Cell Phones, Missing Persons, and Privacy

An anonymous reader sends in a Seattle PI story about the use of cell phone records in missing-person cases. Typically, phone companies turn over location information to police without a warrant if one of their customers is reported missing; the police need only to state that the person may be in danger. In any criminal case, a warrant from a judge would be required before the telcos divulged any information. While in some poster-child cases lives have been saved as a result of this practice, it seems like a class-action lawsuit waiting to happen. It is not a crime to go missing.

Comments

It is not a crime to go missing.

[Shadow Wrought]

No but it is a crime if someone has taken you against your will. They're not investigating the person missing for criminal activity but because they think that they have been victimized. Privacy is great, perspective is even better.

Re:It is not a crime to go missing.

[sqrt(2)]

But you're not able to make that distinction beforehand, and if you can then you should have no trouble proving it to a judge. The ethical dilemma is that, if a person goes missing they may or may not be in danger so if you violate their privacy by tracking them down with their cellphone you're only justified if they were in danger. If they just decided they wanted to leave their town without telling anyone, you've committed a huge breach of their personal privacy for nothing. I usually find it best to err on the side of privacy rather than safety. There's also the precedent it sets of cooperation by the phone companies (as if we didn't have enough of that already) with the government without a warrant.

If there is need for phone records to be accessed, we have appropriate channels that law enforcement needs to go through to obtain such information.

Re:It is not a crime to go missing.

[x2A]

If you're really that desperate for privacy, turn your phone off! For anyone not suffering delusions of grandure (yeah so satalites can read your clothes labels from space, but who thinks they're really that interesting?) and realises that we buy phones because most of us are social creatures rather than paranoid conspiracy nuts, and actually like being able to make contact with other human beings.

"I usually find it best to err on the side of privacy rather than safety"

Well, I have friends, we share our lives with each other, and would much prefer we look out for each other than live our lives in fear and have to hide from each other. Maybe we're just unique like that.

Re:It is not a crime to go missing.

[eggnoglatte]

Wow, so all criminals have to do is make sure their victims are never found, thus making it illegal for police and others to even start searching? Brilliant!

The consequences of finding somebody who doesn't want to be found are much, much less severe than the consequences of not finding somebody who needs help, or who has already been murdered.

And by the way: if you REALLY want to get lost, and don't dump your cellphone, credit cards, etc. then you are a moron, and deserve to be found.

Re:It is not a crime to go missing.

[compro01]

Maybe the term is different where you are, but I'm fairly sure that's "implied consent".

Re:It is not a crime to go missing.

[Stanislav_J]

.....we buy phones because most of us are social creatures rather than paranoid conspiracy nuts, and actually like being able to make contact with other human beings.

Not necessarily. The reason -- and the ONLY reason -- I even own a cellphone is to keep tabs on my 80-year old disabled shut-in mother (for whom I am a full-time caretaker) and enable her to contact me in an emergency if I am out running errands. If it weren't for that need, I wouldn't have the slightest interest in the damn thing. Unlike most people nowadays, I like being alone with my thoughts, my music, or whatever while out and about, and do not have the compulsive need to be constantly talking to anyone about anything at all times. Yes, I have friends (very few -- I look for quality, not quantity), but I chat with them in the privacy and comfort of my own home, maybe once or twice a week for an hour or so. I do not have the need to be yakking with them for hours on end about trivia while riding the bus or shopping at the supermarket or eating lunch out, nor the desire to broadcast those personal conversations to all within earshot.

To me, all these modern devices have made communication too easy and cheapened it, lowering it to the level of a nervous habit akin to chewing gum. We have vastly increased the ability to communicate, yet added nothing of substance or value to that communication. And I believe we are worse off as a society because of it.

Feel free to mod me down as "-1 old fogy."

Re:It is not a crime to go missing.

[DontScotty]

If that was true - then you could get by with a pager. You can get them - they are cheap. And, a simple analog pager would allow you to be -5 old fogey

Re:It is not a crime to go missing.

