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."

32 of 122 comments (clear)

  1. Note to Self by xpuppykickerx · · Score: 5, Funny

    Before committing a major crime, give cell phone to a small child as a gift.

    1. Re:Note to Self by FireStormZ · · Score: 4, Funny

      Naa tie it to a dogs collar and set him loose in a neighborhood...

      --
      "Ahh! Arrogance and stupidity in the same package, how efficient of you!" --Londo Molari
    2. Re:Note to Self by Dunbal · · Score: 3, Funny

      the DOJ(Department of Jerkoffs) will extract your DNA from your ear-grease you left all over the faceplate.

      Gloves, plastic bags, tape, hands free system (which you dispose of seperately). No such thing as too careful. Of course a real serial killer can still live without a telephone for a few hours. It's part of the sacrifices of the job.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    3. Re:Note to Self by Foobar+of+Borg · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It would be way more fun to hear about the FBI storming an elementary school.

      They would probably taser a bunch of five year-olds for not being cooperative. "I told them to get down, but all they would do is cry and say 'I want my mommy!' The book says we should taser non-cooperative suspects, so that's what we did." And then some scum-bag lawyer would argue that the police acted within their authority and that the law does not distinguish between a 200 lb drugged-up brute attacking a police officer and a five year-old crying for his mommy.

      --
      Similar to the upcoming US election results
    4. Re:Note to Self by j_166 · · Score: 3, Funny

      "Of course a real serial killer can still live without a telephone for a few hours. It's part of the sacrifices of the job."

      What am I supposed to do between torture sessions with my victims then, chit-chat with them? Normally I use that time to catch up on my RSS feeds.

    5. Re:Note to Self by cHiphead · · Score: 2, Informative

      Thats perposterous. They wouldn't taser a five year old. However, at age six, apparently anything goes.

      --

      This is my sig. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
  2. 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.

    1. Re:Well, not really by BountyX · · Score: 2, Informative

      This is actually good. It gives us more legal protection than we had before. The NSA and FBI have been sniffing GPS since early 2000 and they already have access to the roving bug and triangulation for older phones. At least the courts are saying...woah there...you need a warrant. Nothing new, we just have formal 4th ammendment protection now.

      --
      Trying to install linux on my microwave, but keep getting a kernel panic...
    2. Re:Well, not really by delong · · Score: 4, Insightful

      -5 overrated for you. The police don't need a warrant to ask for anything. Consent is always sufficient, no warrant required. A warrant is only required to compel disclosure.

    3. Re:Well, not really by Chaos+Incarnate · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They should come into effect. It's rare that the companies actually pay attention to them. (See also: FISA.)

      --
      Benford's Corollary to Clarke's Law: "Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced."
  3. 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.

    2. Re:My iphone 3g got stolen! by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      You are assuming a 'vast conspiracy' problem. Before that stage comes the one of a bunch of little conspiracies. Like individuals in positions of authority abusing that authority for personal reasons - like harassing ex-girlfriends and their new boyfriends, or individual police officers abusing the system to manipulate courts to convict people they 'just know' are guilty, or incumbent politicians using surveillance information to gain an unfair advantage over political challengers (sort of like the way Hoover used the FBI).

      Right now, those are the kinds of privacy problems we have to contend with. If we allow them to go unchecked eventually we will end up in the situation of 'vast conspiracy' where these abuses are no longer the exception, they are the rule.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    3. Re:My iphone 3g got stolen! by morgauo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "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."

      The point is to head things off with the privacy and other civil liberties laws long before it reaches the point of people disapearing into secret prisons, etc...

      I think history shows us pretty clearly that tyranny is the natural end that governments evolve towards if they are not constantly kept in check by their citizens.

      Then again.... our government already has it's secret prisons, doesn't it....

    4. Re:My iphone 3g got stolen! by Free+the+Cowards · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's not a question of being framed. It's a question of overzealous police and prosecutors deciding that you are guilty, then coming up with the evidence to prove it. This is a well known and common problem. It's just human nature. Police nearly always decide on who is guilty long before sufficient evidence of guilt is available. That's why our system protects suspects so greatly, because that's the only way to prevent them from being hanged by "good" people who believe that they are entirely in the right.

      --
      If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
  4. How is this "unprecedented" ? by MobyDisk · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It scares me that this is considered an "unprecedented" victory. This looks like a clear-cut example of what the 4th amendment is meant to do. If the government wants access to private data they must have a warrant. Why is that so difficult to understand? It's one of the cornerstones of justice.

    Today, it seems like the thinking is that the government can get access to anything they want, unless it is specially protected in some way. That is backwards.

    1. 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.
    2. Re:How is this "unprecedented" ? by qwertphobia · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes, the data is mine, it's completely about me so it is mine. It cannot be considered directory information or public records.

      Let's see if we fight the same fight for GPS data from our cars or our running shoes.

      In a similar way, my medical & health information is also mine, since it is about me, independant of how that information was created, observed, or gathered. Yes, I understand there are special protections in place specifically for medical information - I really intend to address how I feel about it, not the legal perception.

      --
      Never ask for directions from a two-headed tourist! -Big Bird
    3. Re:How is this "unprecedented" ? by Bob9113 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Today, it seems like the thinking is that the government can get access to anything they want, unless it is specially protected in some way. That is backwards.

