American citizens, based on probable cause, without a warrant;

Conduct a warrantless search of the person of an American citizen who has been detained, with or without a warrant;

Conduct a warrantless search of the home of an American citizen in order to secure the premises while a warrant is being obtained;

Conduct a warrantless search of, and seize, items belonging to American citizens that are displayed in plain view and that are obviously criminal or dangerous in nature;

Conduct a warrantless search of anything belonging to an American citizen under exigent circumstances if considerations of public safety make obtaining a warrant impractical;

Conduct a warrantless search of an American citizen's home and belongings if another person, who has apparent authority over the premises, consents;

Conduct a warrantless search of an American citizen's car anytime there is probable cause to believe it contains contraband or any evidence of a crime;

Conduct a warrantless search of any closed container inside the car of an American citizen if there is probable cause to search the car -- regardless of whether there is probable cause to search the container itself;

Conduct a warrantless search of any property apparently abandoned by an American citizen;

Conduct a warrantless search of any property of an American citizen that has lawfully been seized in order to create an inventory and protect police from potential hazards or civil claims;

Conduct a warrantless search -- including a strip search -- at the border of any American citizen entering or leaving the United States;

Conduct a warrantless search at the border of the baggage and other property of any American citizen entering or leaving the United States;

Conduct a warrantless search of any American citizen seeking to enter a public building;

Conduct a warrantless search of random Americans at police checkpoints established for public-safety purposes (such as to detect and discourage drunk driving);

Conduct warrantless monitoring of common areas frequented by American citizens;

Conduct warrantless searches of American citizens and their vessels on the high seas;

Re:Oh no!!

[picaro]

My cell phone calls are my personal effects.

In the case of phone records, I think it would be more accurate to describe them as historical records, in which the telephone company, the caller and the call recipient have all played a role.

If the telephone company chooses to release the information about the call later, for profit, it doesn't seem like they under a strong ethical bond not to. Yes, it would be more discreet of them not to sell the information, but in this context, I don't think not being discreet should rise to the level of requiring legal penalties.

The reasons that this information gets out in this way would seem fall into two categories: a) the telcos are sloppy and allow access to the information, either directly from the outside, or through employees stealing it from the inside, b) the telcos are profiting directly by selling it to third parties.

If we ignore a) (but hope that the telcos do not) and focus on b), one way to deal with this would be for the telcos to offer a 'discretion' option on your account for a small fee. For example, you pay a dollar (or three or five) a year, and they make sure that nobody without a court order gets a copy of your logs (ignoring spies, the NSA, executive orders, and so on for the moment).

My guess is that the telcos would stand to make a lot more money from a lot of people paying a small amount than a relatively small number occasionally paying a few hundred dollars for records.

The people that paid the 'discretion' fee would feel better because they had a binding agreement with the companies not to reveal their (shared) history, except by court order. The people that don't care don't have to pay the fee and presumably won't feel outraged when their records are purchased by Sixty Minutes or their ex-boyfriend.

Why the small fee? Among other reasons, it would be an incentive for companies to make this a standard option that you can check off on your account, rather than something hidden at the end of the contract in small print, accessible only on obscure web pages, the location of which is traded around in lists by angry consumers.

If they are doing nothing wrong .....

[cyberscan]

If they are doing nothing wrong, then they have nothing to worry about. Isn't that the tired old argument the governments give the people? It also applies to the police, politicians, judges, corporate officer, and any other official. I have long stated that every bit of information on these folks should be publically posted where anyone can have ready access to it. This information should incluse all licence numbers, SSN's, medical information, and so on. This is what they do to us so it should also be done to them.

Re:If they are doing nothing wrong .....

[AndersOSU]

More on this argument here

Re:Not in Canada

[Kadin2048]

The question isn't whether as a company you have a policy that says you sell them, the question is "does any employee have unfettered access to them?" If that answer is yes, and I assume it is, then you have a person who can be pressured or bribed. $160 isn't much, but $16,000 is: and although I don't know how cell companies systems operate, if they have any kind of batch processing modes it might be quite easy to pull up and print out 100 records at a time. Just imagine if you were an employee with a big gambling debt, for which your kneecaps were going to be smashed on Friday...all of a sudden somebody offers you the amount of your debt plus a few bucks for yourself, to print some things for them. Easy enough. I'm not saying that YOU would do it, but in a big enough organization (even government organizations where people are supposedly vetted against having such vunerabilities) chances are there's somebody who would.

Or alternately, does your company give out records if a customer calls up? And if so what verification does the customer have to provide that they're who they say they are? The information broker could just call up and pose as an irate customer ("I'm at work -- I don't have my account number!") who wants to know if their kid has been racking up cellphone calls or something.

It's 'human engineering;' as long as the money is there, the risk of getting caught is low, and the punishment isn't too serious (or isn't perceived as being too serious), it's easy to find people who don't mind breaking the law.