[dreamchaser]

"I don't understand the complains about people talking on their phones. What if the other person they were talking to was right there? Still talking about the same things, still as much in your ear space... "

Speaking as someone who loves his mobile devices, I think you're missing the point on this bit. It's very annoying because it's LOUDER. When two people are engaged in conversation in person they tend to speak in lower tones, FAR lower than most cellphone talkers. It's rude and annoying and I'm glad some establishments are cracking down on the practice. There's a time and place to have a nice phone chat; while I am crammed into a seat next to you in a movie, eater, bus, or plane are not those times and places. Unless of course you want me to use your phone on you as a suppository :)

Re:It is not a crime to go missing.

[Foolicious]

You really do sound like a bitter old man. Darn kids.

So mod down -1 old fogie viewing past with rose-colored glasses. Also mod down -1 too much justification about "quantity vs. quality" of friendships. Also mod down -1 would use cellphone for which supposedly has for "ONLY" one reason for many, many other reasons if an emergency arose, or maybe even if wanted a pizza on the way home from work thus proving it's not so bad to use a cellphone sometimes. That is unless, of course, carry-out pizzas have some how cheapened the entire food experience and dining, in which case he wouldn't do so.

In all seriousness, everybody talks about email, texting and cellphone use as "cheapening" communication, but it's merely changed it. Communication isn't like money where the primary basis is quantity, and the more you have, the less you usually appreciate it. I like being able to text my wife or friends with quick updates. I like being able to order food from my favorite places conveniently if I am out and about. Does this cheapen anything? No. It's not like I was pining for a deep, face-to-face conversation with the kid working the phones and the fryer at the takeout joint. And I don't try to have deep conversations with my wife using texts. But I just might have a deep conversation with her using our evil, communication-wrecking cellphones!

Re:It is not a crime to go missing.

[geekoid]

Hmm, I don't notice anyone talking louder. Usually it's about the same tone, sometime quitter.
People who tlak loud, talk loud. Cell phone communication has gotten to the point where whispers can be heard. This isn't 1994.

"..eater, bus, or plane "
You have no expectation of silence in those areas.

So your compliant actually isn't against cell phones, it's against loud people. Loud being 'more amplitude then a normal conversation.'

Given the fact that they don't get a warrant...

[Discordia115]

it's unlikely that the police would be able to use any unsavory information they uncovered in any sort of criminal trial. Given that, I can't really get too upset about it.

I dunno, I can see it.

[jesdynf]

"Where is this person, we believe him to be in danger" is not "we wish to covertly monitor this person", nor is it "reveal to us this person's whereabouts for the last six months". The police *should* be able to locate people who are believed to be missing, and I'm not very worried about granting them broad powers to go about it. This is a useful task. Assuming the telco isn't enjoined to secrecy, this seems balanced to me.

Yes, it's theoretically possible to parlay powers granted that way into other, less useful acts, but... look, I'm no apologist; I think that many things they do are thoughtless, wicked, and treasonous, but they do have their uses, and in this instance? I'd need to see a case of it being abused, and I'd need it proven that existing case law wasn't sufficient to redress the abuse, before I got too excited about it.

Going Off The Grid 101

[edeloso]

I thought lesson 1 was "Dump the cell phone."

Simple Solution

[PPH]

If the telco is required to inform the customer each time their location is provided to law enforcement (or anyone else), that will stop abuse. If I'm stuck in a ditch, a text message to the effect that my location has just been provided to assist in my rescue isn't going to upset me.

Re:Franklin?

[holophrastic]

I entirely agree. And this is the perfect example too.

To everyone else, of course, if I were missing, yeah I'd want my telco to help find me. And yes of course my safety is more important than my privacy and more important than the many many many ways in which this can be abused.

