Slashdot Mirror
Sprint Revealed Customer GPS Data 8 Million Times
An anonymous reader sends along Chris Soghoian's blog entry revealing that Sprint Nextel provided law enforcement agencies with its customers' GPS location information over 8 million times between September 2008 and October 2009. The data point comes from a closed industry conference that Soghoian attended, at which Paul Taylor, Electronic Surveillance Manager at Sprint Nextel, said: "[M]y major concern is the volume of requests. We have a lot of things that are automated but that's just scratching the surface. One of the things, like with our GPS tool. We turned it on the web interface for law enforcement about one year ago last month, and we just passed 8 million requests. So there is no way on earth my team could have handled 8 million requests from law enforcement, just for GPS alone. So the tool has just really caught on fire with law enforcement. They also love that it is extremely inexpensive to operate and easy, so, just the sheer volume of requests they anticipate us automating other features, and I just don't know how we'll handle the millions and millions of requests that are going to come in." Soghoian's post details the laws around disclosure of wiretap and other interception data — one of which the Department of Justice has been violating since 2004 — and calls for more disclosure of the levels of all forms of surveillance.
Automated tool for locating cells? wow that sounds like an invitation for disaster and abuse. So what happens first, someone hacks it, or it's used in a 1984 style manner? (my guess is the latter has already happened/happening.)
Your latter guess has been mandated by law since the passage of the 1996 telecommunications act. Your cell phone can be listened to and tracked anywhere within coverage area as long as your cellphone has its battery inserted.
If you have something that you dont want anyone to know, maybe you shouldnt be doing it in the first place -Eric Schmidt
As if... So, tell me, how many of these were legal crime fighting uses and how many were just cops checking up on their girlfriends, ect. 8 million. and thet's just Sprint.
I guess that explains why you can not remove the battery on the iPhone.
Uh, with 8 million requests in a year I'd say it's already very 1984ish. Wonder if this overrides the '911 only' setting on many handsets?
The funny thing is, those of us who saw this coming and knew that any sort of GPS capability for which it is technically possible for the phone company to read that GPS data would be abused in this fashion were usually called "paranoid" or "conspiracy nuts". How many examples like this do we need before people are less quick to dismiss what they should be examining as a real possibility?
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
Sorry for replying to myself. After some more research I found a ruling by the DoJ (discussed on /. here) that what Sprint is giving the police is protected by the 4th Amendment and would need a warrant to be issued before providing that data. Yet that isn't happening. I read the article, I'm still not sure how this could be legal.
The true 1984 will come, when all your health records will be known to the Federal Government so that it can monitor both the health care you are getting and whether you are complying with the mandate to carry health insurance.
It sure is "Orwellian" and it is true... Republicans may have skirted some laws (although no more than Democrat Roosevelt did, when arresting thousands of Americans of Japanese, German, or Italian origin) in their "war on terror", but to establish a true Big Brother, a nation needs an Illiberal in office...
Or it needs to have one party, the Statist Party. This party has two factions; one is called the Democrats while the other is called the Republicans. Their value to the Statist Party is derived from maximizing small, petty differences and minimizing fundamental similarities. I'll explain one such similarity.
Traditionally, the Democrats/Leftists prefer personal freedoms at the expense of economic freedoms, while tradtionally the Republicans/Rightists prefer economic freedoms at the expense of personal freedoms. This is the case even though a freedom, once restricted, is never made unrestricted again. So the parties take turns being in power, and while there they implement their particular brand of restrictions. When the other party reacquires power, they further implement their brand of restrictions without lifting those enacted by the party that was previously in power. This guarantees that over time, you end up with less freedom and eventually end up with a total police state. This is only one technique in use. The notion that over generations of time, no one in those parties would have noticed this and decided to change it is absurd. Therefore there can be nothing accidental about it.
The important thing about this system is that it appears to provide choice to the electorate. The electorate must remain convinced that their votes matter and might really change the system, or else they lose all incentive to participate in the system and accept it as valid. This is necessary because the British have already tried to control this region by brute force and overt authority and were not successful; therefore something more deceptive is needed.
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
That's great that they have a web interface to service the law enforcement needs to track people by the GPS in their cell phone. How does the web site verify a valid warrant? Does the web site ask them to hold it up to the screen for verification?
Remember who signed that into law the next time you hear someone try to tell you that Democrats are actually better than Republicans.
And remember who controlled both the House and the Senate when that law was passed by both houses the next time you hear someone try to tell you that Republicans are actually better than Democrats.
Oh and let's look at who actually voted against the act here: Notice how only 1 Republican voted against it in the Senate while 4 Democrats did. And how it wasn't voted against by a single Republican in the House while 15 Democrats did. Even the abstainers don't paint the Republicans in a good light on this one. Only 1 Rep abstained in the Senate while 2 Dems did while 4 Dems in the House abstained while 0 Reps did. And before I get labeled a Liberal or a Democrat, I'm a centrist who votes for the Libertarians.
You think the cops are watching YOU? What are you doing that makes you so paranoid?
That's cute, quaint, and outdated. It used to be that the state had limited resources and therefore, of economic necessity, it could only focus its manpower and its surveillance capability on what it considered to be the most dangerous/influential dissidents. That has been the case, historically.
Technologies like automated GPS and massive databases have changed the game. The more technology advances, the cheaper it becomes to surveil more and more people. A state that would have had to focus its efforts on the 50 most dangerous dissidents 100 years ago can now use those same resources to monitor hundreds or thousands. Over time, that becomes more and more the case. You now have modern governments with plenty of manpower, nearly unlimited funding (thanks to deficit spending), and high technology which can efficiently keep tabs on millions of people at once. The more this is the case, the less unusual you have to be to stand out from the crowd and attract unwanted attention and scrutiny. We are quickly heading towards a future where even expressing a slightly unpopular political opinion can get you noticed whether or not you are informed of this fact.
Think of all the people who have committed no crimes, have not even been accused of a crime, yet end up on the "no-fly" list for no apparent reason and are not allowed to find out why. Right here in America, the "land of the free." Then consider that this list is special because its existence is publically acknowledged and its use appears to be relatively limited.
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
While the Lenihan order and decision did say that the government cannot demand location information without a search warrant, that decision has been appealed by the current administration. And even if the DOJ loses that appeal, the decision would only apply to a limited section of the country - other courts could decide differently.
The bigger issue is that electronic communications laws are badly out-of-date. There are so many grey areas and loopholes that Sprint and the DOJ can easily argue with a straight face that GPS records are not protected by the Constitution, are not protected by federal or state law, can be demanded without a search warrant, can even be voluntarily handed over with no process whatsoever, do not have to be logged, and do not require anyone ever to tell the person whose location information was collected that they were tracked. And while the courts often do get it right eventually, that's a really slow battle - we need a better approach than that.
We (the ACLU) are launching a new campaign, Demand Your dotRights, to push companies and lawmakers to provide real protections for our personal information. The "Electronic Communication Privacy Act," which is supposed to protect information like GPS records, was passed in 1986(!) - it just doesn't fit any more.
We hope you will all sign on and join our efforts to push Sprint, lawmakers, and others to respect individual privacy. It clearly won't be an easy battle (seeing how Sprint is actually proud of its "over 8 million GPS record requests served" title), but with enough support, we hope to make a difference - and we could use your help!