Called Sprint - Results

[Anonymous Coward]

After reading the SunTimes article I decided to call Sprint (my cell phone company). The people I talked to had never heard of this service. They told me that I needed to speak to fraud. After many attempts to get someone to listen I finally got a supervisor on the line. I explained that I did not authorize Sprint to disclose my address, name, and/or phone records with a third party. The supervisor opened the site and was shocked at what was available. I was transferred to a tech support person that I again explained the information release problem to. The technician told me he would get a phone from their stock of phones they use for testing and put the information from that phone into the website. After the technician verified the ability to gather information about a phone I was transferred to Sprint corporate security. Sprint corporate security was shocked that this type of service was available without a court order. I was assured that Sprint would not sell my information to a third party. The information about the site and news article was forwarded to the fraud and legal departments.

Re:Called Sprint - Results

[Asgard]

I'm surprised that a tech support person would have the authority to charge $110 on a random website to verify your claim.

Re:Oh no!!

[Halo-]

The difference between you or me and an undercover FBI agent being snooped on is that there's a decent chance the snooping will get the FBI agent killed.

I think "decent chance" is a pretty strong term. Even most low-life scum will think long and hard before killing a federal officer. I'm not saying there isn't a risk, but I think the chance of someone killing their cheating spouse is a lot higher than the chances of a mobster whacking a federal agent. Generally, to be a serious enough criminal to have undercover FBI worries, you've got to have been smart enough to avoid bringing the heat down on you in obvious ways... like by murdering people.

This is a problem for FBI agents, but I don't think they are the group most at risk. In short, this is a bad thing(tm) for everyone.

Re:Oh no!!

[shotfeel]

No, because then they become an agent of the government and are held to the same rules.

A police officer can't ask someone else to do something (perform a search) that they are not permitted to do. IANAL but I assume any evidence gained in this fashion would be thrown out of any court trial.

Re:Desposable phones.

[THESuperShawn]

You should have stepped up to the $29 phone. It has spell-check.

(sorry, I could not resist)

Re:Of course

[nizo]

Ernie Rizzo, a Chicago private investigator, said he uses a similar cell phone record service to conduct research for his clients. On Friday, for instance, Rizzo said he ordered the cell phone records of a suburban police chief whose wife suspects he is cheating on her.

I wonder how Ernie would feel if someone purchased his phone records and found out who his client is? Since he is aware that phone records are for sale, isn't his statement the same thing as releasing his client's name and identifying her husband? If that is the case, it seems like she (or her husband) could sue the living daylights out of him.

I do have a problem with it...

[tkrotchko]

"I'm one of those people that doesn't have too much trouble with the Patriot act's purpose and typical use"

I have a problem in that it was sold to the congress as a way of fighting terrorism, but in fact is used as an excuse to do warrentless wiretaps domestically without judicial oversight.

In fact, as it turns out, the "Patriot" act has nothing to do with terrorism.

I have a problem with any law that mentions that you can be subject to investigation *and not be allowed tell anyone about it*. It flies directly in the face of a founding principle of this country, which is the right to face your accuser in a public forum.

All the government has to do is say "terrorism" and everybody falls all over themselves to give up hard fought civil rights.

Something we ALL can do about this

[bot]

• 1. Opt out (http://www.privacyrights.org/fs/fs1aplus-cpni.htm )
• 2. Emails/call your local phone companies, and scream about it.
• 3. Ditto locateacell (http://locatecell.com/contact.html)
• 4. Complain to FCC (http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/complaints.html)
• 5. Write to your representative (http://www.house.gov/writerep/. I'm sure *they* wouldn't want to see their records out in the public either!
• ...
• n. And we all profit from increased privacy

If we make enough noise about it, something might be done. Squeaky wheel etc etc.

Re:Oh no!!

[mopower70]

No, your phone records are your providors business records. They can do with them what they want. Go read your TOS.

Maybe you ought to read yours. I use Sprint/Nextel and they spell it out in black and white:


Sprint Nextel protects the privacy of its local, long distance and wireless customers consistent with applicable law, such as the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC's) regulations that govern Customer Proprietary Network Information (CPNI). ...

CPNI includes, for example, the number and type of lines ... call detail records, and bill summary. If you are a new customer of Sprint Nextel, you will receive a notice of your CPNI rights and further information on this topic from Sprint Nextel. When you have not already given Sprint Nextel your permission to use CPNI for certain marketing purposes, Sprint Nextel will give you 33 days after soliciting your consent before using your CPNI and Sprint Nextel will follow your directions if you choose not to provide your consent.


In other words, if you don't give them explicit permission to give out your information, they are violating Federal law by doing so.

I wish you were correct

[BitterAndDrunk]

I really do. But you're not.

Congress passed it because they were fearful of being painted soft on terrorists. None of them read the act prior to its passage.

Most of the more draconian parts of it, the parts that erode our rights, have been attempted legislation in the past. But without a national crisis such as 9/11 it wasn't going to pass. Why do you think that is?

WRT investigations - the concern is a military tribunal can seize you, try you, and execute you, without telling anyone they've even taken you. Keeping an ongoing investigation secret isn't the purpose of the act; that's already adequately covered.

And finally - the whole PATRIOT apologetic behavior is old as hell. The 9/11 commission conclusions were that we are woefully underprepared to defend against another attack, and the organizational issues still exist. PATRIOT has not made an appreciable difference in this, while at the same time it has severely curtailed our rights and laid the baseline for a police state of horrifying power.