But honestly folks, when was the last time that you went missing? How many times do you risk getting kidnapped? I'm not living out in the middle of nowhere where I accidentally dangle from a cliff. And I'm not in any sort of a dangerous city. And 90% of those dangers don't provide for the time to be rescued.

So we're talking about a time when I need rescuing, and my government has the time to realize that I'm missing and then to actually find me. Come on. When does that happen?

I'll tell you when it happens. It happens when a friend or family member is expecting me to be somewhere, and I'm a few hours late and unreachable. That's not police asking the telco, it's pretty much my next of kin.

Now I have no problem organize a list of people, to whom I grant the power of grey skull to be given my mobile phone's location. Quite frankly, I think that's a great idea in general. But it won't be my government. It'll be my parents, my children, my wife, a few crazy-close friends, my business partners, and perhaps a really good neighbour. Oh, and my doctor and my lawyer. In other words, people who already have a key to my home, a code to my alarm, power of attorney, or some equivalent level of trust that far over-shadow my location as a point of privacy.

Re:Franklin?

[ColaMan]

Now I have no problem organize a list of people, to whom I grant the power of grey skull to be given my mobile phone's location. Quite frankly, I think that's a great idea in general. But it won't be my government. It'll be my parents, my children, my wife, a few crazy-close friends, my business partners, and perhaps a really good neighbour. Oh, and my doctor and my lawyer. In other words, people who already have a key to my home, a code to my alarm, power of attorney, or some equivalent level of trust that far over-shadow my location as a point of privacy.

I know! Lets ask some commonly-trusted community representative to act on behalf of all these people that could be concerned about your whereabouts. Some group that has a reasonable idea of law and procedure for these kind of things, and could be held accountable to some degree if they try and abuse said trust...... then anyone - anyone, not just those on your list - genuinely concerned for your whereabouts, could contact these representatives for help and make their case for further assistance. The telcos - having dealt with said representatives semi-regularly - would already have a relatively trusting arrangement with them, knowing already that they wouldn't generally ask if it wasn't generally necessary, with the overall setup saving time and hassles when someone has a legitimate concern for your safety.

Note then that this setup doesn't require any action or upkeep from you, in case you forget to keep your list of friends/doctors/lawyers/neighbors/good samaritians in sync with the telcos list.

That is a DIFFERENT MATTER

[Jane Q. Public]

There is "missing", and there is "missing". I, too, have been on searches (sometimes with S&R) for missing people. But a 911 call or a child missing is a VASTLY different situation from someone who has simply "vanished" and nobody has seen them for a day or two.

As I have mentioned elsewhere in this thread, I have been the victim of illegal search by overzealous law enforcement. And if I find out that somebody has illegally accessed or searched my phone records (or other private records), then they would get sued. Period. I would use the best lawyer I could manage to retain, and I would go for the throat.

Again, your situation was a 911 call, and you were right to be furious. But the primary matter under discussion here is VERY different.

And I can answer one of your questions above quite easily: the cell phone company is prohibited by law from disclosing those phone records. You would not get anywhere suing them for complying with the law. But you could most likely sue them for violating it by giving up your records without a warrant.

And no, in the vast majority of cases it is nothing at all like not yielding to a fire engine that is responding, because they are very seldom "911" situations. And if they are, the police CAN typically get an "emergency" warrant in under an hour. So the illegal search is STILL not justified.

Re:As someone on a Search & Rescue team

[dgatwood]

A person calling 911 and asking for help is explicitly asking to be found. If AT&T really did that, they should be sued for reckless endangerment. There's simply no excuse for that.

In cases of a third-party report of the person being missing, that's a little different. That said, it is still better to err on the side of caution and send someone to find the person. Upon finding the missing person, the police should be obligated to reveal who is looking for him/her, and if the missing person says "I don't want to be found by him/her," the police should be obligated by law to report that and only that to the person looking for him/her. There should also be protections in place to prevent a corrupt police officer from falsely claiming that someone reported a person missing in order to stalk that person. That's a reasonable balance between safety and privacy for most sane people.