      Today, it seems like the thinking is that the government can get access to anything they want, even when it is specially protected by The Constitution. That is backwards.

      There. Fixed that for ya.

      As to unprecedented, I think it means, "Unprecedented since 9/11, when we all decided that being terrified is a reasonable response to terrorism." Or, alternately, "Unprecedented since 9/11, when the executive realized that augmenting, or at least capitalizing upon, public terror would enable them to get the law enforcement tools they believe are important, even at the expense of our national principles."

      --
      Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
    4. Re:How is this "unprecedented" ? by hey! · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually, you are mistaken on this.

      We went through this years ago with a device called a pen register. You clipped it onto the old analog phone lines, which used voltage changes driven by a spring loaded rotary dial to transmit phone numbers to mechanical switches. Because you disclosed the phone number to the carrier (obviously, you'd have to), it wasn't yours personally; it wasn't your papers, your effects and was not in your home. Therefore it didn't fall under the fourth amendment.

      There's an important constitutional theory (decried by some conservatives) that says the Bill of Rights isn't just about what it says, that we have to reinterpret it as circumstances. Certain right fall into the so-called "penumbra" of the Bill; they aren't right in the shadow, but they're close to the edge. This view stems from the Ninth, which says we aren't allowed to treat the Bill of Rights as a bill -- an exhaustive list.

      The problem with the penumbra is nobody can say where it stops.

      That's where it's Congress's role to step in with laws that regulate the activity of the government near the penumbra. And they did. They created the "Pen Register Act" which says you need to meet the same standards as a search of somebody's home if you want to use a pen register.

      Wherever this ruling found its justification, it was probably not in Constitutional law because that would overturn long established precedent. If that was so, I'd expect it to get overturned, unless we can get a SCOTUS ruling that overturns existing precedent in favor of limiting executive power in a way no prior court has done. I wouldn't hold my breath on that one.

      If it gets its justification in statutory law, then it may or may not be overturned. For example, nobody uses a pen register any longer. If you want to use the Pen Register Act you've got to have some thing that is close enough in function to a pen register to fall under the law, which I don't think GPS records are. It might be justified under some other kind of law regulating the use of telecomm records.

      The important take home lesson is: if you don't like this, don't count on the Constitution to protect you. It won't. Elect congress critters who see this your way.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  5. Great by OldFish · · Score: 4, Insightful

    but it's a regional decision only at this point and barely scratches the surface of the civil rights and privacy issues that plague American Citizens today. Smile but don't get happy yet.

  6. the DOJ? warrants? by iamwhoiamtoday · · Score: 5, Insightful

    since when did the DOJ actually use warrants to get what it wanted?

  7. Won't stop them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It's not like law or constitution ever stopped gov't from doing whatever they want.

  8. sad by drDugan · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Now is a dark, dark hour in US history when a court upholds the Constitution and the words "unprecedented victory" are used in the coverage of the event.

    1. Re:sad by TubeSteak · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Now is a dark, dark hour in US history when a court upholds the Constitution and the words "unprecedented victory" are used in the coverage of the event.

      Well since this case had no legal precedent for the Judges to rely on, it stands to reason that the decision was unprecedented in the most literal sense of the word.

      Lawyers use unprecedented as a technical term.
      Get off your drama pony.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
  9. Re:clarification by Dunbal · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Because if it's the company, the could still voluntarily give up the info without the need for a warrant.

          AND apply for "retroactive immunity" - don't forget THAT part.

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  10. Thanks, EFF by ohxten · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Thank you EFF. About time.

    --
    Need an automatic screenshot taker? Try here.
  11. ... in Western Pennsylvania by billstewart · · Score: 2, Insightful

    [insert "Old people in Pittsburgh" meme...]

    It's only a Federal district court so far, so the Feds can still appeal it if they want. But it's an excellent start.

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  12. It's regrettable that this was even litigated. by jcr · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The language of the fourth amendment isn't ambiguous at all. Anyone who's passed the bar should know damned well that obtaining records from a private party requires a warrant.

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  13. No, you don't get it by xant · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If the government is going to frame you... why go through the hastle of actually using real footage.

    Because they don't know if they want to frame you yet. We're all anonymous and faceless.. until some tracking trend decides that we'd be a nice scapegoat. You have to show up on somebody's radar for that to happen. Your unusual, slashdot-reading, open-source programming, bookstore-visiting habits might be enough. Don't give them any hooks to go after you. If they can't track it, they won't be interested what it says about you--or what they can make it appear to say about you.

    --
    It's rare that you're presented with a knob whose only two positions are Make History and Flee Your Glorious Destiny.
  14. Re:They keep records?!?!?!! by mdfst13 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    According to the article, they keep records of the cell phone towers used to interact with your phone. I know the summary says GPS, but that's not what the EFF attorney said in the article.

    There are any number of perfectly good reasons for cell phone companies to track cell phone tower usage. That's their equipment. There are even reasons (e.g. potential billing disputes) why they might not want to anonymize that data.

  15. Resisting a Rest by infonography · · Score: 2, Funny

    Police were called to a preschool today when a 5 year old didn't want a nap.

    He was charged with resisting a rest. (oblig)

    --
    Sorry about the writing. Robot fingers, you know? Cliff Steele in DOOM PATROL #23