Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

DOJ Needs Warrant To Track Your Cell's GPS History

Posted by kdawson on from the where-did-you-go-and-who-did-you-go-there-with dept.

MacRonin recommends a press release over at the EFF on their recent court victory affirming that cell phone location data is protected by the Fourth Amendment. Here is the decision (PDF). "In an unprecedented victory for cell phone privacy, a federal court has affirmed that cell phone location information stored by a mobile phone provider is protected by the Fourth Amendment and that the government must obtain a warrant based on probable cause before seizing such records. EFF has successfully argued before other courts that the government needs a warrant before it can track a cell phones location in real-time. However, this is the first known case where a court has found that the government must also obtain a warrant when obtaining stored records about a cell phones location from the mobile phone provider."

5 of 122 comments (clear)

  1. Well, not really by PainMeds · · Score: 5, Interesting

    TFA suggests that they only need a warrant to obtain this information from the mobile carrier, but in some cases this information is available from the devices themselves. The iPhone is a good example of this - software can easily be installed on the device (kind of like a LoJack) to report back GPS location, and the iPhone itself apparently keeps logs of GPS positioning, based on this book's claims. I would argue that this form of surveillance would be just as loosely managed as police placing GPS transponders on vehicles.

  2. My iphone 3g got stolen! by ilovesymbian · · Score: 3, Interesting

    What if someone stole my iPhone 3G and committed a crime? Will I be tracked and punished?

    Its analogous to the red light traffic cameras that take photos of those who jump the red light, irrespective of who's driving the car, the owner is fined!

    --
    slashdot rocks
    1. Re:My iphone 3g got stolen! by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The wonderful thing about a murder investigation is that they actually do an investigation. So as yoda would say "Being there, guilty makes you not."

      This is the mistake I see being made by 90% of overly cautious privacy advocates. If you're concerned about the government knowing where you are and hauling your ass off to some secret prison to torture you without a trial... then the the country is in far more dire straights than can be fixed with a couple of privacy laws.

      If the government is going to frame you... why go through the hastle of actually using real footage.
      If the government's case against you is "his phone was at the scene of the crime when it was committed" and they win then you've got far bigger problems in your legal system then needing a warrant.

      I completely agree with the legal decision that digital information should be only accessible through a warrant. Just like I think that surveilance footage should only be accessible through a warrant. If 'the law' can riffle through my stuff in my apartment with a warrant then I see no problem with them rifling through my digital stuff with a warrant.

  3. Re:How is this "unprecedented" ? by jrockway · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Well, the data is not clearly yours. They could get it from the cell phone companies, who may be happy to violate your rights without a warrant.

    If I was carrying around a pocket GPS device, of course the police would need a warrant to dump the history and have it be admissible in court. I hope...

    --
    My other car is first.
  4. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Comment removed based on user account deletion